Speaking of the Trinity

The trinity is something unique to Christian thought. It is one of the great mysteries of God. In this doctrine alone, one can see how truly transcendent God is from our way of thinking. Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall write in their book, The Trinity, “According to the Church Father Augustine anyone who denies the Trinity is in danger of losing their salvation, but anyone who tries to understand the Trinity is in danger of losing their mind (pg 1).”

The assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity is core to receiving Salvation seems hard to swallow. However, as one begins to look at the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes clear why the Church placed such a strong emphasis on clarifying this divine mystery represented in Scripture.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed as an polemic against the many forms of heresy arising in the Church. The basic problem the doctrine addresses was the tension between monotheistic worship of the Father (God), with the New Testament precedent that Jesus was worthy of worship as well. The doctrine of the Trinity really tried to answer how it was that Jesus was “one with the Father?” Was he one in essence or substance, or was Jesus some kind of divine “offspring” which leached a part of the Fathers being when he was created, or was he a separate deity?

The church Fathers concluded that Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were all of the same substance as the Father; that they were in fact all one, in will though and action. To affirm that Jesus was an offspring or offshoot of God, would not only contradict the monotheism of the Old Testament but it would also corrupt the nature of God because some of his divine would have been given to Jesus making the Father “less god.”

Tertullian was the first to formulate this “one substance three persons,” and use the Latin word trinitas when referring to God (O’Collins. The Tripersonal God. Pg 105.) From his influence the doctrine of the Trinity really moved forward. What was the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit? This had been one of the greater issues that the church sought to resolve since its conception, and here somewhere between 300-400 AD the answer was finally found in the doctrine of the Trinity. However, for as much as this doctrine explains it still leaves so many questions… and this is ok. However, to deny it is really to deny the Christian faith, because without you are left with a Christ-less Christianity.

Heresies Concerning the Trinity:

Arianism/Strict Monotheists: The affirmation of God the Father, but denial of the deity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit.

Modalism/Sabellians: The belief that God is one but revealed himself in three distinct ways throughout history; the Father in the Old Testament, The Son in the Gospels, and the Holy Spirit in the present age.

Multiple gods: The worship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but as separate individual gods, divided in will, mind, and authority.

Hierarchy within the Trinity
One other major concern when speaking of the Trinity is the apparent hierarchy within its three persons. Specifically from the Gospels Jesus is submitted to the Father. The question then becomes why? If Jesus is God, the same substance as the Father, why is he submitting to the Father?

“Although God’s being is characterized by the hypostatic distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit, all three persons are one in their will and Activity. They are not autonomous persons in the modern nuance of “individual,” each with its own separate “ego” and “center” of consciousness. Rather, they have always and will always purpose and operate with one will and action. They are one God, not three.

…Jesus’ human will is distinct from his divine will in the economy of the incarnation. In Gethsemane Jesus in obedience submits his will to the Father, while his divine will remains one with the Father’s.
In the same manner, when Jesus speaks of the Father as being “grater than I,” the reference is to the economy of the incarnation. The Father is indeed grater than the Son with reference to the Son’s humanity. ‘Without this [key] distinction between theologia and oikonomia we would have to interpret the obedience of Christ to the Father as an indication that even in his divine being he was subordinate to the Father—and this would be the end of Nicene trinitarianism.’ Again, in the Trinity we have one God, not three. (Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall. The Trinity. Pgs 36-37.”

One Truth or Many? Contextualized Narrative or Systematic Theology?

Whether or not we understand what we are doing most people approach studying the Bible with this systematic mindset.  We compartmentalize chapters and verses by subject and content. We treat the Bible more like a Dictionary or an Encyclopedia rather than letters and narratives.  It has become a theological reference book, in which we cut and paste verses together to form a systematized theology.

We divide up the Bible into statements and quotes. We look at passages and file them under categories forgetting their reference, context, or relationship with the passages that surround them.

One of the greatest problems this compartmentalized approach to the Bible has created is the diversity in theological views. The original authors were not bipolar. They were not writing in some mysterious way that secretly supported two different viewpoints. Granted some passages meanings are ambiguous.  And some passages have nothing to do with the meaning we try to super impose upon them. Yet, Some passages are there only to support a previous idea, not to introduce a new one.

