Satan and Demons

Since being exposed to terrible theology in a class called "Healing and Deliverance," my taste for intersecting with the spiritual world has been greatly diminished. The class took deliverance to the nth degree. It was Palagian. It was over-realized eschatology. It was all about knowing extensively the evil spirits of rebellion, bitterness, sexual perversion etc., before applying the right deliverance technique. It was dualism. It was heresy. And now I'm left grasping for truth through the whole muddled mess.

Perhaps I was more confident in my position on deliverance until I read chapter 20 in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Like he does in so many previous chapters, Grudem takes a middle of the road approach to items like deliverance. He says rightly in pt D.2. "Not all evil and sin is from Satan and demons, but some is." Grudem explains that he wants to guard against an over-spiritualization of everything--the example I gave above. At the same time he doesn't discount demonic influence.

Grudem's linguistic analysis is very interesting in this chapter. He states in D.3.,"The Greek New Testament can speak of people who 'have a demon'..., or it can speak of people who are suffering from demonic influence..., but it never uses language that suggests that a demon actually 'possesses' someone." Furthermore, Grudem suggests being very careful when speaking of these things with other Christians because many Christians have bought into an unorthodox possibility of being both a Christian and "demonized/possessed". This belief has been pushed in large part due to an emphasis on demonic experiences over biblical truth.

The point of my confusion rests in how "even the demons are subject to us in [Jesus'] name" as in Luke 10:17, works out in our daily walk. Are we to speak to the demons like Jesus and His disciples? Or do we simply ask the Lord to rebuke the enemy on our behalf? Are we not to speak to demons? Does it even matter? Grudem presents the former as truth, and even states a few personal experiences in his systematic audio lecture. I thought I had settled this one.

Apparently not.

This is Shane David preaching to the men of the Gordon Lindsay Tower at a Christ For the Nations men's sectional. Shane is a member of our church in south Dallas. He graduates in May of next year. Listen to this word.

What can Angels teach us about Election?

I found Wayne Grudem's treatment on angels in chapter 19 of his Systematic Theology spot on. He lays out his teaching into "what are angels", "when were angels created", "the place of angels in God's purpose", and "our relationship to angels." The most helpful to me was "The Place of Angels in God's purpose"--letter C.

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.

Mark and Ed (back with the baptists)

I really like both of these Baptists. Sometimes you don't even realize Ed Stetzer (on the right) is a Baptist. He is. Stetzer is like the Reformed version of George Barna. Mark Dever (on the left) "sticks out like Joel Osteen at MacArthur's Shepherd's conference--but the other way around." Watch the second video on youtube also. When these guys start talking about the "regulative principle" they are referring to John Calvin's principle on worship. Calvin says our Bible regulates how we worship God. He then says, as I understand it, that as long as the Bible doesn't restrict a practice of worship, it is ok to incorporate it.

Dever paints "contextualization" very intelligently and I can agree with him completely. What is said about personalities in preaching is also interesting. Enjoy my friend(s).