tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8408562417706457482..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Angelology 101Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23795415303585660652008-05-27T13:34:00.000-07:002008-05-27T13:34:00.000-07:00I've always found it ironic that some of the peopl...I've always found it ironic that some of the people most infatuated by angels (particular that run in the 90s) ... (a) think of angels and babies with curly hair, diapers, and wings, and (b) ask God to send them some angels to help them.<BR/><BR/>I always thought, "If that's your conception of an angel, how much help do you expect?"<BR/><BR/>I also found it odd that people who had all these encounters with angels found them to be rather pleasant and comforting.<BR/><BR/>The angels I see in the Bible are typically having to say, "Don't be afraid."GUNNYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422524342398284973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11737357452502438112008-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:002008-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:00"Todd Bentley, from the Lakeland revival, claims t..."Todd Bentley, from the Lakeland revival, claims to have the angel Emma and claims that most angels are 6'4 with large muscles. "<BR/><BR/>LOL!! I guess Shaq's got nothing to fear from Angels...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24269186354520074332008-05-23T10:17:00.000-07:002008-05-23T10:17:00.000-07:00"If angels are merely spirits who appear human, wh..."If angels are merely spirits who appear human, why would the disiples not think that the risen Christ was a spirit who appeared to have flesh and bone?"<BR/><BR/>Ummm...they did. That's why he had them touch him.<BR/><BR/>How many angel stories are there where the angle said "touch me".<BR/><BR/>Big difference Matthew, angels are described as living spirits, not as humans raised from the dead. Jesus was a human raised from the dead. There is no comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84696295499582634042008-05-21T11:36:00.000-07:002008-05-21T11:36:00.000-07:00Trinian, I actually think the evidence that Phil g...Trinian, I actually think the evidence that Phil gave for angels being incorporeal is pretty insignificant.<BR/><BR/>In fact, he only uses one argument; that the word spirit is applied to angels.<BR/><BR/>Now clearly in Luke 24:39, our Lord contrasts Himself to a spirit of a bodiless nature, but that does not mean He had angels in mind as a way of contrast.<BR/><BR/>The Bible assigns many meanings to the word 'spirit' or pneuma.<BR/><BR/>In fact in Acts 23:8, the words angel and spirit are distinguished- 'neither angel nor spirit'. Whatever kind of spirit is meant here, it is not angels.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 15:45<BR/>"So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAMEA LIVING SOUL ." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." <BR/><BR/>Here we the word spirit is applied to our Lord Himself.<BR/><BR/>If the fact that angels are called spirits makes them bodiless, we must say that our Lord Jesus is a bodiless spirit.<BR/><BR/>I think we should conclude that angels are corporeal beings.<BR/><BR/>Every Blessing in Christ<BR/><BR/>MatthewMatthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42323478807194280252008-05-21T08:24:00.000-07:002008-05-21T08:24:00.000-07:00On the one hand...Christ's body did not simply app...On the one hand...<BR/>Christ's body did not simply appear to be corporeal, He verbally verified that it was so and demonstrated that it was so. Though angels can appear to have physical bodies (and at other times they do not appear in that manner), not only do we not have clear verification for that, but we have several citations (listed in Phil's post) that clearly say that angels are spirit creatures.<BR/><BR/>Now, on the other hand, the interesting part (to me, at least) that Phil did not deal with is that these spirits interact on a very physical level with the corporeal creation (and usually dramatically so). This is not to say that the angels themselves are corporeal, because of the Scriptural evidence Phil provided, but it is a very interesting point of discussion about the nature of God's different creations.Trinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862753729583546914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71428829657616567532008-05-21T07:52:00.000-07:002008-05-21T07:52:00.000-07:00Trinian, I believe that it is a mistake to view an...Trinian, I believe that it is a mistake to view angels as incorpereal.<BR/><BR/>Why not apply our Lord's logic in Luke 24:39 to the nature of angels?<BR/><BR/>Our Lord claims:<BR/><BR/>1. I appear (according to the senses of sight and touch) to have flesh and bone.<BR/>2. A bodiless spirit does not have flesh and bone.<BR/>3. Therefore I am not a bodiless spirit.<BR/><BR/>If we apply this to angels:<BR/><BR/>1. Angels appear (according to sight and touch) to have flesh and bone.<BR/>2. A bodiless spirit does not have flesh and bone.