Asian Christian theology Hwa Yung

Book Summary: Mangoes or Bananas? by Hwa Yung

Mangoes or Bananas?: The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology by [Yung, Hwa]

Mangoes or Bananas?: The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology. By Hwa Yung. Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014, 6372 locations, $8.69 Kindle edition.

It is undeniable that the Western Church has made great strides in bringing the Gospel to Asia within the past few hundred years. However, the Gospel is not the only thing we have brought to the Two-Thirds world. Along with advancements in technology and medicine, Western missionaries have also brought (some might say imposed) traditions and customs that are quite foreign to Asia. In doing so, Asian believers have historically struggled to understand how to live out their faith in Christ within their respective cultures. Hwa Yung, Bishop of the Methodist Church in Malaysia, deals with the growing “dissatisfaction with Western theology” among Asian Christians in his book Mangoes or Bananas? (Kindle location 209). Yung’s aim is not simply to inform Western believers about the issues Asian Christians are facing, but to encourage Asian Christians to devote themselves to developing biblical, contextualized theology for their specific contexts.

I would like to bring a few things to the readers’ attention before I go any further. The book is split up between 9 chapters: Introduction, Toward a Theology of Mission, Criteria for Missiological Theology (Parts 1 and 2), Asian Theologies up to World War Two, Ecumenical Theologies After World War Two, Conservative Asian Theologies After World War Two, Toward an Asian Christian Theology, and A Personal Journey (in the Second Edition only). Being that chapters 5-7 deal heavily with the works and influence of other Asian theologians, I will be commenting on Yung’s understanding of how their ideas have shaped Asian theology, rather than critiquing them directly. With that being said, Yung is a conservative evangelical so it will be apparent for readers to know where he stands in relation to the others. Finally, it will be difficult to understand a majority of the book without having a basic understanding of what Paul G. Hiebert calls “the flaw excluded middle” (Kindle location 1491). For Yung, any theology, whether it be Western or Asian, that does not address both ‘high religion’ and ‘folk religion’ is seriously lacking (Kindle location 245). Additionally, any theology that fails to speak to ‘signs and wonders’ of the Holy Spirit does not fully address the Asian Christian’s worldview (Kindle location 4634).

In Chapter 1, Yung takes the time to point out some of the main issues being faced by Asian Christians, issues that imported Western theology has either addressed improperly or neglected entirely. Yung claims that the differences between Asian and Western histories, as well as, worldviews are among some of the biggest hurdles to overcome. Additionally, Yung writes that Enlightenment thought, which has heavily influenced Western theology, “produce[s] a climate of skepticism that hampers the genuine expression of biblical faith (Kindle location 256).” Perhaps the most intriguing of the issues mentioned is that Western theology is viewed as ‘unengaged’—it has “emerged out of the academic and speculative tradition, rather than pastoral and missiological practice (Kindle location 337).” Yung uses these issues as a springboard for discussing the importance of contextual or ‘indigenous’ theology (Kindle location 425). Additionally, Yung emphasizes that a contextualized Asian theology will be birthed out of a proper understanding mission theology (Kindle location 652). Throughout the rest of the book, Yung keeps the theology of mission at the forefront of his mind, for which I applaud him.

Chapter 2 is essentially an analysis of what theology of mission is and is not, or better yet, what it should be in relation to developing Asian theology. Being that Yung is affiliated with the Lausanne Movement, it is no surprise that he takes a look at how it has helped shape our understanding of the mission of God. Yung also does a good job here of pointing out the good and bad that has arisen from a more ecumenical approach. For Yung, mission is “comprehensive,” not confined to evangelism or church planting, rather it includes “deliverance from diseases and demon powers, as well as sociopolitical action and justice in the world (Kindle location 1219).” He carries this discussion over into chapter 3, “Criteria for a Missiological Theology (Part 1).”

Again, Yung takes the time to stress how vital contextualized theology is. Specifically, he provides definitions for things such as evangelism and pastoral ministry from a missiological perspective (Kindle location 1443). Western readers may disagree with his conclusions, especially in terms of the role ‘signs and wonders’ play in ministry, but they cannot deny that the issues addressed are questions that non-Westerners have. Being that I now live in Asia, I found Yung’s conclusions to ring very true. I especially liked the following statement: “For, if our worldviews miss out on some dimension of reality, we will fail to bring the gospel to bear that aspect of reality (Kindle Location 1524).” Western Christians can learn a lot from Yung in this regard; we not only need to contextualize our theology, but we need to also consider the blind spots our own worldviews may have to reality. Thankfully, Yung states, the Holy Spirit can be trusted to lead people in the way of truth despite our mistakes (location 1717). Chapter 4 (Part 2) deals heavily with the hot-button issues of pluralism and inclusivism. Yung argues that these are not really Asian notions, although aspects do exist in some Asian religions. Instead, He argues that pluralism and relativism came out of liberal-Western thought (Kindle location 2261). Furthermore, Yung explains that the majority of world religions are actually exclusivist in many of their claims.

