Biblical criteria for miracles?

Must the Bible define what constitutes a true miracle?

In the sense that Scripture provides the foundation for the Theology of the Church, yes.

But in a legal-type sense, no.

What do I mean by legal sense? This is where the bible is treated like one might treat the US code of law. If I wanted to know how I am supposed to drive, I would look up US and/or state law, and find directives probably along the lines of “the driver of the vehicle shall obey posted speed limits” or some such. As well, if I wanted to know what the meaning of the word “vehicle was” according to the law, I would find a definition spelled out.

However, except for the Torah proper specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy there is no law code recorded. God does not in scripture give a definition of a miracle. And it is an assumption that only the specific ways that scripture record miracles are the ways that a miracle will always happen.  

This of course deals with issues of the “regulative principle” and systems that use scripture as a law book of sorts to provide a comprehensive system for order in the Church and theology. 

Instead scripture records events and contains occasional letters. Just because they are inspired, doesn’t imply they are to be used in a “regulative” manner in the same way we in the US use the constitution. 

When it comes to miracles, it is important what scripture says about miracles and the supernatural and the nature of God. Not so that the Church will only believe in miracles that fit the exact manner described, but so that in determining a modern day miracle or supernatural occurrence the Church has a solid foundation to analyze it from. 

Just because all miracles in scripture have trait X doesn’t imply that all miracles God ever does have trait X and must have trait X to be considered from God. The results of the miracle (people moved to love a life of grater faith, hope and love) is more important then criteria which scripture never gives us anyway. 

For instance, in the martyrdom of Polycarp there are several supernatural visions that the Christians claim occurred at his death. The text reads as if none of these were seen by the non-Christians present. Yet, just because when miracles in scripture always seem to be public, doesn’t mean when God does miracles he only makes them public. 

This is because miracles don’t exist in the bible, they exist in reality. (see HERE for more argument behind this concept) The bible records miraculous event at certain times, but there is not reason to think it records all of them that God has ever done or that the descriptions are intended to give us a complete picture of what all supernatural events much look like. 

True miracles will first of all be miraculous. When it comes to healings the Catholics have seven criteria developed by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (latter Pope Benedict XIV):

1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat. 

2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery. 

3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained. 

4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly. 

5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ”– Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial. 6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural. 

7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear. 

(From De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione. liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2)

Along with this a miracle from God must glorify God and encourage true faith and good works. These really just follow the rules that one of the few law books in scripture actually gives us in Deut 18:18-22: 

“But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-- that prophet shall die." You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?"  If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.”

The legal usage of scripture isn’t even used in the legal books. Of course, I could write a thesis on the problems with the regulative principle, but that would be a bit much for this blog. 

These are theological criteria that allow God to show us the supernatural in ways we haven’t seen before yet also keep us out of following everything that claims to be supernatural. Christians shouldn’t be functional Deists (the supernatural only happened back then) or fall into trusting everything (like former Bishop Pike)

Baptismal Exorcism in the Apsotolic Fathers: Barnabas

One of the few places in the corpus of the Fathers that mentions exorcism by concept is in the letter attributed to Barnabas. In the context of answering the question of if there is still a Temple of God (Barn. 16.6), Barnabas describes what a person looked like before salvation in relation to demons (Barn. 16.7-10). The analogy he builds is the person is a temple, which was once full of demons (Barn. 16:7) but after receiving forgiveness and being born anew the person is then dwelt by God. This is salvific exorcism, where the person is purified of the demonic by Christ as part of salvation, and as part of preparation for instead being indwelt by God, thus making the person truly a temple of God. 

Barnabas does not actually say that he has baptism in mind, but based on his sotieriology, baptism is most likely in view. Barnabas’ view of the Old Testament is one of fulfillment, where everything in it, even down circumcision (Barn. 9) and the kosher laws, (Barn. 10) was intended to point to Christ and the New Covenant. In fact, for Barnabas these are the only acceptable interpretations, (Armitage, “Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache” 1926, 10) to take the Old Testament literally was to be deceived by the “evil angel” (Barn. 9.4). If the entire New Covenant was foreshadowed, then he asks “was the water and the cross” (Barn. 11.1) foreshadowed?” This leads to his characteristic allegorical interpretation in defense that the Old Testament testifies to the death of the Messiah and to Baptism. 