When an issue becomes too difficult, or we fail to understand the complexity of issue, the easy answer it to say that there is differing view points on a particular issue… and that’s OK. Yet, like I just said, the original authors were not bipolar, and the Spirit of God which inspired these men was not either.

This is not to say that there aren’t paradoxes in the Bible. (A paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. For example salvation is by faith alone, yet we must have works.) But in a paradox both statements are true, and there is a way to explain how both truths work together. However, when we allocate that there are two valid, differing and juxtaposing interpretations of Scripture, we are not affirming a paradox but a contradiction.

As Paul taught the Scripture and wrote letters to area church’s he was not writing them so that they could interpret his words by their experience or deduce their own theology from his words. To the contrary, Paul instructed was to “hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9).”

In Romans 2:16 Paul says that God will judge all men “as his gospel declares.” Paul does not leave doctrine and theology up to debate. There is one truth, and everything else is lies, deceptions, and falsehoods.

Now, this is a hard line to draw at times. What is sound doctrine and what is false teaching? There are many points of theology that are debatable among Christians. And with 2000 years of cultural, geographical, and historical differences between the New Testament authors and us, trying to get to the bottom of a theological issue becomes more difficult.

However, what I am not saying is that we should stop trying to formulate sound doctrine.  Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

It should bother us that there is differing interpretations of Scripture. We except it as part of theology, but if we were to sit down with Paul, Luke, James, Peter, or even Jesus. Do you think we would walk away with a conflict of ideas?

So this is our calling, to set aside our preconceived bias, previous theological viewpoints, personal experiences, and approach the Bible with new eyes and ears, letting it shape us, instead of shaping it.

However, we must also recognize that many men and women who have gone before have sought to do this very thing, and yet continue to return with different conclusions. So we have to remember to stay humble in the process of seeking truth, and learn from the victories and failures those who have gone before us.

We also have to understand that there are topics that the Bible does not address, and never meant to address. And no matter how bad we want an answer we cannot force one upon the Scripture. The Bible is only a guide to understand that which God has chosen to reveal about himself. Is it not THE complete guide to God and Spirituality, but OUR complete guide to God and spirituality.

So coming full circle, we have to be careful how we read and approach the Bible. We cannot read the Bible with a scalpel in hand. It is when we do that many errors in theology arise. It is when we separate a passage or a verse, even a chapter from its context that we can loose or pervert it’s meaning.  We have to comprehend that the Bible is not a Systematized theological reference manual. But it is a contextualized theological narrative, written by different authors, with different styles, concerning different people, and different situations. They may at times use the same words and address different topics, or use differing words but addressing the same topic. We have to switch from our telephoto lens to our wide angle, understanding each books overview theme and purpose, before we descend into analyzing every verse.

Did Jesus really say we are all Gods?

Did Jesus really say we are all Gods? Without understanding the context you could falsely interpret the text this way. So lets examine the context…

Jesus defends his claim [against blasphemy] using language they [the Pharisees] should be able to understand, through an appeal to the law. He cites a text that uses the word god of those who are not God: Is it not written in your Law, “I have said you are gods”? (v. 34). It is unclear who is being referred to in Psalm 82:6. Of the several proposals made by scholars (cf. Beasley-Murray 1987:176-77), the most likely takes this as a reference either to Israel’s judges or to the people of Israel as they receive the law. The latter is a common understanding among the rabbis (for example, b. ‘Aboda Zara 5a; Exodus Rabbah 32:7), but the former is also represented in Jewish interpretation (Midrash Psalms; b. Sanhedrin 6b; 7a; b. Sota 47b). Jesus’ explanation that these gods are those to whom the word of God came (v. 35) might point to the Israelites receiving the law. In this case the contrast between these gods and Jesus would be that Jesus is the one who both fulfills the law and is greater than the law. But this expression to whom the word of God came could also refer to the judges (as suggested by the rest of Ps 82) who have received a commission from God to exercise the divine prerogative of judgment on his behalf. The psalm is actually a condemnation of the judges for not exercising their responsibility faithfully, thus corresponding both to the condemnation of these Jewish leaders in John and to Jesus as the true judge.

