Beacon dictionary of theology

DEMONS, DEMON POSSESSION. The few references to demons in the OT are generally ambiguous. There are no provisions for casting out demons in OT rituals.

References to demons (daimonia) and evil spirits (pneumata akatharta) in the NT are largely confined to the Synoptic Gospels, which in many cases attribute illness to demon possession (cf. Matt. 17:14-18). The outstanding case of possession and deliverance is that of the Gadarene demoniac(s) (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-33).

The Gospel of John mentions demons only twice, when the people accuse Jesus of being demon possessed (8:48; 10:19). The Acts associates illness with possession of evil spirits (5:16; 8:7), although a cause and effect relationship is not necessarily implied. In the case of the girl at Phil-ippi (16:18) the spirit which Paul cast out is called neither a demon nor an unclean spirit, but a spirit of divination or prophecy. As in the Synoptics, many healings are recorded with no mention of demon influence.

As in John, there are no cases of demon possession in the Epistles. Demons are mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:21; 1 Tim. 4:1; and Jas. 2:19. There is no consistent pattern of demon possession or deliverance in the NT, nor is there any suggestion as to the nature or character of demons or evil spirits, except that they are evil and the emissaries of Satan or Beelzebub (Mark 3:22-26). The differences between the NT narratives and those of pagan cults are far greater than any possible similarities which might be found.

The literature on this subject is a mixture of fact and fiction, magic and superstition, with few if any clear distinctions between demons, evil spirits, devils, witches, the occult, and psychosomatic experiences. That there is a personal devil having "angels" (Rev. 12:9) which affect men and society there can be no doubt. And that the human mind can become deranged beyond our ability to understand is also evident.

Undoubtedly there exists the possibility of relationships between human beings and demonic forces, a spiritual relationship that amounts to domination. This should be thought of in terms of control or obsession rather than possession in the materialistic sense. (Actually the term is used to denote occupation and not possession as usually understood.) We must not allow our concept of demonic forces greater range of activity and influence in the propagation of evil than we allow angelic forces in the dissemination of good.

Demon possession, like other forms of sin, must include the element of consent, if not choice, except in cases of insanity or mental irresponsibility. The idea that a Christian may be demon possessed is a contradiction in terms and strongly suggests a denial of the efficacy of redeeming grace and the power of the Holy Spirit.

See exorcism, satan. powers. evil, darkness.

For Further Reading: Kittel, 2:1864; ISBE, 2:1915; The
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
3:1909; Unger, Demons in the World Today; Vine, "De-
mon," ed. Harvey J. S. Blaney

DEMYTHOLOGIZATION. In his 1941 article "New Testament and Mythology," Rudolph Bult-mann defines myth as the prescientific depiction of transcendent reality in this-worldly, objective terms. For him "the conception of the world as


DENOMINATION—DESCENT INTO HELL

157

being structured in three stories, heaven, earth, and hell; the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events; and the conception of miracles" (Jesus Christ and Mythology, 15) are all mythological. The earliest Christians used mythological expressions in formulating their Christology and eschatology.

Bultmann does not seek to eliminate myth, rather to interpret it, for he insists that all mythology expresses a truth, although in an obsolete way. The truth contained in the NT is that of the saving kerygma of Christ, i.e., the announcement that God has come to man through Christ in grace to accomplish a radical change in his existence. Bultmann's existential interpretation presupposes that the mythologies have their point in the specific self-understanding of man; what is being said about man's existence before God, about his self-understanding in the midst of this world and history.

Bultmann can be criticized from the standpoints (1) of his view of myth in the NT, calling myth what should be identified as history, and (2) of interpretative presuppositions, exchanging the old myth for a new philosophical one of existentialism. Yet the problem of interpretation remains in the hermeneutical enterprise.

See myth, hermeneutics, biblical inerrancy inspiration of the bible.

For Further Reading; Hordern, New Directions in Theology Today, Introduction, 1:23 ff; Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology; Johnson, The Origins of Demythologizing.