First he defends Baptism, saying that Israel would never accept the “baptism that brings forgiveness of sins”. (Barn. 11.1) Baptism in Barnabas is connected with the cross event, brings forgiveness of sins, converts the sinner and brings hope. After quoting several prophets he claims they linked both baptism and the cross together. (Barn. 11.8) Those who are rewarded, the righteous as pointed out in 11.7, are those who in 11.8 “having set their hope on the cross, descend into the water” which brings “conversion and hope to many”. Those who go down into the water “laden with sins and dirt” (Barn. 11.11) obtain both “fruit” in their hearts and hope in Jesus.

Second he comments on how the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed the cross. (Barn. 12) The main focus of his argument comes from Moses and especially the bronze serpent, which was a symbol of the cross. (Barn. 12.2) This is the sign that would bring life (Barn. 12.5) and salvation. (Barn. 12.7) The cross does more then this, as it also brings victory over Satan. Taking the allegory of the serpents in the wilderness to the next level, Barnabas argues that the reason God sent serpents to punish Israel when it was falling was because the “fall happened though the serpent, with the help of eve”. The bronze serpent brought victory over the power of the serpents in the desert the same way that the cross would bring victory over the Satan who deceived Eve. Due to the connections between the cross and Baptism, Barnabas sees the benefits as parallel, particularly that Baptism is the means by which a person receives the benefits of the cross. (Barn. 11.8) This demonstrates that Baptism brought about the victory over Satan to the individual.

Going back to chapter sixteen, the purification of the demonic element is a result of the salvation even of the water and the cross, which happens at Baptism. Barnabas assumes his previous theological assertions when speaking of inner cleansing. There are two sections, the first is the state of the person before salvation, (Barn. 16.7) and the second describes the process of salvation. (Barn. 16.8-10) Before salvation a person is ruled by demons. Their heart, or inner person, was “corrupt and weak”. After the person receives forgiveness of sins they are made new and “God truly dwells” in their “dwelling place”, (Barn. 16.8) which is the heart mentioned earlier. Either a person is indwelt by demons or by God, and the difference is made in being purified though forgiveness and new creation. These are the result of the water and the cross, which are inherently connected for Barnabas. 

Barnabas’ exorcistic views of Baptism in chapter sixteen are very explicit (Kelly, “Devil at Baptism” 2004, 52) on the grounds of his theology of Baptism itself found in 11-12. It would go beyond the evidence to say there was a separate exorcism rite involved in baptism according to Barnabas, although there may have been, but it is certain that he saw baptism itself as exorcistic. This connection between baptism and exorcism is missed by Twelftree when he argues that it is not exorcism but “coming to faith in conversion” (Twelftree, “In the Name of Jesus” 2007, 225) that removes the demonic and that Barnabas’ discussion on baptism fails to mention exorcism. This is true, but Barnabas does connect baptism to the cross, which brings victory over Satan and then latter does connect the same results of baptism to the removal of demons. It is not just faith in the sense Twelftree sees it, but the faith under the rite of baptism that removes the demonic.  Kelly (p52) makes the same mistake by assuming that exorcism must be mentioned at the same point where baptism is for Barnabas to have an exorcistic baptismal theology. The connection is instead made though the forgiveness of sins, which Barnabas sees as being a result of both the Cross and Baptism, (Porter and Cross, “Dimensions of Baptism” 2002, 211) though which is also the cleansing of the inner soul from demonic influence. (Ibid. 221) It is at the moment of the ritual initiation that the person, like the Israelites did with the serpent, looks at the cross and gains victory over the serpent. 

Background study in the Early Church: "the gods of the nations"

The Early Church didn’t just produce its theology of Satan and spiritual warfare out of nowhere. Going into their theology was a background of thought that had roots in the Old Testament, flourished during the intertestamental period and became solidified for Christians in the New Testament. The Fathers of the Early Church adopted these concepts and they became a standard part of Christian thinking.

