There’s a strange omission in the way Arminians attack Calvinism. Take a typical specimen from John Wesley:
“Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust…No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination.”
Is there anything missing from this picture? I’d say so.
It overlooks a very large and conspicuous counterexample. For there’s a whole class of sinners whom Wesley ignores: the fallen angels.
If you think limited atonement is too tight, try no atonement on for size. How does that fit?
The Son of God became a man to redeem men. He did not, however, become an angel to redeem angels.
Even if you subscribe to unlimited atonement, that’s only for the sons of Adam. There’s no provision for fallen angels. No sufficient grace. No opportunity to repent and be forgiven.
If doctrines like reprobation and limited atonement are incompatible with God’s love and justice, then why the double standard where angels are concerned?
Yo Professor Reppert! Or for any other angry Arminians.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your answer to Steve's question: "If doctrines like reprobation and limited atonement are incompatible with God’s love and justice, then why the double standard where angels are concerned?"
Fair warning: Cognitive dissonance shall occur any way that you answer this question.
Except said angels lived with God and saw Him in His glory and then rebelled. That may have something to do with it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, their nature and essence may be of some such that they are unable to be redeemed. Frankly, the Bible doesn't say enough about it to be sure, but it sure talks enough about unlimited human atonement.
ReplyDeleteIf their nature is such that they are unable to be redeemed, then how can it be said that they have libertarian free will?
ReplyDeleteFurthmore, how can they be held responsible for their evil deeds if they are not given a chance to be redeemed? Isn't it a staple of Arminian theology that "ought" implies "can"?
What does the reality of a fallen angel say to us?
ReplyDeleteIf one can be in the presence of God, untainted by original sin and still reject Him (as in the angels) while humans will not be able to reject Him, does this not imply that angels are either
a) in some sense more free than men will ever be
or
b) were not free to NOT rebel, implying that God was the sole cause of their rebellion and their "evil"?
"f one can be in the presence of God, untainted by original sin and still reject Him (as in the angels) while humans will not be able to reject Him, does this not imply that angels are either
ReplyDeletea) in some sense more free than men will ever be
or
b) were not free to NOT rebel, implying that God was the sole cause of their rebellion and their "evil"?"
Or in some other sense fundamentally different that renders comparison to fallen men limited?
An interesting question from several perspectives.
"If one can be in the presence of God, untainted by original sin and still reject Him (as in the angels) while humans will not be able to reject Him..."
ReplyDeleteIn what sense did the angels "reject" God that will be different from in what way the reprobate respond to God's presence? Are you suggesting some reprobate individuals will "accept" God when in His presence and, if so, in what sense are you speaking of "acceptance" that is different from in what way the fallen angels acted?
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Except said angels lived with God and saw Him in His glory and then rebelled. That may have something to do with it.”
So fallen angels are unforgivable because they knew what God is really like, but fallen men are forgivable because they don’t know what God is really like.
But if that’s the argument, then why are Adam and Eve responsible for their actions? If they acted in ignorance, why are they blameworthy? Your argument puts them in a condition of diminished responsibility–like a two-year-old. In that event, what is there to forgive? If they made an innocent mistake, then wouldn’t that be exculpatory rather than culpable?
bossmanham said...
ReplyDelete“Also, their nature and essence may be of some such that they are unable to be redeemed.”
That’s conjecture in lieu of an argument. To make good on your conjecture, you need to provide a supporting argument.
i) What could there be about the angelic nature which renders them irredeemable?
It’s true that inanimate objects and lower animals (perhaps higher animals as well) are irredeemable for the simple reason that they’re also inculpable. They lack the properties of moral agency.
But that’s hardly the situation in the case of angels.
ii) And once we eliminate that natural impediment, the possibility or impossibility of redemption has more to do with the offended party than the offending party. It’s a relation between the offending party and the offended party. And it’s up to the offended party whether or not he’s prepared to forgive the offender. He’s the injured party. How does the nature of the offender negate his freedom?
iii) Once again, what’s the relevant difference between human nature and angelic nature that renders angels intrinsically irredeemable?
Both men and angels are moral and rational agents. It’s possible that the mode of angelic knowledge is different than ours. But how is that germane?
Redemption presupposes guilt. If the angels are guilty, then what makes them intrinsically irredeemable? Isn’t that a necessary precondition of redemption?
Are you claiming that while it’s possible for God to assume a human nature, it’s impossible for God to assume an angelic one? If so, where’s the argument?
iv) Or do you take the position that fallen angels are unable to repent? In that case, you deny them the power to do/choose otherwise.
And even if that were the case, what makes you think that God can’t restore their libertarian freedom by sufficient grace?