<BR/>3. Therefore angels are not bodiless spirits.Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37411609964240582102008-05-21T07:14:00.000-07:002008-05-21T07:14:00.000-07:00If the Bible speaks of creatures that appear to ha...<I>If the Bible speaks of creatures that appear to have bodies (be flesh and bone) yet are really bodiless spirits (as Phil claims), does that not defeat our Lord's logic?</I><BR/><BR/>If the Bible speaks of two distinctly different entities, one which has a real flesh and bone body that men can mistake for a spirit, and one which has a spirit body that men can mistake for flesh and bone, where does it become illogical?Trinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862753729583546914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34128354041364437292008-05-21T05:53:00.000-07:002008-05-21T05:53:00.000-07:00Good article. Thanks! I haven't read anything ex...Good article. Thanks! I haven't read anything exclusively on the subject of angels since graduating from the Liberty Bible Institute in 1998. We used Dr. Harold Wilmington's 'Guide to the Bible', and I remember discussing this subject in the 'Doctrine of Angels.'<BR/><BR/>In regards to lee shelton's observation of Gen 6:4, I read on page 782, under the Doctrine of Angels, the following:<BR/><BR/>C. The sin of the bound angels. It has already been observed that one-third of heaven's angels joined Lucifer in his rebellion against God. These, of course, are the fallen angels of the Bible. Someday they will be judged by God and thrown into Gehenna hell. But why have some of their number suffered imprisonment already? Many Bible students believe the answer to this question is found in Genesis 6:1,2,4:<BR/><BR/> "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born onto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose...There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renoun." <BR/><BR/>It appears that there is much controversy over these verses and their meaning. The two views he (Wilmington) presents are: <BR/> <BR/>a. The sons of God refer to individuals belonging to the line of Seth. The daughters of men were unsaved, belonging to the line of Cain.<BR/><BR/>b. The sons of God were wicked and fallen angelic beings of some kind that had immoral relations with the daughters of men.<BR/><BR/>The reference to giants in the article (like Goliath) also is very interesting reading.<BR/><BR/>Thought this might give an angle to consider where the Gen 6:4 reference is concerned. <BR/><BR/>Great site! Thanks for allowing me to give input...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07625517057249350111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33585406621586259612008-05-21T00:10:00.000-07:002008-05-21T00:10:00.000-07:00I agree. Christ had risen.However, our Lord would ...I agree. Christ had risen.<BR/><BR/>However, our Lord would seem to be claiming in Luke 24:39 that on the basis that He appears to have flesh and bone, it can be concluded that He is not a bodiless spirit.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible speaks of creatures that appear to have bodies (be flesh and bone) yet are really bodiless spirits (as Phil claims), does that not defeat our Lord's logic?Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83119729056365449552008-05-20T15:53:00.000-07:002008-05-20T15:53:00.000-07:00If angels are merely spirits who appear human, why...<I>If angels are merely spirits who appear human, why would the disiples not think that the risen Christ was a spirit who appeared to have flesh and bone?</I><BR/><BR/>... but the disciples did think the risen Lord was a spirit. Why should we believe otherwise? Because He said so, and demonstrated so. Luke 24:36-42; or am I missing some hidden sarcasm or something in your question?Trinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862753729583546914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11843231797740152542008-05-20T14:11:00.000-07:002008-05-20T14:11:00.000-07:00If angelic bodies are only appearances and not rea...If angelic bodies are only appearances and not real, then how can we be sure that the body of the risen Christ was real and not just an appearance?<BR/><BR/>If angels are merely spirits who appear human, why would the disiples not think that the risen Christ was a spirit who appeared to have flesh and bone?Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4628484055482556202008-05-20T12:30:00.000-07:002008-05-20T12:30:00.000-07:00I know a missionary to the islands of the South Pa...I know a missionary to the islands of the South Pacific who has a personal story of angelic intervention. He didn't see the angels himself.<BR/><BR/>He was driving his 4WD vehicle down the jungle road, going to visit a new village and ask the chief for permission to come speak to the people, when he came to a one-lane wooden bridge crossing a small river. When he was almost across, a small native boy suddenly walked onto the bridge coming the other direction. There wasn't enough space to brake and stop before reaching the boy, and he quickly determined it was better for him to die going off the bridge than to run over the boy. After all, the missionary was ready for eternity, and this boy most likely wasn't, as the gospel was just arriving in this area.