The primary place to begin with the Fathers’ understanding of the Church’s place in the cosmic war is the Jewish and subsequent New Testament backgrounds to the demonic and the world. In the Old Testament, demonology is sparse but there is a definite idea of evil spirits in connection to pagan gods. The intertestamental period saw a lot of development in demonology, which was farther endorsed by Jesus and followed by Paul with the other New Testament writers. Combined, these ideas of the demonic and its connection to the world outside the People of God became the foundations for the Father’s own demonology and views of the Church militant.

Although Bamberger argues that Judaism has always been rationalistic, and denied the realty of the nations gods, (Bamberger, “Fallen Angels” 74) the Old Testament has many concepts that were farther adapted by the Fathers. Fallen angels are found in Genesis and Psalms, showing a real belief in evil spirits. Many times sacrifices to the pagan gods are considered sacrifices to the demonic. It is also evident that these ideas were real for the Jewish people leading up to the Second Temple period. 

In the Old Testament there was a class of beings who, due to sin, fell and became what the New Testament would call demons. A major possible reference to this is in Genesis 61:1-4. (Others include Psalm 82 and Daniel 10) Here the “Sons of God” came to take wives from the daughters of men. Certainly it can be debated whither these are angels, but for the purpose of the Fathers background it is important to know that this was the interpretation they would have inherited. It was the traditional interpretation, and found its way into such influential intertestamental literature as 1 Enoch (1 En 6-8) and was known by enough of the Early Church that the period after the Fathers that Justin Martyr uses this passage for his theory of the origin of demons. (2 Apo 5)

 

Throughout the Old Testament the Israelites are condemned for worshipping these demons as gods through idolatry. One prominent example is Deuteronomy 32:14-21. At first God condemned their forefathers for making sacrifices to the ~ydIVe [shedim for non Hebrew font] which is translated as demons (NRSV, NASB, NJB, daimoni,oij [daimoniois for non Greek font] in LXX). These are called “gods” that they did not know, and connected in 32:21 with the worship of idols. It is notable that the LXX rendered this word as daimoni,oij, which latter became in the New Testament and Church Fathers the term for fallen angels.

During the intertestamental period this association between evil sprits, increasingly focused on Beliar, became stronger. Jubilees 15:33 presents Beliar as the primary being behind Israel abandoning the covenant of circumcision. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, references are made to Beliar as leader of the spirits of deceit (TLevi 3:3, TJud 25:3), and his works contrasted with the law of the Lord (TLevi 19:1). In the Martyrdom of Isaiah Beliar is explicitly referred to as the ruler of the “this world” (2:4). Satan in the literature is probably to be seen as synonymous with Beliar, as he takes the same roles of ruler of the wicked spirits (TDan 5:6; Jub 10:11), and contrasted with the Lord (TAsh 6:4; MartIs 2:2). All this produced a mild dualism that would later be picked up by the Fathers through the New Testament.

As for Bamberger, the OT combined with the intertestamental data suggests there was a Jewish tradition that truly saw the nations’ gods as real beings. The mild dualism was not just a product of hellenized Jewish-Christianity, but came out of the Old Testament ideas of idolatry. When the Old Testament talks about the gods being “vain”, it is not likely a ontological statement, but functional one. They implied inferiority more then non-existence. (Langton, “Demonology” 184) This is the background that influenced both the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers.

Following the trajectory into the New Testament, Jesus and Paul both connect the idols and demons, and go one step farther to make Satan the ruler of this world, confirming the role of Beliar in the intertestamental period. For Jesus, his combat is with Satan and the fallen angels, as evidenced by his exorcisms and statements about Satan. Paul as well sees Christ in light of a cosmic war between God and Satan. By the time of the writing of the last New Testament book, the ideas culminated into Revelation with foresaw the end of the cosmic conflict.

During the ministry of Jesus, he defines his messiahship in contrast to the kingdom of Satan. One of the main ways he does this is by performing exorcisms. These exorcisms all happen after Jesus’ confrontation with Satan in the wilderness and are intended to create a pattern of cosmic combat within the Gospels. In the wilderness temptation, Satan offers Jesus the “kingdoms of the world” (Mt 4:1). The passage presents a real offer and so implies that Satan is in some way seen as ruler of the world’s kingdoms by Matthew. This is the first instance of Satan in the role that was made prominent by Satan/Beliar in the intertestamental period. Later, Jesus makes the statement that a sign of the Kingdom of God is the casting out of demons (Mat 12:28). These ideas of casting out appear also in John, where Jesus connects his crucifixion with the casting out of the “ruler of this world”. Considering the history of this term, Jesus is likely considering this to be more then just the emperor, yet he uses the phrase in relation to his coming capture and death by the Jewish and Roman authorities (Jn 14:30). This parallelism between Satan and the governing world that persecutes God’s people will continue through Paul to the Fathers.

