What’s Wrong with the World

Here is an amazing but true story of St. Michael and a US Marine in Korea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29MHB5yTS0

wow that guy in the picture is pretty awesome....[ed. LM]

rev 12 says "they" overcame satan, so a group effort obviously -- nor do "they" destroy satan, only Christ can do that

this group succeeds in contraining satan (ie, further, to earth) and in cutting his power of prosecution/accusation off from heaven (but not from earth, tho his time is v short)

putting "michael" in there is like interviewing one player on, say, a football team, and when the interviewer asks the guy a question, he says "how did 'your' team do such and such"

so the team doesnt belong to one player, not by a long shot

God is great, and Christ his son, nobody else

cheers

Crudity not acceptable, Ray, whoever you are.

I'm Protestant, not Catholic, so I think you're aiming at the wrong target. You can call Michael the quarterback if you like. He's still a biblical figure named as the archangel and as warring with the devil. (No one else in the group of angels actually doing the fighting is named.) I think that's exciting. You will notice that my post says nothing that a Protestant could not endorse. It is biblical teaching that the angels are God's servants and do his work on earth, including protecting some humans. I like the BCP collect for September 29th in which we pray *to God* thanking him for the ministry of the angels and asking him to send them according to His will to help us when needed.

Notice that the Bible refers to "his angels," meaning Michael's angels. The passage in Revelation definitely speaks of Michael as the leader of the team of casting-out angels and as the counterpart to Satan--Satan has his angels and Michael has his. This is actually an especially good clarification, theologically. Jesus is God. It is the sacrifice of Jesus' blood that provides the power to overcome the devil, but this does not make Jesus the counterpart to the devil, since the devil is a created being and the Eternal Son is not. Hence, the unfallen archangel is the fighting counterpart to the fallen archenemy, that old serpent, the devil.

so the team doesnt belong to one player, not by a long shot

God is great, and Christ his son, nobody else

Well, when a quarterback throws to a receiver, we sometimes say "his receiver" even though it's all one team, and the receivers don't "belong" to the quarterback.

And I suppose you exclude the Holy Spirit from being "great", because you don't list him with the Father and Son.

But setting aside those errors, you still miss the point. There isn't any issue with calling St. Michael, or Moses, or John the Baptist "great". Christ himself calls John the Baptist great. The question is whence the greatness. St. Michael, like all angels, men, and lower creatures, receive every iota of good they have, from God absolutely. So to call St. Michael great in reflection of God is primarily to call God great, so great that He is able to pass along goodness to creatures and enable them to have a received participation in His life.

"Crudity not acceptable, Ray, whoever you are."

huh?

"I'm Protestant, not Catholic, so I think you're aiming at the wrong target"

target? what target? i wasnt attacking you, simply making a point

do you always take general comments about the Bible so personally?

"I like the BCP collect for September 29th in which we pray *to God* thanking him for the ministry of the angels"

i like that order, and sentiment, too

"You can call Michael the quarterback if you like"

i dont like, and if youll read it again (before goin postal) youll see i did not say that, i said he was just ONE player on a v big team

YOU said he was the quarterback -- it is in YOUR mind, not mine

"No one else in the group of angels actually doing the fighting is named.) I think that's exciting"

yes i'm aware you find it/him exciting . . . the photo communicates that quite clearly, which is one reason i commented

many millions of others -- overwhelmingly females -- find angels "exciting" too, across a broad array of fronts, as endless publications sold on the subject evidence

"Hence, the unfallen archangel is the fighting counterpart to the fallen archenemy, that old serpent, the devil."

all are fallen, and are unworthy, before the king. . . including the "good angels"

i find many christian women in the west who want to pastor, correct and even edit (lol) me on spiritual matters -- tho this very thing is prohibited by that Bible whose mysteries you have taken it upon yourself to expound

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Tim. 2)

not only do you know more than me, but more than the Bible!

well done

surely the day will come when we can let holy God decide between us: who is, and who isn't, "crude"

looking forward to that! cheers

"St. Michael, like all angels, men, and lower creatures, receive every iota of good they have, from God absolutely"

amen, amen to that

Gad! A real live sexist!

all are fallen, and are unworthy, before the king. . . including the "good angels"

What???

I'm sorry, but that's totally, utterly, unbiblical teaching. Scripture definitely teaches (in this very passage, for example) that the good angels are just good. They are _not_ fallen. They have not followed Satan, Lucifer, Son of the Morning.

This is, among other things, why the good angels "desire to look into" our redemption: They have never sinned, and they have never been redeemed. To man the weaker and the lower on the scale of being is also given the greater thing--redemption and the forgiveness of sins. One of God's wonderful mysteries.

Yes, I realize that I'm the one calling Michael the "quarterback," and the biblical passage definitely refers to him as the leader of the angels. The phrase "you can do x if you like" is a way of saying, "This would be a way of using your analogy more accurately."

If you don't like putting Michael in some special position, take it up with John the Apostle who recorded this revelation from heaven. Don't bug me with it, man.

