Saturday, January 01, 2011

The Battle of Ricky's: Dr. Kingpin and The Demon Chaser


Langley Castle, Hexham, England (All article photos from trekearth.com)

To quote the previous post...'This is the last post for this blog for 2010.' So, in order to keep plans I will date this article of December 19, 2010, January 1, 2011. I did not want to do another post so close to Christmas as some people may become busy and forget about blogs, but there is the saying 'The Lord leads' and I am led I reason to write this post and I will date it 2011 and hopefully receive several comments after the New Year, and hopefully before. But it may well be a post that receives more attention in 2011.

So, once again Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

A. Non-Exhaustive Background

J.R. Williams states that the charismatic movement began in the 1950s and was often termed 'neo-Pentecostal'. Williams (1996: 205). In recent times participants known as charismatics are described often as being involved in 'charismatic renewal'. Williams (1996: 205). Williams explains the immediate background of this movement is 'classical Pentecostalism' which dates from the early twentieth century. Williams (1996: 205). Classical Pentecostalism emphasized strongly baptism in the Holy Spirit as an endowment of power subsequent to/after conversion and the continuation of the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12) in post New Testament times is considered valid. Williams (1996: 205). Baptism with the Holy Spirit is understood as an experience where a Christian believer is filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit. Williams (1996: 205). It is thought to occur at conversion or it can occur after. Williams (1996: 205). This would be a very strong spiritual guidance of a believer by the Spirit of God.

Robert Faricy designates a charismatic as one in the Christian community guided by the Holy Spirit and believing in a working within the gifts of the Spirit through love. Faricy (1999: 91). There are the spiritual gifts and manifestations from the New Testament era still in existence today, is the reasoning.

B. Dr. Kingpin and The Demon Chaser

A family friend wanted me to meet an older gentleman that my friend states considers himself a prophet and works in demonology. The gentlemen was seemingly a Christian man working within the charismatic movement. We met for brunch at a Ricky's restaurant in Langely, BC. This was my second bust-up that week as I also got into short one with a Professor in California via email. Take a shot at the new PhD week? By God's grace I was ready.

Is Ricky related to Denny? Just wondering.

Before I continue, I do not consider myself a charismatic.

I do reason spiritual gifting and guidance does exist today. But, I do not think that there are Apostles and Prophets today as their place and ministry was in the Biblical eras. The miraculous that took place in the New Testament, and also in the Hebrew Bible, was primarily a foreshadowing of the healing and blessings of the future culminated Kingdom of God.

Therefore, Christians should not typically expect miraculous types of events to occur in the post-New Testament era.

Further, this gentleman that I will call The Demon Chaser seemed like a very sincere Christian man and we parted on good loving terms, agreeing to pray for each other. We did agree on certain issues concerning the Church being in trouble in regard to theology and obedience. My disagreements with him are not primarily because I view him as charismatic, but because his views are extreme and what I would deem as hyper-charismatic.

My three academic advisors for my Wales MPhil and PhD theses work were are charismatic and quite scholarly. I am not criticizing charismatic theology primarily here, but a hyper-charismatic theology.

B1. Free will and Determinism

The primary debate in our friendly but at times heated interaction took place concerning the topic of free will/determinism in regard to human salvation. I took the compatibilistic Reformed limited free will stand that I took in my MPhil, strengthened and understood better in my PhD and have taught on both of my blogs, especially this one. The gentleman took a libertarian free will stand. If this subject interests please look in search and you will find several articles related.

A problem with his approach however was his admittance that he only sees things in black and white. There is no grey/gray he stated. This is not surprising for someone that would take an extreme viewpoint that I would deem as hyper-charismatic. A related problem is that with a complex subject like free will/determinism, that I just spent over ten years of my life studying in the context of academic theology and philosophy, is that it requires an understanding of intellectual subtleties. He indicated he did not care about the term 'libertarian free will' and implied he just basically wanted to deal in terms of human choice or no choice.

Therefore, the end result is he is left with two extreme choices, in my view, libertarian free will or hard determinism, and he makes the choice of the first although he refused to call it by that name.

My goal in this article is not to argue my views on free will and determinism. That has been done often on this blog, but here are some definitions for context, especially for my newer readers. I do not want to go on and on with the same debates, and do not want to bore the reader with similar type presentation far too often, but I present these definitions for context.

Libertarian free will is usually viewed as a form of indeterminism. The concept in libertarian free will is that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire. It would also be considered as a form of incompatibilism.

Here is an explanation of hard determinism and my compatibilist position of soft determinism.

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). God would be the primary cause within Christian theism of a Reformed tradition.

B2. Deliverance Ministry

The gentleman appeared to verify my friend's statement that he considered himself a prophet.

He claimed to have:

Met Jesus Christ.

Predicted as in prophesied 911.

He claimed:

That Christians could live sinless enough lives to avoid death, as did Enoch (Hebrews 11: 5).

That Christians should be seeking lives of perfect health. He reasoned that demonic beings were behind certain health problems.

So:

Could he have met Christ? Possible, but it would be very difficult to prove. Frankly, his theological errors make this questionable from my perspective.