Paul’s main comments over idols and demons can be found in 1 Corinthians 10:14-20. Paul warns the Corinthians against the worship of idols. They cannot, he says, both partake of the Eucharist and sacral meals of the temples. The reason he says this is that, although the gods of the nations are nothing, they are focal points for demon worship. In Paul’s mind, the pagans’ sacrifices are actually being made to demons, following the Old Testament ideas in Deuteronomy 32:14-21. These demons are the ones who once lead the people in disobedience, which is equated with following the world (Eph 2:2), as Satan is the “god” of this world (2Cor 4:4). This is why he considers those who are rejected from the community, to also have been handed over to Satan (1Cor 5:5-13), who is in control of the people outside of the Church, (Langton, “Demonology” 184) those who were once enslaved to beings who were not gods (Gal 4:8). This theme would latter be picked up on by the Fathers when dealing with heretics and schismatics.

Other writers also portray this cosmic war between Christ and Satan. In Hebrews it was specifically the mission of Jesus to destroy the works of the devil (Heb 2:14). Revelation is even stronger, as its apocalyptic imagery presents the eschaton in the context of cosmic war. Revelation 12 is important in that it is actually commentated on by Papias. The great war in heaven where Satan is thrown down by St. Michael and his angels in then culminated by Christ who returns to destroy his enemies and have Satan thrown by an angel even farther down into the lake of fire (Rev 20:1-4). This is an important passage for Papias’ demonology. He sees these fallen angels as once given rule over creation, but by their sin lost their proper place. (see fragment in Andrew of Caserea)

For Jesus and the New Testament writers, Satan is the ruler of this age, and behind him are the evil powers that lure men into rebellion against God. In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as the champion of God who casts out the servants of Beliar and ultimately is martyred by the “ruler of this world” who is in control of the human governments. In Paul, Satan is the ruler of the evil spirits who is behind the idols of the nations, and so led them astray. For the other writers, Satan was in charge of death and leads his armies against God, and who was defeated by Christ and will be finally conquered by Christ at the end of the age.

These ideas would become part of the theology of the Apostolic Fathers both in the way they viewed the world outside the Church as an agent of Satan and how they saw both heretics and schismatics as instruments of satanic powers. All three of these concepts would continue to influence Christian thought throughout the history of the Church.

St. Michael and All Angels

Today is the feast day of St. Michael and All Angels!

Revelation 12:7-12 :

And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back,  but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.  The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.  Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.  But they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they did not cling to life even in the face of death.  Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

Collect:

O Everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the ministries of angels and men in a wonderful order: Mercifully grant that, as thy holy angels always serve and worship thee in heaven, so by thy appointment they may help and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

I had wanted to use this oppurtunity to blog on guardian angels, but got busy with school, perhaps later.

Web Link -55% of Americans believe in Angels

According to the Washington Times (Here) a survey conducted by Baylor University found that 55% of Americans believe in angels. 

Here are some quotes from the article:

A big dose of irony:

"theological liberals are more apt to believe in the paranormal and the occult - haunted houses, UFOs, communicating with the dead and astrology - than do conservatives." 

Not too surprising:

"Atheism is a “godless revolution that never happened,” the survey said, adding that irreligion often is not effectively transmitted to children who, when they reach adulthood, often join conservative religious denominations."

How would Apotropaics work?

In an earlier post there was a comment about the seeming “relic-nonsense” in the Catholic Church, yet that appears to be confirmed by scripture in such cases as Acts 19:12 where we apparently have relics of St. Paul (here they are technically 2nd degree relics) healing people who touch them. In the Catholic Church there is the idea of “sacramentals”, things such as Holy Water and Oil that become, like sacraments, channels of divine grace. 

