{"id":19902,"date":"2001-11-20T06:33:46","date_gmt":"2001-11-20T06:33:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/worldviews-in-conflict-christian-cosmology-and-the-recent-doctrine-of-spiritual-mapping-part-1\/"},"modified":"2026-05-17T00:19:50","modified_gmt":"2026-05-17T00:19:50","slug":"worldviews-in-conflict-christian-cosmology-and-the-recent-doctrine-of-spiritual-mapping-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/worldviews-in-conflict-christian-cosmology-and-the-recent-doctrine-of-spiritual-mapping-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Worldviews in Conflict: Christian Cosmology and the Recent Doctrine of Spiritual Mapping (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\nFrom Pneuma Review Fall 2001<\/a>\n

 <\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s Introduction to Worldviews in Conflict<\/b><\/p>\n

Welcome to the Dialogue<\/i><\/p>\n

It is my privilege to introduce this paper by Larry Taylor and a dialogue about a practice many have embraced without first weighing the theological consequences. <\/i><\/p>\n

Our subject is the teaching of spiritual mapping, identifying and expelling territorial demonic forces. This teaching has not been extensively challenged in Pentecostal\/charismatic writings. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, the practice of spiritual mapping has been readily accepted.<\/i><\/p>\n

Not just to rock the boat, Professor Taylor of Portland Bible College is asking us to consider on what basis this teaching has been accepted. Is spiritual mapping biblical doctrine, or is it derived from another source?<\/i><\/p>\n

If spiritual mapping is a biblical teaching, we perhaps should all be involved in identifying and systematically removing the forces of evil from our neighborhoods and nations. If spiritual mapping cannot stand on scriptural grounds, its validity and our participation should be evaluated in that light.<\/i><\/p>\n

Brother Taylor has invited response and interaction with himself on this subject. <\/i>The Pneuma Review\u2019s editorial committee has been endeavoring to locate a participant to respond to this paper. If all goes as planned, Taylor\u2019s paper will be presented in two parts, followed by a rejoinder by someone offering another view of spiritual mapping, then followed by a response by Taylor. You are invited to write in and interact with this subject, whether you have an insight or a disagreement.<\/i><\/p>\n

As with all articles, and especially controversial ones, the views expressed in this dialogue are not necessarily the views of all of the editors or the membership of the Pneuma Foundation. It is our privilege to present differing viewpoints that encourage the free exchange of ideas among disciples of Jesus. I hope that you will participate in this discussion. Please add your comments below<\/i>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Raul Mock<\/i>, Executive Editor<\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield<\/i><\/b> to the texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him,<\/i><\/b> for he cannot bear scorn.\u201d<\/i><\/b>
\n\u2013 Martin Luther<\/b><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In recent years it has become increasingly clear that the devil is not going to go away, either in reality or as a topic of immense importance. In the past four decades he has gained attention at the box office and, more recently, at various church leadership conferences under the billing of \u201cspiritual warfare.\u201d Hollywood has enjoyed a disturbing love affair with the devil, dating back to Rosemary\u2019s Baby<\/i> in the late 60\u2019s, which was soon followed by the smashing success of The Exorcist<\/i> in 1973. Thanks (in no small part) to the computer industry, patrons today are offered a steady diet of scurrilous gore involving pools of blood, projectile vomiting, super-powered demons, twisted witches and candle-lit satanic rituals set in Gothic style.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the entertainment industry is not alone in its interest in and fascination with the macabre. In at least one segment of the church, there is a renewed militancy aimed at escalating the arms race against the devil and his horde. The most innovative aspect of this aggressive strategy involves \u201cspiritual mapping.\u201d1<\/sup> This is the practice of strategically locating and identifying the distinct demonic forces that lay behind a city or region, naming the demons, and driving them out. Although the practice is not limited to Pentecostal-type churches, the theological ideas that support it fit comfortably in many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today.<\/p>\n

In this particular paper I will explore the biblical and theological problems that I believe are associated with spiritual mapping, while focusing much of my attention on assessing the distinct cosmology that appears to serve as the basis for the practice. It is my theory that a weak, unbiblical cosmology has served to promote the doctrine of spiritual mapping. I open the subject by explaining the practical importance of cosmology. Secondly, I examine the biblical doctrine of creation, searching for a valid Christian cosmology. Turning briefly to the area of demonology, I examine Scripture\u2019s view of Satan, particularly his power in relation to believers. Fourthly, I offer a biblical assessment of the practice of spiritual mapping. Finally, I conclude with a practical observation of the current state of Pentecostal-type churches and offer a pastoral call to return to basic-life teaching.<\/p>\n

Due to the limited objectives of this particular study, I will not be assessing every aspect of the practice of spiritual mapping. There may be spiritual, psychological, and ecclesiastical rewards from the practice that lie outside the scope of this study. Moreover, I do not intend to present a thorough doctrine of Satan and demons. There are numerous books on the subject, some recent, that superbly handle the doctrine of Satan and demons. I have noted several for the benefit of the reader at the conclusion of the article.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is Real?<\/b><\/p>\n

If reality is obvious, why do people everywhere view it so differently? The answer is that the family of mankind fails to agree on what is the best explanation of reality, or the area known as cosmology. Cosmology is a speculative discipline that deals with the study of origins as well as probing metaphysical questions related to the nature of creation and the cosmos. Cosmology is related to one\u2019s \u201cworldview.\u201d2<\/sup> People form a worldview whether or not they understand or are able to employ the methods and study of cosmology. Every person has a basic worldview that, in turn, acts as a frame of reference. It forms the lens of our perception and affects the way we see and judge all appearances.<\/p>\n

Our understanding and perception of the world influences the way we answer primal questions. What is real? Does the real change? Are some things more real than other things? These and other questions are philosophical in nature, but the answers we adopt have very practical consequences for our daily lives. For example, a Christian Scientist practitioner breaks a leg but refuses to seek medical treatment since he is convinced that his physical body is non-real or less real than the mental powers he uses to deny the broken leg. A protesting Buddhist monk in Cambodia douses gasoline on his clothing and sets himself ablaze since he believes that pain and death are ultimate illusions, part of the world of appearances, not the real or true spiritual reality.<\/p>\n

Our English language has permitted a number of popular expressions that reflect this common interest in reality. We say, for instance, \u201cget real,\u201d to criticize someone else\u2019s view of reality, and we exclaim, \u201cit was real!\u201d after a heart-throbbing roller-coaster ride. Beyond the expressions and popularized slogans that are characteristic of any culture and language is the troublesome fact that few people ever question the reality they see and experience at a deeper level.<\/p>\n

Once it is understood that there will be many interpretations of the same event, we are left with conflicting and contradictory claims. Hence, observing a Hindu sage levitate, in apparent defiance of the law of gravity, draws several competing answers. To other Hindus he has connected to core reality, to the physicist he has overthrown fundamental laws about magnetic force fields, to the world class magician he has pulled off an age-old trick, and to some devout Christians he has been empowered by the devil to perform a demonic feat. The actual truth may even support a combination of interpretations.<\/p>\n

Our worldview, or cosmology, affects the way we perceive life and the events that make up our personal life experience. If we presuppose that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and we see an apparition, we will be led to conclude, as Dickens\u2019 Ebenezer Scrooge, that we had eaten a bad bit of beef. On the other hand, if our culture raised us to see spirits in everything, we may welcome this visitation as an endeared ancestor or friend. The question is no longer about whether there will be different opinions and interpretations, but which one is right and how do we go about verifying our perception of the matter.<\/p>\n

For this reason, we should not rely solely on testimonies and anecdotes to \u201cprove\u201d any particular worldview. In the study of miracles, for instance, there are two equally important aspects that need to be analyzed and assessed: (a) the phenomenon itself<\/i>; namely, did the event actually occur?; and (b) the explanation<\/i>, or the answer to the question, what caused the event to occur? In the world of religion, the first question is easiest to answer. For example we say, \u201cJohn was able to walk at 10 a.m. on June 3rd <\/sup>and he never walked before.\u201d This fact is fairly easy to substantiate. The explanation, or interpretation of the cause of the apparent miracle, is usually more difficult and complicated. What if John is a Mormon? or a professed New Age adherent? Countless conflicting testimonies over human history have been used to support Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, Voodoo, and witchcraft\u2014to name a few.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conflicting Worldviews<\/b><\/p>\n

