My night of terror in a haunted house

"A night of terror" is how a man described the time he spent in what is said to be one of Warwickshire's most haunted houses.

Michael Chapman was one of 10 people who spent the night at Shrieves House Barn, in Sheep Street, Stratford.

The 500-year-old building, now home to Falstaffs Experience museum, is said to be a hotbed of paranormal activity.

Mr Chapman, 48, a fine art expert from a village near Stratford, said the ancient building soon revealed its dark secrets.

Volunteers reported feeling dizzy, sick and breathless, and felt icy chills and pains.

He said one woman suffered bruising after being hit on the head by a mystery object and others watched as a picture moved to and fro on the wall.

A photo was taken which is said to show the ghost of an eight-year-old girl who wanders the medieval hallways.

Mr Chapman and his daughter Melissa, 17, were the only two people brave enough to last the whole night - but it is a night they will not forget.

"We were total sceptics. I always thought the dead will never hurt you but now I am not so sure. We felt icy cold, saw flashing lights and I could smell burning - there was a fire here once in which people died.

"I am the most level-headed person there is - but there are things in there that left me thinking perhaps there is more to this world. Even the mediums had to leave.

"I don't believe in heaven and hell but I have to say it's got me guessing. It's a very spooky place." Melissa, a student, said: "I was one of those people who thought this life is all we have - now I am open-minded about everything.

"Something was pulling and shaking me on the night and things have been happening to me since I left. I was at college and someone kicked the chair from under me but there was nobody there. I've also felt a presence at home and in the car."

Other members of the group who stayed in the house at Halloween also said strange events had happened to them afterwards.

Dave Matthews, a white witch and owner of Could It Be Magic, in Shrieves Walk, said he returned to his shop at 3am to find it icy cold. He reports hearing mysterious footsteps and seeing objects being moved around. He then felt a sharp pain in his arm and believes he was followed by an evil spirit.

Another member of the group said she returned home to find the cupboard doors in her kitchen opening and closing and the contents on the floor.

Steve Devey, who owns the museum, said: "We are astounded but not surprised at the level of unexplained paranormal activity"

There is nothing in the context to lead one to conclude the promise is anything *but* a blank check.

On the contrary, the immediate context is dealing strictly with dealing with a sinning brother within the Church, and the larger context of the rest of Scripture does put restrictions on selfish prayer. To take this one verse and try to isolate it so as to say it means that you can get anything at all you want just by finding someone to agree with you is as faceteous as reading Mt. 19:21 by itself and taking it as a general and absolute command to everyone.

The reason we don't in that latter case isn't because some outside authority says otherwise, but because the immediate context indicates that Jesus was dealing with a specific problem for that particular young man, and because the context of the rest of Scripture shows us many righteous men and women of means.

If you wanted to be a little more narrow about the context (isolating vv. 18-20), you could also understand the "two or more" clause as relating to the binding and loosing of spiritual powers in heaven, but this still isn't a blank check for earthly possessions--rather, it's a general rule about spiritual encounters. Those who have studied this area know it to be true that certain powerful spirits (like on the level of the rulers of cities, states, and nations) require prayer and warfare by many Christians to succumb, which once again is a reason why deliverance ministers work in teams rather than solo.

Which brings us back to the issue of authority over spirits. Jesus gave this authority first to the Twelve (Mt. 10:8), and then to the Seventy (Lk. 10:17-20), and then to all who believe in Him (Mk. 16:17). This makes it a universal gift to all the Church, not one limited to the Apostles or professional clergy--in fact, we see others, like Philip (Ac. 8:7), doing the same.

Now, given that universality of the gifting, is there anywhere in Scripture where the gift of authority over the spirits is limited? No. When Paul speaks of differing gifts that not all have equally in 1 Cor. 12-14, the gift of exorcising demons is notably absent. On the other hand, Eph. 6:12-18 makes it clear that every one of us is at war with "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places," and that God has equipped all of us to fight this battle.

That is not to say that everyone is called to deliverance (or exorcism if you prefer) as a ministry--just as we are all called to exhort each other, but not all are called to be prophets, or how we are all called to disciple those we lead to Christ, but not all are called to become teachers. However, it does mean that a person in Christ has the authority over demons that Christ gave us in the aforementioned verses whether or not that's their calling.

If you disagree, I welcome you to build your case--preferably on something other than an inference made from a completely unrelated issue in Scripture. If you want to bring in external authorities, we can certainly do so. I have a fair library on this subject to support my position if it comes to it, as well as some personal experience to add.

I'm looking forward to your response, and it's always a pleasure to find another Berean. God bless.

To take this one verse and try to isolate it so as to say it means that you can get anything at all you want just by finding someone to agree with you is as faceteous as reading Mt. 19:21 by itself and taking it as a general and absolute command to everyone.

Were it this single verse, I'd be inclined to agree with your reasoning. Nevertheless, the parallelism between this verse (particularly since Christ uses the universal "anything"), and the various restatements of the principle in John 14 & 16, (lacking the possibly mitigating context) is inescapable.

Again, I think you are slipping in a third premise in that you know by experience this principle is not universal, despite explicit language, while appropriating as universals promises with far less supporting language simply because there is no specific negation of their universality.

And while restricting exorcism to clergy trained in same should be understood to be wise practice, it's not the same as making the claim only the clergy are capable. Much of Catholic practice is misunderstood in that it confuses prudence with injunction, by both Protestants and Catholics. Note that Catholic children (at least in the past) were trained to perform baptism on younger siblings should death be immanent and no clergy were available.