Could he have predicted as in prophesied 911? Possible, but one would need to see solid evidence for this that was more than a prediction/deduction, but something clearly from the Holy Spirit as prophecy.

I agree with what Hebrews states about Enoch, but this gentlemen attempted to prove his point by naming a man within the modern age that disappeared walking and was never found. The gentlemen stated some persons thought the man was killed and eaten by an animal, but the body was never found. I would conclude that without inside knowledge, a person would have no idea what happened to this man and would have no reason without much stronger evidence to reason that he was taken to heaven as was Enoch.

This gentleman implied that my health issues, which I am not going to get into here, but are typical type of human ailments we all generally have, could be due to demonic beings and that I perhaps needed a deliverance. Well, I do not want to be mean here, but this man was older and seemed a little hunched over in the back. In other words, he did not look perfectly healthy. Should I assume this is the work of demons?

In the fall (Genesis 3 forward), we human beings will all (virtually accepting Enoch, for example) die and suffer previously in body and spirit.

God wills all things.

One would need a divine supernatural healing from God, 'deliverance' or not, to have perfect health.

Therefore, I see no reason to necessarily tie demonic beings into human health issues.


Langley, BC


Langley, BC


Fort Langley, BC

FARICY ROBERT (1999) 'Charismatic', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

WILLIAMS, J.R. (1996) ‘Charismatic Movement' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

44 comments:

  1. As the Book of Job shows, ailments could be the result of demonic or even Satanic oppression, and yet still be within God's will. Paul prayed three times for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed -- thereafter he accepted it.
    Unjust suffering is a challenge to the "health-and-wealth" world view of many, a view that is heretical and opposes God's sovereignty.
    I pray that God will give you whatever grace you need to endure, including healing, within His will.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'As the Book of Job shows, ailments could be the result of demonic or even Satanic oppression, and yet still be within God's will.'

    Agreed.

    Job is likely a special case, or at least not a typical one where Satanic beings are allowed to harm persons.

    Job was targeted for his righteousness (Job 1).

    But God is still sovereign.

    'Paul prayed three times for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed -- thereafter he accepted it.

    Unjust suffering is a challenge to the "health-and-wealth" world view of many, a view that is heretical and opposes God's sovereignty.'

    Yes.

    'I pray that God will give you whatever grace you need to endure, including healing, within His will.'

    Thank you, Cardinal Chucklins.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comment on my blog. I'm following you here.

    Merry Christmas too

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks so much, I returned your followings for both thekingpin68 and satire and theology.

    Happy Holidays.:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi dear!
    I left a challenge for you on my blog.
    God bless you, if you need help ask me ...
    kisses

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ten things about me as requested by Quétlin on her blog:

    1. I was adopted at ten days old.
    2. I was christened in the United Church of Canada.
    3. I was baptized in the Mennonite Brethren Church.
    4. I am a Presbyterian with strong Baptist leanings.
    5. I am a Reformed Theologian.
    6. I am a Philosopher of Religion.
    7. I would like to have a couple of children one day.
    8. I follow European football.
    9. I support Manchester United and Arsenal.
    10. I am interested in web radio as a career.

    Merry Christmas, Quétlin

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello,
    I visited your blog. The information which you have shared in your site is very informative. I really much impressed with your blog.
    I have added your blog to My Blog Roll at
    http://auto-transports.blogspot.com/. So would
    If you give my links on your blog it will be useful to our visitors and also can get ideas and information from your site.

    Thanks
    Stalin Princes

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stalin,

    When I click on the link I receive the following message on a page.

    'The blog you were looking for was not found. If you are the owner of this blog, please sign in.

    Return to Blogger'

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello,
    The Peace of the Lord Jesus!
    Thanks for visiting my blog, God bless!

    God be praised, exalted and glorified!

    Merry Christmas

    = D

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello, Tel.

    Merry Christmas and I returned your following.

    Thanks.:)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Olá Russ, obrigada por tua atenção e comentários no meu blog. Você é um amor. Espero que você tenha um abençoado Natal e um Novo Ano repleto de realizações. beijos

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you very much Eva for the well-wishes.

    Merry Christams and Happy New Year to you and family.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting to hear someone actually saying they have met Jesus personally. For me, I see red flags if someone was to tell me this, very skeptical but not cynical.
    -Picnic Critic-

    ReplyDelete
  14. Merry Christmas Dr. Murray, wow, a PhD... the best Christmas Present ever!! Nice to see you using your education to help others understand theology and philosophy like this person at Wendy's uncle Denny's son Ricky.
    -Ho Ho Ho Way to Go!-

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Interesting to hear someone actually saying they have met Jesus personally. For me, I see red flags if someone was to tell me this, very skeptical but not cynical.
    -Picnic Critic-'

    I have met two people that claim to have met Jesus Christ.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'Merry Christmas Dr. Murray, wow, a PhD... the best Christmas Present ever!! Nice to see you using your education to help others understand theology and philosophy like this person at Wendy's uncle Denny's son Ricky.
    -Ho Ho Ho Way to Go!-'

    The PhD is very cool, and I thank the Lord for it most days.