Many movies play off of this idea during encounters with the demonic. At times holy water will burn them, or a cross/crucifix will repel evil. When sacramental objects are used in this manner they are called “apotropaics” or things that act as a repellent for evil (technically even prayers such as Pslam 91 would fall in this category). 

At this point the more Protestant one is, the more likely they are to use phrases such as “superstition”, “magic”, or the dreaded “popery”. It this fair?

First, there is some scriptural support for God working through physical objects in really unusual ways. Second there is already the precedent of the sacraments where God works his power through physical reality and third…

Third, I wish to propose a way that some apotropaics might work without even needing to accept all of Catholic theology on the sacramentals. This would not mean they do work, but it would provide some conceptual framework to determine if it is possible.

The argument runs like this:

1. Demons are spirits and so are simple creatures

This does not mean they are “simplistic” but that they are non-complex. In terms of emotion they experience it different from humans. For humans emotions are tied up with physicality. When we love or hate, we do so as a physical creature with material chemicals in our brain. This is proven by the way drugs can alter emotions. Angels and Demons, however, do not have this physical connection to their emotions like we do. So when they experience “love” or “hate” or “fear” they do so as a matter of volition more then passion. This also means that they would experience this “emotion” at a higher core part of their being, and perhaps cannot express the complexity of emotion that we can.

2. Symbols create emotional responses

To many people a Nazi flag brings up images in the mind of war and terror. To even more people (Hindu) in brings to mind feelings to good luck. Either way the fact is that the symbol produces a certain response in the brain. To a Jew, especially one who lived though the holocaust, the Nazi flag would bring up images and feelings of hate, fear, ect. Same with people who have had a horrible experience with water, they are truly terrified on a deep level of water sometimes. An event can cause a phobia, which in turn even symbolic representations of that phobia can create strong reactions. 

3. The Cross (and maybe others) act as a symbol of fear in the demonic

St. Paul said that the Cross is where Christ disarmed the powers of evil (Col 2:14-15), the crucifixion of Christ is the focal point where Christ triumphed over the demonic. This event not only is the ultimate defeat of the demonic but also signals their eventual banishment to the abyss of hell. Now consider that the sign of the Cross would have to have some reaction on the part of the demonic. Perhaps it brings to their mind images of defeat and future punishment. Now because they are simple spirits, these are not just chemical reactions but connected to their very wills. So when a demon comes into “contact” with a Cross/Crucifix they are repulsed by the overpowering images on their wills that the symbol brings.

Now also combine this with ideas from scripture of sacred objects and with God’s omnipresence and omnipotence and the testimony of Church history, and we have a strong possibility for the reality of apotropaic sacramentals. Perhaps these same principles even apply to Holy Water and Oil. It is hard to say just how the physical and spiritual worlds effect each other. Perhaps blessings make a symbol out of a non-symbol and can have the same effect. Or maybe not?

Marian Apparitions?

Being more protestant then my catholic brethren, I tend not to put allot of stock in claimed visions and apparitions of the Theotokos (I term I do use at least). However these are relevant to this blog in some ways.

As such Here is a link to an article about the Pope and Marian apparitions. Apparently he is having the rules revised and made more critical of claimed encounters and revelations. 

I'm undecided on appearances of saints and angels in the modern world. I don't think I can say it is impossible for at least angels to continue to appear. It would be highly absurd to think we have recorded in scripture all angel appearances ever made, and then that afterwards there have been none. Saints like Mary are a bit trickier. The closest in scripture to an occurrence like this was the Transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared on the mountain with Jesus, but they didn’t deliver a message and it seemed unique. Now a Reformed theologian will then say that is enough, if God didn’t have a saint appear in scripture delivering a message, then a saint can’t do this. This is an epistemological issue with the use of scripture that is beyond this blog (see Moreland’s article on evangelicals being over committed to scripture for more) and so I don’t think we can go that far.

Does this mean that they are legitimate? Not necessarily, just that they should be critically examined by trained theologians and investigators, and not believed because they become popular places to visit. The Pope is right to enforce some standards of investigations and emphasize that “No apparition is indispensable to the faith”.

The new guidelines have not been drawn up yet, but I would think they would be along the lines of:

1) Are there any possible natural explanations for the visions?

2) Have they been witnessed by more then one person over a length of time?

3) Do the messages given conflict with the Christina faith?

