The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Demons and fallen angels

I heard something I never heard before this past weekend. It wasn't in church, just comments made during a discussion, but I thought I would see what others thought.

The comment was made that the demons are not fallen angels, but the offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of man, spoken of in Gen. 6:1-4. I always had problems with this verse, but it fits with what I heard and read concerning demons.

There is a web page that explains it more clearly, which is found at http://www.tbm.org/origindemons.htm Now I don't believe in faith healers nor do I agree with everything mentioned on this webpage, but the information about demons is quite thought provoking. Also, Brown refers to the book of Enoch, which is not part of the canon of scripture, but putting that aside, read his page about demons, it rings true.

Tom Brown is a false teacher of the Word Faith movement:

Chart Your Course By the Words of Your Mouth
The Faith Movement

Obviously, that doesn't make him wrong on this topic. If Spurgeon wrote the article you posted, I would still say it doesn't hold any water. He makes assumptions and assertions that he doesn't back up by Scripture. And the Scriptures he quotes, he twists and reads into them his own ideas.

What do you find appealing in this?

I agree that the man is a false teacher, confused on the issue of salvation and other doctrines (the doctrines of most importance!), but his treatment of demons is interesting. The verses he quotes on this subject were not twisted from what I read, and he even states that to biblically back up what he says is difficult, in other words, he wouldn't be dogmatic about it. I would not teach this as a doctrine in the church either, it was only presented as a subject of interest and thought.

However, in spite of that, this doesn't detract from the truth of the gospel, nor does it corrupt any other doctrine of God. For me, it clears up some difficulties I previously had concerning the sons of God sleeping with the daughters of men. Also, the teaching that men were possessed by fallen angels didn't make much sense to me either. Again, like anything else I added to the discussion board, I'm not trying to convince anyone, we all must be convinced in our own hearts.

As for Spurgeon or anyone else, I compare what I'm reading with scripture, I do not base anything as being right because of a person's popularity or lack of. We can all be misled even by those we consider the most orthodox. In the same way, there can be truth in the most un-orthodox of people, we rest on the word alone.

What does it clear up?

I read through all the posts concerning the sons of God. I have a problem with applying that to the godly line of Seth, it just doesn't hold water nor make much sense. Why aren't men of renown being born now? How come there is no mention of demon possession prior to this point in time? The men of reknown, I believe to be more than mere human. I also read about the argument of angels marrying, that doesn't mean they couldn't copulate with a bodily form. It is easier to believe this refers to angels than to the line of Seth. I always felt uneasy buying into that argument, this makes more sense.

Frankly, I think the idea that angels could copulate with humans and produce angel-human hybrids to be much more troublesome. It introduces a lot more questions and problems than the idea that the Sethite line interbred with the Cainite line. As for why no "men of renown" would be born today, consider that all men today are descended from Seth by way of Noah. The Cainite line was destroyed in the Deluge.

EDIT: Furthermore, there's nothing in the text to actually suggest that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men. It just says that the "Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward."

hisalone,

I believe it is dangerous to try to get gleanings from "false teachers" especially those "confused" about the doctrines of grace, some of their teachings may be interesting nevertheless we should guard our souls by reading writings that have stood the test of time. How about the reformers have we read all that they have written or are we reading garbage like "The Shack". There is so much to be had and we live in a generation rich in information. Oh that God may give us a hunger to truly seek after Him! Even in our personal lives we should try to surround ourselves with spirit filled people, those sound in the faith, rooted and grounded in the word of God and not with a bunch of nuts one of which this man seems to be. The man is a deceiver.




His interpertation of Genesis 6:4 of a race of half human, half angel is "twisted" in comparison from the commentaries listed below.

John Gill's Bible Commentary

John Calvin's Commentary

Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary



Mary P provided a link to a past discussion concerning Genesis 6:4. HERE



.

One of the major themes of Genesis is the tracing of the line of faith, or the covenant people of God (called the sons of God) and contrasting it with the line of nations (or the sons of men). The succession of God's covenant was (and remains) primarily through families throughout the Scriptures, but particularly so in the Old Testament, and very pointedly in the book of Genesis. The passage is clearly about intermarriage between the covenant people (descendants of Abel) and those outside the covenant (descendants of Cain). That's why these "bastard" children were noteworthy. To the mind of both peoples in those days, intermarriage was considered taboo.

I don't know where you get the idea that the covenant people were called the sons of God. If you refer to the book of Job, you'll see that the sons of God referred to the angels. It "IS NOT" clearly about intermarriage between the covenant people and those outside the covenant. I have no problem with you believing that to be true, but I believe you are mistaken, it just does not make any sense in the whole context of the verses. Does it affect our basic beliefs? no, but for me, it gives me a better understanding of what is taking place in this fallen world. Something mentioned by a friend of mine, who doesn't accept this position fully, was that would explain ghostly sightings. Again, I'm just saying for me, I believe it to be true and because of that, I have a better understanding of the spiritual battle we are in.

Another thing I discovered, some times we lock ourselves into a form of thinking and we don't allow ourselves to be teachable. No, we don't want to allow heresy into our beliefs, but also, we don't want to become so set in our thinking that we can't grow in knowledge and understanding. I find that to be the mindset of the majority in the church today and I believe it harms rather than helps. Good intentions going awry. We end up putting ourselves in a box where we are unreceptive to further illumination of the Spirit.

