John Lawrence: Demonology Part 2 of 5

Part 2
II. The Existence of Demons.
The fact that demons exist is easier to prove than either the fact of the existence of angels, or of Satan himself. The reason this is true over the former is that this world system is their domain (abode) together with their leader and they are therefore very active in it. Demons and their activities are seen everywhere and throughout much of the history of mankind. Angelic activity is restricted to particular times and with particular people.
The reason that the existence of demons is easier to prove than the existence of Satan is that it is easier to prove the many than the one who is behind the many. Logic demands that the organized system of evil has a leader, king, prince, god, chief, ruler, etc., but the manifestations of Satan are scarce, while that of his workers are bountiful and manifold.
A. The Natural Argument.
Everywhere in nature there is the good and the evil. In the plant kingdom-pest, insects, blight, etc. In the animal kingdom-every animal has its deadly enemies. In the human family of the physical-hostile germs and viruses. This is not for one moment to suggest that there is a causal connection between pests, germs and enemies in the animal kingdom and demons in the spirit world. But we are saying that the enemies that exist in the natural realm certainly illustrate the invisible enemies that we face in the invisible spiritual realm. Call it a parallel or analogy, but do not dismiss it casually.
All these enemies in nature and the groaning that nature experiences (Rom. 8:19-22) came into being because of the curse upon the perfect world God had created for man to rule over. This curse came because man was deceived by Satan and now needed to know that everything was not "good," but rather that there was "both good and evil" in every realm. God was teaching the unknown by the known. What man experienced every day in the natural world was only an object lesson of what was a fact in the spiritual world. There was good and there was evil. What God does in the natural realm is stated to clearly show it would otherwise be invisible (Rom. 1:20). Moreover, we know that God, by His very nature has a purpose and reason behind all that He does and allows which is both just and good. Why is it that God allows the curse to remain on nature? Because by it He is able to illustrate that in the spiritual realm there is an innumerable host of evil, malignant, invisible forces that actually exist to work against us.
This witness by the illustration of nature is so valid that there can be no philosophic argument advanced against the existence of a host of evil spirit beings that does not at the same tine argue against the existence of a host of destructive bacteria, etc., in the natural world. The difference is: we can "see" one, but not the other.
B. The Ethnological Argument
1. The Argument.
This is the proof of the existence of demons by the universality of humanity believing that demons exist from early human history down to the present. Davies states, "the belief in evil spirits is universal".
Townsend adds that such a conviction has been as "persistent and widespread as belief in God, in good angels, or in the soul's immortality". How is the practical universality of such a belief in demons from ancient times to the present to be accounted for?
2. Why it Cannot be Dismissed
The fact that this belief has been distorted by extravagant superstitions is beside the point. Creation, for instance, has been distorted by tradition as the Babylonians and others account it, but this does not in the least discount its validity. For sensible people to discard the doctrine of demons or Satan because it has been abused is scientific suicide.
How can this belief be accounted for?
3. Suggested answers:
a. It is a mere chance occurrence.
b. It is only an invention perpetuated by superstition
c. It is a phenomena built upon the facts of an original revelation of truth, preserved by human instinct, and nurtured by the facts of experience and observation.
d. It is a phenomena that came to be realized by mankind through experience and observation following the flood.
4. Let us carefully examine each proposed suggestion:
a. A chance occurrence.
This may be at once dismissed because no effect is without an adequate cause. Universal belief in demons is the effect and this must be explained by an adequate cause which will reach all mankind all over the earth.
b. An invention perpetuated by superstition.
This is what skeptics have frequently proposed as the solution for universal belief in demons and Satan. They say that belief in Satan and demons is nothing more than a superstition, perhaps originally born in
the brain of some insane man, seized upon by other men, and so passed on from generation to generation.
Even if we assume that this is true, it still leaves totally un- explained how a race of sane men has almost universally seized upon an "insane idea" if there was no observable evidence that it was fact.
In addition, this belief in evil spirits or demons originated after mankind had already been scattered, as the study of the Greek word indicated. This explanation leaves totally unexplained how this insane idea came to be believed in the Western World or the islands of the sea simultaneous with peoples in the rest of the world.
c. A phenomena built upon the facts of an original revelation of truth, preserved by human instinct and nurtured by the facts of experience and observation.
