Holy Conferencing on The Ontological Existence of Satan in Light of Creedal Confession

Below is an unfolding conversation on Nathan Napier's Facebook wall. With his permission, I have posted it here as you might find it to be an interesting discussion. The contributors are Nathan Napier, Jeremy Sullivan, Jared Henry, Tommy Thompson (Me), and Josh Fite. As the conversation unfolds, I will update this blog...



Nathan: In what part of the Creeds am I required to confess belief in Satan ontologically? Someone please let me know since I obviously missed this in my Patristics studies.

Jeremy: Not required in creeds. However we do ask you to renounce him and his works at baptism where you confess the creed before receiving water.

Nathan: Not all Nazarenes are asked that before Baptism ;)

Jeremy: True Nathan, many Nazarenes are not examined in historically consistent ways prior to baptism. But since you mentioned the creedal context, I wanted to highlight that in historic practice (and in the liturgy of many denominations today) that the very first question posed to a baptizand is "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God" (or something similar). Following the examination, the creed is then professed. So, yes, the creeds do not require you to confess a belief in Satan, but the liturgy of baptism, which so centrally hangs on the profession of faith through the words of the creed is a context in which one is asked to directly renounce Satan (whether that qualifies as ontological reality or not, I guess one could argue). Speaking of Patristics, you might be interested in the other liturgies surrounding baptism in particular historically (since baptism was a process of preparation prior to the actual sacrament and had accompanying liturgies marking various important stages along that path) actually involved intentional prayers of exorcism over those who were preparing for baptism....some of the most intense ones being offered as part of the Holy Saturday service (remember most baptisms of those who can answer for themselves took place as part of the Easter celebration). It would seem to me that a Patristic world view would presuppose that if one has not been baptized into the kingdom of light, then we would belong to the kingdom of darkness, and in turn to the prince of darkness? Seems to me that the mere violence of the act of baptism, especially immersion, at some level while dramatizing our identification with the burial of Christ, also was an equally dramatic demonstration of the putting to death of our allegiance with evil...perhaps even drowning it out of us? LOL

Nathan: Jeremy, well said...and I like your caveat that such confession might not mean an ontological reality, but a reality that is immersed in chaos and rising to new life in the baptized. There does seem to be a consistent Patristic theology of evil as the juxtaposition of virtue, thus sin as vice and the realm from which vice becomes needs to be laid to rest, along with the many adversaries we encounter as representative of it. I suppose these nuances are missed too many times...but to be entirely consistent a pre-modern medieval worldview would have no qualms about an ontic reality known as Satan, or devil...even Luther thought such was throwing things @ him from the trees...whether WE can think this is another issue.

Jeremy: Of course, I always have Dr. Greathouse echoing in my ears... "If you don't believe in the devil, brothers and sisters, why then you've been duked by the devil!"

Nathan: I can see him saying that...I've been told, "it's ok if you don't believe in the devil because he believes in you!"...I have to admit, I chuckle @ this. ;)

Jeremy: Yeah I hear you....I stopped chuckling my first experience of an exorcism. But admittedly, there can be distinctions made between evil forces and an ontological Satan as you speak.

Nathan: Sure thing...I wonder though, how much of an exorcism is the emodiment of images given to the subject prior to possession...or oppression? Is it possible that most individuals that experience such are, or have been, part of religius environments wherein these "realities" are given a heightened awareness and hence a more likely visual embodiment? If so, than an excorcism may work because we believe it does not necessarily because it does something in the subject. But, I am offering this as an outside observer, not as one with Bob Larsen credentials.

Jared: What about the Bible?

Jeremy: The power of suggestion is powerful, for sure, but the physical realities that emerge in the midst of these things I find too compelling to just understand them as suggestions that then 'work' for someone. But I am aware that many discount the whole thing entirely.

Jeremy: Jared, agreed with you...other than just pointing to texts that speak of demonic activity (and admittedly we have to take culture and the worldview of the first century into account here) what in particular do you wish to bring forth regarding the personality of Satan?

Nathan: I hear ya Jared...what about it?

Nathan: Jeremy- I am not limiting my analysis to the power of 'suggestion' as much as I am bringing forth the idea that persons in highly spiritual environments, or environments that give heightened awareness to spiritual warfare, automatically place believers into a context of psychological and experiential sensitivity, wherein spiritual struggles are not simply battles of the self, but cosmic occurrences with the angels and demons beside us. Folks with this worldview will be more apt to experience these realities because they are images and symbols already within the subjects construction of the world.

Nathan: Of course, I also need to point out this is probably a largely unconscious reality. I don't think oppressed, or possessed, people consciously do this...but religious imagery work @ a subconscious level impacting the way we view the world without us necessarily thinking about it too much.