<BR/><BR/>He steered hard to one side and started off the side of the bridge. After a moment, he found himself and his jeep on the bank of the river. The roof over the passenger area next to him was crushed in. He had to leave the vehicle, as it was not drivable. <BR/><BR/>A couple of days later, the native pastor of the church at the base town they were working from went to the village near the wreck to start recovernig the vehicle. When he was talking to one of the villagers who had seen the whole thing happen, the villager asked why the missionary swerved to miss the boy. The pastor explained that every life mattered to God, and therefore to His followers as well. This alone amazed the villager, as they saw children as replaceable. <BR/><BR/>Then the villager said he saw my missionary friend walk away from the accident, but wanted to know about the other two men in the jeep. The pastor was puzzled. "The missionary was traveling alone that day." The villager replied, "No, there were two men in the vehicle with him. One was sitting in the front seat next to the missionary, and the other was riging on the back. When the truck went off the bridge, the man in the front held his hand up against the roof over the driver's head. The man on the back jumped into the river and pushed the truck back upright. But then I didn't see them with the missionary when we left the truck."<BR/><BR/>Because a missionary was willing to risk death rather than run over a child, and God sent two of his messengers to protect him, and let the natives see those angels, the chief of that village welcomed the missionary and his message, and there is now a Christian church there.Brian Rodenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00026316545177087233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81363556880104116192008-05-20T09:10:00.000-07:002008-05-20T09:10:00.000-07:00It's appropriate that you post this here now, beca...It's appropriate that you post this here now, because Tabletalk is doing an excursion into the subject of angels this week.Jim Criglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437189788683651969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58556524559438124032008-05-20T07:22:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:22:00.000-07:00And considered as a whole, it seems fair to say th...<I>And considered as a whole, it seems fair to say that the body of serious Reformed and evangelical writing over the past century has shown a remarkable apathy about angelology.</I><BR/><BR/>Very interesting article. Billy Graham said essentially the same thing in his 1975 book "Angels: God's secret agents."<BR/><BR/>And I always like to ask people who poke fun at the medieval argument about how many angels fit on the head of a pin whether they really know what the discussion was about (i.e. whether angelic beings have extension in space at all.) Nobody ever has - but then it's more fun to make fun of things you don't understand than try to understand them.Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29747574942036732562008-05-20T07:18:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:18:00.000-07:00in regard to Christians specifically Dickason hold...<I>in regard to Christians specifically Dickason holds the view that "[having] the Spirit's presence and [being] the Saviour's property do not shut out the possibility of a genuine believer being possessed" (p. 189).</I><BR/><BR/>Yikes. I'm curious, what does the book site as evidence for this? It seems to me that one has to be able to bind the strong man before freely plundering his house - and when that strong man is <I>authentically</I> God, what possible power (or principality, or angel) could manage that?Trinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862753729583546914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43369609444092038362008-05-19T19:53:00.000-07:002008-05-19T19:53:00.000-07:00Thanks for a good post Phil! I came close to (but ...Thanks for a good post Phil! I came close to (but never did) discounting the existence of "guardian" angels because the only people whom I heard discuss them were Word of Faith types. <BR/><BR/>I couldn't discount the idea because of the presence of the Scripture you quoted, but because of the sources discussing it I couldn't relax into the idea either. <BR/><BR/>So, since the Scriptures aren't completely descriptive of the concept, I placed it in the "maybe" column and practiced the difficult phrase "I don't know" and thought it might be one of those things I won't know until glory.~Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819856178499938127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84796236437792167132008-05-19T18:07:00.000-07:002008-05-19T18:07:00.000-07:00In response to Alice's comment about Dr. Dickason'...In response to Alice's comment about Dr. Dickason's book (Angels: Elect and Evil): I happen to have a copy of the book on hand (on loan to me eons ago by a good friend). I'm still not done reading it, and certain parts I've read [see my comment on Ch. 20 below] I don't quite agree with, but it is still interesting read nonetheless, IMHO. <BR/><BR/>Dickason divides the book into 2 parts: Part I (angels) and Part II (Satan and demons). Chapter 20 may prove to be controversial for some because it talks about demon possession, and in regard to Christians specifically Dickason holds the view that "[having] the Spirit's presence and [being] the Saviour's property do not shut out the possibility of a genuine believer being possessed" (p. 189). I don't necessarily think that demon possession of unbelievers has ended for all time, but I disagree with Dickason's views on Christians' being possessed because "he who is in [us] is greater than the one who is in the world" (1 Jn 4:4). Since the copy of the book I am reading was published in 1975, I don't know if Dickason has since changed his view on this.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08289347868497438542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42963196568050656552008-05-19T17:49:00.000-07:002008-05-19T17:49:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08289347868497438542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57721537975198957672008-05-19T17:17:00.000-07:002008-05-19T17:17:00.000-07:00Interesting post in light of the claims by some ou...Interesting post in light of the claims by some out there to have their own personal angels and have given them names such as Emma, Healing Revival, and even Angel of the Lord. Todd Bentley, from the Lakeland revival, claims to have the angel Emma and claims that most angels are 6'4 with large muscles. <BR/><BR/>How important, however, that we remain committed to what the Bible teaches on angels and not mere speculation or fantasy.The Seeking Disciplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850752852586928341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62842260993525116502008-05-19T13:06:00.000-07:002008-05-19T13:06:00.000-07:00Helpful post. One thing I'd add for those who aren...Helpful post. One thing I'd add for those who aren't Christians is, as created by Christ, angels are below Christ (see Hebrews 1). <BR/><BR/>Moreover, they were heavily involved in the initiative of salvation through Christ and fully support it. <BR/><BR/>So if you like angels and you're not a Christian, do what they want you to do. Trust in him!<BR/><BR/>Thanks againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32166871512029416632008-05-19T12:14:00.000-07:002008-05-19T12:14:00.000-07:00It was helpful for me to reference Ephesians 3:10 ...It was helpful for me to reference Ephesians 3:10 when I was having trouble seeing why everyone kept using Colossians 1:16 to talk about angels. Bugged me for the longest time until it finally bugged me enough to do the legwork.<BR/><BR/>Also, a small amount of Greek can be a big stumbling block. God's messengers and servants are rather different then ours. I'm sure I saw that referenced in a blog somewhere... can't put my finger on it though...Trinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862753729583546914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7199741359767938222008-05-19T09:34:00.000-07:002008-05-19T09:34:00.000-07:00A good book on this topic (in my opinion) is "Ange...A good book on this topic (in my opinion) is "Angels: Elect and Evil" by Dr. C. Fred Dickason. (He taught a course by the same name when I was at Moody Bible Institute.)Alicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780332353141865219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34063885676386622992008-05-19T08:40:00.000-07:002008-05-19T08:40:00.000-07:00> You mean to tell me angels don't > look like lon...> You mean to tell me angels don't <BR/>> look like long-haired, muscle bound <BR/>> American Gladiators?<BR/><BR/>Not just long hair, but long, <I>blonde</I> hair!<BR/>http://logo.cafepress.com/8/204606.301398.JPGMike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91439569717523754402008-05-19T07:48:00.000-07:002008-05-19T07:48:00.000-07:00You mean to tell me angels don't look like long-ha...You mean to tell me angels don't look like long-haired, muscle bound <I>American Gladiators</I>?Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76802420146347216012008-05-19T06:25:00.000-07:002008-05-19T06:25:00.000-07:00"They are spirit-beings (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7,...<I>"They are spirit-beings (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7, 14) and therefore incorporeal as to their nature ..."</I><BR/><BR/>This fact alone is enough to dispel the nonsensical theory that Genesis 6:4 is referring to angels producing children with human women, but there are many Christians who insist otherwise. We should note that the whenever scripture speaks of angels assuming a physical appearance, it was in the capacity of doing the Lord's work.Lee Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254842261338255019noreply@blogger.com