Suffice it to say, Yung finds many problems with Western liberalism, but to be clear, he is not anti-West. In fact, readers will find many places throughout the book where Yung celebrates all that the Western Church has done for the Asian Church. (Kindle location 4472). However, he stresses the idea that Asian Christians should be mindful and vigilant as they theologize for themselves, being careful not to make some of the same mistakes the Church in the West has made. In chapters 5-7, Yung is not simply looking at some prominent Asian theologians in recent history, he is demonstrating the ripples that Western liberalism and dualistic thinking have created in Asian theology. This idea is best summed up at the end of chapter 7: “Underneath the Asian ‘clothes’ and ‘colors’ that have been given to these theologies, we have found layers and layers of Enlightenment and dualistic thought. It appears that mature examples of a truly contextual Asian theology have yet to emerge (Kindle location 4094).” In chapter 8, Yung proposes some key ideas to consider if the Asian Church want to see a change in this trend.

Yung likens chapter 8, “Toward an Asian Theology,” to the drawing together of threads. All of the issues have been presented; it is now time to present some solutions. I personally believe this is where Yung’s writing really shines, as it is exceedingly practical and contextual for Asian readers, and helpful for Western missionaries. First, Yung list off some of the ‘literary genres’ Asian theologians should devote themselves to addressing; they include: biblical exegesis, apologetics, systematic theology, ancestral practices, ‘healing, exorcism, and the miraculous,’ Christian leadership patterns, ethics, personal ethics, and a theology of social engagement. While Yung commends the Church in Asian for its good grasp of evangelism and pastoral care, he argues that much more can be done to help Asian Christians “come to a deeper grasp of the message of the Bible in its totality (Kindle location 4191).”

Yung also mentions some of his concerns for contextualization in Asian theology, one of which may not sit well with more conservative believers. Yung argues for more ‘dialogue with Asian religions’ to show respect, effectively communicate the Gospel across cultures, and cooperate with those working towards social change (Kindle location 4398). While I agree with Yung’s reasons for dialogue, I did feel uncomfortable with his position on “salvation of those who do not have explicit faith in Christ (Kindle location 4407),” but perhaps this is because of my conservative background. I think herein lies one of the reasons Yung wrote the book. It is easy for me as a Western missionary to simply teach what I have been taught without contextualizing or considering that I may be wrong. So, although some discomfort may arise for Western readers from what Yung says, it is not because Yung is unorthodox, rather some issues Western minds have never really tackled. It here that the Asian Church can be of significant help (Kindle location 4218).

Since chapter 9 is more autobiographical and in Yung’s own words “repetitious,” I will conclude with his postscript which explains the title of the book itself. However, I encourage readers to interact with Chapter 9 as it helps paint a picture of how Yung has had to wrestle with many, if not all, of the issues presented in the book.

Yung brings his book to a close by comparing the differences between a banana and a mango. He explains that while Asians love bananas, they are “of uncertain origins (Kindle location 4483).” The mango, however, is uniquely Asian— “the sweet, succulent flesh of the mango is prized much more highly (Kindle Location 4488).” In relation to theology, Yung believes that a majority of Asian theology is like the banana. It looks yellow on the outside, but on the inside, it is white. In other words, Asian theology is just Western theology dressed up to look Asian. Yung says we need more mangoes, or Asian theology that is Asian through and through. He says this is crucial if Asian Christians are to develop a “clearer sense of self-identity” and to heal from any divisions caused by the impositions of those ‘without’ (Kindle location 4504).

As an American Christian living in Thailand, Mangoes or Bananas? is one of the most helpful and insightful books I have read since moving overseas. It opened my eyes not only to the issues my Asian brothers and sisters in Christ are facing, it also taught me how my own culture has influenced the Church in Asia today. Being that this book is more academic in nature, I know that it will not appeal to everyone. However, I think this should be required reading for seminary students regardless of what continent they are serving. The Western Church needs to become much more acquainted with the plight of the Eastern Church. Yung’s book is a great place to start!

