CovenantInBlood said:
Can you help me understand why this is the case?
First, I think I should agree with you due to the amount of effort and length of your response!! Wow!! I will try to be clear with my answers, so bear with me. My problem is that I have a hard time conveying what I'm thinking.
CovenantInBlood said:
1) His interpretation of Jude 8-9 is nonsense. Michael the Archangel did not rebuke Satan, true enough. But this has nothing to do with the "power" of fallen angels.
I agree with your assessment here, I said I didn't agree with Brown completely, just his idea of the origin of Demons. While we are talking about the Angel Michael, has his final battle with the fallen angels taken place yet? If not, then how can we answer the question about the fallen angels being bound until the judgment? If we say bound by blindness, that is stretching the point, if we say bound now, then there is no need for the final battle described in Revelation. Just a thought. If it is describign just those Angels who left their proper abode, then it makes sense, not all those fallen are yet bound, only those who left their first abode.
CovenantInBlood said:
2) His distinction between demons and angels, that angels have "celestial bodies" and demons are bodiless, is unwarranted. Angels are spiritual beings, having no bodies, although angels can sometimes appear in corporeal form.
The angels who appeared to Abraham did eat. Of course this is speculation, and I only do this as a discussion, but if they can eat Gen. 19:3-5, then I believe they could have sexual relations. This explains the idea of them leaving their first abode, they chose to have physical form to have relations with the daughters of men.
CovenantInBlood said:
3) His interpretation of Matt. 12:43 is also unwarranted. Of course, he uses the KJV because he can twist that translation to his purposes. But the word translated "walketh" is dierchetai in Greek, the primary meaning of which is to journey or pass through. (And anyway, how does a disembodied spirit "walk"??)
Again, I agree with you here, again, I didn't say I bought into everything he said. But as mentioned previously, remember I'm only discussing, but this would explain some of the things the paranormal people say they have seen of the spirit world. Dangerous business to say the least.
CovenantInBlood said:
4) For Paul, these are all variegated descriptions of the same thing, namely, Satan and his demonic hosts (which are fallen angels).
If the fallen angels are bound as said in Jude 6, then our battle is only against Satan. I believe there are spiritual forces in heaven and on earth which we battle. Why can't it be the demon forces? We saw very many cases of demon possession spoken of in the Bible, which by the way, there are no instances of demon possession prior to the flood.
CovenantInBlood said:
5) Indeed, Jesus' recounting of this time in history in Luke 17:26-27 would seem to indicate that it was human beings only, not any fallen angels, who were marrying and being given in marriage.
I don't quite understand his argument about the Nephilim, but as for the fallen angels having bodies, again, that explains them leaving their first abode. The passage of Matt. 20:39 can possibly be speaking of the elect angels, not the fallen angels. Also, people always point to this verse to say that the angels did not have sexual relations, but isn't that an assumption? If they took a bodily form, they could possibly have sexual relations. As in Jude 6,7 a relationship of gross proportions, an unnatural sexual union, like Sodom.
CovenantInBlood said:
6) In Job, Satan came in "AMONG" the sons of God, but he is never himself counted in their current number. In Job, the sons of God are EXCLUSIVELY unfallen angels. In this sense, Satan was formerly a son of God. Furthermore, William has provided some excellent citations showing that believers are also called "sons of God," which is perfectly compatible with the "sons of God" being the godly line of Seth in Gen. 6.
I don't see this being a problem, because the fallen angels were called the sons of God in order to understand who they were, weren't they the sons of God when they were tempted to sleep with the daughters of men? When did they fall? Was it necessarily when Satan fell?
CovenantInBlood said:
7) Tom Brown also wants to argue that the angels cast out of heaven can marry; but this would necessarily conflict with the meaning he has already given to Eph. 6:12, where he says that the fallen angels are the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms!
I spoke about this earlier, these weren't cast out they chose to leave their proper place.
CovenantInBlood said:
8) His interpretation of Jude 6-7 is also, you guessed it, totally unwarranted.
I have no problem with this referring to those angels who left their first abode entering into gross immorality and going after strange flesh. It doesn't necessarily have to be speaking back to verse 5.
CovenantInBlood said:
9) Lastly, and this should be emphasized, Tom Brown's interpretation of Gen. 6 is a fundamental necessity for him to be able to propogate his false & heretical teachings about deliverance and exorcism.
I agree he twists certain things, however, the overall premise is feasible. Although his motives may be wrong, it doesn't mean his basic point is wrong. I still believe this to be very feasible, and have not been convinced to attribute the verses to Seth's line, for me to do that would be a stretch, I can't make that leap.
Thanks for taking the time to write your response, however, I'm not convinced at this point. These discussions are not pertinent to the overall message of the gospel, so whoever is right or wrong on the issue, the point will not harm our testimony or the gospel. I have to lean on the side which rings true in my own heart.