In ancient Greece and India, philosophers and religious leaders discussed this riddle of reality, and at times came up with similar solutions. Some Greek philosophers dismissed the physical world altogether, since matter changes by nature, and logically what is \u201cbecoming\u201d cannot be also said to \u201cbe.\u201d3<\/sup> About the same time in India, Buddhist doctrine was advancing the idea that the world is illusory, or non-real. In other words, the things that we see and experience through our five senses are not real. The late prominent Buddhist scholar in the U.S., D. T. Suzuki, referred to this as \u201cthe Non-Atman-ness of things,\u201d4<\/sup> and he cites ancient Buddhist scripture to support the point:<\/p>\n

Empty and calm and devoid of ego
\nIs the nature of all things;
\nThere is no individual being
\nThat in reality exists.5<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Other early Greek philosophers, as well as some Hindu and Buddhist schools, did not completely reject the reality of the physical world, but assigned a lesser degree of value to it. The most important proponent of this latter metaphysical view is that of Plato (429-347 BC). He maintained that the world of appearances, the world of our senses, is real, but only as it participates in and expresses the greater reality of Ideas or Forms. In other words, a horse that\u2019s eating hay in a barn can only be real because there is a REAL concept called, \u201chorse.\u201d A few prominent Christian philosophers who were impressed with Plato\u2019s cosmology later expressed his notion of real ideas as structured thoughts in the mind of God. 6<\/sup><\/p>\n

By New Testament times, Greek Hellenistic influence was interwoven with metaphysical views that had been imported from the East. Admittedly, this set the stage for a rich exchange in the marketplace of ideas. However, the otherwise tolerant heterogeneous climate remained hostile to New Testament Christianity, since the competing worldviews contradicted the teaching of Old Testament Scripture and the established tradition set forth by the Apostles.<\/p>\n

One would think that the Judeans were able to perpetuate the worldview handed down to them from the time of Moses. To some extent, the party of the Pharisees represented the purist reflection of the Old Testament cosmology. However, Hellenistic influence was far reaching soon after the time of Alexander the Great. Jews of the Diaspora and the Gentile pagans were even more susceptible to non-Mosaic views of reality and the cosmos, and this factored into the way Christian converts handled the Apostles\u2019 doctrine and eventually it affected their lifestyle. For example, on the primary issue of the Person of Christ, a second-century sect known as the \u201cDocetists\u201d denied the incarnation of Christ because they were harnessed to the metaphysical assumption that God and physical reality could not be joined.7<\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A number of emerging sects claimed that Christ only \u201cseemed\u201d to have a physical body, a heresy that had been exposed by John\u2019s Gospel a century earlier.8<\/sup> In addition, later Gnostic views of reality poisoned the doctrine of Christian life, since they taught that the physical body is essentially the worthless prison of the soul.9<\/sup> The Gnostic and Dualist worldview portrayed the physical elements, including the human body as it was originally created, to be essentially evil.<\/p>\n

Manichaean Dualism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Arguably one of the most damaging heresies introduced to the ancient Middle-Eastern world came from the teaching of Mani, the enigmatic prophet and founder of Manichaeism.10<\/sup> Under his guidance the Manichees set out to resolve the apparent conflict between the concept of the essential goodness of the Creator and the presence of evil in the cosmos. Their solution drew attention to two fundamental forces in the universe: good vs. evil, or, to put it in strictly Christian terms: God vs. Satan.<\/p>\n

The eclectic Mani had woven Buddhist, Persian and Christian ideas together, reconstructing Old Testament narratives in the form of Eastern mythology and corrupting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.11<\/sup> By the time of his martyrdom (approximately 276), he had succeeded in spreading his new\u2013but marred\u2014religious insights throughout the Near East and into China, as well as the West in Rome and North Africa.<\/p>\n

Even more important was his influence on one of Church history\u2019s most illustrious early personalities, St. Augustine (354-430). It is believed that in apparent desperation over dealing with his own sensuous nature, the young Augustine had been attracted to the austere teachings of Mani.12<\/sup> It is fairly clear that he was unable to completely shed his Manichaean influences as the elderly church bishop, even at the time of his most famous work, City of God.<\/i> Manichaean doctrine, which had permeated both the Eastern and Western world during the latter half of the fourth century, has reappeared in many popular forms since.13<\/sup><\/p>\n

The principle problem with the Manichaen thesis is the errant view that God is limited in His power, thus it reduces the universe to a cosmic struggle or duel being fought between God and Satan. Putting it another way, the world of the Manichees was one that perceived God and Satan as virtually equals. This doctrine is best known as metaphysical or cosmic Dualism. Although they regarded God as the overall Creator and Father of spirit and light, they defined Satan as the one who created the physical world. They argued that Satan, not God, has hold of the events of life and the elements that make up the material universe. Explaining it simply, they believed the world belonged to the devil, but God was fighting to get it back.<\/p>\n

