A synopsis: "Like the exaggerated features of the Precious Moment angels—calculated to evoke particular emotions of intimacy and sweetness—popular American religion in general has become increasingly captive to false gods."
Posted on 11/30/2006 7:43:13 AM PST by xzins
ON ANGELS IN GENERAL AND IN PARTICULAR
I. Angels are substances merely spiritual, created after the image of God, not only that they might acknowledge, love and worship their Creator, and might live in a state of happiness with him, but that they might likewise perform certain duties concerning the rest of the creatures according to the command of God.
II. We call them "substances," against the Sadducees and others, who contend that angels are nothing more than the good or the evil motions of spirits, or else exercises of power to aid or to injure. But this is completely at variance with the whole Scripture, as the actions, (which are those of supposititious beings,) the appearances, and the names which they ascribe to them, more than sufficiently demonstrate.
III. We add that they are "merely spiritual," that we may separate them from men, the species opposite to them, and may intimate their nature. And though composition out of matter and form does not belong to angels, yet, we affirm that they are absolutely compound substances, and that they are composed,
(1.) Of being and essence.
(2.) Of act and power, or capability.
(3.) Lastly, of subject and inhering accident.
IV. But because they are creatures, they are finite, and we measure them by place, time, and number.
(1.) By PLACE, not that they are in it corporeally, that is, not that they occupy and fill up a certain local space, commensurate with their substance; but they are in it intellectually, that is, they exist in a place without the occupying and repletion of any local space, which the schoolmen denominate by way of definition, "to be in a place." But, as they cannot be in several places at once, but are sometimes in one place, and sometimes in another, so they are not moved without time, though it is scarcely perceptible.
(2.) We measure them by TIME, or by duration or age, because they have a commencement of being, and the whole age in which they continue they have in succession, by parts of past, present and future; but the whole of it is not present to them at the same moment and without any distance.
(3.) Lastly. We measure them by NUMBER, though this number is not defined in the pages of the sacred volume, and, therefore, is unknown to us, but known to God; yet it is very great, for it is neither diminished nor increased, because the angels are neither begotten nor die.
V. We say that they were "created after the image of God;" for they are denominated "the sons of God." This image, we say, consists partly in those things which belong to their natures, and partly in those things which are of supernatural endowment.
(1.) To their nature, belong both their spiritual essence, and the faculty of understanding, of willing, and of powerfully acting.
(2.) To supernatural endowment, belong the light of knowledge in the understanding, and, following it, the rectitude or holiness of the will. Immortality itself, is of supernatural endowment; but it is that which God has determined to preserve to them, in what manner soever they may conduct themselves towards him.
VI. The end subjoined is two-fold -- that, standing around the throne of God as his apparitors or messengers, for the glory of the divine Majesty, the angels may perpetually laud and celebrate [the praises of] God, and that they may, with the utmost swiftness, execute, at the beck of God, the offices of ministration which he enjoins upon them.
VII. We are informed in the Scriptures themselves, that there is a certain order among angels; for they mention angels and archangels,-and attribute even to the devil his angels. But we are willingly ignorant of that distinction into orders and various degrees, and what it is which constitutes such distinction. We also think that if [the existence of] certain orders of angels be granted, it is more probable that God employs angels of different orders for the same duties, than that he appoints distinct orders to each separate ministry; though we allow that those who hold other sentiments, think so with some reason.
VIII. For the performance of the ministries enjoined on them, angels have frequently appeared clothed in bodies, which bodies they have not formed and assumed to themselves out of nothing, but out of pre-existing matter, by a union neither essential nor personal, but local, (because they were not then beyond those bodies,) and, according to an instrumental purpose, that they might use them for the due performance of the acts enjoined.
IX. These bodies, therefore, have neither been alive, nor have the angels, through them, seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched, conceived phantasms or imaginations, &c. through the organs of these bodies, they produced only such acts as could be performed by an angel inhabiting them, or, rather, existing in them, as the mover according to place. On this account, perhaps, it is not improperly affirmed, that bodies, truly human, which are inhabited by a living and directing spirit, can be discerned, by human judgment, from these assumed bodies.
X. God likewise prescribed a certain law to angels, by which they might order their life according to God, and not according to themselves, and by the observance of which they might be blessed, or, by transgressing it, might be eternally miserable, without any hope of pardon. For it was the good pleasure of God to act towards angels according to strict justice, and not to display all his goodness in bringing them to salvation.
XI. But we do not decide whether a single act of obedience was sufficient to obtain eternal blessedness, as one act of disobedience was deserving of eternal destruction.
XII. Some of the angels transgressed the law under which they were placed; and this they did by their own fault, because by that grace with which they were furnished, and by which God assisted them, and was prepared to assist them, they were enabled to obey the law, and to remain in their integrity.