Frank G. Carver

DENOMINATION. This is the term most often used for the various organized divisions of Christianity and especially of Protestantism. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) defines the term, in its religious context, as "a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations." Such a body, or denomination, may be large or very small.

There is some confusion in general usage between denomination and sect. There are two distinctions between these two terms. First, scholars usually use the word denomination to designate organizations with a historical and/or a doctrinal connection to the original church, while the term sect is used to designate groups which are radically divergent from the orthodox church and which have no distinct historical relation to traditional Christianity. A second distinction is that sect is more frequently used with a negative connotation (as a term of reproach) than is denomination.

While denominationalism grew out of the Protestant Reformation, the term denomination was not commonly used until the 18th century. Denominationalism reached its peak in the 19th century when marked independence and hostility became the rule. In the 20th century the mood has changed to cooperation and to moves toward unity.

A climate of religious freedom combined with strong doctrinal, liturgical, and organizational homogeneity for effective ministry and growth, justifies denominationalism in principle. While the Bible rebukes divisions which are carnal in origin and nature (1 Cor. 3:1-11), there is much implied support for organized movements which grow out of an honest desire to preserve and propagate a pure gospel (Gal. 1:6-8; 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

See church, cult, sect division, schism.

For Further Reading: Newman, Manual of Church History, 2:419-21; Brauer, ed., The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, 622-23; Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the U.S. charles L. childers

DEONTOLOGY. See duty.

DEPOTENTIATION THEORIES. See kenosis

DEPRAVITY. See total depravity.

DEPRIVATION. This has to do with mankind's being deprived of certain ministries of the Holy Spirit, due to Adam's racially significant disobedience to God. It denotes something only negative, a lack—and not what is itself a positive detriment. But this lack, this deprivation, results in what is positive: depravity, an inclination to acts of sin which characterizes the whole human race, until it is cleansed away by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

See total depravity, original sin, prevenient

grace. J. Kenneth Grider

DESCENT INTO HELL. In the misnamed Apostles' Creed (it comes from the middle of the second century, not from the apostles), we find the statement that Christ "descended into hell." This theological statement is based on Eph. 4:9: "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (cf. Acts 2:27). The last words of this verse were interpreted by Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome as meaning Hades. Some modern commentators have adopted this.

At this point it should be noted that the English form of the Apostles' Creed is a mistransla

158

DESIRE—DESTINY, ETERNAL

tion. The original form (about a.d. 150) did not have Gehenna, "hell," but Hades, the place of departed spirits. So Chrysostom and other Greek fathers interpreted "the lower parts of the earth" as meaning death.

Some interpreters understand the "descent into hell" to refer to 1 Pet. 3:19—"By which [by the Spirit] also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."

But plain logic points in still another direction. The ascent was clearly to heaven, 40 days after Christ's resurrection. The descent would therefore be to earth, in the Incarnation. T. K. Abbott wisely says that "it seems preferable to take 'the lower parts of the earth' as = 'this lower earth.'"

See estates of christ, apostles' creed, ascension, hades.

For Further Reading: BBC, 9:207; 10:290-91; WBC,
5:409; 6:267 ff. ralph earle

DESIRE. Desire itself (epithumia) is morally neutral. Jesus "earnestly desired" to eat the Passover with the Twelve in Jerusalem (Luke 22:15; cf. Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17).

To "desire" is more than to contemplate or to wish for. Epithumia denotes firm resolve and the gathering of literal physical energy to drive for the accomplishment of the vision held in mind. In the later NT the word is used exclusively as synonymous with evil (Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:22; Titus 2:12).

First-century rabbis taught that evil desire and evil action were both condemned. "The eye and the heart are the two brokers of sin," they taught. But their teaching was less sweeping than Jesus' in Matt. 5:28, where "lust" is made the equivalent of "adultery" already committed in the heart.