This is the generally accepted view as of Unger and many others. I cannot generally accept this, because it does not come up to the evidence that we have of the situation as it existed prior to the flood.
While Creation was unquestionably the product of divine revelation made to Adam and perpetuated by him to his progeny, and which became corrupt tradition by all peoples after the flood and their dispersion over all the earth; and while the Fall was the personal experience of Adam and Eve and told by them which was likewise corrupted by tradition by all peoples after the flood and their dispersion over all the earth; and while the flood was an actual experience later on in the human history and the evidence for such a flood could be visibly seen for years afterward, and this fact too was perpetuated, but yet corrupted by tradition by all peoples after their dispersion over all the earth, belief in demons is not in any way to be specifically classified with these.
There is no evidence of an original specific revelation of evil demons found anywhere, even in Scripture.
d. It is a phenomena that came to be realized by mankind through experience and observation following the flood. This alone accounts for all the facts. Belief in demons never occurred before the flood (no Scriptural evidence) and only gradually following the flood did the concept of their true nature become clear through observation and experience. The reason that this was the case is that demons are part of that system of deception, and they were deceiving mankind as to their true nature. It was only after years that their true nature came to be fully realized and the process was gradual.
This accounts for the change in the meaning of the term "demons" throughout the years. It agrees with the Scriptures; and it accounts for how people isolated from one another came to understand, to a greater or lesser degree, the true nature of demons.
The importance of this for our present consideration is that this nearly universal belief in demons by people isolated from one another is almost, if not positive proof of their existence as well as their nature.
C. The Experiential Argument.
The experience and observation that has caused a universal belief in demons does not exhaust the evidence in support of the existence of demons. Another very important area remains in the testimony and experience of humanity. The evidence may be classified into two divisions: indirect and direct; or, observational and personal.
1.Indirect Experience.
Man is a fallen creature and does the things after the nature of a fallen, depraved humanity. In many cases the career of
the drunkard,
the criminal,
the libertine,
the harlot,
the dope addict,
the gambler,
the demented,
the suicide,
the murderer,
the serial molesters,
shows evidence of a deeper cause than mental or physical disease or injury.
Unger writes: "The course of license and sin which some men and women are pursuing, and the eagerness with which they rush into vice and licentiousness, knowing full well the awful consequences to body, mind, and soul, are the strongest possible evidence, outside the Bible, that there are wicked unclean spiritual agencies that tempt, get control, and relentlessly drive their victims on over the brink of destruction."
Scripture emphatically states that man is energized by Satanic power.
Eph. 2:2.
Today many have testified that they were overwhelmed by an irresistible power to do some act or commit some crime. The lawyers defending such a one tried in court often try to plead temporary insanity, because the individual exhibits no signs of current insanity.
From the medical standpoint, when insanity is not due to some physical cause, but rather is entirely mental, medical science merely classifies it as "insanity." But this only states the fact of disorder; it is not attempting to name its cause. Since Scripture relates demons as operating on the mind and controlling it first of all, many cases, merely classified as "insanity" when there is no physical cause, are undoubtedly due to supernatural agencies acting directly upon and distorting the mind itself.
When Judas was about to commit the crime of all crimes, Scripture states that "Satan entered into Judas" (Luke 22:3). Through his entire betrayal, Judas was under the domination of Satan, but was, neverthe- less, completely responsible for this because he had allowed himself to be so possessed. In light of all that is taught in Scripture and all that is observed in humanity, the burden of proof that invisible personalities do not have a share in most crimes that men commit, rests upon the skeptics of this doctrine. This does not downplay the lust of the eyes or of the flesh.
Indirect experience may also be had which is even more valid from those who are mediums. The author (John Lawrence) had an experience (before he was saved) on the Pike on Long Beach, California, where such a medium was telling the crowd gathered around their name, address, and many personal things that no one could "naturally" know. In the beginning of our study we gave Homer's testimony that the Greek word "demon" was derived from a word meaning "know1edge". This is true because demons have a knowledge that is supernatural. Moreover, some articles have appeared about whole "colonies" of mediums that exist, such as in Florida. This is observational evidence that cannot be lightly dismissed. These people are not living together in order to perpetuate a hoax. They are driven and they want to. This is very real to them. Read: "My day in the Spirit World"
by Ruth Montgomery
The American Weekly, June 26, 1960.