And, btw: If you don't like having what you say replied to by a woman, because you think it's contrary to Scripture for a woman to reply to you, then don't comment on a woman's post on a blog that accepts a woman as a blogger. Confine yourself only to posts written by men and/or only to blogs where only men are allowed to comment and answer one another. Simple. But don't be a jerk on my thread on the group blog to which I belong.

What would angelic warfare be like? Surely it isn't a physical affair in which literal swords are used.

Ugh. We need to start a What's Wrong with the What's Wrong with the World blog? blog. When wishing a blessed Michaelmas is controversial...

Brian, Milton imagined them using mountains and trees instead (with instant healing wounds like a superhero god), but I like that idea even less.

Scott W., I found that there is always going to be a certain kind of Christian who thinks it necessary to remind everyone else that all good things find their uttermost source in God, as though this were a point of difference between any two serious Christians, of whatever kind. Distracting such people from their self-congratulatory, quasi-literate skewering of straw men is a weariness that can only be avoided by forcing commenters to register, or some such thing. Short of that, there's a certain amount of YouTube-level commentary that will find its way here no matter what. WWWTW is still the best blog of its kind, though.

Dear Ray,

I cannot but answer you in the famous words of Cromwell's Rule (writing to the synod of the church of Scotland):

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.[2]

When Jeus said [Luke 10:18, NIV]:

He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven...

did you think he was referring to all of the angels? You misunderstand the concept of, "fallen," it seems.

All created objects were originally created in a natural state of order. Rational creatures were created by an act of God's grace with natural beatitude - the perfection of their nature (and even preternatural perfections, sch as freedom from pain). Rational creatures, having the ability to choose by free will, can choose to disrupt that natural order by making a disordered choice. We call the consequences of that imperfect disordered choice, Original Sin, when applied to the original man, Adam, and simply, "sin," when applied to men after that (using the word, "men," to stand for humanity, in general). No longer bring elevated in their natural perfection, we say they are, "fallen." Now, only rational creatures can fall and only by a choice of an imperfect reasoning. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all angels fell. It says, in Romans 3:20 - 28 (RSV):

For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law

It clearly specifies that all men sinned as inheriting the Sin of Adam. It does not say that all angels fell. Now, if some angels did not fall, they, likewise, did not need to be redeemed, so when you say:

"...all are fallen, and are unworthy, before the King...," the, "all," of which you speak, quoting from Romans, does not refer to angels, per se, but men.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (I.62.3, although all of articles 62 and 63 are relavent) makes this clarification:

I answer that, Although there are conflicting opinions on this point, some holding that the angels were created only in a natural state, while others maintain that they were created in grace; yet it seems more probable, and more in keeping with the sayings of holy men, that they were created in sanctifying grace. For we see that all things which, in the process of time, being created by the work of Divine Providence, were produced by the operation of God, were created in the first fashioning of things according to seedlike forms, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 3), such as trees, animals, and the rest. Now it is evident that sanctifying grace bears the same relation to beatitude as the seedlike form in nature does to the natural effect; hence (1 John 3:9) grace is called the "seed" of God. As, then, in Augustine's opinion it is contended that the seedlike forms of all natural effects were implanted in the creature when corporeally created, so straightway from the beginning the angels were created in grace.

Now, something created with sanctifying grace does not fall unless it wills to fall. That not all of the angels fell is proven in ST, article I.63.9:

On the contrary, It is said (2 Kings 6:16): "There are more with us than with them": which is expounded of the good angels who are with us to aid us, and the wicked spirits who are our foes.

I answer that, More angels stood firm than sinned. Because sin is contrary to the natural inclination; while that which is against the natural order happens with less frequency; for nature procures its effects either always, or more often than not.

Now, if the good angels held firm, then, by definition, given that they were created with sanctifying grace, they never fell, do your statement, if applied to angels and not only men, is simply wrong.

Furthermore, Christ is not going to destroy Satan, only his reign on Earth. Christ is not going to destroy Hell. This is clear in Matthew 25:31 - 46, when Jesus says, in part:

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..

The fire is eternal.

As for women making comments on blogs, if you are going to quote Scripture, at least quote it properly. You are citing Corinthians 14:34 - 35:

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (vv. 33-35).

Is this blog a church? Is Lydia inquiring about something?

Further, you mistake the context of the passage (as many people do). Let's look earlier (1Cor 14:24 - 35):

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.
For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged;
and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Clearly, the context is about prophecy. Now, God did not make only male prophets, otherwise, Anna, of the tribe of Aser, at the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple, would not have been called a prophetess, nor Miriam (Exodus 15:20), or Deborah (Judges 4:4), etc. Likewise, Priscilla expounded the meaning of Christian teaching to Apollos (Acts 18:26), albeit not in a church (perhaps on a blog, hmm...). A prophet (from the Hebrew, Navi, meaning, spokesman, and the Greek, προφήτης (profétés), meaning advocate) has three purposes: to see God, to speak God, and to show God. Simply put, the Holy Spirit determines who prophesies, when, and where. There is no evidence, when Paul say that all should prophecy in church that he is restricting this to men, otherwise, Anna, prophesying in the Temple would have been in sin. Thus, women are permitted to "speak" in churches if they speak prophetically, since it has been done in the past, at least in the Temple (and Anna was in a part of the Temple where she wasn't supposed to be, if memory serves - the Holy Spirit blows where he will). Explicating or extolling Christian doctrine, as Lydia was trying to do in this blog post, is a mild form of prophecy.

