Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Besides, most fundamental theologians don't believe demons are essentially different than fallen angels. I have a book of basic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. And in case it's not known the overall widestanding belief by those in that school and I assume in like schools, is that demons and fallen angels are the same thing, except that demons are unconfined, not held "in chains" and thus are the ones which can influence us. So Hanegraaff really didn't need to define his terms bacause his belief is that demons are "free-roaming" fallen angels, which is the wide-standing belief.
|
Well, the debate about the beings in Gen. 6 is very much about the difference between all these terms. If he chooses to go with the fundamentalist view, why is he even arguing his point: they all agree with him. Is he prone to preaching to the choir?
At any rate, if he wants to be taken seriously by the crowd that believe the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 are fallen angels, not demons, he'd be wise to show that he knows the distinction they at least are making.
SC
08-15-2008, 08:52 AM
Threaded Mode