Do Anglicans believe in Demons, the Devil and evil Spirits?

[mark46]

Barna's polls and studies are among the very best we have. When someone says "most Christians believe" or "50% of evangelical Protestants believe", one can choose to take this with a grain of salt. After all, there are those who reject almost any academic endeavor. I am open to seeing better, but I have not seen better broad-based polling on spiritual matters in the US than that of Barna. And yes, more than one of the churches where I ahve been a member have used his material in leadership classes and sessions.

I do, however, most U.S. Christians do not believe in "Satan," as a a "real" being. So, this is hardly unique to Anglicanism, heck, the average Catholic believe in Satan less than almost all Christians. It must be taken into account though, that anybody who calls themselves "Christian" participated in the poll I read, so take the results with a grain of salt.

The poll is from barna, but I don't haven enought posts yet to post the link. Just type in "most christians don't believe in the devil" and it should pop up.

 

[mark46]

What you say is certainly true. The only belief that is really central to our faith are those relating to God.

I think it useful to give folks a bit of slack in their imprecision in the use of the language. Folks are at many different places in their spiritual journey. We are to meet them where they are. Perhaps we can help them on their journey, perhaps not.

In the end, I agree with you that Christianity is defined by our "beliefs" relating to God and in loving (agape) our neighbor as God has taught us. We are to be more nearly conformed to Jesus each day of our life.

Forgive me for the preaching. I know that you understand all of this well.

I believe in God: Father, Son, and Holy Sprit. It is He Who created, redeemed, and is sanctifying me. It is He inm whom I put my trust.

People who "believe in" doctrines and entities other than God Himnself are forgetting what "believe in" really means.

 

[PaladinValer]

What is right with it? The point is that the culture and worldview of the first century is not normative; hence we have abolished slavery, allow women to be priests, women don't wear headcoverings and so on and so forth. It is the recognition that we use reason and common sense when it comes to biblical interpretation.

Demons and the Devil have nothing to do with those things.

Your argument is illogical.

As I have mentioned before; take for example the comfortable words where the priest says "Hear what Saint John saith...", now because those who compsed the liturgy believed that the Apostle John wrote the Johannine Epistles they composed the liturgy in this way, but all but the staunchest conservatives accept that the Gospel of John and the epistles stem not from an historical figure called 'John' who knew Jesus, but from a Johannine community. Does that mean modern scholarship is wrong because the liturgy says that John wrote the epistles? Of course not!

Demons and the Devil have nothing to do with this.

Illogical argument.

By your count I seem to be collecting heresies! It is a commonly accepted distinction recognising that the stories we have before us today are traditioned and we cannot access 'what really happened' through the Gospel narratives, rather they are reflections of the community of faith upon their experience with the divine.

Well, here's the truth: Anglicanism officially holds that the Devil is a real being and demons exists as well. Christianity always has and orthodox Christianity always will.

This is STR, not the liberal forum.

 

[mark46]

I have trying figure out why your analysis in this thread makes me so uncomfortable.

I stand with Polycarp1. My belief is in God. My faith is in God. I do not have faith in demons. My belief is not in demons.

We can discuss essential doctrines and dogma, if you wish. However, I don't think that demons rise to that level, at least not in the sense discussed here, as a possible explanation for mental illness.
=============

Just BTW,

The Evil One does indeed exist. This is an essential doctrine is our understanding of the Cross.

My understanding is that demon possession does indeed happen. However, it is extremely rare. I think it better than this not be taught than to have it taught in the way that is common. Many are taught that we are possessed my many spirits during each day and each week of our lives. We are possessed by the spirit of anxiety, by the spirit of addiction and so forth. This construction is simply an extension of the biblical explanation of spiritual or mental illness. While this phenomena is certainly real, true possession (for which exorcism is relevant) is very rare.

BOTTOM LINE
I distinguish between
The Evil One
evil spirits
demons and demon possession

You're doing the same, whether you like it or not.