    I don't think Demon Chaser wants my help, but will accept prayer on his behalf, and I appreciate prayer.

    Thanks and Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You covered a lot of topics with that post!

    What do you think of the ability of Presbyterians, Baptists and Charismatics to work together under the same church roof?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks, Looney.

    I suppose if persecution became bad enough the groups could work together under one roof. But at this point the baptism issue divides the Presbyterians and Baptists, even when they are both Reformed.

    I suppose Charismatics could exist within the Presbyterians and Baptists.

    Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My church(es) has been a blend of the three. The last one got along fine with charismatics, but then some of the leaders decided that charismatics were the greatest heretics and went on the warpath. I generally like having the charismatics around since there is a certain spirit they add to things, even if I am not one myself.

    Merry Christmas to you also!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cheers, Looney.

    I reason that very theologically committed in a traditional sense Presbyterians and Baptists would divide over the baptism issue.

    That would make sharing one church quite difficult to do.

    Now, I am a Presbyterian (PCA) but hold to Believer's Baptism. I am a member of the PCA because it is Reformed and it is difficult to find Reformed Baptist churches in BC. But, if I was to become serious in leadership with my view I would probably be better off in a Reformed Baptist church.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was in the PCA many years back. The discussion of theology was very much appreciated, but the issue of infant baptism was always dividing me from them also. I learned a lot from the PCA and highly regard them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you so much Russ!!
    I wish you all the best to you and the ones you love...
    Happy new year!
    Nancy

    ReplyDelete
  23. Happy New Year to you and family in Argentina, Nancy.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you very much, my friend!
    Have a Happy New Year too :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. From the selection of respondents to this post, I might think this blog originated from South America!

    ReplyDelete
  26. A very warm welcome to all the South American readers of your blog Dr. Murray.
    -Fellow Readers Annon. Club-

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'From the selection of respondents to this post, I might think this blog originated from South America!'

    And very appreciated my South American and Latin European commenters, followers and friends are.:)

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'A very warm welcome to all the South American readers of your blog Dr. Murray.
    -Fellow Readers Annon. Club-'

    Thanks, you are all class.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Olá!
    Passando pra te desejar um 2011 cheio de vitórias e de possibilidades para que você possa realizar seus sonhos. Que as bençãos de Deus recaiam sobre você sempre! Feliz ano novo!
    Obrigada por seu carinho e suas visitas ao meu blog!
    Beijos


    www.universoparticular.net

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks Karla.

    Your blog is always good to visit and I wish you well as well in 2011.

    May many dreams come true in Christ in 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  31. hello Russ,

    Interesting points made. Enjoyed reading the different views.

    What would you say about those cases in the Bible where some died that was still strong in body and healthy with no ailments such as one example: Moses

    I understand that sin (our sinful nature) of course causes the spiritual suffering but can be a cause of some physical suffering as well.. What say you?

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks, Tamela.

    Moses died in Deuteronomy 34 with his burial being unknown, verse 6. The body of Moses is discussed in Jude 1: 9.

    The Lord has power over life and death.

    1 Corinthians 15 states in Christ our resurrection bodies will be spiritual bodies (v 44) and so perhaps with the natural laws of physics/science this is how persons shall survive without suffering in the culminated Kingdom of God once sin natures are purged.

    Happy 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Interesting... so if i understand you correctly you are saying that Moses body was not a natural one while he yet lived in the natural but totally spiritual because his sin nature had been purged. So that goes back to the orignal suggestion that sin is the cause of all physical suffering in the natural unless you are a living supernatural being. Is that what you are saying?

    Tammy :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi Tammy,

    I think Moses died with a natural body. Granted he did appear to Christ in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Did Moses and Elijah have resurrected bodies as in 1 Corinthians 15? Good question. Seems quite possible.

    The human body of course cannot naturally survive forever under the God-made laws of science in this realm. This why it must be a spiritual body as in 1 Corinthians 15.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Further thoughts...

    1 Corinthians 15: 42:49 NASB

    42(BH)So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown (BI)a perishable body, it is raised (BJ)an imperishable body;

    43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in (BK)glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

    44it is sown a (BL)natural body, it is raised a (BM)spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

    45So also it is written, "The first (BN)MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The (BO)last Adam became a (BP)life-giving spirit.

    46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

    47The first man is (BQ)from the earth, (BR)earthy; the second man is from heaven.

    48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, (BS)so also are those who are heavenly.

    49Just as we have (BT)borne the image of the earthy, [b]we (BU)will also bear the image of the heavenly.


    I think, humans die under the penalty of sin, yes.

    Inside the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve may have been protected in many ways for a long period from the outside environment/natural physical laws. They were later barred from this protection and away from the tree of life. (Genesis 3: 24).

    They were not necessarily immortal while in the Garden, but had the fall not been part of God's divine plan and freely chosen by Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve could have conceivably later been transformed into immortal resurrection bodies capable of surviving without the assistance of a special environment.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thank you Russ,

    I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from...

    Tammy :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, that is better than misunderstanding.;)

    Thank you, Tamela.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you very much, Dijandira, I returned both of your Google/Blogger followings.

    Russ;)

    ReplyDelete