IVP New Testament Commentaries
The entire article can be viewed at Bible Gateway

Summarizing the above commentary Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6 in which the Judges of the Nation of Israel are called “gods.” There are called gods because they received the word of God and are accountable to be God’s judges here on Earth according to that information. They are to be the Gods/rulers according to Gods word given to them. At that time they were in a sense God’s gods/rulers on earth. They were God’s agents of authority here on this Earth because they had the Scripture.  And in this way it is not referring to “Gods” as figure of divinity or Godhood, but as a ruler or an authority. The interesting part is that Jesus almost uses this in a mocking fashion because those who were called “gods” as the commentators writes were being condemned for “not exercising their responsibility faithfully.” So Jesus, who is being accused of blasphemy because of his “good” or “god-like” works, turns the table on the Pharisees who were the keepers of the Law, and asks, “Are you not Gods?” Meaning, are you not also supposed to be keeping and ruling according to the Law? Are you not also not also supposed to be faithful to the Law you who received it from God?

Then Jesus in his following words defends that he is indeed different than those who had merely received the Law. He says that he has been set apart by God and sent into the World by God. He is the fulfillment of the Law, he is God, and that his works display this.

So to use this passage to support this idea that we are all “gods,” is perversion of Scripture. Furthermore, it is an ironic perversion of Scripture because this passage is a condemnation against all who have received the word yet are not living faithfully to its standards.  The law of God which they were to be Judging with was condemning them. So Jesus is saying to the Pharisees  that we are the “gods” or rulers of the Scripture God has given man, and yet you fail to live it out. This is why God has set me apart and sent me into the World.

The conclusion is that it points to man’s great need for a savior, because even though we have the law, man is unable to obtain righteousness.

A Response to Andrew c Bain Attack Against Mark Driscoll.

Caleb I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to reply to this video. I hope this helps. If you still have questions let me know.

This post is a rebuttal to the following video posted on YouTube by AndrewcBain:

If I understood this guys objection correctly it is, “The Holy Spirit cannot be working in the unbeliever before faith, because then He (god) would be sinful.”

Now first off I’m not sure what this guy affirms, all I can do is patch together what he doesn’t believe from this argument.

If the Holy Spirit was not working in the believer before faith (as he suggests) , then he is concluding that unbeliever can come to God apart from the Grace of God. This contradicts Paul’s statement, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8&9).” It has to be understood that the faith living inside of everyone is because of Gods grace. The Faith that is present in all people has its origin from God, for man is totally depraved. It is God’s grace made available in our lives make faith a possibility.

“Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you (Romans 12:3).”

This theology stems back to the church father Augustine, but takes it’s most predominate form in the writing of John Wesley. This grace working in the unbeliever is labeled “Prevenient” or “Prevening grace”, which simply means the grace that comes before (salvation). Prevenient grace bridges the gap between mans ability and God’s Sovereignty. It is the truth under which Calvinism fails. Prevenient Grace rejects Pelaginsm (a Hersey of the 4th century which taught that man made the first step in righteousness by himself… and actually could become sinless apart from God. Pelagin also rejected original sin.) and Hyper-Calvinistic theology which teaches a man will be saved regardless of faith, just as long as God has willed (predestined) it.

Paul wrote to Titus and says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11).”

So to reject the reality that the Holy Spirit is at work in the life of the unbeliever before conversion is to either reject the depravity of man (saying man does not need God’s grace to spark faith) or role of faith in the believer (saying that man is completely inactive when it comes to salvation).

This guy seems to also have a particular issue with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sinful life of the unbeliever. He concludes that if The Holy Spirit is present were sin is also present then the Holy Spirit must be sinful. This is also a flawed view of God.

As Christians we affirm both theologically and philosophically that God is ever-present, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, as Wayne Grudem (in his theology book, Bible Doctrine) highlights the fact that we often contradict this creed when we say things like “Hell is the absence of God, or the complete separation from God” or “God cannot be in the presence of Sin.” If God is not present in Hell or where ever sin is present (which would be most everywhere) then he cannot possibly ever-present.

Grudem corrects this distorted view of God by affirming that although God is ever-present, his presence serves different functions at different times and situations. He labels the different purposes of God’s presence as, blessing, sustaining, or punishment. Furthermore, he makes addresses the passages that God’s presence is felt as absent or fleeting, as nothing more than the absence of God’s blessing presence. The Bible teaches that God is always present in all things so to sustain all things. If this were not so the universe would cease to exist.

