Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Satanic beings are a major force of evil?

From

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

MPhil  

Statement twenty: 

The statement was: Satanic beings are a major force of evil. There was much more skepticism concerning these beings within the Anglican camp in comparison to the Baptist group; however, the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles interacted with Satanic beings and there is no scriptural indication that these beings would not exist today. With the Anglicans, 62% agreed, 18% were not certain, 20% disagreed. With the Baptists, 92% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Also from my MPhil

Edited

Some observers of Christianity like to think of Satan and his fallen angels as a metaphor for evil and wish to deny that these beings exist. Professor David Pailin, who was my advisor for a short time, criticized me for believing in these beings as there was no proof of their existence. I think that Scripture is historical and it certainly accepts their existence. As well, and this was a point that I made to Professor Pailin, if theists believe that God, who is spirit (John 4:24) created human beings who are of a physical nature, why is it more difficult to believe that God made angels who were of spiritual nature?

When I examine the Book of Job for example, I see in 1:8 God mentioning Job to Satan, it seems that God was desiring Satan to take action against Job. Indeed in 1:12, he allows Satan to destroy Job’s possessions, and later in 2:6 Satan was allowed to harm Job but not take his life. This story certainly seems to demonstrate God’s power over Satanic evil. God is sovereign over it and indirectly sanctions it.

Calvin also discussed in The Institutes the case of the Chaldeans attacking Job, that God, Satanic beings and human beings can all participate in the same evil acts:

How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. . . . We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.

From

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Edited

A traditional approach to Biblical interpretation tends to lead to an acceptance of the existence of satanic beings. Erickson explains these beings are understood as Biblical, literal, and historical. Erickson (1994: 445-451). Roman Catholic scholar Peter Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity, and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).There is of course a debate between those of traditional conservative perspectives and those of liberal, progressive, mainline perspectives on the existence of satanic beings.

October 30, 2019 

A reasonable researched, exegesis and contextual review of the scripture, demonstrates that the biblical worldview is of actual, satanic beings that exist.

I noted in my PhD thesis, although less dogmatically for a secular university context than on this website:

Greek scholar, Walter Bauer (1979) in agreement with Strong, Strong (1890)(1986: 152), describes ‘Satan’ or ‘Satanas’ as the Adversary, enemy of God and those who belong to God. Bauer (1979: 744). Bauer goes on to note that Revelation, Chapter 2, verse 13, is describing Satan as persecuting the Church. Bauer (1979: 745). It appears by studying the Greek copies of the New Testament and assuming a type of contextual, literal hermeneutical method of examining Scripture, it is possible to view satanic beings as literal and historical beings…

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

4 comments:

  1. My view is much like that of John Cleese. (As you know not exactly a theologian!) that the Bible is not a work of history nor one to be taken literally as it is so filled with symbolism. However, I see you have different views. When asked recently if I believed in God I said I don't believe in belief. They said, amazed, you don't believe in love? I replied that it says in the Bible (my friend is a Salvation Army member) "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." I know there are other, different variations. She said,'so you don't believe in God then?' I answered it depends what you mean by God. For isn't the essence of God, love and when you love isn't god within you and without you? I know what your answer is old friend but that is my take on the subject!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russell, thank you my friend. Much appreciated.

      Yes, I have heard John Cleese on the subject of religion. He is a classic, funny actor! Yes, of course ;) I am familiar with your type of views, understanding the biblical letters as not literal. John Hick was a key PhD exemplar that subscribed to the New Testament as largely metaphorical. He refutes traditional Christianity and in my refutation, I largely disagreed with his presentation as can be found in the archives. For balance, I did see some benefits in his soul-making and soul-building, but in more general terms, although not universalism.

      Russell, I pray for your peace and healing.

      Delete
  2. This reply is for everyone...I'm actually on the road using my mobile...this is my first attempt at an audio reply. I am not driving and I am stopped... as someone else has been driving. I have noted on my websites there are degrees of literalness in the bible but not mythology. The bible is in context intentional non-fiction. Well..at a top fish and chip place..out of here...πŸ˜‹πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your prayers. I appreciate them. I have never in my life been so at peace, so calm, so in love with my fellow humans than now. I rarely feel anger as anger only hurts the one who is angry just as hate hurts the hater not the hated. All the angst of the last how ever many years has gone replaced by a sense of oneness. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete