This article is based on a talk given by Jon the freelance theologian in June 2010. It is best read in conjunction with the article on evil, posted on freelance theology in February 2010.

The talk began with a rough “timeline” of what is often taught in churches about satan. An adapted version is shown here: (more…)

Question 140, from Mark, United Kingdom

Any thoughts on the latest ’so called’ healing revival in Florida

I googled Todd Bentley and read and saw some worrying things, some are saying this is a false move as we are warned about in Matthew chapter 24, verse 24.

For those who don’t know, Todd Bentley is a Florida-based preacher who has recently been attracting much attention amid claims of dramatic spiritual manifestations, healings and angelic visitations. Recently Bentley’s ‘revival meetings’ have been broadcast in the United Kingdom on religious cable channels, and clips are also available on internet sites such as Youtube.

Naturally, in any situation where things appear to happen outside normal experience, questions are asked. Specifically, in this case, is this a revival? And, if not, is this the kind of deception foretold by Jesus in Matthew chapter 24, verse 24? (“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.”)

Some of the concerns raised about Bentley’s actions include, in no particular order:
~ The methodology used in ‘healings’, which includes physical impacts, such as punching and kicking
~ Association with a number of high-profile ‘prophets’, including some who were integral members of the group called the Kansas City Prophets in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ministry and theology of some of the Kansas City Prophets has often been questioned, and there have been several accusations relating to “moral failure” (a eupehemism for sexual indiscretions).
~ Appeals for money/financial support, often with an attached promise of blessing on those who give money
~ An emphasis on angelic visitations, particularly with regard to “financial angels”

In the United Kingdom, the questions being asked about Todd Bentley’s ministry has provoked a response from the Evangelical Alliance, in the form of an open letter from director Joel Edwards. The solution the EA put forward is for people to ‘wait and see’ what the long-term effects of Bentley’s ministry will be[1].
(more…)

In a seasonal vein, freelance theology presents an answer to a question from NG, United Kingdom.

What did the angel Gabriel look like?

Gabriel is the name given to the angel who announced to Mary that she would give birth to Jesus supernaturally (Luke chapter 1, verses 26-38), having already announced the conception of John the Baptist to John’s father Zechariah (Luke chapter 1, verses 11-20). The name was also applied to the angel who interpreted visions for the prophet Daniel in Daniel chapter 8, verses 15-26 and chapter 9, verses 20-27.

The white school nativity outfit complete with a tinsel halo and pretty wings is (more…)

Question 106 – from LM, USA

Where in the bible is Lucifer referred to the angel of Music?

There is no Biblical reference to Lucifer as the ‘angel of music’. Other articles on freelance theology have covered the development of various beliefs about the devil, although the origin of this particular idea seems to be obscure.

Certainly the popular idea that Lucifer was a prominent angel in the heavenly court, who then rebelled and was cast out of Heaven, has been embellished over the centuries. It is certainly possible that one of these additions to the basic story is that Lucifer was the director of music. This could be because of the many Biblical references to angels singing worship to God. In Job chapter 38, verse 7 the ‘morning stars’ or are identified with ‘sons of God (often translated as ‘angels’).

‘Lucifer’ is actually the Latin for ‘lightbringer’ and was a word used for Venus, the Morning Star, which often shone out shortly before dawn. When Isaiah ironically used the Hebrew term ‘daystar’ to describe the ambitious King of Babylon in Isaiah chapter 14, this was then translated as ‘Lucifer’ in the Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate). There has been a long history of associating Isaiah’s ‘Lucifer’, who is ‘cast down from heaven’, with Satan’s ‘fall from Heaven’ that Jesus claimed to have seen in Luke chapter 10, verse 18. If the singing angels in Job are all ‘morning stars’ it follows that Satan/Lucifer is the morning star, i.e. the leader.

The stories that have grown around the troubling character of Satan in Christian theology are varied and complex. While there are many who would still adhere to a belief in a literal personal being called Satan, this mythological belief system has been heavily criticised for lacking a Biblical basis. It’s popularity owes more to the pre-modern superstitious world that Christianity grew up in and eventually outgrew.

It is interesting though that Satan’s involvement with music is also ingrained in popular culture. The devil is said to ‘have all the best tunes’, although this comment can actually be traced to the founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, who firmly believed in appropriating the ‘devil’s tunes’ and setting Christian evangelistic hymns to them. Of course, it would be facetious to add that anyone who really believes that the devil has the best tunes only needs to listen to some ‘death metal’ to be disabused of that notion fairly quickly!

Thanks for your question, LM.

Question from DM, United Kingdom

A friend of mine has been massively influenced by the book of Enoch, to the point that he believes people in government across the world are descended from a line of interbreeding between fallen angels and humans – which is why there is so much corruption and abuse of power. I know the book of Enoch was not widely accepted as a canonical book, why was that? And what are the dangers of teaching a fairly important doctrine from a non-canonical book?

The Book of Enoch was accepted as authoritative by the Ethiopian Church, but within the general sphere of Christian thought was never included in the canon. Without going into too much detail regarding the formation of the canon of Scripture, the Hebrew Bible (renamed the Old Testament) was absorbed into Christianity from Judaism, while a book’s inclusion in the New Testament tended to revolve around Apostolic involvement or authorship.

The Book of Enoch is a collection of apocalyptic traditions including the pre-historical fall of the angels, dream visions, visions of the ‘Son of Man’ (probably Enoch, not Jesus), parables and the miraculous birth of Noah. It was probably written in Aramaic and is quoted in Jude 14-15. However, it was written sometime in the last two centuries before Christ, so was written too late to become anywhere near authoritative in the Jewish community. As it has pre-Christian roots and no Apostolic link, the majority of Christians ignored it, although it remained popular in Africa until Rome exerted it’s authority and insisted on a universal canon of Scripture.

Your friend’s particular belief, while apparently based on Enoch, sounds very similar to the conspiracy theory propounded by David Icke, among others, which states that the world is ruled by large lizards who appear human and kill blonde people to drain their blood. This idea, in turn, is a coded version of an anti-Semitic myth of a world ruled by disguised Zionist Jews, who feed off Aryan maidens in bizarre rituals.

Generally any theology that is based solely on the interpretation of one passage of Scripture should be open to debate. It is good exegetical practice to ensure that any doctrine is only considered a ‘primary doctrine’ if it is supported by several passages of Scripture, preferably from different books and writings. Thus we see that the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus as being vital to the salvation of human beings is a primary doctrine of the Christian faith. The great doctrines of the Church fall into this category and, in the Protestant traditions any doctrines that lack this Scriptural support are rendered irrelevant.

A doctrine that is based solely on a book that lies outside the mainstream canon of Scripture is optional at best, lacks authority and could very well be dismissed as misguided. If your friend insists on promoting his interesting world-view as a primary doctrine, then sadly you will have to inform him that he is a whisker away from heresy.

Thanks for your question, DM and here’s hoping you can talk to your friend about this.