The doctrine of the Manichees, as well as those cosmologies found in Docetism and Gnosticism, were branded heresy\u2014and for good reason.14<\/sup> The church fathers were incensed by the notion that God\u2019s glory and perfection was being maligned by a corrupt worldview.15<\/sup> They saw it as a threat to the fundamental Judeo-Christian cosmology that had been handed down from the time of Moses.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Origin of the Distinctive Western Worldview<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Prophet Moses had indeed delivered the Law, the Torah. However, equally important to the moral insights of the Ten Commandments and the spiritual significance of the levitical priesthood, was this revolutionary cosmology. Moses had succeeded in delivering a unique cosmology that was guaranteed to change the world as the ancients knew it. From the time of Moses onward, the Hebrew worldview contrasted sharply with her neighbors in the way they thought about God, the physical universe, and spiritual reality. In fact, some historians point out that the divine encounter between YHWH and Moses, recorded in Exodus 3, signifies a paradigm shift in the way Western16<\/sup> culture historically viewed God and, ultimately, science. Historian Diane Darst, for example, makes this poignant observation:<\/p>\n

Even his name, Yahweh, translates both as \u201cI am who I am\u201d and \u201che who causes to be.\u201d This very abstract concept of a god transcendent to nature represented a bold departure from the idol worship and anthropomorphism of other ancient religions and made possible the development of modern Western science.17<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a crucial point that should not be overlooked by anyone who has grown up in the West. Prior to Moses the religions along the Mediterranean landscape were as animistic and polytheistic as those in India or Tibet. The spiritualist worldview was the only worldview. Spirits lived in all things, both animate and inanimate objects. Bushes, trees, forests, rivers, rocks, mountains and sky\u2014all were believed to contain spirits and life connected to the spiritual world order. The largely agrarian populations that nestled between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers worshipped deities that were limited to a particular region or city. In other words, in the cradle of Western Civilization before Moses, people put their trust in local gods and goddesses who were thought to be intertwined with nature itself.18<\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Under these conditions, man could not work the field, fish in the river, or take a walk on a cloudy day without imagining the spiritual life at work in the natural environment. A spiritual vision of this magnitude produced in our primitive ancestors a unique sense of awe and fear with regard to the supernatural and the spiritual, but it also limited man\u2019s progress in the physical world. If everything <\/i>is spiritual or sacred, then we have no right to inspect the earth, reconstruct our environment to improve human conditions, or take medicine without swallowing a ghost. It is no coincidence that wherever these primitive ideas are still held in the world today, industry and technology are severely retarded.<\/p>\n

To summarize, our worldview is shaped by our culture and the times in which we live. Some of the cosmologies that have shaped today\u2019s cultures include the idea that the universe is non-real. It is true that in the modernized Western world, some philosophers deny the spirit world altogether. Still others have advocated the philosophy that the physical material world is real, but not as<\/i> real as the invisible, supernatural world. Finally, we see how Dualism has attracted some people to the idea that the spirit-world belongs to God, while another dark invisible force controls the world of matter, events and things.<\/p>\n

In each case, the worldview shapes, not only the perspective of the adherent, but his environment and habitation. It should be apparent by now that our interpretation and understanding of what is real<\/i> is foundational for Christian doctrine. A sound Christian cosmology, however, should not be shaped largely by ideas simply because they are historical, philosophical, experiential, or even popular; rather it should be shaped by the authority of Scripture. For Christians, the revelation contained in inspired Scripture is the only reliable\u2014and ultimately authoritative\u2014source to which we may anchor our trust. We now turn to a biblical perspective of creation, spiritual reality and the cosmos.<\/p>\n

Toward a Biblical Cosmology<\/b><\/p>\n

A distinctively Christian cosmology starts by examining the doctrine of creation as it is first presented in the book of Genesis. Only by searching the Genesis narrative for its perspective on creation can we begin to understand the relationship between material and spiritual realities, or whether one reality is actually \u201cmore real\u201d than the other. Our intent here is to assess the fundamental perspective of the Genesis author, to capture his sense of reality\u2014so to speak. Two questions are important in our analysis: (1) What does the Genesis account teach us about God\u2019s relationship to his creation? and (2) what is the biblical view on the relationship between spirit and matter?<\/p>\n