XIII. Hence, is the division made of angels into the good and the evil. The former are so denominated, because they continued steadfast in the truth, and preserved "their own habitation." But the latter are called "evil angels," because they did not continue in the truth, and "deserted their own habitation."
XIV. But the former are called "good angels," not only according to an infused habit, but likewise according to the act which they performed, and according to their confirmation in habitual goodness, the cause of which we place in the increase of grace, and in their holy purpose, which they conceived partly through beholding the punishment which was inflicted on the apostate angels, and partly through the perception of increased grace. [If it be asked,] Did they not also do this, through perfect blessedness, to which nothing could be added?, we do not deny it, on account of the agreement of learned men, though it seems possible to produce reasons to the contrary.
XV. The latter (Thesis 13) are called "evil angels," First, by actual wickedness, and then by habitual wickedness and pertinacious obstinacy in it; hence, they take a delight in doing whatever they suppose can tend to the reproach of God and the destruction of their neighbour. But this fixed obstinacy in evil seems to derive its origin partly from an intuition of the wrath of God and from an evil conscience which springs out of that, and partly from their own wickedness.
XVI. But, concerning the species of sin which the angels perpetrated, we dare not assert what it was. Yet we say, it may with some probability be affirmed, that it was the crime of pride, from that argument which solicited man to sin through the desire of excellence.
XVII. When it is the will of God to employ the assistance of good angels, he may be said to employ not only those powers and faculties which he has conferred on them, but likewise those which are augmented by himself. But we think it is contradictory to truth, if God be said to furnish the devils, whose service he uses, with greater knowledge and power than they have through creation and their own experience.
COROLLARIES
I. We allow this to become a subject of discussion: Can good angels be said sometimes to contend among themselves, with a reservation of that charity which they owe to God, to each other, and to men?
II. Do angels need a mediator? and is Christ the mediator of angels? We reply in the negative.
III. Are all angels of one species? We think this to be more probable than its contrary.
I think you have a typo in your comment.
JOHN CALVIN ON ANGELS
"Institutes of the Christian Religion", Vol. 1, chapter 14, sections 3-12
3. But before I begin to treat more fully of the nature of man, (chap. 15 and B. 2 c. 1,) it will be proper to say something of angels. For although Moses, in accommodation to the ignorance of the generality of men, does not in the history of the creation make mention of any other works of God than those which meet our eye, yet, seeing he afterwards introduces angels as the ministers of God, we easily infer that he for whom they do service is their Creator. Hence, though Moses, speaking in popular language, did not at the very commencement enumerate the angels among the creatures of God, nothing prevents us from treating distinctly and explicitly of what is delivered by Scripture concerning them in other places. For if we desire to know God by his works, we surely cannot overlook this noble and illustrious specimen. We may add that this branch of doctrine is very necessary for the refutation of numerous errors. The minds of many are so struck with the excellence of angelic natures, that they would think them insulted in being subjected to the authority of God, and so made subordinate. Hence a fancied divinity has been assigned them. Manes, too, has arisen with his sect, fabricating to himself two principles - God and the devil, attributing the origin of good things to God, but assigning all bad natures to the devil as their author. Were this delirium to take possession of our minds, God would be denied his glory in the creation of the world. For, seeing there is nothing more peculiar to God than eternity and "autousia", i. e. self-existence, or existence of himself, if I may so speak, do not those who attribute it to the devil in some degree invest him with the honour of divinity? And where is the omnipotence of God, if the devil has the power of executing whatever he pleases against the will, and notwithstanding of the opposition of God? But the only good ground which the Manichees have, viz., that it were impious to ascribe the creation of any thing bad to a good God, militates in no degree against the orthodox faith, since it is not admitted that there is any thing naturally bad throughout the universe; the depravity and wickedness whether of man or of the devil, and the sins thence resulting, being not from nature, but from the corruption of nature; nor, at first, did anything whatever exist that did not exhibit some manifestation of the divine wisdom and justice. To obviate such perverse imaginations, we must raise our minds higher than our eyes can penetrate. It was probably with this view that the Nicene Creed, in calling God the creator of all things, makes express mention of things invisible. My care, however, must be to keep within the bounds which piety prescribes, lest by indulging in speculations beyond my reach, I bewilder the reader, and lead him away from the simplicity of the faith. And since the Holy Spirit always instructs us in what is useful, but altogether omits, or only touches cursorily on matters which tend little to edification, of all such matters, it certainly is our duty to remain in willing ignorance.