What you fail to grasp is that religion deals with things that go above and beyond our human limits of logic. That isn't to suggest that they are illogical in and of themselves, but our ability to comprehend isn't profound enough yet to fully and fairly contemplate them.

That's why it is called faith.

In orthodox Christianity and in official Anglicanism, we believe that demons and the Devil exist. That is what our faith is. The faith to the opposite, that they are not, is therefore a denial of something that 1) cannot be tested and therefore cannot be tried by science and 2) goes against thye established orthodoxy.

Since Anglicanism is historically lex credendi lex orandi, then to deny what we do pray is to commit hypocrisy. The Baptismal liturgy specifically mentions the Devil and we do have a real Rite of Exorcism, so we acknowledge that demons exist. To go against that is to go against what Anglicanism does hold to be true.

A priori reasoning is possible when discussing religion. That's possible because of our intellectual limitations.

So yes, you have given an illogical argument, but, while it does seem like mine is the same, mine is based a wider schema and knowledge that yours' is either ignorant of or chooses to ignore, knowledge about logic and reasoning, about the nature of religion, and about history and science. So, therefore, mine is not illogical.

You are holding to an idea which is, therefore, contrary to Anglican belief.



<snip>

So what? As another poster here said, there are stories of straight out demons and the Devil which has no possible disease/mental illness root; they deal straight out with these evil beings.

Argument defeated.

 

[mark46]

What you say is true.

However, this forum is not a place to consider whether God exists. God does indeed exist.

We can choose to mistranslate or discount Scripture and Tradition when it discusses Satan. I find it almost amusing that "modern" man has chosen to mistranslate the Pater Noster, precisely because so many choose not to accept the existence of the Evil One.

Not at all! That's a false dichotomy, God could exist regardless of whether Satan does.

 

[LuxMundi]

Demons and the Devil have nothing to do with this.

Yes it does because it demonstrates the inconsistency of your own position; that is, your argument runs thus: Demons exist because the liturgy teaches it; my point is that actually the liturgies teach some that Christians reject now thanks to biblical studies. Just because those who constructed the liturgy believed in x and so included it in the liturgy, does not mean that we have to follow them, we have to subject their views to criticism.

 

[LuxMundi]

This is STR, not the liberal forum.

Shock horror, some of us Anglicans are fairly liberal

 

[PaladinValer]

I have trying figure out why your analysis in this thread makes me so uncomfortable.

I stand with Polycarp1. My belief is in God. My faith is in God. I do not have faith in demons. My belief is not in demons.

When did I say I believe in or have faith in demons?

Polycarp1's post, which is correct, is being misapplied to mine. He's talking about saying or having such a belief that it is in something like we have believe in God a la the Nicene Creed.

I said I believe demons exist and that the Devil does as well. That isn't the same as saying I believe in demons or I believe in the Devil.

Believe that something exists isn't the same as believing in them.

We can discuss essential doctrines and dogma, if you wish. However, I don't think that demons rise to that level, at least not in the sense discussed here, as a possible explanation for mental illness.

Yet, as I and others have said, there are verses in Holy Scripture where we have no possibility of mental illness. The dialogue between Jesus and the Devil when He's fasting in the wilderness is a good start.

And that is why removing demons and the Devil from our theology and religion makes no sense: it is a literal whitewashing. It is true that many forms of illness were blamed on evil or evil beings in the past, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist simply because they had bad medical knowledge. This is especially true when we have events like the above in which our main objection has no sway. We can't simply rationalize it and say "well, they were wrong about demons here, so they gotta be wrong about demons period." Just because they got one aspect of demons wrong doesn't mean they got the whole bloody idea wrong!

His arguments are based on illogical fallacies, modern-day regurgitated heresies, and ultra-liberal theological revisionism that throws the baby right out with the bathwater. It is no better than Fundamentalism which does the exact same thing just in the opposite manner.