Is this not at least tacit recognition of the Christians' authority with a preference for the clergy in it's practical exercise?

But HOW can it 'know' that they are in Heaven? (or will be)

Catholics believe, and the Church teaches, that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, that It has the power to confer grace through the sacraments, and that, as the "pillar and foundation of truth," is reliable in Its teachings (dogma).

So, since the Church invokes Its infallible teaching authority when canonizing saints, Catholics are obligated to believe the Church.

Non-Catholics might be impressed by the fact that two miracles associated with the saint must be verified for formal canonization. For example, a Catholic suffering from an incurable illness might ask Mother Theresa to pray for her. If the person is cured, medical evidence of her cure would have to be presented to Rome as part of the process of canonization.

This may be helpful:

CATHOLIC QUICK QUESTIONS
This Rock Magazine
When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is it true that canonizations are infallible?
Here are excerpts from two articles on canonization of saints; they are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):
The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified. By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal Church."
The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs. They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and complete profession of faith [1 Tim. 2:1-5, Phil. 3:17] . . . .
Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or in charity and the evangelical spirit . . . .
In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession, and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.
The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973 . . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs, papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate form of inquiry (1234) . . . .
The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize . . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).
The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.
May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly "canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly "canonized" (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61).

There is a clear distinction between the "beloved" such as the apostle John or the prophet Daniel, and more pedestrian disciples and worshipers. Your understanding of "no respecter of persons" is obviously faulted.

Disagree entirely. Jesus died for me just as much as He died for them. He gives the Holy Spirit to all who ask of Him. He is no respecter of persons.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Looks like God considers us to be all the same. Each one prized and precious and gifted with all the gifts and promises

Have you ever healed the sick like the disciples did, i.e. healed, not eventually got better?

I have three confirmed heals (or more correctly I was honored to be the vessel that God used to heal people miraculously three times). I had one walking pneumonia cured. I had one abscessed tooth healed and I had one chronic ear infection healed. All of these were instant (that is, the sick recovered immediately with total relief of symptoms and no recurrance of the illness)

But of course I'm just a beginner at taking the authority God has given us and using it. Others I know (have met and dealt with) have hundreds of healings to their record. Some I know of have only one.

All believers have the power to heal. Read the book. We are commanded to heal the sick. How could we fulfill the command unless God gave us the power to do so?

I've seen many non-Christians delivered.

I've heard of that too, and I do need to clarify: If the person is in their right mind and capable of making a decision of coming to Christ, they need to do that first. Why? Because if you deliver them and they still refuse to come to Him (like the witch in my earlier post), they end off much worse than if you had left them alone until they were ready to accept the Lord.

In some cases, the person is mostly in their right mind, but the demons are blinding them to the Gospel so that they can't understand it or else preventing them from actually saying a prayer of repentence. In the former case, I would bind the spirits against interfering, but hold off on the deliverance until the person understands and is ready to come to Christ (if they ever are). In the latter case, you can go ahead and deliver them if the Spirit prompts you and you can see that they clearly want to make that decision but are being held back.

In the case of people that have been driven completely insane by the demons (which I have to stress is very rare), you have to let the Spirit lead. In such cases, I would still prefer to bind the demons so that I could present the Gospel to the person while in their right mind, lead them to Christ, and then cast the demons out.

Cases of Multiple Personality Disorder (which is probably what the victim of Legion was suffering from) are more complex, since the person is in need of trained counseling and inner healing in addition to deliverance, but that's a whole 'nuther subject that would take us off track in this discussion.

Well, if all we're talking about is preferences, yes I would prefer that anyone doing deliverance on me would be trained. I would prefer anyone rescuing and reviving me from drowning be a professional EMT too, but I'd like it even more if every person around the pool were simply trained and equipped for CPR, since they're there and the EMTs probably aren't. In a pinch, I'll happily take someone who only half knows what they're doing, but are willing to try.

Like I said before, not everyone is called to a deliverance ministry, any more than everyone is called to be an EMT--but knowing the basics of spiritual warfare is for everyone, just like knowing CPR.

A certain amount of training is certainly useful--I don't knock it and am grateful for what I have received--but the Spiritual gifts of discernment, words of knowledge and wisdom, tongues (strangely enough), faith, healing, and prophecy are far more important than any "book learnin'." When God calls someone to this ministry, He equips them. Surprisingly few of those I know in this ministry are full-time, paid professional priests, pastors, and ministers. My mentor, for example, is on the board of elders at my church and has a masters in Christian counseling, but he is an architect by training and vocation.

So again, if we're just talking about preferences rather than trying to dogmatically control who the Spirit calls to do what, I don't think we're too far apart in our stances--though my real preference would be that every Christian be trained in spiritual warfare and deliverance, that they would walk in faith and in the Spirit, and that they would be unashamed and unafraid to reclaim ground from the Enemy. But I'm also a realist (strangely enough) . . .

However, if you want to claim that all Christians have not been given authority over the demonic despite the Scriptural citations in my previous post, you need to build a Scriptural case against that position. It is not enough to draw a parallel to an unrelated passage (especially since I have already answered said parallel). At best, that only proves that authority over spirits may not be given to all despite the clear language otherwise, not that it is not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

My night of terror in a haunted house Nov 20 2004