Part of the curse affecting the woman was said to be that in spite of her greatly multiplied pain in childbearing, and her bringing forth her children in pain, "yet your desire shall be for your husband" (Gen. 3:16, nasb). This persistent bonding of two who become "one flesh" survived even the Fall. So whether desire leads to intimacy or to exploitation (1 John 2:16) becomes the real question; and the answer to that arises from whether self (lust) or God (affirmation) rules the heart.

See seven deadly sins, temperance, self-control, heart purity, motives. For Further Reading: Vine, ed.

Donald M. Joy

DESPAIR. Despair is basically a lack of hope in relation to some good which one desires. Religious despair may bring one to the point of denial of God's mercy, love, and goodness.

Catholic theology looks upon despair as the root of all sin, thus requiring repentance and forgiveness in order to be overcome. And since resistance to God and grace is a form of despair, despair is further related to the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Nihilism, with its denial of reality, meaning, and values, is one of modern maris chief struggles; and it corresponds to despair. Man is threatened by death, condemnation (damnation), and meaninglessness (Tillich), and Maslow suggests that the "ultimate disease of our time is value-lessness." In relation to all of these there may be despair, taking on the particular hue of the specific threat. Contemporary existential philosophy regards the conquest of despair as one of its chief concerns.

To presume to have or be something which one is not is to be at the opposite pole from despair. Thinking of oneself soberly, with divinely touched understanding and poise, would be to steer a course between the twin dangers of despair and presumption. Each pole may tend to perpetuate itself or to provoke its opposite; i.e., despair may create a real "slough of despond"; or since one can scarcely live in such a dismal world, despair may call forth presumption.

Faith, hope, and courage are biblical qualities which are available to those who seek them. The Bible is replete with examples of persons who were brought to the brink of despair (Job, Jeremiah, and other heroes of faith found in Hebrews 11), but who were able to find in God sufficient resources to triumph.

See hope, faith, doubt, unbelief.

For Further Reading: Vine, ed; Baker's DCE; Sacra-mentum Mundi, 2:69-70. R. duane thompson

DESTINY, ETERNAL. The Bible teaches that maris earthly, temporal destiny is probationary and preparatory. The true or ultimate destiny, for which preparation is being made now, is beyond death. This ultimate destiny is predesigned but not predetermined. God's design for man, or his "chief end," is "to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever" (Westminster Shorter Catechism). However, sin thwarts this design in those who die impenitent. The sinner's destiny is not the happiness of heaven but the misery of hell. It is apparent that in the final analysis each individual is responsible for his own destiny (Rom. 2:1-11).

The fact that man's true destiny was beyond the grave was not always clear. In the days of antiquity Job raised his memorable question, "If a

DETERMINISM

159

man die, shall he live again?" (14:14). It was only in part that he answered his own question with the resounding "I know that my redeemer liveth" (cf. 19:25-27). Further enlightenment in the OT on the subject is scattered and incomplete. In the 18th century before Christ Abraham bravely made his way up the mountain to offer his son Isaac in obedience to God's command (Genesis 22). The writer of Hebrews observes that, even at that early point in history, Abraham, by faith, accounted that "God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb. 11:17-19).

About 800 years later, in David's time, there came further glimpses of the glory, and of man's accountability in death (Ps. 17:15; 49:15; 73:24-26; 116:15; Eccles. 12:7). Isaiah caught fleeting views of the overthrow of death (25:8; 26:19). It was left to Daniel, however, to give a remarkable summation, mentioning for the first and only time in the OT the eternal quality of life and its alternative (12:2).

The revelation of the full status of man's eternal destiny was established only by Jesus, to be restated and enlarged upon by the writers of the NT.

Jesus spoke of a prepared place for believers 0ohn 14:2; 2 Cor. 5:1 ff), a place where He and His Father will be 0ohn 14:2-3; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 7:15), the eternal home of God's children (Matt. 5:12; 6:20; Heb. 11:10); He spoke of a "kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34; Acts 14:22; Jas. 2:4), a place of glory 0ohn 17:24; Rom. 8:18; Jude 24; Rev. 21:11).