4. Angels being the ministers appointed to execute the commands of God, must, of course, be admitted to be his creatures, but to stir up questions concerning the time or order in which they were created, (see Lombard, lib. 2 dist. 2, sqq.,) bespeaks more perverseness than industry. Moses relates that the heavens and the earth were finished, with all their host; what avails it anxiously to inquire at what time other more hidden celestial hosts than the stars and planets also began to be? Not to dwell on this, let us here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this, in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let us rest satisfied with such knowledge. Wherefore, if we would be duly wise, we must renounce those vain babblings of idle men, concerning the nature, ranks, and number of angels, without any authority from the Word of God. I know that many fasten on these topics more eagerly, and take greater pleasure in them than in those relating to daily practice. But if we decline not to be the disciples of Christ, let us not decline to follow the method which he has prescribed. In this way, being contented with him for our master, we will not only refrain from, but even feel averse to, superfluous speculations which he discourages. None can deny that Dionysus (whoever he may have been) has many shrewd and subtle disquisitions in his Celestial Hierarchy, but on looking at them more closely, every one must see that they are merely idle talk. The duty of a Theologian, however, is not to tickle the ear, but confirm the conscience, by teaching what is true, certain, and useful. When you read the work of Dionysus, you would think that the man had come down from heaven, and was relating, not what he had learned, but what he had actually seen. Paul, however, though he was carried to the third heaven, so far from delivering any thing of the kind, positively declares, that it was not lawful for man to speak the secrets which he had seen. Bidding adieu, therefore, to that nugatory wisdom, let us endeavour to ascertain from the simple doctrine of Scripture what it is the Lord's pleasure that we should know concerning angels.
5. In Scripture, then, we uniformly read that angels are heavenly spirits, whose obedience and ministry God employs to execute all the purposes which he has decreed, and hence their name as being a kind of intermediate messengers to manifest his will to men. The names by which several of them are distinguished have reference to the same office. They are called hosts, because they surround their Prince as his court, - adorn and display his majesty, - like soldiers, have their eyes always turned to their leader's standard, and are so ready and prompt to execute his orders, that the moment he gives the nod, they prepare for, or rather are actually at work. In declaring the magnificence of the divine throne, similar representations are given by the prophets, and especially by Daniel, when he says, that when God stood up to judgement, "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him," (Dan. 7: 10.) As by these means the Lord wonderfully exerts and declares the power and might of his hand, they are called virtues. Again, as his government of the world is exercised and administered by them, they are called at one time Principalities, at another Powers, at another Dominions, (Col. 1: 16; Eph. 1: 21.) Lastly, as the glory of God in some measure dwells in them, they are also termed Thrones; though as to this last designation I am unwilling to speak positively, as a different interpretation is equally, if not more congruous. To say nothing, therefore, of the name of Thrones, the former names are often employed by the Holy Spirit in commendation of the dignity of angelic service. Nor is it right to pass by unhonoured those instruments by whom God specially manifests the presence of his power. Nay, they are more than once called Gods, because the Deity is in some measure represented to us in their service, as in a mirror. I am rather inclined, however, to agree with ancient writers, that in those passages wherein it is stated that the angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, Christ was that angel. Still it is true, that when mention is made of all the angels, they are frequently so designated. Nor ought this to seem strange. For if princes and rulers have this honour given them, because in their office they are vicegerents of God, the supreme King and Judge, with far greater reason may it be given to angels, in whom the brightness of the divine glory is much more conspicuously displayed.
6. But the point on which the Scriptures specially insist is that which tends most to our comfort, and to the confirmation of our faith, namely, that angels are the ministers and dispensers of the divine bounty towards us. Accordingly, we are told how they watch for our safety, how they undertake our defence, direct our path, and take heed that no evil befall us. There are whole passages which relate, in the first instance, to Christ, the Head of the Church, and after him to all believers. "He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." Again, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." By these passages the Lord shows that the protection of those whom he has undertaken to defend he has delegated to his angels. Accordingly, an angel of the Lord consoles Hagar in her flight, and bids her be reconciled to her mistress. Abraham promises to his servant that an angel will be the guide of his journey. Jacob, in blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, prays "The angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads." So an angel was appointed to guard the camp of the Israelites; and as often as God was pleased to deliver Israel from the hands of his enemies, he stirred up avengers by the ministry of angels. Thus, in fine, (not to mention more,) angels ministered to Christ, and were present with him in all straits. To the women they announced his resurrection; to the disciples they foretold his glorious advent. In discharging the office of our protectors, they war against the devil and all our enemies, and execute vengeance upon those who afflict us. Thus we read that an angel of the Lord, to deliver Jerusalem from siege, slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the camp of the king of Assyria in a single night.