Orthodoxy is something wonderful because it is logical, it avoids heresies in any form, and can be explained in updated ways. There's no problem in finding new ways to explain God, but to be rid of the Trinity, let's say, is the same sort of thing this kind of thinking does. And we know it because we see it constantly in writers like +Spong.

No thank you. I have as much respect for +Spong as I do for the late Jerry Falwell. Both are absolute travesties to the Christian faith who are more alike than they'd ever admit to be, and not in a good way.

 

[PaladinValer]

Shock horror, some of us Anglicans are fairly liberal

That's not liberal. I've seen liberals post here. That's revisionist ultra-liberalism which denies orthodoxy.

 

[PaladinValer]

Yes it does because it demonstrates the inconsistency of your own position; that is, your argument runs thus: Demons exist because the liturgy teaches it; my point is that actually the liturgies teach some that Christians reject now thanks to biblical studies. Just because those who constructed the liturgy believed in x and so included it in the liturgy, does not mean that we have to follow them, we have to subject their views to criticism.

Reread and actually read my posts to get the whole of my argument.

Your analysis is wrong.

 

[LuxMundi]

That's not liberal. I've seen liberals post here. That's revisionist ultra-liberalism which denies orthodoxy.

Who made you the official voice of orthodoxy?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Well, here's the truth: Anglicanism officially holds that the Devil is a real being and demons exists as well. Christianity always has and orthodox Christianity always will.

This is exactly right. Why is it such a controversy here?

Orthodoxy is something wonderful because it is logical, it avoids heresies in any form, and can be explained in updated ways.

Well said.

 

[mark46]

I agree that it is important to not to confuse the two. Theological liberals post here. Political liberals post here. Revisionist ultra-liberalism views which deny orthodoxy are not welcome on our Anglican fellowship board, and in fact are prohibited on almost almost CF boards.

IMHO, the lack of belief in demon possession or in actual Garden of Eden may be considered theologically liberal and yet be 100% orthodox. Also, there has been much discussion of biblical literalism over the centuries. Orthodox Christians can have very different views along this spectrum.

That's not liberal. I've seen liberals post here. That's revisionist ultra-liberalism which denies orthodoxy.

 

[vespasia]

I believe there is an accusar of the brethren who many label 'satan' but my views tend to pre Dante/Milton and more OT on that one.
I also consider there are malefic entities out there- for me deamon/evil spirit is just a label that says far more about humanity than what it tells us about evil from a source other than the human heart.

I beleive that God is far bigger and more than anything we can ever try to imagine and the horror of the crucification led to the transforming grace of God through Christ being capable of reaching across all time and space. Walter Wink is perhaps the closest Christian theologian I have seen to how I think about all this.

 

[JustAnglican]

I read somewhere on the Internet that Anglicans do not believe that the Devil is a real being, or that people can be possessed by Demons, is this true? Does the Anglican Church have any official teachings on this subject?
I know the Roman Catholic Church is very big on it's belief in the actual Devil and his Demons. I also think that the war in heaven is proof enough that they are both very real.
Anglicans, what is your opinion?

Our church (Anglican Church of Southern Africa) does acknowledge the existence of demons - however it goes on to indicate that these cannot overpower God. I guess that is why some of us seem ignorant of the existence of such spirits. My view is always ; "I am a baptised child of God and my being belongs to him only". I am also of the opinion that dwelling a lot on this stuff leads to all sorts of superstitions and practices that are contrary to the Christian Faith.

 

[JustAnglican]

What is right with it? The point is that the culture and worldview of the first century is not normative; hence we have abolished slavery,.

We did not abolish slavery, we recreated it into something more favourable and called it a JOB.

 

[Albion]

well I hope Anglicans believe in the existence of Satan. if so It would seem pointless to for the priest to say "do you reject Satan?" and for the congregation to say "I Do" when we reafirmed our baptismal vows yesterday for pentecost.