“He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:17

“For in him we live and move and have our being.” Acts 17:28

For more info on Prevenient Grace check out this Blog
http://wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com/2009/05/prevenient-grace.html

As the above Blog makes mentions, that Prevenient Grace is similar to Irresistible Grace on the Calvinist side, which Mark Driscoll is most likely affirming in this sermon since he is Calvinistic. However, I think my explanation still confronts the error in this videos argument.

I encourage you to read more of John Wesly’s writings (especially about Prevenient Grace). It will help to balance out some of Mark Driscoll’s hard line Calvinistic teaching.

The Three points of the Gospel: Manger, Cross, Crown

I debated with my self about posting this video for several reasons. First of all it’s long (about 50 min), and secondly I try to be original in what I post. However, Tim Keller is amazing, everything I’ve heard from this guy continues to amaze me.

In this particular message that was a part of the Dwell Conference from 2008 in New York City, Keller address the question, “What is the Gospel?” His message is titled “Dwelling in the Gospel,” and it really gets into the vastness of the Gospel message.

You can link to the video here…

http://theresurgence.com/Keller_Dwelling-in-the-Gospel-video

Summary of Tim Keller’s Message:
He highlights the tension scholars have discuses for years, in that the Bible presents several different Gospels, yet claims there is only one. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) present the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. John’s Gospel presents the Gospel of Eternal Life. And the Pauline Epistles present the Gospel of Justification.

Furthermore, Paul would argue that there is only one gospel in Galatians chapter one, but then in Galatians 2 he mentions his gospel is for the Gentiles and Peters in for the Jews… SO THERE IS ONE GOSPEL… BUT THEY ARE MANY?

Tim Keller addresses this question by concluding there is one Gospel, but that it has three main points; the Incarnation, the Cross, and the New Creation.

And if I categorized them correctly from his message it looks something like this table below…

Keller then goes on to say that how we present the Gospel depends much on our audience. Paul did not always present the gospel the same. In fact as Keller speculates that Paul made great distinction in his presentation between the Gentile and the Jew (the morally cognitive, and the morally relative).

Moreover, it would defeat power of the Gospel to address each of these every time, or to assume that “one size fits all.”
This video to me settles much of my uneasiness I’ve had about the gospel of personal conversion verses the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, which I addressed in my earlier posting, “The Presentation of the Gospel: An inspiring look at the news of the Kingdom of God. Part 1 & Part 2”

I liked Keller question to the crowd to examine the “tension between people pushing an individual conversion agenda verses a corporate community agenda.”

There needs to balance… I agree. I was raised under the personal conversion classical evangelical 4-point gospel presentation, and I since then I have swung over to the “corporate community justice” gospel. But churches, our people, and our communities are in need of the full gospel if they are to be reached with maximum impact.

One last thing to mention… I enjoyed his comment (which he learned from his professor) that “the essence of the cross is substitution,” because as he said, in every instance and theory Jesus is doing the action on our behalf, whether liberating, or ransoming, or restoring, or reconciling, or saving, or justifying… we cannot do it on our own.

My hope now is that you will, or that you already have, watched this message from Tim Keller.

Defining Biblical Terms 1.

Understanding Biblical Salvation.

The concept of Salvation carries with it many Old Testament undertones. In the Old Testament Salvation was not seen as the point in which faith was conceived, but deliverance from God. The Day of Lord theology looks forward in time to the full and final deliverance and restoration of creation, and for the faithful remnant. And although, the Hebrew people at many times experienced deliverance, they were ultimately looking forward to a final day of deliverance. Likewise, as believers we may experience deliverance, but we still collectively await salvation. At the conception of our faith we may experience deliverance from guilt and shame. And throughout the life of faith we may experience liberation from sin, addictions and fear, but we are still living in a fallen and broken world, seeking final restoration… Salvation.

Salvation is like the Kingdom of God in that it is here yet not fully here. Salvation will be ultimate received when we enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of God, and from that prospective Salvation is once received and is forever; it is to say “once saved always saved.”

So it is wrong of us to speak of having “been saved,” because salvation is our future hope. It is our future goal, not our present reality. The truth is we will be saved, but we are not “saved.” The life of faith stands in a place of waiting, and receivership of salvation, not in a place were Salvation has already been obtained.

