Scott D MacDonald

Christian groups and leaders around the world commission cloths to heal the sick, often claiming Acts 19:11-12 as a foundational text for the practice. After an overview of some examples, this paper analyzes the unusual events of Ephesus in Acts and reflects on the identity of the cloths. This investigation reveals the stark contrast between Paul's ministry in Ephesus and the modern practice of healing cloths. Instead of inaugurating a normal healing device for Christianity, God uses the miracles and Paul's public ministry to lead the Ephesians away from magical practices. While God can do as he sees fit, Christian groups and leaders should avoid seeking to manipulate and control the power of God like the sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-20).

Syncretism—the blending of two or more religious paradigms—threatens Christian witness around the world. And the church in Africa continues to struggle with the popularity of local religious practices. In many locales, the ng'anga (an African religious diviner) prominently features in the lives of many church-going people. In response, Paul's mission to Philippi, recounted in Acts 16:16-18, provides needed clarity concerning Christianity's relationship to other religious powers and to syncretism. This article outlines the religious backdrop of Philippi, Paul's missionary method in the Greek religious context, and the consequences that arise from Paul's exorcism of the πύθων. In sum, Paul's reaction to the divining spirit of Philippi leaves no room for syncretistic behavior among Christians today. Accommodation and any reliance upon other religious powers compromises the quality of the gospel and the reputation of the savior.

Simultaneous prayer—the corporate practice of praying different prayers at the same time—is a worldwide phenomenon. One text frequently raised in support of the practice is Acts 4:23–31. This article explores that passage, reflecting on the Jewish liturgical backdrop and evaluating exactly how the early church prayed “together.” Acts 4 does provide a model for prayer, but it does not explicitly support simultaneous prayer, since Luke only records a single prayer and the spontaneity of the prayer is married to the liturgical recitation of Psalm 2:1–2. While simultaneous prayer could possibly find support elsewhere in Scripture, Christian communities should aspire to reflect the apostolic example in Acts 4.

Does the church need Spirit-anointed leadership? “Anointing” is an increasingly common topic in relation to Christian leaders. This article aims to clarify the role of Spirit-anointing in the Old and New Testaments, with special attention to texts that are explicitly relevant to the church’s experience (i.e., 2 Cor 1:21–22; 1 John 2:20, 26–27). The misuse of the term “anointing” arises from a recast of Old Testament pneumatology as post-Pentecost. This misapplication of Old Testament texts denigrates the Holy Spirit’s expanded role of inhabitation in the New Testament era. Furthermore, the obfuscation of Spirit-anointing has incurred significant harm to the practices and doctrines that relate to local church leadership.

The debate concerning morality starts on the first pages of the Bible! God creates, and the text repeatedly says, "It was good." The ancient narrative also speaks of a world with one God-given rule-do not eat from this one tree. But Adam and Eve break the one rule, because they determine that the tree is "good for food," "delightful," and "desirable." From the beginning until now, humanity has attempted to define goodness for itself. Morals are what we make them. And that leads us to our question today: "Can morality exist without God?"

The following Christian response was provided on May 31, 2023 at the World Religions Conference hosted in Cochrane, Alberta, Canada by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at Canada.

What composes an Evangelical demonology? This dissertation aims to provide a fresh Evangelical demonology, reflecting and systematizing the biblical material on the demonic.

To begin the process, Byang Kato’s background and demonology is examined, since Kato himself has a unique relationship to demonic practices by virtue of his upbringing. His demonological efforts are headlined by a booklet on the spirits, and throughout the rest of Kato’s theological output, Satan and his wicked comrades are frequently mentioned. Overall, Kato’s work presents timely contributions for our demonological goals, especially considering the multicultural context. In an increasingly intermingled world, with many backgrounds being represented in multicultural Christian communities, Kato’s demonology is a superior model. Human perceptions concerning the demonic are often inseparable from prevailing cultural attitudes, and the temptation to exalt one’s own culture must be avoided, especially due to the new norm of multicultural churches, para-church organizations, and seminaries. Kato’s demonology gravitates to the biblical material, and thus it delivers both challenges and affirmations to every party.

Furthermore, Kato’s writings on the demonic are inherently linked to soteriology. After discerning some of the major themes of Kato’s soteriology, his exclusivism (and how it relates to demonology) is specifically discussed. Since Kato views the world outside of Christ as the dominion of Satan and the demonic, he advocates that one must turn to Christ for redemption.

Then an Evangelical demonology itself is constructed. After highlighting particular contributions from Kato, criteria are outlined for the project before launching into the primary content. Demonic activity throughout the Bible is surveyed, and the argument is offered that demons do act as malevolent personal beings intent on instigating evil in the created order.

Through this study of the demonic, the assertion that “demonology matters” is presented, as the doctrine of the demonic relates to the reliability of the Bible and the quality of our salvation. A biblical, Evangelical demonology also rises to modern challenges, including skepticism and speculation. Christians are planted on the sure ground of the Scriptures, prepared for the spiritual realities of the world in which we live.

Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject.

Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker.

Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect the biblical material.

Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply attempt to reflect the biblical material.

But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age, the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times, except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged, and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric expressions of the topic.

As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts.

Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities.

Are you confused about the Trinity? Across Africa it seems like everyone is. Different churches disagree about it, even as some church leaders talk about it and others ignore the subject altogether. From 2017 to 2022, I taught seminary students in Zambia, and many of them had trouble talking about the Trinity. And as a Christian who grew up in the church, I did not learn much about the Trinity either. If you are confused today, you are not alone.

Do you have questions? Usually, there are many.
• Where did this idea of the Trinity come from?
• Does the Bible have anything to say about it?
• Does this debate affect our Christian life and worship?

In the pages ahead, we will answer those questions and more. And when you finish reading, you should have a newfound confidence in your view of God. Your prayers, worship, and Bible study should be transformed and powerful because you know God better than you ever did before.