Anselm's Proslogion Summary

Every Christian Should Read: Anselm’s “Proslogion”

Introduction to Anselm

Although Italian born, Anselm is most notably remembered for being the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109 (Wikipedia, “Anselm of Canterbury”). Anselm was a theologian and philosopher who was heavily influenced by Augustine in his theology and style, with most of his writings being in the form of dialogue (The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, 28; class notes, 32). Anselm is often cited as being the father of Scholasticism, as well as, “the originator for the ontological argument for the existence of God (www.britannica.com, “Saint Anselm of Canterbury”).” While he may have died over 900 years ago, his writings, especially in regard to “soteriology and Christology…continue to stimulate theologians” today (WDCH, 28).

Introduction to the Document

Written between 1077-1078, Anselm’s Proslogion (read online) is considered to be one of his greatest works (Wikipedia, “Anselm of Canterbury). Proslogion, meaning “a speech made to another,” reads as a prayer from Anselm to God (94). In this extended discourse, Anselm aims to prove the existence of God with the argument that God is that “than which nothing greater can be thought (100).” Anselm is specifically addressing the foolishness in saying “there is no God (Psalm 14:1).” He claims that even an atheist can imagine a being “that which nothing greater can be thought,” including the existence of said being. The argument found in Proslogion has come to be known as the ontological argument for God’s existence (WDCH, 27).

Summary

  1. Prologue
    1. Understanding the purpose and title
  2. Anselm’s Argument for God (Chapters 1-5)
  3. The Nature of this God (Chapters 6-23)
    1. Reconciling seeming contradictions about His nature
    2. Embracing God’s transcendence and eternality
    3. Understanding the oneness of the Godhead
  4. The Blessings of Believing in this God (Chapters 24-26)

In his Prologue, Anselm explains that the Proslogion was not something that came easily for him to write. In fact, he almost gave up on the project to prove God’s existence with an argument “that needed nothing but itself alone for proof (93).” However, one day the argument materialized “in the very clash of his thoughts (93).” He decided to write his thoughts down in a prayer-like, contemplative format that expressed the struggle in trying to comprehend God’s existence and nature. While the document had other titles (“A pattern for meditation on the rational basis of faith” and “Faith seeking understanding”), Anselm settled on Proslogion after being “encouraged by a number of people” to put his name to the work (93-94).

Anselm begins (Chapter 1) by calling on divine help that he might think rightly about the God whose existence he is setting out to prove (97). Anselm prays that the Lord might make Himself known, in order that, he might better understand who God is. For Anselm, belief precedes understanding; furthermore, he states, “unless I believe, I shall not understand (99).” In chapter 2, Anselm explains what exactly it is that he believes about God. He believes that God is “than which nothing greater can be thought (99).” Anselm also believes that the things that exist in both the understanding and reality are greater than those that exist only in one’s understanding. Therefore, according to Anselm, God (as defined above) must necessarily exist in reality, not just one’s understanding (100). Anselm claims that it would be foolish, “stupid” even, to deny God’s existence because “it is so evident to the rational mind (101).” Anselm praises God for His illumination, so that even if he wanted to stop believing, he cannot deny that he now understands that God exists (101). And this God does not simply exist, He exists as “the greatest of all beings, who alone exists through himself and made all other things from nothing (102).” To Anselm, God is more than just good; He is supremely good. Specifically, God is “whatever it is better to be than not to be (102).”

Anselm now turns to address some of the questions that arise from defining God in this way. For example, Anselm claims that it is better to be able to perceive things than not, so God must be percipient. But, Anselm asks how is this possible if God is not a body, for “only corporeal things can perceive (102).” He concludes that God, being spirit (which is better), perceives things in the most supreme sense. It is a perception that is not limited by the body’s senses (102). Additionally, Anselm says that God’s omnipotence does not mean that God has the power to do anything. He cites that God cannot lie because that would not be the better thing to do. Rather, God’s omnipotence means He “does nothing through weakness, and nothing has power over [Him] (103).” Weakness, as defined by Anselm here, means the power to do something one should not do. In other words, mankind’s ability to do these things does not demonstrate power, it demonstrates weakness.