This is why Paul can write, “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed (Romans 13:11b).” Because we have not yet received Salvation, but it is drawing closer. It is something that we stand in faith awaiting. This does not mean we should be fearful of not receiving our Salvation. God has declared and proven himself faithful. So we can have assurance that God will be faithful to uphold his end of the covenant.

On the other hand, Justification is what occurs at the conception of faith. Old Testament believers were not saved they were justified. Their life of faith justified them before God. Faith is what allowed them to enter into that covenant with God, because without Faith it is impossible to please God. However, a covenant was conditional to the parties involved. If the people would abide by the covenant they would reap it’s blessing, but if they broke covenant God would as well, and curses would fall upon the people (Deuteronomy 28).

There is only one covenant God made unconditional, and that was because he made it with himself. And since God is eternally faithful, he could not break covenant with himself. This unconditional covenant is the covenant he made before Abraham in which he promised that Abraham offspring would be many and become a blessing to all nations. And this promise was fulfilled in its entirety with the coming of Jesus, who is the savior of the world.

Our justification, or being right before God, occurs by faith. Our more precisely it occurs because of the grace of God (grace meaning: Gods provision and resources at mans disposal) manifested in a man, which allows the choice of faith to be possible. But when man rejects the choice of faith empowered by the grace of God, he likewise loses his right standing before God. And thus, removing from a place of receivership of future Salvation

To put this concept into an Old Testament analogy, it is similar to the Exodus story. The Hebrew people followed God out of Egypt by faith, However they did not receive their finial “salvation” until they reached the promise land. Moreover, they did not taste “salvation” until they had conquered the land. They wondered the desert for 40 years, and many did not make it, many never received salvation who were delivered from Egypt. Many who tasted a part of their salvation at the Exodus never came to fully live in it. Many stopped living by faith during the 40 years of wondering and thus never received the salvation of their faith.

To summarize it all, when we come to God in faith, and submit our life to his will, we enter into covenant with God, awaiting our future and ultimate Salvation.

Once Saved Always Saved? Or Do I Have to Continue in faith?

I would like to discuss the “once saved always saved” verses “continuance of faith” position. I will admit from the start I do not seek to cover all of the issues within this debate. Nor do I want to offend people who don’t believe as I do. I seek only to examine a few verses and give an adequate explanation of my view. This is not one of my favorite subjects. In fact I’ve grown rather tired of this topic. Many people thrive on this debate… I do not. So If you are seeking more on this topic there are plenty of places you can look to and I encourage you to do so.

First of all let me state that I believe salvation is received by grace through faith, not by works. And it is a completely sovereign work of God done through His Holy Spirit, which is at work in all people. “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)”

However, just as salvation is initiated and established by faith it is also kept alive by faith. The New Testament is abundantly clear that the emphasis of following God is not a one-time event but a life of faith and submission. Jesus says, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).”

Moreover, Paul’s epistles are littered with phrases of endurance, and warnings of Apostasy (1 Tim 4:1, 2 Tim 4:7, Heb 6:4-8).

“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. (Colossians 1:21-23a)(emphasis added)”

These verses all work to emphasize the reality that salvation can be lost if you stop living by faith.

[Now don’t get faith confused with works, man in clearly saved by faith, and our salvation rests upon our faith not what we do or can do. The law and obedience to the law neither saves or strips a person of salvation.]

Likewise in the Old Testament we see that Abraham was not made righteous by a one-time act of faith, but by living by faith. For as Paul quotes often “the righteous shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17 b)(emphasis added)”

However, this perseverance does not rest solely of the shoulders of man. We did not save ourselves nor do we live for God alone.  The following verses display God’s role in God’s help and provision for keeping our faith strong.

• “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen (Jude 24-25).”

• May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely: and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass (1 Thess 5:23-24).”

The “once saved always saved” argument is phrased this way:

“Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies. But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith.” –Kendall

I completely agree. Salvation is not hindered by works or a lack there of… Salvation is however linked to faith as he pointed out with his last word. So when faith becomes present in the believer so does salvation. And when  faith is lost, salvation will also be lost.

