Angels & the Unseen Realm

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›The Sethite viewThe 'sons of God' are the godly line of Seth, and the 'daughters of men' the ungodly line of Cain. The sin is intermarriage across the covenant line, and the judgment falls because the distinction that carried the promise was erased.Its case, in fullThe immediate context supports it. Genesis 4 and 5 have just traced exactly two lines (Cain's and Seth's), and Genesis 4:26 marks the moment men began to call on the name of the LORD. Chapter 6 reads naturally as those two lines merging.Jesus says that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven, which many take to rule out angelic marriage altogether.It requires no appeal to non-canonical literature, and it keeps the flood's cause squarely on human sin, which is what Genesis 6:5 goes on to describe.It has a long and serious pedigree. This is not a modern rationalization; it is the reading of Augustine and Calvin.Augustine, City of God XV; John Calvin; Matthew Henry; and much of the Reformed tradition since: for centuries the majority Christian reading

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. 'Sons of God' is not used of the Sethite line anywhere else, and the contrast in the text is with 'daughters of MEN', not 'daughters of Cain'. And the Matthew 22 saying is about angels in heaven, which is precisely not the case of angels who left their proper domain.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›The dynastic-rulers viewThe 'sons of God' are human rulers and despots who claimed divine descent, and the sin is tyrannical polygamy: powerful men taking whatever women they wanted, which is why the judgment follows.Its case, in fullIt fits the ancient Near Eastern setting, where royal titles of divine sonship are well attested.It reads 'took wives of all whom they chose' as the language of tyranny, which the Hebrew will bear.It explains the Nephilim as a dynasty of warrior-kings (the 'mighty men of renown') without appeal to hybrid offspring.Meredith Kline and others; drawing on ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, where kings were styled sons of the gods

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It has little support in how the phrase is used elsewhere in Scripture, and it does not obviously account for the way 2 Peter and Jude speak of angels who sinned.

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›Strategic-level warfareTerritorial spirits hold cities and regions, and they can be identified by research and displaced by targeted corporate prayer, opening the way for evangelism.Its case, in fullIt takes Daniel 10 seriously as describing something structural rather than merely personal.It reads the Deuteronomy 32 division of the nations as an ongoing arrangement, not merely an ancient one.Its practitioners point to real accounts of breakthrough following concerted prayer.C. Peter Wagner and the spiritual-mapping movement of the 1990s; widely taught in charismatic mission circles

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. The New Testament never instructs the church to identify or address territorial spirits: the apostles preached and prayed and cast out demons from people, not from cities. The claimed results are hard to assess, and the practice has produced fear and spectacle where it has been pressed hardest.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›The cautious-Reformed readingThe decisive battle was fought and won at the cross; the believer's warfare is the ordinary means of grace (Word, prayer, sacrament, obedience), and preoccupation with the demonic is itself a spiritual danger.Its case, in fullColossians 2:15 says the powers were disarmed and made a public spectacle. That is stated as accomplished, not pending.Ephesians 6 arms the believer with truth, righteousness, faith and the word (the ordinary things) and tells him to stand rather than to advance.Historically, intense demonological focus has repeatedly produced abuse, fear, and the blaming of the devil for what Scripture calls the flesh.Much of the Reformed tradition; and, on the demonological side, writers who emphasize the sufficiency of Christ's victory over any ongoing engagement

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can flatten passages that plainly describe ongoing conflict, and a church that never expects opposition is poorly prepared when it meets it.

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›A believer cannot be demonized in any senseThe indwelling Spirit and an indwelling demon cannot occupy the same person, and treating a Christian's struggle as demonic misdirects the cure away from repentance and renewal of the mind.Its case, in full1 John 5:18 says the wicked one does not touch the one born of God.The New Testament letters address sin in believers with instruction and repentance, never with deliverance.The practical danger is real: a person taught to see a demon behind every struggle stops taking responsibility for the flesh.Many Reformed pastors and counselors

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It has to account for the plain experience of pastors across traditions and centuries, and for the fact that Scripture nowhere says a believer is immune to demonic harassment.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›A believer can be demonized in the full sense of the wordA Christian is sealed and owned by the Spirit and cannot be lost, and can still carry a demonic presence in the unredeemed parts of his life, given ground by trauma, occult involvement, or unrepented sin. The remedy is repentance, renunciation, and command, and it is ordinary pastoral work rather than spectacle.Its case, in fullThe New Testament never says a believer cannot be demonized. The claim is an inference from indwelling, and the same letters say a believer can give the devil a foothold and can be taken captive at his will.Paul warns the Corinthians (believers, gifted ones) that they can partake of the table of demons, which is not the language of immunity.The word itself carries no ownership. Daimonizomai describes affliction, and the Gospels use it of degrees, from a boy thrown into fire to a woman bent for eighteen years whom Jesus calls a daughter of Abraham bound by Satan.The experience is not confined to one tradition. Missionaries, counselors, and pastors across the theological map report the same thing and, having reported it, are usually asked to stop.Merrill Unger, Demons in the World Today (who changed his mind on this in print); Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker; Charles Kraft, Defeating Dark Angels; and much of the deliverance ministry of the last fifty years

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can put the emphasis on diagnosis rather than repentance, and it has produced real harm where believers were told their besetting sin was a demon to be expelled rather than a habit to be put to death. The line between ground given and person owned is easy to state and hard to police.

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›One angel assigned to each personEvery human being is given a particular angel at the beginning of life, charged with guarding and interceding for that person: the plain sense of 'their angels' in Matthew 18 and of the believers' words in Acts 12.Its case, in fullMatthew 18:10 attaches angels to particular people ('THEIR angels') and says those angels behold the Father's face, which is the language of standing in a court to represent someone.In Acts 12 the church at prayer does not say 'an angel'; they say 'it is HIS angel', as though a personal angel were an assumption everyone in the room already shared.Psalm 91:11 says he shall give his angels charge over thee, and the Old Testament repeatedly shows angels attached to individuals: to Hagar, to Elijah, to Daniel.It is the reading of the early church across both East and West, held long before any medieval system was built on it.Basil the Great, Homily on Psalm 33; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 18; the Catechism of the Catholic Church §336; widely held in Catholic and Orthodox teaching

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. Neither passage is teaching about angelic assignment; both mention it in passing while making another point. And a doctrine of personal angels can quietly slide toward addressing them, which Scripture never does.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›Ministering spirits sent as neededAngels serve God's people really and personally, but as a company dispatched by God for each occasion rather than as a permanent one-to-one assignment. Calvin's own comment is that whether each believer has his own angel we cannot decide, and that God's whole host is engaged for our safety.Its case, in fullHebrews 1:14 describes angels collectively ('ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation') with no hint of a fixed pairing.In 2 Kings 6 the mountain around Elisha is full of horses and chariots of fire; the help is an army, not an escort of one.It keeps the comfort where Scripture puts it (on God's care, not on a mechanism) and gives speculation nothing to feed on.John Calvin, Institutes I.xiv.7; most of the Reformed tradition; many evangelical commentators since

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It has to read 'their angels' and 'it is his angel' as loose speech, when both phrases most naturally suggest something more particular.