Before you consider me a heretic or leaning that way, I hold to the election of the saints, justification by faith alone etc, etc. I just have a more open mind to God's work in the worlds, both spiritual and physical. We can bumps heads back and forth, but there are no valid/air tight arguments against what I have posted here and elsewhere on this discussion group.

hisalone said:


This is excellently stated, even though Spurgeon is one of my favorite heroes. I believe it must be remembered that even Calvin was once (and still is) considered by some to be an unspeakable heretic worthy of the fagot fires.

Never-the-less, I believe Brown's speculation about the Angel's copulation with humans is unbiblical, unprofitable, and not even worth your consideration as there are other biblical doctrines that are so much more valuable.

Please carefully read the input and links of Marie, Robin and Kyle concerning this subject, and with your knowledgeable Reformed background and understanding you will probably see Brown's speculative nonsense disappear and pass like a summer breeze. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/comfort.gif" alt="" />

hisalone,

Robin's post was right on. Just because the scripture mentions the phrase "sons of God" as refering to angels that does not justify the conclusion that angels had sexual intercoarse with humans making a third race upon the earth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> Matthew 22:30 says that angels "neither marry, nor are given in marriage".

God has spiritual children!




hisalone, no one here has even implied that you are a "heritic" we are only having a discussion.


In Peace,
William



.

I know that nobody has openly said I'm a heretic, I was just re-enforcing that I'm NOT heretical. As mentioned in the previous posts, there are much more worthwhile discussions concerning the faith, however, being this is a discussion board, I discuss some of the less than black and white things. Again, I appreciate your feedback, I read Robin's links and the newsgroup "Who are the Sons of God" but I'm still not convinced.

Something I discovered, like the doctrine of election or other doctrines, when a person is convinced of something it is next to impossible to unconvince them by simple reasoning. It takes the power of the Spirit of God to make that change. I wouldn't have it any other way, none of us want to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. It is this conviction which the martyrs were unwilling to compromise even to the death, might we all be as convinced.

Have you ever read "Progress of Doctrine" by Bernard? I believe that doctrine is always in a state of flux. Not the cardinal doctrines necessary for salvation, but that we see deeper into the mystery of the gospel and the truth of God than have generations past. I'm so greatful for the reformers and puritans, but they simply blazed a deeper trail for us to continue on. I'm aware that there are times we must return to the old paths due to stepping off course. The majority of the church today has gotten way off path.

At this point, I'm convinced (in my mind) about the origin of demons, for me, it is the only thing that makes any sense. Saying it refers to the line of Seth is too big a stretch, more so than that fallen angels taking wives. These are those angels who left their first estate, they chose to leave heaven. Just because they did not marry when in heaven, doesn't mean they wouldn't marry if they chose to leave heaven.

Although I disagree with 99% of what Tom Brown says, I believe he was on target with the issue of demons.

An ending thought, think about it, can you step back and think like an Arminian after understanding the truth about the sovereignty of God and election? Of course not, that is how I feel about this issue.

I did conceed one time on the issue of baptism on this discussion board, and I regret it. I still believe in believers baptism and that can't be changed other than by the power of God. Does it make the peudo baptist view less a brother to a credal baptist? no, but for me there is no argument posed that could convince me to think otherwise. This is also something that should concern us, we can be as much convinced in our error as in the truth. Many times those who spoke the truth in the past were the lone voices.

We all are coming to a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ. The more we know Him the more we are like Him. I like Paul only desire to know Him and the power of His resurrection. Some times we are taken into areas that are grey in order to understand His work better.

hisalone,

It seems to me that this is another thread where you have embraced a "unique" view on a subject which the vast majority of conservative and Reformed scholars throughout several centuries dismiss it as erroneous. So, here we are with the old "fallen angels impregnating human women" fallacy! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

MarieP thoughtfully pointed you to here: Who were these Sons of God? thread from 2004. There were many good replies to that question found there as there have been this time round as well. Thus, I shall not spend time repeating what I wrote in that previous thread but simply refer you to them via the link above.

I would also encourage you to read the relevant section in Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1 by Keil & Delitsch (Eerdman's Publishing) on Gen. 6:1-4 since they are excellent exegetes of the Hebrew text. They see the "angelic" theory fanciful at best since there is NOTHING in the text as written that would warrant any such novel idea. (sic. my comments in the 2004 thread). Also, "Fred" mentioned H.C. Leupold's comments on this passage in his commentary Exposition of Genesis, vol 1, pp. 257-260. I have taken the trouble to scan it, convert it to PDF and attach it to this reply for download. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Ya know... that almost sounds logical and biblical but unfortunately it is not. It is true that the Holy Spirit leads and convinces us of the truth of Scriptural teaching but it is not APART from secondary means, e.g., reasonable and logical arguments. It is NOT the case where someone rejects a truth and then suddenly without any human intervention (argument, defense, reason, etc.) that person embraces it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />

The Scriptures themselves are a testimony against this type of illogical "reasoning". And, they also explicitly teach that believers are to give a "defense of the faith", e.g.,

God Himself has "reasoned" with men to convince them to do right, e.g., Ex 4:11; 20:5,11; Isa 1:18; 5:3-4; 43:26; Ho 4:1; Mic 6:2.

In fact, preaching is a form of logical reasoning, i.e., it is a reasonable, logical and orderly expounding of God's written Word. It is through preaching of the Gospel and sound doctrine that men come to Christ and are sanctified. (cf. 2Tim 3:16, 17)

Thus, those who remain unconvinced of a truth have no defense in, "Until the Holy Spirit reveals this to me or convinces me of this truth, I shall keep my view(s)." For it is THROUGH the means of argument that the Holy Spirit works in the minds and hearts of men. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,