To some the question inevitable becomes what constitutes a loss of salvation?
And to this is when you return to the unbelieving sate you were in before you submitted your life to God in faith, so does your salvation. And returning to this point is no easy accomplishment.

Now permit me to examine a passage many have used to support “once saved always saved.”

Many when interpreting the Prodigal Son parable of Luke 15 will point to the fact that the son even though he walked away was always still a son. They are right he was always a son. Just as the in the two other parables in this chapter the coin remains a coin and the sheep a sheep. However, there is no theological significance in the fact that he was a son. The significance was that he was lost and now was found.  The dynamic of these 3 lost item parables was being Lost and found by God.

To make the sonship important to the parable would be allegorizing parable (applying meaning where no meaning was intended), which is blatant disregard for biblical hermeneutics.

If we followed this same logic in the other two parables about the things that were lost (the coin and the sheep) then we would conclude we are all coins of God, and sheep.

Proponents of “once saved always saved “ would like the son to turn into a nephew or a cousin before they would believe otherwise. Yet For Jesus to say that when the son was lost he became a nephew or a cousin this would defy the logic of the story being told, he would be taxing the illustration. What sense would it make if Jesus said the coin became a button or the sheep transformed into a wolf?

The point is not about who or what is being displayed, a son, a coin, or a sheep, but that they were all Lost, and God, in his great love, exhausted extreme means and crossed standard customs to find us.

Jesus Picture of Perfect God, or Perfect Man?

“The truth is that the Man who walked among us was a demonstration, not of unveiled deity but perfect humanity.” A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy.

We often equate Jesus life on the earth as this great picture of God among us. However, this is not an appropriate statement. God did not come to this earth to completely reveal himself, but to completely reveal what was lost in the fall off mankind. Jesus is the picture of original humanity. Jesus is our example to live by, not as a picture of God, because we are not supposed to be “God” (for there is only one God) but we are supposed to be as God first created mankind, like Jesus. We are not to be god-like(per say), but Christ-like. We are not called to fill the role of God, but our role as men and women created of God.

Jesus was perfectly united with God in relationship and action. And because of this he was able to point others to the Father. Jesus did not point to himself as the embodiment of everything God was and is. He was nonetheless still God, but his purpose was to restore the knowledge of what it means to be human. He is the Second Adam. He reflects everything Adam was created to be. He was the restoration of a righteous heritage rather than sin nature. He communed and walked with God as man was originally supposed to. At every point Jesus restored, to a fallen and lost humanity, the knowledge of what it means to be human.

The Existence of Demons Revisited

This post is a follow up to a post I had written in January, “So what’s is the reality of Satan, demons, and the spiritual world? Truth or Fiction?”

The major dilemma I discussed in the existence of demons is there purpose. Traditionally it has been taught that demons temp mankind to sin. However, this contradicts Scripture. For it’s written, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (James 1:14).” Therefore if man’s lust and pride is the root of sin, what then is the purpose of demons?

Yet, after spending time reflecting on this issue and talking with others I feel I have come a suitable answer.

To deny the existence of demons would be to deny the reliability of the New Testament and it’s witnesses. Demons were not just an expression of the  “primitive” minds of the 1st century. Luke in his gospel account records both sickness and demon possession. Demon possession was not a misdiagnosis for the unknown illnesses.

Thus, if demons are real, as the New Testament claims, what is their function? It seems that they function like an accelerant to mans sin. Man does sin because he wants to, because he chooses to, because of his own lust and pride. Demons only add fuel to this fire accelerating mankind’s temptation. Present within Adam and Eve was the pride to “be like God.” All Satan did was hasten there fall by feeding them misinformation; misinformation that tickled the ears of Adam and Eve so that they felt comfortable sinning.

The same principle could apply to Jesus at the end of his 40 days of fasting in the wilderness. He was hungry, so the devil took advantage of his accelerate his desires. Likewise when he tempted him in the other areas. And when Jesus has resisted the devil for the third and, “When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time (Luke 4:13).”

The devil only exploits opportunities. He does not create them. The human heart is wicked. Jeremiah 17:9 declares, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”

So we cannot pass the blame of sin onto demons, nor are they the unseen cause behind our temptation. Mankind is still responsible for their outworking of their pride and lust, which is sin. Demons only exploit the opportunity of our fallen nature.