7.Whether or not each believer has a single angel assigned to him for his defence, I dare not positively affirm. When Daniel introduces the angel of the Persian and the angel of the Greeks, he undoubtedly intimates that certain angels are appointed as a kind of presidents over kingdoms and provinces. Again, when Christ says that the angels of children always behold the face of his Father, he insinuates that there are certain angels to whom their safety has been entrusted. But I know not if it can be inferred from this, that each believer has his own angel. This, indeed, I hold for certain, that each of us is cared for, not by one angel merely, but that all with one consent watch for our safety. For it is said of all the angels collectively, that they rejoice "over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance." It is also said, that the angels (meaning more than one) carried the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom. Nor was it to no purpose that Elisha showed his servant the many chariots of fire which were specially allotted him. There is one passage which seems to intimate somewhat more clearly that each individual has a separate angel. When Peter, after his deliverance from prison, knocked at the door of the house where the brethren were assembled, being unable to think it could be himself, they said that it was his angel. This idea seems to have been suggested to them by a common belief that every believer has a single angel assigned to him. Here, however, it may be alleged, that there is nothing to prevent us from understanding it of any one of the angels to whom the Lord might have given the charge of Peter at that particular time, without implying that he was to be his, perpetual guardian, according to the vulgar imagination, (see Calvin on Mark 5: 9,) that two angels a good and a bad, as a kind of genii, are assigned to each individual. After all, it is not worthwhile anxiously to investigate a point which does not greatly concern us. If any one does not think it enough to know that all the orders of the heavenly host are perpetually watching for his safety, I do not see what he could gain by knowing that he has one angel as a special guardian. Those, again, who limit the care which God takes of each of us to a single angel, do great injury to themselves and to all the members of the Church, as if there were no value in those promises of auxiliary troops, who on every side encircling and defending us, embolden us to fight more manfully.
8. Those who presume to dogmatize on the ranks and numbers of angels, would do well to consider on what foundation they rest. As to their rank, I admit that Michael is described by David as a mighty Prince, and by Jude as an Archangel. Paul also tells us, that an archangel will blow the trumpet which is to summon the world to judgement. But how is it possible from such passages to ascertain the gradations of honour among the angels to determine the insignia, and assign the place and station of each? Even the two names, Michael and Gabriel, mentioned in Scripture, or a third, if you choose to add it from the history of Tobit, seem to intimate by their meaning that they are given to angels in accommodation to the weakness of our capacity, though I rather choose not to speak positively on the point. As to the number of angels, we learn from the mouth of our Saviour that there are many legions, and from Daniel that there are many myriads. Elisha's servant saw a multitude of chariots, and their vast number is declared by the fact, that they encamp round about those that fear the Lord. It is certain that spirits have no bodily shape, and yet Scripture, in accommodation to us, describes them under the form of winged Cherubim and Seraphim; not without cause, to assure us that when occasion requires, they will hasten to our aid with incredible swiftness, winging their way to us with the speed of lightning. Farther than this, in regard both to the ranks and numbers of angels, let us class them among those mysterious subjects, the full revelation of which is deferred to the last day, and accordingly refrain from inquiring too curiously, or talking presumptuously.
9. There is one point, however, which though called into doubt by certain restless individuals, we ought to hold for certain viz., that angels are ministering spirits (Heb. 1: 14;) whose service God employs for the protection of his people, and by whose means he distributes his favours among men, and also executes other works. The Sadducees of old maintained, that by angels nothing more was meant than the movements which God impresses on men, or manifestations which he gives of his own power, (Acts 23: 8.) But this dream is contradicted by so many passages of Scriptures that it seems strange how such gross ignorance could have had any countenance among the Jews. To say nothing of the passages I have already quoted, passages which refer to thousands and legions of angels, speak of them as rejoicing, as bearing up the faithful in their hands, carrying their souls to rest, beholding the face of their Father, and so forth: there are other passages which most clearly prove that they are real beings possessed of spiritual essence. Stephen and Paul say that the Law was enacted in the hands of angels. Our Saviour, moreover says that at the resurrection the elect will be like angels; that the day of judgement is known not even to the angels; that at that time he himself will come with the holy angels. However much such passages may be twisted, their meaning is plain. In like manner, when Paul beseeches Timothy to keep his precepts as before Christ and his elect angels, it is not qualities or inspirations without substance that he speaks of, but true spirits. And when it is said, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ was made more excellent than the angels, that the world was not made subject to them, that Christ assumed not their nature, but that of man, it is impossible to give a meaning to the passages without understanding that angels are blessed spirits, as to whom such comparisons may competently be made. The author of that Epistle declares the same thing when he places the souls of believers and the holy angels together in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, in the passages we have already quoted, the angels of children are said to behold the face of God, to defend us by their protection, to rejoice in our salvation, to admire the manifold grace of God in the Church, to be under Christ their head. To the same effect is their frequent appearance to the holy patriarchs in human form, their speaking, and consenting to be hospitably entertained. Christ, too, in consequence of the supremacy which he obtains as Mediator, is called the Angel, (Mal. 3: 1.) It was thought proper to touch on this subject in passing, with the view of putting the simple upon their guard against the foolish and absurd imaginations which, suggested by Satan many centuries ago, are ever and anon starting up anew.