2. Direct experience.
There have been mediums who have been won to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dr. J. Elwood Evans tells of his talking to such an individual. While this is certainly the exception, nevertheless, there are such and their testimony should be valid if people were willing to scientifically
gain a knowledge of the facts that are available.
I would caution everyone, especially believers, to never have any personal contact with mediums (save on the basis of personal witnessing), and never with a séance, etc. This is something that the Word strictly forbids. We are curious individuals and have a desire, being intrigued by such things, to look into the unknown, but this is a realm of evil supernaturalism which is completely beyond our power to cope with as individuals. For this reason the Word strictly forbids it.
In conclusion, we emphatically state that there exists much evidence from the realm of personal experience that is adequate proof in itself of the existence of demons.
A picture of the Rev. Arthur Ford was here in the following news clipping.
"A top Washington reporter’s own story of an eerie "reunion" with the dead", by Ruth Montgomery
March 22, 1960, began as prosaically
as any other day for me. I had gone to
a Washington hotel suite to interview
the Reverend Arthur Ford, world
famous medium and ordained Christian
minister, about Spiritual Frontiers
Fellowship, an organization formed by
50 outstanding educators and clergymen
to study psychic phenomena.
I had a large portion of a reporter's
essential skepticism, particularly be-
cause I knew that the Reverend Mr.
Ford's psychic abilities had been under
public fire in the past and that his
purported delivery of Houdini's secret
message from the grave to the escape
artist's grieving widow had drawn fire
as a contrived feat.
I told the spiritualist-minister that
I had once written a series of articles
casting doubt on Spiritualism. There
was a silence, and then he asked me
if I'd like him to go into a trance to
see if "Fletcher"--his alleged "control"
in the other world had anything to say to me.
While I sat with notebook in hand,
the Reverend Mr. Ford stretched out
on a couch in the brightly lighted
room, tied a black scarf across
eyes, and seemed to fall asleep. Sud-
denly his body jerked, his chin rolled
and a voice introducing itself as
Fletcher began to speak.
My first "contact" was my father.
Identifying him by name, "Fletcher'
Declared. He had no idea he was
coming and he doesn't remember any
thing about dying. He was very sick,
and suddenly he was well. Your
father’s heart was bad, but he didn’t
know it, so he had no time to be
frightened. You weren't with him
when he came over, but you came
soon, and he appreciated it. He en-
joyed his funeral."
These intimate details surprised
me, since the Reverend Mr. Ford would
have had a difficult time checking
them in advance of our meeting. My
dad bad been an unusually healthy
man, until he contracted pneumonia a
few weeks before his death from that
ailment and a heart attack.
I was in Egypt on a newspaper as-
signment when he died, and flew for
two days and nights to reach the small
Midwestern town where he was buried.
I was musing about that sad period when
Fletcher asked: "Do you have a
brother named Bertie? Yuur father
keeps talking about Bertie."
I explained that this was our pet
name for my mother, Bertha, where
upon Fletcher said that Dad had some
personal messages for her. He also
supplied several startlingly accurate
details about my sister, Margaret, and
added that a man called Jinx wanted
to speak to me, a man who knew me
early in my newspaper career, and who
had taught me something.
The name meant nothing to me
until Fletcher said, "His name is Jinx
Tucker. He keeps talking about foot-
ball. Seems interested in sports."
Recollection dawning, I exclaimed,
"He should be! He was sports editor
of the Waco (Texas) News-Tribune
when I was a cub reporter there, but
I hadn't thought...of him in 20 years.
I didn't even know he was dead."
Fletcher, in gently reproving tones,
chided: "He says he isn't dead and
Jinx says to tell you that he used to
write his stories directly on a linotype
machine, instead of a typewriter. He
says Pat is here with him".
"Pat who?" I had to ask. "Pat Neff,"
he responded. "Pat wants you to know
he was very interested in something
that happened to you not long ago."
Even as my pencil raced along my
notepad, an involuntary shiver tingled
my spine. Pat Neff had been the
president of my alma mater, Baylor
University which, a few years after his
death, awarded me an honorary Doctor
of Laws degree.