Jeremy: I think I hear you here...and I can understand the comments. I could see that working in this 'oppressed' category possibly, particularly among communities that intentionally raise awareness of such issues. But what about those communities that don't? I mean, take the Roman Church for that matter? If you go to confession saying, "the devil made me do it" they're gonna have a talk with you. :) I do think oppression and possession need to be addressed differently, however, for they present two distinct experiences. True about the seeing struggles as cosmic experiences....I suppose that could be. But I do find it interesting experientially... but admittedly I come from it experientially. Having prayed with folks...and even having used certain liturgical rites for such things, I have a different perspective. ...and it's always interesting when those who are suffering DON'T come from a community that would cause heightened awareness/sensitivity to it. Interestingly enough, it's often the opposite... they don't know what on earth is going on, have no explanation for it, don't believe in it, and are anxious as all get out because of it. Yes, some folks are mentally ill. I'm not discounting that either.

Jeremy: But back to Jared...Jared, it's interesting how folks who are suffering often can't stand the Word being read to them, cough up holy communion if they try to receive, etc. etc.

Tommy: Baptism, holy communion, the word, and the devil...better watch out y'all are being watched. haha

Nathan: Jeremy---good comments. I speak as one with more Freud and sociology of religion and culture than as one in these situations. If I had to be nailed down on this one, I would say I prefer biblically, historically and theologically an evilwithout ontic status...a more personified one rather than a personel one. There are many reasons for this. Due to your comments on folks in low sensitivity issues, I would say that if I was honest I would really be more agnostic on this issue. There is darkness and light and there are realities pertaining to both that neither myself nor the biblical text can fully explain that seem to participate in the world with us. From a modernist perspective, I offer these insights. From a christian perspective, I would have to probably come down humbly agnostic about absolute propositions on this issue.

Tommy: Uh oh yall he just dropped the a bomb.

Jared: I think the conversation is purely academic. If you read Scripture, it is clear that there is a Devil. It is not even a questioned reality throughout Scripture. To question that existence is to be deceived. To question his existence, especially with the line of thinking that has been put forth, you would have to question the existence of Christ and claim that He is simply a cultural symbol of light or truth. You would have to question the existence of Moses and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of deliverance or freedom. you would have to question the existence of the angel Gabriel and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of revelation.
In my opinion, a denial of the existence of Satan is an attempt to deny what we cannot fully understand. It is yet another step down a liberal road that leads not only to questioning obvious and plain Bible truths, but a vulnerability obey Scripture and thus protect ourselves spiritually, as in 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."

Tommy: Jared, where was he in the first/old covenant?

Jeremy: uh oh.

Jeremy: The conversation is not purely academic. It started with a question about the creed. This is not an academic issue, it is a worship issue... a foundational one. Now, let's talk scripture, shall we? How have we learned to handle scripture? Can we really strongly claim this to be one of thees 'plain obvious truths' or is it perhaps that what seems plain and obvious to us is colored by our cultural lenses? Now, let me be clear. I'm not agnostic on the issue. And while I am sensitive to Jared's concern that we not slide down the slippery liberal slope or whatever I have to ask... does not a careful read of scripture (taking into account a premodern worldview evident there) allow for a variety of conclusions on this issue?

Jeremy: Further, I believe the reality of Christ's incarnation has a great deal to bear on this. Christ came among us and was revealed in the context of a particular time, place, people, culture, worldview. That is part of the profundity of whatGod has done for us. The Word of God emerges from this context...it is clearly colored by their understanding of the world...let's not forget, we consult Hebrew and Greek because even the language of the scripture brings important meaningful layers of understanding to light for us. I believe it would be important to really explore what the scriptures testify regarding Satan and keep this set against what medieval Christianity did with these images that seem to dominate the imagery many still hold today.

Tommy: I think both of you have been very faithful christian theologians. This conversation has been biblically, philosophically, and liturgically grounded...which means many legitimate responses will surface. What I appreciate more than anything is that this conversation began appropriately with creed and not "where in the bible.". You couldn't demonstrate a more orthodox beginning point for theological discourse...

Tommy: Jeremy and Nate, you are two of the sharpest minds I've ever known...rock on with more convo like this. Good theology and it's free!

Nathan: Guys...I am going to respond, but I am in the middle of "The Bible Tells Me So" conference @ NNU in Nampa. We are in MST, so I will respond @ Lunch. Jeremy, Jared...thanks for the remarks...and Jeremy, you are right...this question first occurred not in my denying a biblical reality, but after a Sunday morning worship. It is a theological and liturgical issue for sure...among others.

Tommy: sorry Nate, i will keep out of the discussion. ;-)

Nathan: Tommy- you're welcome to join...and thanks for the compliments. Your affirmation means a lot. Please throw in any comments you would like. The more the theologians the better :)...I am sure you have some opinions here that would help us.

Josh: I've been eavesdropping. I couldn't help myself. Nate, I'm interested in hearing some of the dangers you find in granting an ontological status to evil--i.e. why not?

Tommy: Thanks for the invitation Brother Nate. First of all, i want to affirm your initial question. To begin with creed just blesses my emergent soul (more on that to come). The creed is the beginning of faith...it is that which is received in baptism as we journey from personal faith to a faithful receptivity and grasp of the church's faith from which the Scriptures proceed.