Concerning the first question, we are told in the first chapter of Genesis \u2014in matter-of-fact expressions\u2014that God created the world. \u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth\u201d (Gen. 1:1). The utterance ignores the apologist\u2019s appeal to arguments for the existence of God. Instead it invites the reader to imagine the wonder and awe of God\u2019s unique creative act. The narrative is simple, but penetrating, lucid but beyond the scope of human comprehension. Two things stand out immediately to the reader: (a) that the universe has a fixed point of origin; i.e., it is not infinite like God; and (b) that God created the universe solely from within his own power, without the use of preexisting materials; i.e., creatio ex nihilo <\/i>(creation out of nothing).<\/p>\n

Each premise attacks the core belief systems of the ancient world, including later Greek philosophies. The world of the ancients claimed that the universe was eternal and that time and seasons revolved in endless cycles. A majority of Greek philosophers, following Plato,19<\/sup> believed that the universe had been derived from some kind of pre-existent substance. The Manichean heresy enlarged this cosmology in its affirmation that good and evil had existed equally and eternally in this primordial state.20<\/sup> They agreed with orthodoxy that God\u2019s existence furnished the ultimate basis for creation, but they wrongly assumed that the world was created out of some pre-existent material. Genesis clearly contradicts these schools of thought by clarifying that, at a fixed point, God acted by creating the world. Only God existed before creation, and only by his act of creation did anything come into being at all.21<\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This factor represents an astounding truth, one that begs for further clarification. The fundamental doctrine of creation ex nihilo<\/i> could only be credited to divine revelation; it is not the kind of concept either the ancients or modern man would invent. How could God have created something from nothing? Philosophers and logicians naturally disparage the doctrine, claiming that it begs the question\u2014and indeed it does. Nevertheless, the Scripture is unequivocal: God \u201cspoke\u201d and the universe was birthed into existence. On this point, the author of Hebrews concurs: \u201cBy faith we understand that the universe was formed at God\u2019s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible\u201d (Heb. 11:3).22<\/sup> Acknowledging the magnitude of this crucial Christian doctrine, Lewis and Demarest comment:<\/p>\n

To achieve certain special decretive purposes God\u2019s strategy is to act miraculously, either by superseding nature\u2019s laws and human agencies or using other means in extraordinary ways. For example, creation ex nihilo <\/i>must necessarily have been achieved without the secondary causal factors. At the point of initial creation no other beings or things existed to play an intermediate role in that creative act. In God\u2019s miraculous strategy <\/i>he is both the final cause and the efficient cause.23<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Genesis 1:1 also teaches that God created both \u201cthe heavens\u201d and \u201cthe earth.\u201d The author apparently differentiated the spiritual world from the physical world, but God is still understood as the creator of both realms. All spiritual and material substances owe their existence to him. The Apostle Paul clarified this view further when he attributed creation to the work of Christ:<\/p>\n

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Col. 1:16).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Based on this consideration, we are required to conclude that every imaginable spiritual substance\u2014both good and evil\u2014was originally created by God. As Brunner points out, \u201cThe idea of Creation expresses the truth that God assumes complete and sole responsibility for the existence of the world\u2026\u201d24<\/sup> This would include angels, demons, heavenly realms, the existence of hell, and the devil himself. No power exists outside of what God created; that is, no spiritual reality exists by its own power. Nor can the spiritual realities exist simply by their own will. Putting aside the notion that various levels of angelic and demonic beings exist, perhaps even ranked according to nature or seniority, we affirm nevertheless that every spiritual reality owes its origin and sustaining power to God.<\/p>\n

Another question naturally arises when we profess that God created all things, even the demonic forces. Did God create evil beings or did the creatures become evil after they were created? The answer appears to be the latter. Sometime, between the conclusion of the initial creation when God called everything \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen. 1:31), and the tragic fall of mankind (Gen. 3), a spiritual rebellion may have occurred.25<\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Returning to the original question: what does the creation narrative teach us concerning God\u2019s relationship to the world? Against Dualism, we conclude that since God is the undisputed author of the universe, he has absolute and sovereign control over every substance, living or dead, animate or inanimate. We cannot overstress the truth that God acts to preserve creation, and\u2014in some fashion\u2014continues to create. Against Eastern Pantheism, we point out that the Christian doctrine of creation draws a clear distinction between the Creator and the world He created. Against Deism, which teaches that God is remote and indifferent to his creation, Christians affirm that God remains active in the world and in the affairs of mankind. Jesus implied that God is involved in some of the finest details of life.26<\/sup><\/p>\n