If there is no weakness in God how then, Anselm asks, does one reconcile God’s mercy and impassibility? Anselm argues that from man’s perspective it only seems that God is merciful in the human sense, meaning God feels compassion and sorrow in His heart. In reality, mankind is simply experiencing the effect of God’s mercy, not that God is actually “afflicted with any feeling of compassion for sorrow (104).” Applying this knowledge of God’s mercy, Anselm goes on to explain how it is that God can show mercy to both the good and the wicked while remaining just. Anselm claims that God’s goodness is “incomprehensible;” furthermore, God acts of goodness do not always make sense to the human mind (104). While God is justified in punishing the wicked, Anselm concedes that it is better that God would both punish and spare the wicked. God’s sparing of the wicked can make the wicked good, and according to Anselm, is, therefore, just in doing so (106). In fact, God is “in keeping with [His] goodness” by sparing the wicked not according to their merits (106). In regard to God’s mercy, Anselm concludes that whatever God wills is just; on the other hand, whatever He does not will is not just. There is no inconsistency between God’s mercy and justice in Anselm’s eyes (107).

Anselm moves on to point out more about the uniqueness of the God “than which nothing greater can be thought.” Anselm lists that God exists independent of anything else (107), is “unbounded and eternal (108),” and can be found by those who seek Him, although only in part (108-110). In response, Anslem prays, “Truly it is more than any creature can understand (109).” Upon considering these things, Anselm revises his initial statement, declaring that God is actually “something greater than can be thought (109).”

Following this assertion, Anselm explains briefly some of the effects that man’s sin has had on the pursuit of understanding God. He explains that “the senses of [his] soul have been stiffened, dulled, and obstructed” because of sin (110). So, even though (in some indescribable way) God can be sensed by the soul, Anselm says God remains somewhat hidden (110). It is at this time (Chapter 18) that Anselm calls upon the Lord for help once again, in order that, he might reach Him and understand Him (111). Anselm comes to Him pondering the things that God is: life, wisdom, truth, goodness, happiness, eternity, and every true good (111). He makes it clear that while God is many things, He is not the sum or composition of all these things. In the words of Anselm: “[God is] not a plurality… [He is] in fact unity itself (111).” Anselm claims this unity also applies to God’s eternity. That is to say that God’s eternality is not split up between “yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” instead, the eternal God exists “outside time altogether (112).” While there are other eternal beings that exist, Anselm says that their eternity cannot be equated with God’s, for He possesses both eternity past and eternity future. In fact, God’s eternity “contains even the very ages of time (113).” This ultimately leads Anselm to conclude that God alone is who He is (113).

Anselm continues his thoughts on God’s unity and goodness by examining them in light of the Trinity. Anselm argues that whatever one person of the Godhead is, so is the Godhead altogether (114). To summarize, the Word (the Son) is true as the Father is true, and the Spirit which proceeds from them both is nothing less than what They are (113-114).  For Anselm, this “supremely simple unity” within the Trinity is the “one necessary thing, in which is all good (114).”

Finally, Anselm reflects on just how great this supremely good God is (114). Anselm asks if things such as created life, salvation, and “wisdom in the knowledge of created things” are truly good things, how good then must the God who created these things be (114). Furthermore, how many blessings await those who love this God (115)? Anslem states that whatever good thing one’s soul earnestly desires that is what God shall grant him in Heaven (115-116). It will be so great that the believer’s “whole heart, mind, and soul will be too small” to contain his joy (116). Anslem concludes his prayer by saying if he cannot fully understand the greatness of God in this life, he looks forward to understanding Him fully in the life to come, when he “[enters] into the joy of [the] Lord (117).”

Significance of the Document

Anselm’s Proslogion is a significant document for the Church in several ways. First, it is a study in how to approach theology from a place of humility. Anselm’s format of a conversation with God serves as a reminder that theology, or the act thereof, is an act of worship. As Anselm said, the person who desires to understand God must believe in Him first. Second, the Proslogion is foundational to understanding an ontological argument for God’s existence. By appealing to the mind, Anselm demonstrates that a belief in God is actually far more rational than a belief that God does not exist. Third, Christians can learn much about God’s nature and attributes from reading this document. By presenting questions and subsequent answers, Anselm helps walk believers through the difficult concepts that arise from studying God’s nature. Finally, Proslogion is also a beautiful reminder of the glory that is to come for believers. Anselm’s work is an example of how important it is for theology to be practical and pastoral. Proslogion has stood the test of time because it stirs both the mind and the heart.