10. It remains to give warning against the superstition which usually begins to creep in, when it is said that all blessings are ministered and dispensed to us by angels. For the human mind is apt immediately to think that there is no honour which they ought not to receive, and hence the peculiar offices of Christ and God are bestowed upon them. In this ways the glory of Christ was for several former ages greatly obscured, extravagant eulogiums being pronounced on angels without any authority from Scripture. Among the corruptions which we now oppose, there is scarcely any one of greater antiquity. Even Paul appears to have had a severe contest with some who so exalted angels as to make them almost the superiors of Christ. Hence he so anxiously urges in his Epistle to the Colossians, (Col. 1: 16, 20,) that Christ is not only superior to all angels, but that all the endowments which they possess are derived from him; thus warning us against forsaking him, by turning to those who are not sufficient for themselves, but must draw with us at a common fountain. As the refulgence of the Divine glory is manifested in them, there is nothing to which we are more prone than to prostrate ourselves before them in stupid adoration, and then ascribe to them the blessings which we owe to God alone. Even John confesses in the Apocalypse, (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) that this was his own case, but he immediately adds the answer which was given to him, "See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant: worship God."
11. This danger we will happily avoid, if we consider why it is that Gods instead of acting directly without their agency, is wont to employ it in manifesting his power, providing for the safety of his people, and imparting the gifts of his beneficence. This he certainly does not from necessity, as if he were unable to dispense with them. Whenever he pleases, he passes them by, and performs his own work by a single nod: so far are they from relieving him of any difficulty. Therefore, when he employs them it is as a help to our weakness, that nothing may be wanting to elevate our hopes or strengthen our confidence. It ought, indeed, to be sufficient for us that the Lord declares himself to be our protector. But when we see ourselves beset by so many perils, so many injuries, so many kinds of enemies, such is our frailty and effeminacy, that we might at times be filled with alarm, or driven to despair, did not the Lord proclaim his gracious presence by some means in accordance with our feeble capacities. For this reason, he not only promises to take care of us, but assures us that he has numberless attendants, to whom he has committed the charge of our safety, that whatever dangers may impend, so long as we are encircled by their protection and guardianship, we are placed beyond all hazard of evil. I admit that after we have a simple assurance of the divine protection, it is improper in us still to look round for help. But since for this our weakness the Lord is pleased, in his infinite goodness and indulgence, to provide, it would ill become us to overlook the favour. Of this we have an example in the servant of Elisha, (2 Kings 6: 17,) who, seeing the mountain encompassed by the army of the Assyrians, and no means of escape, was completely overcome with terror, and thought it all over with himself and his master. Then Elisha prayed to God to open the eyes of the servant, who forthwith beheld the mountain filled with horses and chariots of fire; in other words, with a multitude of angels, to whom he and the prophet had been given in charge. Confirmed by the vision he received courage, and could boldly defy the enemy, whose appearance previously filled him with dismay.
12. Whatever, therefore, is said as to the ministry of angels, let us employ for the purpose of removing all distrust, and strengthening our confidence in God. Since the Lord has provided us with such protection, let us not be terrified at the multitude of our enemies as if they could prevail notwithstanding of his aid, but let us adopt the sentiment of Elisha, that more are for us than against us. How preposterous, therefore, is it to allow ourselves to be led away from God by angels who have been appointed for the very purpose of assuring us of his more immediate presence to help us? But we are so led away, if angels do not conduct us directly to him - making us look to him, invoke and celebrate him as our only defender - if they are not regarded merely as hands moving to our assistance just as he directs - if they do not direct us to Christ as the only Mediator on whom we must wholly depend and recline, looking towards him, and resting in him. Our minds ought to give thorough heed to what Jacob saw in his vision, (Gen. 28: 12,) - angels descending to the earth to men, and again mounting up from men to heaven, by means of a ladder, at the head of which the Lord of Hosts was seated, intimating that it is solely by the intercession of Christ that the ministry of angels extends to us, as he himself declares, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man," (John 1: 51.) Accordingly, the servant of Abraham, though he had been commended to the guardianship of an angel, (Gen. 24: 7,) does not therefore invoke that angel to be present with him, but trusting to the commendation, pours out his prayers before the Lord, and entreats him to show mercy to Abraham. As God does not make angels the ministers of his power and goodness, that he may share his glory with them, so he does not promise his assistance by their instrumentality, that we may divide our confidence between him and them. Away, then, with that Platonic philosophy of seeking access to God by means of angels and courting them with the view of making God more propitious, (Plat. in Epinomide et Cratylo,) - a philosophy which presumptuous and superstitious men attempted at first to introduce into our religion, and which they persist in even to this day.
