Grudem writes at the top of page 403, "We see, therefore, that God created two groups of intelligent, moral creatures. Among the angels, many sinned, but God decided to redeem none of them. This was perfectly just for God to do, and no angel can ever complain that he has been treated unfairly by God." A "moral agent" or "moral creature," is any being that can choose between right and wrong. Both man and angels can choose to do good or evil.
The difference is only some angels sinned. The Bible says that all men have sinned. Angels apparently, are not a procreating being so the rebellion of one was not linked to a future lineage, as it is in the case of man. Seeing God's election in this light is helpful because it shows us that God's election of man is stronger than his election of angels. The election of angels is not equivalent to salvation, while the election of men is. A man's election is not visible like an elect angel's is. George Whitfield once said that if all the elect in London had a giant E on their stomach, he would go around London lifting up shirts and only preaching to the ones with Es. From this cognitive exercise, I conclude that it would not be far from the truth to say that angels must have something like giant Es on their stomachs. Forgive my musings.
Wayne Grudem is also commendable when he reminds us that Angels, being moral agents, and some rebellious, may promote false doctrine. Those angels who are against God and his people are apparently sometimes mistaken as loyal angels. In war, this is a tactic of confusion. An enemy that is able to infiltrate it's opponent can do a great deal of harm. Paul tells Timothy that fallen angels have doctrines that lead many away from sound teaching.
Grudem further teaches that we shouldn't worship, pray to, or seek out angels. When you read this section, a certain Todd Bentley youtube video ought to come to mind. 'nough said.
Grudem's Hymn for the chapter was "Angels From the Realms of Glory." It's a beautiful Christmas hymn. Like most Christmas hymns, I wish we'd sing them all year long. After all, the incarnation is still an important doctrine in February, July, and October.
Angels, from the realms of glory,
wing your flight o'er all the earth
Ye who sang creation's story,
now proclaim Messiah's birth:
Come and worship, come and worship,
worship Christ the newborn King.
2 comments:
As you read the opening verses of Genesis 6 do you think it has to do with angels? Please support your answers.
No I don't believe "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to evil angels who meant to corrupt man's line in order to mess with God's plan of redemption.
1. "Sons" as in "sons of God" is ascribed to different beings other than angels. In Genesis 11, the builders of Babel are given the same designation. Outside of Genesis the designation is given to Adam and Jesus and Righteous people. The point of the designation is to merely say "moral agents from God" (So to jump to the conclusion that these sons are angels, I think it is too hasty.
2. Angels even when they materialize, are not sexual beings. If Satan's angels could inseminate women, why couldn't they do this today? We should be hearing about mad races of super humans that do nothing but destroy everything. But as we can observe, cultures of the world seem to still be governed and pacified by an invisible God.
3. (I'm lifting this from Ligon Duncan) There is no other reference to angels in the first 6 chapters other than the serpent himself. In fact if we follow the flow of the narrative in 4 and 5, it is clear that place is given to the genealogies of Seth and Cain. Then continuing the pattern into the Noah story, we read the disputed passage. "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them..." The sons of God are Seth's righteous line and the daughters of men are Cain's cursed line.
Post a Comment