Concerning the second major question, what does Genesis teach about the relationship between the spiritual realm and the physical world? Several factors become evident. First, everything that was produced in the original act of creation was good. The passage reads, \u201cGod saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning\u2014the sixth day\u201d (1:31). The writer\u2019s comment about evening and morning reveals a sense of regularity and perfection in the order of creation; i.e., God did a good job in creating a good universe.<\/p>\n

Second, Genesis reveals that the goodness of creation was declared by God, and was not simply the result of human judgment. Mankind can appreciate God\u2019s creation, even adore a majestic mountain peak and rolling sea, but he cannot make the world good by simply rendering a value judgment. The world was good solely because God valued it and appraised it accordingly.<\/p>\n

Note that God\u2019s assessment extends to every living creature, all of creation, both visible and invisible. In its original state, the whole universe was good. Evil was permitted to develop in subsequent times, but it was not endemic of the original state or condition of the created world. Whether or not we view Satan and demons to be fallen angels or some other spiritual beings, it is irrelevant to the fact that originally\u2014no evil was present in the beginning<\/i>. Grudem concurs that everything God created was good, which \u201c…means that even the angelic world that God had created did not have evil angels or demons in it at that time.\u201d27<\/sup><\/p>\n

If everything God created was good, it follows that the physical world\u2014as well as the spiritual realm\u2014was good. Against the background of Greek Gnosticism, Manichaen Dualism and the philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism, the Bible teaches the essential goodness of physical creation. The Apostle Paul was well aware of the corrupting effects of sin, but remained firm in his belief that the physical world was good: \u201cFor everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving\u2026\u201d (I Tim. 4:1; cf., Col. 2:16-23).28<\/sup><\/p>\n

Our physical bodies also belong to the category of the goodness of God\u2019s creation, despite our present frailties and the fact that we face mortality until the Day comes.29<\/sup> The New Testament not only reaffirms that the human body is essentially good as God created it, Paul elevates the Christian\u2019s body by referring to it as the \u201ctemple of the Holy Spirit\u201d (I Cor. 6:19). In fact, the ultimate hope for salvation lies in the expectation of a physical resurrection of the dead<\/i>.30<\/sup> Human destiny, it seems, is always tied to a kind of physical-material existence, even though Paul teaches that the physical body undergoes a radical transformation at the coming resurrection.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The natural implication of this viewpoint is that physical objects\u2014in themselves\u2014are still essentially good. There are no grounds, either philosophical or biblical, for suggesting that sin or evil infected mere physical mass. Human bodies, animals, rocks, trees, rivers and mountains have not transformed into objects of God\u2019s wrath as a result of man\u2019s sin or Satan\u2019s devices. If anything, the whole of creation, including the animal kingdom, fell victim to man\u2019s sin and awaits renewal and complete restoration (Rom. 8:19-22).<\/p>\n

The implication that physical life\u2014especially human physical life\u2014is polluted by sin attacks the very core of our christological heritage. Christ became<\/i> a man; he partook of human life and nature. \u201cThe word became flesh<\/i>…!\u201d (John 1:14). So insistent is John on this testimony that he calls everyone who does not receive it \u201cfalse prophets\u201d of \u201cthe spirit of the antichrist\u201d (I John 4:1-3). Had flesh been anything other than essentially good, Christ\u2014himself\u2014would have been tainted. Moreover, his relationship with the physical world (lit. his \u201cflesh\u201d) was more than a slight brush with nature. As Marshall points out:<\/p>\n