Bump to post #4. I find Calvin's understanding of angels and their funciton in God's world to be more comprehensive than Arminius'.
If, contemplating belly button lint, you ruminate upon how many angels can sit upon the head of apin, does that make you a pinhead?
10. It remains to give warning against the superstition which usually begins to creep in, when it is said that all blessings are ministered and dispensed to us by angels. For the human mind is apt immediately to think that there is no honour which they ought not to receive, and hence the peculiar offices of Christ and God are bestowed upon them. In this ways the glory of Christ was for several former ages greatly obscured, extravagant eulogiums being pronounced on angels without any authority from Scripture. Among the corruptions which we now oppose, there is scarcely any one of greater antiquity. Even Paul appears to have had a severe contest with some who so exalted angels as to make them almost the superiors of Christ. Hence he so anxiously urges in his Epistle to the Colossians, (Col. 1: 16, 20,) that Christ is not only superior to all angels, but that all the endowments which they possess are derived from him; thus warning us against forsaking him, by turning to those who are not sufficient for themselves, but must draw with us at a common fountain. As the refulgence of the Divine glory is manifested in them, there is nothing to which we are more prone than to prostrate ourselves before them in stupid adoration, and then ascribe to them the blessings which we owe to God alone. Even John confesses in the Apocalypse, (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) that this was his own case, but he immediately adds the answer which was given to him, "See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant: worship God."
"See thou do it not."
A synopsis: "Like the exaggerated features of the Precious Moment angels—calculated to evoke particular emotions of intimacy and sweetness—popular American religion in general has become increasingly captive to false gods."
I was going to post both of them, so you've saved me the trouble. I had thought maybe to have them as separate threads.
The study of angels is especially significant at this time of year.
1. Zechariah and the Angel
2. Mary and the Angel
3. Joseph and Angel(s) in his dreams.
4. The shepherds and the Angels.
Interestingly, in the above list, those who seemed to immediately respond positively to the angels were Joseph and the Shepherds.
Zechariah's and Mary's response appear similar at first glance. On reflection, Zechariah appears to be unbelieving. Mary, on the other hand, appears to be asking "How" (the manner in which) what Gabriel reports is going to happen. (How am I to be with child?)
Gabriel answers that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her.
And such cuddly little idols
V. We say that they were "created after the image of God;" for they are denominated "the sons of God." This image, we say, consists partly in those things which belong to their natures, and partly in those things which are of supernatural endowment.
(1.) To their nature, belong both their spiritual essence, and the faculty of understanding, of willing, and of powerfully acting.
"...to their nature belong...the faculty of willing."
Can an angel in heaven sin?
If angels possess "the faculty of understanding, of willing and of powerfully acting" from their own nature, as differentiated separately from those things of "supernatural endowment," then we can begin to see where Arminius parts once again from the truth of God's sovereignty and continues to try to invest created being with more ability than God ever did.
What church or organization appears to give supernatural, free will powers to angels and inanimate objects and even certain mothers?
Thanks for the ping, Dr. E. This is something that seems to be positively imbedded in the Theology of Glory.
The evil one is given this enormous role, which I don't deny, but whence the power to execute this role comes or came from no one seems capable or willing to say.
Contrast that with the Theology of the Cross and you will see the difference between a God who really did love the World so much, that he gave His only begotten Son, and a God who seems the epitome of a lazzie fare creator.
Even Paul appears to have had a severe contest with some who so exalted angels as to make them almost the superiors of Christ. Hence he so anxiously urges in his Epistle to the Colossians, (Col. 1: 16, 20,) that Christ is not only superior to all angels, but that all the endowments which they possess are derived from him; thus warning us against forsaking him, by turning to those who are not sufficient for themselves, but must draw with us at a common fountain
This seems in direct OPPOSITION to Arminius when he says...
XIV. But the former are called "good angels," not only according to an infused habit, but likewise according to the act which they performed, and according to their confirmation in habitual goodness, the cause of which we place in the increase of grace, and in their holy purpose, which they conceived partly through beholding the punishment which was inflicted on the apostate angels, and partly through the perception of increased grace."(1.) To their nature, belong both their spiritual essence, and the faculty of understanding, of willing, and of powerfully acting...
Huh? Angels behaved out of fear of punishment and "partly" out of their "perception of increased grace?"