Fletcher next introduced, "Walter
. . .Walter Morrison . . no, that’s
not quite right . . . it sounds like Morr-
son." Either way, the name rang no
bell in my memory.
"He was a doctor," Fletcher pa-
tiently continued. "He's here with Pat
and he wants you to know that you
are in very good health- a little tired,
that's all. You will need to have a
little corrective surgery before long,
but it's nothing urgent, and nothing to
worry about."
The next day I telephoned the
editor of my old Texas newspaper and
asked him, "Is Jinx Tucker dead?"
He confirmed that the sports editor
died in December, 1953, and that Jinx
had "typed" his stories directly on a
linotype machine - He's the only man
I've ever known in our business to do
that and he did so right up until his
heart attack."
The editor verified that Pat Neff died
in January, 1952, but the name "Walter
Morrison" sounded puzzling to him until
I said: "It really sounded like Morrson."
"Oh," 'he suddenly exclaimed, "Dr.
Walter Moursund was Dean of the
Baylor Medical School in Dallas until
his death."
Fletcher next introduced "Clyde
Wildman" as a "man connected with
schools who says you used to live in
a street or place called Lafayette."
I admitted having once lived in
Lafayette, Indiana, but could recall no
one named Wildman. Undaunted, Fletcher
continued, "He says someone who lived in
Lafayette when you did has mysteriously
disappeared, and he wants you to know he
drowned. He's over here now. An official
of some kind...seems to have been a judge.
He lived near you in Lafayette."
I began to feel like an idiot child. Neither
Wildman, nor a disappearing judge from
Lafayette, registered with me.
Later I telephoned the news editor of
the Lafayette Journal-Courier to see if he
could offer any clues. No sooner had I
begun to explain than Editor George Lamb
declared: "Judge Lynn Parkinson, of course.
He used to live in Lafayette, but was judge
of the U. S. Court of Appeals in Chicago
when he disappeared last fall."
The editor then told me that despite an
intensive FBI search through seven states,
the only trace ever found of Judge Parkin-
son was his hat and umbrella, lying on the
shore of Lake Michigan. For lack of proof
of his death, the lifetime judgeship remained
unfilled, and the federal government con-
tinued to pay his salary to his bank account.
The editor searched old city directories
and found that Judge Parkinson had lived
only a few blocks from us in Lafayette 25
years ago, although we had never known
him. (A few, weeks later the decomposed
body of Judge Parkinson was found floating
in Lake Michigan.)
My "father" returned with more mes-
sages, and some difficult advice for me. Re-
ferring to the lecturing that I occasionally
do, he urged; "Whenever you get a chance
to speak in some way slip in something
about the reality of spiritual life and sur-
vival. People are hungry for that knowledge.
Some of the things you talk about would
frighten them (I usually discuss world prob-
lems) if you don't help them to feel that
there's something more to life than appears
on the surface."
The voice faded away for a moment, and
then continued: "The most important story
you could write is this: I live, and
we are in a world of activity and growth.
We are not living in a vacuum,. I couldn’t
be happy if I were idle. I’m as vital
and active now as when I was a boy."
Three more "spirits" rounded out my
group of "callers," but none of these names
seemed familiar. One was "Spence Irwin"
(or Erwen), who wanted to talk about the
Near East. Another was "Henry McKay...
no, Mackay," and the last was "Van... van
...Vandersmith, no, Vanderschmidt, who
talks about magazines and knew you in a
press club."
By now I was becoming rather limp and
so, apparently, was Fletcher. When I failed
to recognize any of these gentlemen, despite
attempted reminders, the "control" sighed:
I must go now. God bless you."
The séance was ended, but my curiosity lingered
on. How to check these final names, with
so little information? Days before it
occurred to me to try an out-of-date
Who's Who. On doing so, I learned that
Henry Mackay had been a Vice President
and Director of Hearst Consolidated
Publications until his death.
That left Vanderschmidt and Irwin.
Eventually I asked the National Press Club
to check its file of deceased men and
discovered that a Fred Vanderschmidt died
November 8, 1956, while employed by the
magazine, U.S. News and World Report. His
obituary listed Newsweek magazine and
Associated Press as previous affiliations.