Understanding Eschatology (End Times)

2 Minute Seminary: Understanding Eschatology (End Times)

Premillennialism

Premillennialism is the position that Christ will physically return before the literal 1,000-year reign on earth. When Christ returns, believers who have “fallen asleep” and those still present on the earth will receive their glorified resurrected bodies. Together all those in Christ will reign with Him on the earth for 1,000 years. At the end of this time, one last rebellion will come against God and His saints by Satan and those who still never repented. Ultimately, Satan will be destroyed and the wicked will face God’s everlasting judgement in the lake of fire. The new heaven and earth will come, and the elect of God will live with Him forever without sin, death, or sorrow.

Some also believe that Christ will rapture His Church prior to the tribulation period. Then He will bring them back to begin His 1,000-year reign. Others believe believers will be present either for part or all the tribulation period.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism argues that there is not, nor will there be a literal 1,000-year reign. Rather Christ is reigning in the hearts of His people. Those who agree with amillennialism do believe, however, that Christ will return one day to destroy Satan, his followers, and death. Until that day, Christ’s Church will experience suffering and persecution as the Gospel is preached. Yet, evil will never prevail over the Church and its mission to reach every nation. And one day the saints of God will live eternally with God in the new heaven and earth.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism asserts that Christ will return after the 1,000-year reign. However, unlike premillennialism, Christ’s millennial reign is from heaven, not earth. Adherents believe Christ exercises His reign through His Spirit and His Church’s proclamation of the Gospel. Another distinctive is that conditions of the earth will only improve as time draws closer to Jesus’s second coming. All aspects of life and culture will be redeemed.

At the end of the millennium, God will loosen His restraint on Satan and the wicked. Then Christ will come to defeat them once and for all, ushering in the new heaven and earth as well.


Please understand that each of these views are considered within the realm of orthodoxy. Historically, the Church has affirmed each of these views at different points in time. Most American Christians held to a form of postmillennialism during the Civil War. Go back and read some of the lyrics to the hymns that were written at that time. It wasn’t until the 20th century that premillenialism became the majority held view. Prior to all of this, many early church theologians held a very amillenial view of the end times. In other words, while we may not agree on everything, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. Like one of my professors always said, “It will all work out in the end.”

Are Truth and Morality Subjective?

Are Truth and Morality Subjective?

One of the things I encounter most often when talking with people is what many apologists would define as “subjective moral reasoning.” In simpler terms, it just means that they believe they determine what is morally right and wrong. From their perspective, they are perfectly capable of discerning truth and morality. However, if truth and morality are nothing more than a matter of opinion, then no person’s actions can be called good or evil. There is no standard of morality by which to judge anything.

The reason many people believe this is because it creates an environment in which no one questions them. If someone, such as myself, happens to question their worldview then he or she is seen as a hateful bigot. Again, not because they are in reality, but because that person claims that they are. Yet, from their worldview all beliefs are supposed to be equally valid, even the ones they disagree with. You can see the glaring hypocrisy here.

Without an objective source of truth and morality, anything goes. Without an objective standard of what is good, one could argue Hitler’s actions are just as “good” as Corrie Ten Boom’s. This is one reasons why I could never be an atheist because my conscious tells me that some things are objectively good and some things are objectively evil. The Bible says in Romans 2:15 that God has written His law (standard of goodness) on our hearts. We know that it is wrong to steal, lie, murder, and cheat. If we call these things good, it is because we are suppressing the truth, not accepting it.

This is why the Gospel is so offensive. It calls all people to repent of their sins. The truth is…we have all sinned against a perfect, holy God and according to God’s Word, are deserving of death. He is our creator and moral law giver. How can we, creatures made from the dust, think we know better than the One who made us? But, the good news is that Jesus died in our place. He took our sin and gave us His righteousness. And to those who call upon His name, He gives us His Spirit who leads us into all truth.

Friends, truth and morality start and end with God. We need Him. We need His Word. And that isn’t subjective.

What does the Bible say about mankind?

What Do I Believe About: Mankind

I believe that God created humans in His own image. Mankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation. Mankind has no existence or life outside of the existence of the living God. God created both male and female to glorify Himself and gave them dominion over all creation. He created mankind with the intention of having an intimate relationship with us. God made the first man (Adam) from the dust of the earth and the first woman (Eve) from man’s rib. God told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Before the Fall, man was perfect and blameless before God. When Adam sinned against God, shame and death entered the world (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:4-25; 3:1-7; John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

I believe that humans were created as moral beings with the freedom to choose good or evil. We know the difference between right and wrong. However, in mankind’s fallen state, even our best deeds are sinful at their core. There is no one, apart from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is sinless (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 2:14-15; 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

I believe that sin is man’s rebellion against Holy God—it separates us from having a relationship with the Father. Every person is deserving of eternal damnation for his or her sin, regardless of its type or severity. Sin’s effect on creation is all encompassing, from our very own minds to the movement of the cosmos. All of creation is groaning to be restored when Christ returns to make a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 59:2; Romans 6:23; 8:18-22; James 2:10; 2 Peter 3:7-13).