The more I read this the more striking the distinctions between the two men become. Either EVERYTHING is derived from Christ and the Trinitarian God of all creation, or the creatures possess something good and obedient of "their own natures" which is capable of pleasing God.
I don't think so. Calvin believes in free will in Adam & Eve, if I remember correctly.
Doesn't he have a writing on free will?
In any case, fallen angels and non-fallen angels do suggest a story behind all of that rising and falling.
Well and then there are the "spirits in prison" and if you get into that, which the bible says nothing about, then someone's going to bring up the book of Enoch, and there goes the weekend...
We've done that before....and there went the weekend.
:>)
Excellent post Dr. E. This is why I remain a conservative Calvinist in the Calvinist tradition.
Amen. Which means you are a Calvinist, and not an Arminian.
I like what John Calvin implies with their attention is always fixed upon the throne of God. Their thoughts are constantly focused on doing God's will. It never crosses their minds.
And I am a Methodist who has broken with the Wesley Center on lots of things....
Perseverence
Entire Sanctification
Romans 7
There are probably more.
That's what makes me a Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius. I was reading Wesley on Arminius recently, and I was surprised how much I thought Wesley was wrong about Arminius.
Let's see...Calvinists says there is no such thing as a "Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius" and the Methodist (of which you're a pastor of) says there is no such thing, that Arminius broke away from Calvin. That only leaves you and a small band of "Neeners" which seemingly have started your own cult following. I sincerely hope your not going to sacrifice children in the "Calvinist Tradition of Arminius tradition of Molech".
**Angels in the Tradition of Lucifer....**
That came across my mind too.
I like your tagline!
Yep. That about says it all.
So the Wesley Center teaches that "Arminius broke with Calvinism."
Let us remember that paragraph.
You have a faulty understanding of the Methodist movement, HD. Don't forget that Whitefield was a Methodist.
I don't suppose you know what the "method" was, do you?
Thanks, Salvation.
We should pray for our troops. We should pray for victory.
Perhaps. I cannot reconcile Methodist with Reformed Methodist in my mind. But, then again, I cannot reconcile those who would teach half Arminius and half Calvin in my mind either. And I will, once again for the last time, point out that I methodically listed the 10 steps of regeneration.
While John and Charles Wesley were very socially concerned men, IMHO, they fell for the humanistic gospel of Joseph Arminius. Wesley redefined Predestination to suit himself, never using scripture but only man's logic. Quite frankly this isn't any different than the Catholic Church. His arguments on Predestination (one can read here-start at 190) relies, not on careful and methodical examination of the scriptures but simply on what his opinion is (note the lack of any careful scriptural discussion). He redefines the original meaning of Predestination and then backfills history to try to support his claims by saying "This is how one can interpret the Confessions." This, of course, begs the question why people weren't already interpreting the Confessions in the way Wesley was proposing. Sorry Mr. Wesley, but the scriptures and history don't work that way.
Compare this to the excellent post on Angels from John Calvin by Dr. E and one can readily see how very careful Calvin was in comparing and analyzing the scriptures compared to Wesley. Calvin would not even speculate on anything regarding angels such as their heirarchy or whether each person has their own guardian angel.
I would point out that Wesley's arguments in Predestinations are the same arguments you and other are bringing up (e.g. Belgic Confession, God foreknows who will come to Him, etc). You claim to divorce yourself from Wesley's claims of being an Arminian, yet you use the exact same arguments to argue against predestination. All of Wesley's predestination arguments, are simply flawed with various opinions, erroneous theology, contradictions, mistatements and little analysis of the word of God.
And I'm the one that has a faulty understanding??? LOL on that one if you buy into Wesley's arguments.
I didn't say you have a faulty understanding of predestination. I said you have a faulty understanding of the Methodist movement.
It was broader than many realize in that it encompassed many who were of a reformed background. In America, 2 Reformed pastors (German) who began a German branch because they were attracted by the "Method" were Jacob Albright & William Otterbein and their Evangelical Church. Their German branch eventually united with another German, a Mennonite, who also was attracted to the "Method." (Martin Boehm, United Brethren.)
Then, of course, there was Whitefield, a strongly Calvinistic preacher, but one who ALSO was attracted to the "Method."
In the expansion of the nation westward, there was as much concern for simply staying alive as there was about rigorous theology among common church goers. These folks needed each other and were not as much concerned about doctrinal distinctives as there were about unity in Christ. (Although they weren't written as a religious history, Alan Eckert's histories of pioneer America in this era give a brilliant view of the dangerous lives that people were living.)
"...No, dear Sir, you mistake..."
Of course I have. But you make a mistake if you misunderstand their connection and their friendship and respect for one another.
Do not think there are not yet calvinist methodists. Nor should you think that I don't have very close calvinist friends.
If I can do it, so can Wesley & Whitefield.