Then I vaguely remembered h im at the
Press Club.
The identity of "Spence Irwin" continues
to elude me. All I know about this "de-
parted spirit" is that he evinced interest in
the Near East, particularly in Israel. Per-
haps some reader can supply the missing
piece and complete the jig-saw puzzle. End.
D. The Scriptural Argument
For the believer, this is the really important evidence demons do exist: God's Word states that they exist.
1. Their existence is recognized in the 0T
While the New Testament is much more advanced in the explanation and
acknowledgement of demons than the 0.T., yet the shedhim of the 0.T. are real demons and were recognized as such by the Israelites.
Deut. 32:17, Ps. 106:37
The Hebrew regarded idols as demons who allowed themselves to be worshipped by men.
Bar. 4:7 ??
Ps. 95:5 LXX
1 Cor. 10:20.
It is also true that the seirim of the 0.T. were demonic activity.
Lev. 17:7
2 Chron. 11:15
Isa. 13:21
Isa. 34:14
2. Their existence is specifically recognized in the N.T.
The N.T. doctrine of demonology is very extensive. Demonology is, to a very large degree, a New Testament doctrine.
a. By the Lord Jesus Christ.
He spoke both of them and to them and they spoke to Him saying that they recognized Him. Matt. 8:31.
He commanded His disciples to cast out demons, Matt. 10:1.
He rebuked His disciples when they were unable to cast out
demons; Matt. 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29.
He cast out demons, Matt. 15:22,28.
He rebuked them, Mark 5:8; etc.
He had absolute power over them, Matt. 12:29.
This was viewed as a conquest over Satan himself,
Matt. l2:22~29; Luke 10:17-18
There are two wrong interpretations given for the Lord’s acknowledgment of demons:
(1) That Jesus and his disciples lived in a primitive and unscientific age and represented the ignorance and superstition of that age in demons and demon possession, but they were wrong.
Certainly this is unacceptable to anyone who knows the Word and the Lord. Both are absolute truth and the Lord knew all things having perfect knowledge of the unseen world, even as He did of the seen world.
(2)That Jesus Himself did not Himself believe in demons or demon possession, for He was free from the ignorance and superstitions of his age, but the age in which He came did believe in demons and was superstitious. Since Christ had not come to teach science or to start curious discussions or controversies on unimportant subjects, He merely accommodated Himself to the superstitions and beliefs of His day and spoke of sickness and disease often as demon possession, etc.
This view has been adopted by a number of men who are regarded as orthodox Christians. But if this view is adopted the following things take place with the Word:
(a) It represents Christ as not instructing His disciples but as deceiving them,
(b) It causes us to question every other statement that Christ made on any and every other subject, for if He is not truthful in one area, how can we ever be sure that He is not accommodating Himself
in another area.
(c) It represents the Lord Jesus Christ as being completely
inconsistent with His Holy and Righteous character. It represents Him not only as speaking of diseases as possession by demons, but as personifying diseases, and actually addressing them as demons.
(d) This theory represents Christ as making use of an unfounded superstition to substantiate His claim of divine authority. When Christ sent out His disciples to preach "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand," the power to cast out demons was given them as a divine attestation to His mission. That which the disciples and those to whom they were sent regarded as one of the principal reasons for accepting their testimony, was the fact that "even the demons were subject unto
them through Christ's name," which, according to this theory, was not a fact but a delusion.
Both of these interpretations are completely at variance with the known facts of Scripture. This not only jeopardizes the character and truthfulness of the Son of God, but it challenges the authenticity and reliability of the whole Bible. If the teachings of Scripture on the subject of Satan and demons are judged mythical, any other doctrine of Scripture may likewise be declared mythical at the will of the critic, who sets himself up as knowing more than Scripture itself. By one stroke, the entire authority of the Word is destroyed. Certainly Satan Himself could like nothing better.
b. By other New Testament disciples and writers.
(1) The Seventy, Luke 10:17.
(2) Paul, 1 Cor. 10:20-21, 1 Tim. 4:1.
(3) Paul and Luke, Acts l6:l6~l8, 19:13-16
(4) James 2:19.
(5) John: Rev. 9:2-11, 20.