Men will be fulfilling the purpose for which they were created as they "serve him day and night in his temple" (Rev. 7:15; Heb. 12:28). Heaven will be a place of growth and progress. By the parables of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) and the pounds (Luke 19:11-27) Jesus taught that the faithful servant is to be given opportunity to direct to greater tasks the increased powers he has developed by work well done here on earth.

See HEAVEN, HELL, IMMORTALITY, RESURRECTION.

For Further Reading: GMS, 136-44, 661-65; "Punishment," ISBE; Wiley, Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology, 335-49, 440-44; Wiley, CT, 3:356-86; The Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine, 174-79; Agnew, Manual of Salvationism, 47-50.

Milton S. Agnew

DETERMINISM. Determinism is the view that every event must be what it is without any other alternatives, because the conditions for its occurrence not only precede its appearance but are inviolably causal in nature.

From a Christian perspective God is the primary Cause of all things as their Creator. But man as a secondary cause either has or does not have some initiating powers. If he has such powers, to any extent, he is to that extent free. If man does not have such powers in any sense, then he is determined.

Some determinisms distinguish between a "free" and a "coerced" cause. If someone robs a bank on his own or in cooperation with someone else, then though his nature may not have permitted him to do otherwise, he is free even though his action is caused. On the other hand, if a bystander is forced by a robber to drive a getaway car, he is not free, he is coerced.

The difference between soft and hard determinism is that soft determinism holds that some acts are free (note preceding paragraph) while hard determinism calls no acts free. But both determinisms regard all acts as produced by forces which permit no alternatives. Hard determinism may become fatalism by the addition of the psychological and emotional element of inability to change things.

With respect to salvation, determinism promotes the view of total depravity with human ability reduced to nothing. Thus man cannot respond to God except as God produces the response in him. Sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone) can be understood either as absolute determinism or as placing the initiative on God's part without eliminating human capacity to cooperate and respond.

The Christian view of the Creator God does place all things in a position of dependency upon God. The real issue is whether the relationship is one of total control, or whether grace has provided a degree of independent action on man's part.

Moral issues are raised, because human freedom is tied in with the very possibility of moral decision, and upon this the very nature of per-sonhood depends. Thus no more critical question can be raised than that of freedom or determinism. The fact that God holds man accountable for his actions (from Genesis to Revelation) implies some measure of real freedom and contingency.

See CONTINGENT, FREEDOM, MORALITY, PREDESTINATION, MONERGISM, SYNERGISM.

For Further Reading: James, The Dilemma of Deter-
minism; Luther, The Bondage of the Will; NIDNTT,
294-95. R. duane thompson


160

DEVELOPMENT, THEORIES OF

DEVELOPMENT, THEORIES OF. Biblical evidences and understanding of the human species are classically developmental. Jesus of Nazareth, in whom God incarnates His presence and action in the world, passes through conception, birth, and puberty; enters adult status at age 12; and announces His own vocation at 30—suggesting that physical, moral, and spiritual maturity take time. Paul explicitly speaks of the shift from childhood to maturity: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me" (1 Cor. 13:11, niv).

In spite of the clear biblical evidences urging us to respect developmental differences between adults and children, until recent times the Western world has regarded children as miniature adults. It has remained for the 19th and 20th centuries to begin to probe the actual sequences and characteristics of human development. Today three major theoretical bases are available from which to begin the trek toward understanding. They are, in order of their appearance, (1) psychodynamic theory; (2) behavior/learning theory, and (3) cognitive/constructionist theory.