I believe that humans were created as immortal beings; we will live beyond our physical death. Furthermore, every person will stand before Almighty God and give an account for everything they have thought, said, and done. The saints of God will dwell with God for all of eternity, while the unregenerate will perish in Hell for all of eternity. Everything we do in this life matters to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:8-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).

I believe that God also created humans as whole beings—the division between body, soul, and spirit is indistinguishable. While there is certainly an existence apart from our physical bodies, this splitting or division is not what God intended for humanity. This is another tragic reality of mankind’s sin (Genesis 2:7; Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 10:28; Mark 12:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

I believe that every human is created equal, for God shows no partiality. Furthermore, men and women, though different anatomically and in their respective roles, are viewed as equals in the eyes of God. Within marriage, the husband’s role is to be the spiritual leader of his household and to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. The wife is to be submissive to the leadership of her husband, as the Church submits to Christ, our Head. Just as Eve was created to be Adam’s helper, so are wives to be their husband’s helper. Marriage is ultimately a picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Genesis 2:18-22; Romans 2:10-11; Ephesians 5:21-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7).

2 Minute Seminary: Dispensational and Covenant Theologies

2 Minute Seminary: Dispensational and Covenant Theologies

Here are several differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology in a 2 minute or so read.

Dispensational Theology

Dispensational theology centers around the idea that God has dealt with mankind differently throughout history based on that time period’s “dispensation” of revelation (i.e. pre-Fall, conscience, promise, Law, grace, etc.). While there are different thoughts on how many dispensations there are, most adherents believe in seven. Dispensationalists also hold to a very literal interpretation of Scripture. This literal approach is the reason most dispensationalists believe in a clear distinction between Israel and the Church—God’s specific promises to Israel in the OT were for the Jews, and some have yet to be fulfilled.

Covenant Theology

Covenant theology believes that God has worked in covenants rather than dispensations. Most covenant theologians believe in two distinct covenants: a covenant of works (pre-Fall) and a covenant of grace (post-Fall). The idea is that in the Garden of Eden, Adam’s eternal life was dependent upon his perfect obedience to God. After the Fall, mankind’s eternal life was only obtainable by grace through faith. It is important to note that many covenant theologians believe that God did not abolish the covenant of works, rather Christ came and fulfilled it to make the covenant of grace possible.

What Do I Believe About...Angels and Demons?

What Do I Believe About…Angels and Demons?

I believe that angels are spiritual beings created by God to be His messengers. Whether they are around the throne room of God, or ministering here on the earth, they are ceaseless in their worship and obedience towards the LORD. Angels, while glorious in nature, are not created in the image of God. They are, however, powerful warriors with God as their commander, and have been given the capacity to take on human form. Angels were also given the important roles of ministering to the saints of God and bringing about judgement on the wicked (Ps 103:19-21; Matt 1:20-23; Heb 1:14; Rev 7-8).

I believe that like mankind, angels were created as moral creatures. They have the capacity for sin. Unlike mankind, however, angels who rebelled against God have no hope of salvation. Their fate has been eternally sealed by Him. These fallen angels are better known as demons, with Satan (Lucifer) being their leader (1 Tim 5:21; 2 Pet 2:4; Rev 12:7-12).

I believe that Satan and his demons are enemies of God and His people. Satan has been deceiving mankind from the very beginning, starting with Eve. Before we are born again and made children of God, we are children of a different father, the Devil. Satan is currently the prince of this fallen world, but one day he and his demons will be judged and cast into the lake of fire. Believers should be watchful and aware of demonic activity, but they have no reason to fear the powers of darkness because Christ defeated them on the cross. Satan has never been, nor will he ever be God’s equal (Gen 3; John 8:44-45; Eph 2:2; Rev 20:10).


I hope this helps aid you in your study of God’s Word. Please don’t shy away from asking any questions you might have. Also, if you see something that concerns you from a theological standpoint please let me know. I am not inerrant.