Secondly, I want to affirm Brother Jeremy for going back to womb of the church -- the baptismal waters. Of course the creeds do not tell us whether or not to believe in the ontological existence of Satan...this was not the subject matter for debate in Nicaea...The creed is the starting point...it is the boundary lines, if you will, for Christian life and worship, but it is not all inclusive. Which means, that both Nathan and Jeremy are right and orthodox in their stances. A Christian can believe in the ontological existence of Satan or evil (though I think its problematic) as well as believe in Satan as the emergence of evil in its fullest form (with the whole being much greater than the sum of the parts) or even as personification.

What is most important, in my opinion, is what Brother Jeremy laid out so masterfully. The very existence of the Christian and the church is through a very particular victory won by the Son of God when the resurrection forever gave way to our anthem, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." To be Christian is to be in opposition to evil and death in all its various and deceiving forms. To be Christian is to be made so very aware of the existence and power of evil, chaos, death, the demonic, Satan, or whatever you are formed to call it and to accept and embody the victory that has been won over it on our behalf. It is no little thing.

The earliest church got this as she led the neophyte-to-be to turn toward the west, renounce Satan in the first person, spit upon him and then turn east to embrace Christ and His kingdom for all its worth, putting words to the sacramental participation in death and resurrection that would immediately follow in the waters of baptism.

Now, this is what is important and necessary in my mind. Not that we embrace the ontological existence of Satan, so to speak, but that we realize evil's/chaos'/death's strong grip and sting on and in the universe...realize our participation in the darkness, and our utter dependence upon the grace of God in the victory of Christ to participate in the restored creation of justice and order in the triune God.

I, too, have problems with the ontological existence of Satan, because I am a Thomist. I believe to claim ontological existence of evil--to say that it exists as a separate metaphysical entity from Good is to go down a theological path I am not willing to traverse. I believe that evil is parasitic on the good...or at least that evil is emergent in much the same way i believe the soul is emergent from the physical substrates of the brain. What emerges is greater than the sum of the parts and becomes the soulish aspect of the human being that can even affect/effect the physical raw material from which it emerged--top down causation.

A lesser argument which is also valid and necessary for discussion is the idea that evil, like wisdom, was personified over time. Wisdom eventually got itself a capital letter and a feminine gender, but this doesn't negate that wisdom never existed before it became a she. In the same way, evil and chaos eventually got itself a capital, and even stole the hebrew word and fictional character, "the accuser," but this does not mean that evil/chaos/death was not very real before it was personified as such...

My point in all this is that there are options for us...and in these options we are still orthodox and creedal (oxy-moron, i know).

Brother Tommy

TommY: Since Br. Jeremy pointed us back to the waters, it might be enlightening to see this.

Nazarene liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world that corrupt and that destroy the creatures of God? Do you renounce sinful desires that draw you away from the love of God?

United Methodist liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron, either): "Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?"

Evangelical Lutheran liturgy: "Do you renounce the devil and all the forces that defy God? Do you renounce the powers of this world that rebel against God? Do you renounce the ways of sin that draw you from God?"

Episcopal Liturgy (someone please say amen with me that this liturgy is properly situated in the prayerbook with the Easter VIgil): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God? do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?"

I would put the orthodox one on here, but it might scare the ontological existence of hell out of us...ha. this is enough.

It looks like we Methodists are the only ones who do not believe in Satan/the devil any longer...and unfortunately, we are in the most accelerated state of decline...just a thought.

In the end, i must admit to being agnostic too...I'm not sure about the ontological existence of the devil, but i do renounce him/it/whatever it is that i know is real and powerful and still turn today to Jesus Christ, accepting him as my Savior/Victor.

Tommy: i can't do that to you...if you want to read the historic baptismal liturgy with the exorcisms, the spitting, the blowing, the whole nine yards, that our ultra-cool Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters still believe in today (bless them Lord), here it is:

http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/catechumen

http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism

Now that's some good stuff! Sorry for those who are concerned...this may further concern you...just saying...

Nathan: Tommy- well said. Your addition of multiple liturgies is insightful. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on evil/satan and some of the reasons you gave for not traversing an anti-Thomstic duality. On that note, the other reason I have made suggestions toward a freudian and sociological hermeneutic is precisely because what we are talking about is the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior. I like your retelling of capitalizing he W of wisdom and its correlation of "ha satan"....and to add, the capitalizing seems to be a theological move by the church to alleviate Divine culpabability in evil that would have been transferred from OT theologies of a sovreign, all-powerful God. The Devil is sociologically necessary within a hellenistic world, and a theological necessity to pin the blame somewhere other than the goodness of God. More after my workshops today.

Tommy: ‎"the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior." Now that is well said! I appreciate that you are not ready to immediately elevate experience over disciplined reason and especially the received and nurture tradition of the church that includes her Scriptures. I also appreciate your attentiveness to the reality that for many the devil has become a sociological necessity to point the blame elsewhere, thereby getting the good God off the hook. There is certainly something to be said of our pre-modern brothers and sisters who had no problem with lament! Thanks for your insight.

Tommy: I want to say one more thing about "academic vs. liturgical or whatever else." Aren't all the contributors here graduates from TNU who had Dr. Spross for Biblical Exegesis? I think we're all committed as TNU grads to help re-unite the academy and the church rather than to strengthen that dichotomy created by modernity and the enlightenment...so i want to say, keep it up fellas, you're doing good work!