Sigmund Freud (1905) is regarded as the father of psychodynamic approaches to human development. He worked largely with pathological adult women, and theoreticians since Freud have tended to work largely with adults in institutional or clinical/psychiatric settings. Psychodynamic theory has contributed to our understanding of conscience (the superego) and of the self (ego). The theory regards growth as the passage from one "conflict" arena to another. These have been reconstructed to include "complexes" through which boys and girls pass; the obscenity of the Oedipal and Electra complexes may tell us more about the psychologists and their adult patients than they do about children. Particularly helpful are the psychodynamic contributions of Erik Erikson who traces the "eight stages or crises of human development," each with a positive and a negative option for resolution. R. J. Havighurst elaborates a life span of "developmental tasks." The other developmental theories are indebted to the work of Freud for isolating research areas and for early definitions of problems.

Behavior/learning theory moves on the assumption that all learning is acquired; nothing is innate. All children are born as a blank slate. Only behavior can be observed; hence inner attributes such as love or personality are only important as certain behaviors may be labeled "loving" or "gracious." Ivan Pavlov's animal studies in Russia (1927) gave us "classical conditioning" formulas, but it was B. F. Skinner who developed the model called "operant conditioning." "Behavior modification" is a "learning" application of conditioning. "Brainwashing," as in Korean prisoner of war camps, was an application of conditioning to control behavior. Conditioning ahd behavior modification application tend to work well with animals and young children, less well with reflective adults (not all American prisoners of war "learned" in the brainwashing experience). The theory makes extensive use of animals in research and theorizing; yet humans are capable of going far beyond animals in learning tasks.

Cognitive/constructionist theory is rooted in the work of Jean Piaget (1932) whose imagination was triggered by the wrong answers children gave on a new intelligence test at the Binet Institute in Paris. He went to children playing marbles on the street to begin unfolding his genetic epistemology—the science which now helps us understand "how we know what we know." Piaget concludes that the neurological possibilities of the human brain, combined with sensory processors such as sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching, permit the child to receive or assimilate data which is then processed in the brain within the developmental/experiential limits of current structures—ways of organizing data received. As experience overloads the cognitive structure, the structure explodes and reorganizes—called accommodation. Thus a person is constantly growing as new experiences are transformed into new structures.

Jerome Bruner traces the young child's ways of knowing from "enactive representation" in which gesture is speech, through "iconic representation" in which images substitute for speech, finally to "symbolic representation" which is speech itself. Noam Chomsky, in studying the transformational nature of language, concludes that every child is born with a "predisposition to speak." He holds that children's speech cannot be accounted for simply by attributing it to modeling parent speech (psychodynamic) nor by attributing it to rewards/punishments (behavior/ learning). The human brain, Chomsky holds, is predisposed to discover and follow rules of grammar and language. If a child grew up without hearing speech, it would invent language all over again. The biblical idea of a speaking God who creates humans in the image of that speaking God and finally discloses himself through the Word made flesh and announced by the voice of one crying in the wilderness suggests the

DEVIL—DIALECTIC

161

close affinity between language development, the apprehension of true meanings, and the arrival at our true destiny as humans.

In all developmental theories there is a common thesis: Human development is strongly cumulative, but it is not continuous. All past experience is present with us; but we may also arrest, stop, and stagnate. Paul, the track star racing toward the crown of life (Phil. 3:14; 1 Cor. 9:24), also offers the golden formula for moral and spiritual transformation: "We all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord [that is, looking into the face of Jesus], are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18, Rsv).

All of us who work with people use a basic "theory of development," whether we know it or not. If we regard people as incapable of change and use pity, we are essentially influenced by psychodynamic views. If we regard people as manipulable—using prizes, praise, or gimmicks —we are reflecting behavior/learning beliefs about learning and change. If we regard persons as freely choosing beings able to construct positively and to follow hope and vision, we are awakened more to cognitive/constructionist ideas. But the theories themselves have developed across most of a century; the latest theory is enriched by the earlier research and theory of psychoanalysis and behaviorism.

See GROW (GROWTH), FREEDOM, PERSON (PERSONALITY), TEACH (TEACHING, TEACHER).