The incarnation was not a temporary event but the permanent union of God and man in Jesus Christ. Moreover, to say that Jesus Christ came \u201cin the flesh\u201d is to say that he was truly united with human flesh rather than that he merely came into a human body and indwelt it (possibly only for a limited period).31<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Furthermore, this kind of cosmology makes sense of our everyday lives. A man pulls a .45 caliber pistol and kills a policeman. The gun maker carefully crafted the pistol from metal, wood, and perhaps plastic. But we do not blame the material components that constitute the weapon; we rightfully blame the man\u2014the killer. On the other side, we are thankful for vegetables and antibiotics for keeping us healthy, but we do not ascribe spiritual life or \u201cmagic\u201d to the chemical compounds. As human beings, we dwell in a physical world where real bullets tear apart our flesh and wound our internal organs. We also learn that if we exercise, eat properly, and play it safe, we should be able to extend our life and its quality. This does not rule out God\u2019s providential care in the slightest detail of our lives, but it reveals the true nature of creation as God intended.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PR<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the Next Issue:<\/b><\/p>\n

Satan in the Bible<\/b><\/p>\n

Satan\u2019s Relationship to God and Creation<\/b><\/p>\n

Satan\u2019s Power and the Believing Community<\/b><\/p>\n

Is Spiritual Mapping Biblical?<\/b><\/p>\n

Analogies and Anecdotes vs. Biblical Authority<\/b><\/p>\n

Returning to the Basics<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes<\/b><\/p>\n

1<\/sup> See C. Peter Wagner\u2019s comprehensive and edited work, Engaging the Enemy<\/i> (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1991), for the case of spiritual mapping and other subjects related to spiritual warfare.<\/p>\n

2<\/sup> For an excellent primer of worldviews, see James W. Sire\u2019s, The Universe Next Door<\/i>, 2nd<\/sup>. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).<\/p>\n

3<\/sup> Heraclitus, for example stated, \u201cIt is not possible to step into the same river twice,\u201d indicating that the world of our senses is not ultimate reality. See David E. Cooper, World Philosophies<\/i> (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 95-7.<\/p>\n

4<\/sup> D.T. Suzuki, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism<\/i> (New York: Schocken Books, 1963), p. 41.<\/p>\n

5<\/sup> Ibid.,<\/i> p. 45.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

6<\/sup> G.F.W. Liebniz is a good example. See Monroe C. Beardsley, (ed), The European Philosophers: From Descartes to Nietzsche<\/i> (New York: Modern Library, 1992), p. 263.<\/p>\n

7<\/sup> Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John<\/i>, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 31.<\/p>\n

8<\/sup> Ibid<\/i>.<\/p>\n

9<\/sup> For a simple but accurate synopsis of Gnostic doctrine, see W.T. Jones\u2019 The Medieval Mind, <\/i>2nd<\/sup> ed., vol. 2 in A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Harcourt, et al., 1969), pp. 61-3.<\/p>\n

10<\/sup> Ibid.<\/i>, pp. 67-9.<\/p>\n

11<\/sup> Thomas W. Africa, The Ancient World<\/i> (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969), p. 444-5.<\/p>\n

12<\/sup> Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience<\/i>, 5th<\/sup> ed., (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996), pp. 274-5.<\/p>\n

13<\/sup> W.T. Jones, Medieval Mind<\/i>, pp. 68-9.<\/p>\n

14<\/sup> The most famous dispute between the orthodox church fathers and Mani (spelled \u201cManes\u201d in earlier writings) is referred to in \u201cArchelaus\u201d in The Ante-Nicene Fathers<\/i>, Vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 173-253.<\/p>\n

15<\/sup> Archelaus condemned Mani for his weak view of God, stating, \u201cYou do indeed call Him God, but you do so in name only, and you make His deity resemble man\u2019s infirmities.\u201d Ibid., <\/i>p. 196.<\/p>\n

16<\/sup> Until recently, the term, \u201cWestern,\u201d referred to the whole history of Western Civilization, beginning in Egypt and the Mesopotamian Valley sometime between the 8th<\/sup> and 4th<\/sup> millennium B.C. See William H. McNeill\u2019s, History of Western Civilization: A Handbook<\/i>, 6th<\/sup> ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986). Since the 19th<\/sup> century the term has unfortunately been understood to mean modern European culture and the general scientific and technological outlook of the Western Hemisphere, especially the United States.. This factor obscures an important fact concerning the original distinction between the philosophical world of the Middle East, which followed the Mosaic tradition of a personal, transcendent God, as opposed to its Far Eastern neighbors of India and China. Eastern philosophy, in general, has been more open to belief in spiritual and mental powers, but mostly closed to the exclusive claims of Christianity and the concept of absolutes. A form of relativism has dominated the Eastern worldview from the beginning, whereas the Mosaic Western tradition has asserted that principles and rules apply to both the spiritual and material world orders. Hence, both technology and religion were able to thrive together until animosity separated them, especially during the Modern Age and the period of the Enlightenment (17th<\/sup> \u2013 19th<\/sup> centuries).<\/p>\n