4) Do the people who flock there leave encouraged to live a life of faith and virtue?

5) Does the entire event glorify God?

I’m sure some more could be added, and it would be interesting to see what the Papal commission comes up with, as it could be applied to any supernatural visions such as modern angel encounters within both catholic and protestant circles.

Web Link -UMC and the Demonic

Here is a post about a recent article concerning the United Methodists and the demonic. Both the article and post are of interest. A bit of critique on the variety of modern rationalism that tends to downplay the supernatural and all things unseen.

Metaphysics of Possession

A common debate in ideas of Spiritual Warfare is if a Christian can be demon possessed. Many would prefer a scale of demonic attack from temptation to indwelling control, or possession, but would eliminate “true” (by their definition) Christians from being indwelt by demons in the same way we see the Gerasene Demoniac in Mark 5.

This debate has many elements to it, but one of which is the argument that Christians cannot be possessed because they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The argument goes: if our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then how can it be defiled by a demon?

However, as the last post showed, being possessed by a spirit should not have the locative aspect pushed too strongly. It is not that a Spirit is a “substance” (matter in the philosophical sense) that resides in the location of the human body, near the “place” of the soul, but that a Spirit can be said to indwell someone when their power is completely active on the person. One cannot stick either the Holy Spirit or a demon in a bottle of some sort. They are only said to be in a place when they are active on that place.

So Paul is being metaphorical in an attempt to describe a spiritual reality using concrete language. Either this or one must defend a new angelic metaphysic that would be more hylomorphic. On a metaphysical level, then can more then one Spirit act on a person? Yes.

Perhaps it would be argued that the Holy Spirit is more powerful, and so cannot be “overridden” by another Spirit. This is true as far as it goes, so long as it is assumed that the Holy Spirit will actively prevent demons from exerting their power on a Christian. Metaphysically, the degree from demonic oppression to possession is one of degree of power, not of the location of the demon in connection to the person. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t prevent demons from attacking Christians in general (which most would agree he allows to some extent) then why assume that total control is forbidden?

Some would also ague that 1 Cor 10, where Paul says Christ and Beliar cannot co-exist, rules against the idea. But in arguing this, there are still ideas of location involved. A demon can attack a Christian, but cannot “enter” due to this. However, both an attack and possession, look the same, because in both cases the spirit is focusing power on the person. It is only a matter of degree, not of kind.

There are other issues involved in this question, such as clearer Biblical examples one way or the other, and of course Church tradition with the common experiences of Christians throughout the ages. However, on this one point, the argument against the idea falls apart when the very nature of a demonic spirit is taken into account, and the argument is seen to be making some philosophical assumptions it doesn’t defend.

How many indeed?

It is alleged that some time during the Medieval Ages it was debated “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Of course, there is no evidence any question was actually asked, but merely reflects the enlightenment and radical reformation snubbing of any of the thinking of the great medieval minds.

On another note, it is a legitimate question, as it is a test case for beliefs about angelic metaphysics. What does it mean for an angel to be “at a place”? Are angels “subtle bodies” or bodiless minds? If the former, then how subtle is subtle? If the latter, then how do they interact in a physical world?

Taking the Thomistic approach as a incorporeal intelligence, two theologian-philosophers came up with two solutions:

I.
“since place does not confine spirit, any number of angels can dance (mentally, not physically) on the head of a pin a the same time” –Peter Kreeft (Angels and Demons) p.70

But goes on to note that if the pinhead is one “undivided place” then because angels are finite, only one finite spirit can contain one place at one time. Kreeft then says he doubts this answer: two people can concentrate one the same place at the same time, so why not angels? And if angels cooperate to do battle, then why not when “dancing”?

II.
“when an angel acts spiritually on a particular body [or thing], its presence at that place occupied by that body is also an occupation of that place. The body occupies that particular place extensively by filling it with its bulk. In contrast, the angel occupies that place intensively by surrounding it with its power. The body is enveloped by the place it occupied. In contrast the place is enveloped by the angel that is present there by its power…two angels cannot occupy the same place at the same time…one angel intensively occupying the head of a pin excludes all others from being spiritually present there.” –Mortimer Adler (The Angels and Us)

I say:

What would it mean for them to Dance:

First we would have to define “dancing”. Certainly if this is done via assumed bodies, then the question changes, and the answer is likely as many as the minimum size of an assumed body divided by area of pinhead. But on an incorporeal level, “dancing” is an angel exerting itself on a place.