Friendship and beliefs are two different things.
Look at us. 8~)
Salvation is by grace through faith.
You either believe that or you don't....for me, for yourself, for Wesley, for Whitefield.
Far worse than "believing" being some kind of work, would be thinking that "having our theology of predestination correct" is what saves us.
It doesn't.
Of course a correct understanding of Predestination does not save. It is an understanding given by God and I thank Him for it. It gives me tremendous joy and peace and comfort.
The problem we Calvinists have with your statement "salvation is by grace through faith" is that you add the corollary that men can refuse God's grace. And if men can refuse God's grace, then men must accept God's grace in order for it to be effectual.
Thus, it appears you give men the final "yes" or "no" when it comes to salvation. They can either accept it or reject it, according to their own free will, and not according to the will of God.
Read Whitefield's letter. It's all there.
Just to be precise about what I believe...I believe that one rejects grace. Under is own power one does not accept grace. God is leading the person toward repentance when the person resists.
Therefore, salvation is all of God. Lostness is all of the human.
I'll tell you what bothers me most of all about doctrinal viewpoints. There is really only one true belief, the rest are shades of the truth, some lighter than others. Presently between 85-90% (depending on the statistics) of people classify themselves as "Christian". Do we actually think they are? No. So where do we draw the line and just "get along" for the sake of getting along? If homosexuals want to preach on the pulpit should we shrug our shoulders and say, "That's OK."? Some "Christians" would. Some would leave. Would one be right and the other wrong; or would both be right?
Christianity is more than simply getting along with everyone regardless of doctrinal belief. It is your own private introspective journey to become one with God. We are all far from perfect creatures so we should be civil. But our desires should be to understand who and what God is and to worship Him accordingly, regardless of where that trail leads. And if we firmly believe our convictions we should tell people so and let the chips fall where they may. That is one of the messages of Job. We need to FIRST love God, and then our neighbor as ourselves. Today we have that exactly backwards sacrificing truth for the sake of trying to further our ministry.
At the risk of sounding critical (which I'm not), if anything I see in some of the great Protestant leaders of the past is that they were more incline to focus on social needs rather than criticize other church leaders for failing to adhere to sound doctrine. This is the reason I believe the church is in the mess it's in today is simply because people do not have sound doctrine.
85% of the people may call themselves Christians but that number is more likely about 20% who actually are. That would mean the problem isn't evangelizing the lost. It would mean the problem is teaching those who think they are saved.
Ah, do angels sin now? Are there any more angels that will fall in the future? If not, why not?
I would say that God causes us to persevere. It is He who substains us with His grace. Those angels who fell away were not substained by God. God didn't keep their eyes transfix on Him.
We are blind moths. Once we see, we are drawn ever closer to the light.
Gee xzins, now you're a heretic and a cultist.
And just in time for Christmas.
Can you be a cult if you don't have a list?
Nope. I think cults require lists.
Especially of their enemies.
Just ask Tricky Dick. :>)
no worries.....but Heaven help the stray Annabaptist silly enough to taunt us with strange talk of sparrows and coconuts
Well, I'm off.
We have about 30 angels dancing on a stage.
But that's just our mega-church heresy cultish kind of Christmas thing...
My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.
84:3 Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God.
Nu 33:9 And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees (with coconuts, editor); and they pitched there.
Doh !
Well, at least we know how many angels can dance on a stage. :>)
Yes, that is what Arminius believed.
Calvinists, OTOH, believe that Christ's atonement accomplished everything God ordained, and that the Holy Spirit will work repentance and faith in all of God's children. None will be lost.
I believe the same.
Then I need to be more specific because the distinctions are worth articulating, and as we all know, the devil's in the details.
Calvinists, unlike Arminians, do not believe in foreseen faith as a determinant for salvation. Calvinists believe God elects based on nothing in the creature and no ability within the creature, but upon His good pleasure alone. Grace cannot be earned, even by a show of faith. Faith is the evidence of a man's regeneration by God, not a requirement for it, as Arminians declare.
Calvinists, unlike Arminians, believe that grace is irresistible and if the Holy Spirit has been charged with working salvation within a man and giving him new ears and eyes and a new heart with which to believe, that man will definitely and infallibly be brought to repentance and faith. Your posts have done a lot to articulate just where Arminians and Calvinists part company. It is at the same place where the Protestant Reformation parted company with the church in Rome -- justification by Christ alone, and not through any action, belief, ability, desire or decision by men whatsoever.
A grace that can be denied, like "prevenient grace," is no grace at all. It's just a further excuse to try and give men some say in determining their own salvation when it is a gift from God alone.
Christ's obedience merited grace for us, and not our own obedience, faith, repentance or decision to believe. A distinction many miss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.