It may depend on which Anglicans or which Anglican church one is dealing with. For some, Satan is an old-fashioned concept. But I don't see anything odd about renouncing him--or it--in the way you refer to. After all, we affirm all the articles of the Nicene Creed in the liturgy, even though we have previously agreed to all of them.

 

[No Swansong]

It's pretty simple for me either Jesus was a liar or the Gospel writers were I don't accept either premise, thus I believe that the Satan and demons exist.

 

[Anna Scott]

I read somewhere on the Internet that Anglicans do not believe that the Devil is a real being, or that people can be possessed by Demons, is this true? Does the Anglican Church have any official teachings on this subject?
I know the Roman Catholic Church is very big on it's belief in the actual Devil and his Demons. I also think that the war in heaven is proof enough that they are both very real.
Anglicans, what is your opinion?

Christ is my saviour,

This Anglican believes Satan and demons are very real.

In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, Anglicans renounce: Satan, all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God, the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God.

Book of Common Prayer: Link: The Online Book of Common Prayer
Holy Baptism

". . . . .Then the Celebrant asks the following questions of the candidates who
can speak for themselves, and of the parents and godparents who speak
on behalf of the infants and younger children

Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.

Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.

Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.

Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your
Savior?
Answer I do. . . . ."
___________________________________________

We see the battle in the spiritual realm revealed so vividly in this well known passage in Ephesians:

Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.


In The Lamb's Supper, The Mass as Heaven on Earth (page 43), Catholic author, Scott Hahn wrote the following about the Sign of the Cross:

". . . .Great saints also testify to the tremendous power of the sign. St. Cyprian of Carthage, in the third century, wrote, 'in the. . . Sign of the Cross is all virtue and power. . .In this Sign of the Cross is salvation for all who are marked on their foreheads' (a reference, by the way, to Revelation 7:3 and 14:1). A century later, St. Athanasius declared that 'by the Sign of the Cross all magic is stopped, and all witchcraft brought to nothing.' Satan is powerless before the cross of Jesus Christ. . . . ."

Peace,
Anna

 

[Unshaven]

That's not liberal. I've seen liberals post here. That's revisionist ultra-liberalism which denies orthodoxy.

In defence of Lux Mundi, I don't think it really is. It's just bog standard higher criticism:

The gospel writers describe things in ways comprehensible to them which may not correspond with the current knowledge we share.

the gospel writers, in order to emphasise what they think of Christ and such, will make allusions and assertions and comparisons to highlight this- essentially mythical tropes.

the Gospel writers occasionally edit and change sources they have, and probably made some stuff up entirely as well to suit their purposes.

Since we have no evidence outside the gospels for much of what it speaks of, trying to prove any of these unusual and extraordinary events actually happened in a concrete historical sense is impossible to establish and is a matter of faith.

I honestly don't see what is so objectionable about considering Demons in this rigorous and reasoning light.

But even the Fathers appreciated that the gospel writers had their own theological agendas when they wrote; only an idiot, after all, could look at the accounts and fail to notice the contradictions and differences...and they need accounting for.

A typological and theological 'spiritual' (Origen) Exegesis (eisegesis?) was the normative way the Church read the bible for centuries; the emphasis was not on the historical but rather what it taught about Christ, for the Fathers, everything has a spiritual meaning and a moral message, but not all of the bible actually happened. Why? Because of the contradictions, but also (more radically) because it put God into anthropomorphic categories or occasionally showed him encouraging or committing morally repugnant acts- the very idea God would say or do such things is both laughable and insulting- the true meaning must be allegorical/symbolic/spiritual.

Of Course even by the mid 4th century I think we see a substantial intellectualizing and psychologizing of demons- I think particularly of Evagrius' logismoi- we see demons being creatively re-interperted to fit the understanding of the anchorite of antiquity.

I think people here have a lot of trouble with the idea that truth has to correspond to something concrete or else its false, but I think that's because there's often an unacknowledged assumption that religious language somehow speaks in a de-contextualized univocal manner.