17<\/sup> Diane W. Darst, Western Civilization to 1648<\/i> (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), p. 37.<\/p>\n

18<\/sup> Although it has been popular since the 19th<\/sup> century for evolutionary theorists to argue that primitive man\u2019s religion evolved from animism to polytheism, and finally, to monotheism, recent criticism has challenged some of the key assumptions. Some evidence has suggested that a belief in a single High God was believed among a few tribes and people before the advent of polytheism. See Ninian Smart\u2019s, The Religious Experience<\/i>, pp. 22-35. This concurs with the biblical account.<\/p>\n

19<\/sup> See Plato, Timaeus<\/i>, 28. However, Plato\u2019s ideas had more lasting influence in the church due to the work of Plotinus (c.204-c.270), especially through the latter\u2019s Enneads.<\/i><\/p>\n

20<\/sup> Smart, The Religious Experience<\/i>, pp. 272-3.<\/p>\n

21<\/sup> John 1:1-3 provides a New Testament parallel to the Genesis creation account, with the superceding revelation that Christ, \u201cThe Word,\u201d is identified as Creator God.<\/p>\n

22<\/sup> Although the NIV and the NASB translations only indirectly discredit the idea that God used pre-existent material to create the world, additional Scriptures combine to support the basic creation ex nihilo <\/i>doctrine., Cf., Psa. 33:6,9; Isa. 45:18; Acts 17:24-25; Rev. 4:11. For a fuller treatment of the New Testament teaching, see Millard J. Erickson\u2019s, Christian Theology<\/i> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), pp. 367-70.<\/p>\n

23<\/sup> Gordon R. Lewis & Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology<\/i>, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp. 317-8.<\/p>\n

24<\/sup> Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption<\/i>, Trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952), p. 12.<\/p>\n

25<\/sup> For a more thorough explanation of this thought see Erickson, Systematic Theology, <\/i>pp. 447-8, and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine<\/i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, and Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), pp. 412-14. Both writers conclude similar ideas based on the inference that Genesis 1 reveals a completely good world, whereas Genesis 3 admits the presence of an evil creature with evil intent. That a rebellion of some magnitude must have occurred in the spiritual realm, is implied by the contrast of good and evil.<\/p>\n

26<\/sup> See Matt. 5:45; 6:26; 10:30<\/p>\n

27<\/sup> Grudem, Systematic Theology<\/i>, p. 412.<\/p>\n

28<\/sup> Paul continued to wrestle with false teachers on the treatment of the body; Cf., I Tim. 4:1-3; Gal. 3:1-5.<\/p>\n

29<\/sup> I Cor. 15:35-58; Cf., I Thess. 4:13-18. Paul does speak of the transient nature of our present bodies, the fact that they are imperfect and destined to be returned to earth (II Cor. 5:1-4; Cf., 4:16), but this does not diminish the fact that the body is good and valuable.<\/p>\n

30<\/sup> I Cor. 15:35-55; II Cor. 5:2-3; I Thess. 4:13-18).<\/p>\n

31<\/sup> I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John<\/i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 205.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Editor\u2019s Introduction to Worldviews in Conflict Welcome to the Dialogue It is my privilege to introduce this paper by Larry Taylor and a dialogue about a practice many have embraced without first weighing the theological consequences. Our subject is the teaching of spiritual mapping, identifying and expelling territorial demonic forces. This teaching has…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2866,"featured_media":19903,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2670,11,1],"tags":[2700,2701,2702,2703,2704,2705,2683,2706,2707,2708],"ppma_author":[4642],"class_list":["post-19902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fall-2001","category-living-the-faith","category-pneuma-review","tag-christian","tag-conflict","tag-cosmology","tag-doctrine","tag-larry-taylor","tag-mapping","tag-part","tag-peter-wagner","tag-spiritual","tag-worldviews","author-larryltaylor"],"authors":[{"term_id":4642,"user_id":2866,"is_guest":0,"slug":"larryltaylor","display_name":"Larry Taylor","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/RegisUniv_logo.png","url2x":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/RegisUniv_logo.png"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2866"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19902"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19902\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24093,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19902\/revisions\/24093"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19902"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=19902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}