How an Angel occupies a corporal place:

Aquinas argues this is not continual occupation: “Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity” (Summa I.52.1) an angel is in a place by “application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.” (Summa I.52.1) This he argues against the idea that an angel cannot occupy a place at all, by quoting the Dominican Breviary “let thy Holy Angels who dwell herein, keep us in peace”. Is this not a statement of continual occupation? Surely “dwelling” implies more then exertion of causal power.

I argue that there are two kinds of power for an angel to exert, passive and active. Passive power is “dwelling” proper. This is when an angel is in continual awareness of a place, such as a Church or the guardian angel of a person (grant hypothetically). Active power however, is when an angel is exerting causative action on a place, such as moving a rock.

More then one Angel in the same place at the same time:

In Article 3, where Aquinas covers the question of if several angels can be at the same time in the same place, he answers no because it is “impossible for two complete causes to be the causes immediately of one and the same thing.” I have two objections to Aquinas here. First: I hold the distinction between active and passive power is valid, and therefore passive power, not being causal, is possible of more then one angel at the same time. Second: It would seem that more then one angel could cooperate in causing the same effect, such as moving a rock.

He anticipates this by saying:

“nor there is one proximate form of one thing, and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a boat, since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength is sufficient for moving the boat; while all together are as one mover, in so far as their united strengths all combine in producing the one movement.”

However, in the case of a row boat, a single person can move it by themselves, just not as well. So for humans, there can be more then one mover per thing, even complete mover. And because angels do differ in both power and glory, then it would seem that no one angel is always powerful enough for every action. Example: angelic combat such as in Daniel 10:13 “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” In this case, not all angels are perfect movers when conflicting with another angel. Hence, Aquinas’ objection seems to be invalid, and leaves open the possibility of more then one angel being the mover of a thing.

Dancing on the head of a pin:

Therefore, if the occupation by the angels is passive, the answer to the question is: infinite. Many spiritual beings can be aware of the same physical objects at the same time, knowing them intuitively of course, but still being continually aware of the particular place.

If the occupation is active, so that the angels are exerting power on the pinhead, then the question remains “infinite” but not in the same way. Kreeft’s observations are helpful here (see above). More then one angel can exert power on the location, contra Adler who doesn’t see any room for cooperative or competitive power being exerted by more then one angel. Several angels can move the pinhead, and several demons can work in opposition.

This helps solve a dilemma that could arise from Adler’s position. Can only one angel dwell in a Church? What is the nature of an individual place? Can an angel exert power on a pew, and thus prevent another from exerting power on the entire Church because part of the “place” is taken up by another power? How about the idea of Daniel where angels are in combat? Or multiple demons possessing a person? Limiting the occupation to “one” would seem to create unnecessary problems. Whereas, the better answer is infinite on better arguments.

Welcome

In doing my other blog, I came to realize a general theology blog is a dime a dozen. There are plenty out there that comment on politics and religion, made by people much better at it then I. And so I thought, "how can I actually contribute a bit to the collective that is the internet?"

This blog is my answer. the title "All that is unseen" comes from the Nicene Creed "We believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen". One of my interests is in these unseen things. An object of study neglected in Western Christendom. I have an interest in everything from Angelic Metaphysics from greats like St. Thomas to practical Exorcism and Demonology.

I hope to post thoughts on these topics, some book reviews/recommendations and comment on news related to all things in the universe that are "unseen" in the spiritual sense.

Do I have any qualifications you ask? Well, I am a 4th year ThM student in the Anglican Communion. I have taken Angelology/Anthropology/Sin from the professor who studies this par excellence. I have taken the Spiritual Warfare class offered, currently my thesis is on "spiritual warfare in the Apostolic Fathers", I collect exorcism prayers and rites from accorss Christendom (an entire word file full of them) and personally have 42 books on angels/demons/exorcism including some more rare ones.

So I hope to use this to both help my thinking and to provide a bit of thought for those who may stumble upon this blog and all that is in the realm of the unseen things our God has created.