What 1Cor:34 - 35 really refers to when it says that women should be submissive and quiet, it seems to me, refers to asking questions about the prophecies they have heard in church (men should, as heads of the households, take the lead). That is what is best done at home, not speaking, per se, in churches, otherwise, St. Paul would be excluding women from being prophets, which would be to contradict Scripture and even himself.

Now, since this is a blog and not a church and since Lydia is attempting to show something of the glory of God in His created brings in terms of the Archangel, Michael, it befits you to correct her if she is wrong (which she is not), but not to dismiss her and certainly not to try to silence her by a trumped up charge from a misunderstood Scripture passage.

Now, I am a male, so I, even by your own words, have a right to fraternally correct you, so I say to you, as a brother in the Lord, you have spoken incorrectly about the angels and you have spoken uncharitably to Lydia. As a Christian gentleman, it would be a sign of your good character to reconsider and to believe that Lydia meant to honor St. Michael, the archangel, and that you have spoken a bit too hastily in condemning her actions. An apology to her would be to your credit and if I have spoken wrongly in my moments, I beg your forgiveness and correction in charity.

The Chicken

P. S. I am not going back to blog commenting, guys. I've had a bunch of Job-like (at least in one sense) difficulties of late and I am in a state of desolation. I have difficulty concentrating most days and I would not be very helpful in my comments. Commenting reminds me of the possibility that it was my pride in over speaking in my comments on blogs that may have lead to some of my difficulties. It simply causes me to cry, inwardly, when I approach the keyboard. I have some things to work out and until I am sure that my commenting is not one cause of sin in my life, I have to stay away, no matter how much I miss you all. I do read the blog, however, and I am still edified by your posts and comments. I dropped by to comment, today, because, well, it is St. Michael and, as I said, I think Lydia was trying to honor God and it pains me to see that criticized in the way that Ray did. He could have spoken more kindly and with substance so that an honest act of charity between brothers and sisters in the Lord might have occurred. None of us will perfectly agree with the other in this life, but we are all called to love the other perfectly. Even where the disagreement is violent, one should always hope that one day you and your opponent will be united in perfect love and truth in Heaven - if only you will not cause each other to sin against each other during your time on earth. It is with my breath held that I push the post button, since I mean well in posting this one time, even if I do not do as well as I might.

TMC

Thanks, and very glad to see you whenever you "flutter" by, Masked Chicken!

wow talk about going On the Attack! lol

i didnt say all angels were fallen as lucifer, i said all angels were fallen and unworthy BEFORE THE KING

but y'all are so eager to kick my butt and defend the Poor Abused Little Lady from the Mean Evil Misogynist Michael-hater that clearly commenting is useless

the day comes very, very soon now when we will all stand before the king, and i will leave the answering of your accusations to him, to his word, and to his justice

if he finds me as hateful as your assessments of me, so be it, i'll be on my face in apology but quick

but if not, you might find yourselves not quite as certain in your theology, moralizing, attacks, and characterizations of folks you dont know as you now do

Im reluctant to dignify "ray" with further response, but I thought this did merit a comment:

"No one else in the group of angels actually doing the fighting is named.) I think that's exciting"

yes i'm aware you find it/him exciting . . . the photo communicates that quite clearly, which is one reason i commented

many millions of others -- overwhelmingly females -- find angels "exciting" too, across a broad array of fronts, as endless publications sold on the subject evidence

Now it is no doubt true that there is a lot of silliness being said and published about angels -- but you won't find it in this post. Further, I think the Book of Revelation and the battle with Satan described therein would be very appealing to young men and such martial imagery could be used as a hook to get such men interested in Jesus and the Gospel and therefore this is a great holiday to "talk up" among boys who hunger for God.

Keep up the good work Lydia!

Awwwww, Masked Chicken, you're okay. You're always okay. You're an over-thinking chicken, that's what you are. Please do come back (for real) soon...

Jeffrey S. makes an excellent point. In fact, this is part of what is good about Michaelmas as a holy day: It makes it okay to be manly and a Christian.

Scott W., I found that there is always going to be a certain kind of Christian who thinks it necessary to remind everyone else that all good things find their uttermost source in God, as though this were a point of difference between any two serious Christians, of whatever kind.

Ahh yes. A Christian version of the .

Let me try that again: http://swistle.blogspot.com/2011/07/giant-internet-hand-of-spanking.html

Just so, Scott. Funny stuff.

I think goose is the traditional dinner in England on Michaelmas Day.