Your conjecture appears to be a makeshift effort to avoid the implication that a loving God can justly refuse to make provision for the salvation of sinners.
Smper,
ReplyDeleteIf their nature is such that they are unable to be redeemed, then how can it be said that they have libertarian free will?
Who said LFW is the condition for being redeemable?
Furthmore, how can they be held responsible for their evil deeds if they are not given a chance to be redeemed?
Who said culpability for an action is contingent on being able to be redeemed for it?
Steve,
So fallen angels are unforgivable because they knew what God is really like, but fallen men are forgivable because they don’t know what God is really like.
That's a little more simplistic than what I stated. We know what God is like because He has revealed it to us in His word. The angels saw God in all of His glory. There is a huge difference in what we know of God and what the angels have seen and know of God.
If they acted in ignorance, why are they blameworthy?
They didn't act out of ignorance.
Your argument puts them in a condition of diminished responsibility–like a two-year-old.
No it doesn't.
To make good on your conjecture, you need to provide a supporting argument.
Anything we say about angels is based purely on speculation. The Bible doesn't say enough about the nature of angels. The image of God is never attributed to them.
Based on the evidence we do have, we can safely and logically speculate that there is something different about the angels, whether it's due to their nature or essence or experience, that makes them unable to be redeemed.
Once again, what’s the relevant difference between human nature and angelic nature that renders angels intrinsically irredeemable?
You and I don't have that info.
Your conjecture appears to be a makeshift effort to avoid the implication that a loving God can justly refuse to make provision for the salvation of sinners.
Yet your position is no stronger than mine because of our lack of knowledge about the angelic nature.
What we do have is ample Biblical evidence to show that men are rational libertarian agents able to make choices. So we can make definitive statements about our own nature and abilities.
The angels we can only speculate about. Your speculative positions are no more valid than mine.
---------
I want to stress the point that angels aren't made in the image of God. Another reason they aren't redeemable.
"Who said LFW is the condition for being redeemable?"
ReplyDeleteLFW is the bedrock assumption of Arminianism. Yet, it seems their nature limits them to evil choices. Where's the evidence that they're able to choose otherwise? If they're only able to choose to do evil actions, then doesn't this carry the same negative aspects that Arminians criticize in total depravity?
"Who said culpability for an action is contingent on being able to be redeemed for it?"
No one did. Once again, maybe you should learn to read a little better. The point here is that Arminians typically complain that God cannot condemn someone unless they had the ability to do otherwise (since that would supposedly be unjust). Well, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case with the fallen angels, now does it?
God has indeed elected angels:
ReplyDeleteIn the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality (1 Timothy 5:21).
The clearly biblical idea of elect angels suggests that God has preserved remnants for Himself from two species (that we know of) His created order, namely, humans and angels. For elect humans, Jesus Christ was provided as an atonement for sin. Since the complete human race is fallen, an atonement is necessary in order that God may have a people (humans) for Himself from among the fallen.
Regarding the elect angels, they needed no redemption because they never fell in the first place. They were preserved by God from sinning. No atonement is necessary for angels as a race because their entire race is not fallen, just a portion of it. Those non-elect angels who rebelled are damned, without hope of redemption because no atonement was made for them. Although there appears to be a hierarchy among the angelic beings, there is no analagous "federal head of the race" as humans have in Adam.
There is a huge difference in what we know of God and what the angels have seen and know of God
Yes, the fact is, neither the elect angels nor the reprobate angels know God or His gospel the way we are privileged to know Him and His Word. I would argue that in one respect, we know a lot more about God and how He works than the angels do.
Speaking of the OT prophets Peter said...
It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:12).
Angels clearly are ignorant of some wondrous things that we know because of God's gospel revelation to us through His Word.
Bossmanham said:
ReplyDeleteBased on the evidence we do have, we can safely and logically speculate that there is something different about the angels, whether it's due to their nature or essence or experience, that makes them unable to be redeemed. . . . Yet your position is no stronger than mine because of our lack of knowledge about the angelic nature. . . . The angels we can only speculate about. Your speculative positions are no more valid than mine. . . . I want to stress the point that angels aren't made in the image of God. Another reason they aren't redeemable.
1. On the one hand, Bossmanham is saying we don't know whether angels are redeemable, it's at best a speculative matter, etc. But on the other hand, he flatly states angels are irredeemable because they're not made in the image of God. So which is it: do we or don't we know whether angels are redeemable? If it's at best a speculative issue, then why does Bossmanham give a reason which isn't at all speculative?
2. As for his reason, what precisely does being made in the image of God have to do with being redeemable or irredeemable (e.g. is it rationality or moral agency -- which then pushes the question back to what Steve already pointed out above)? Why can't God redeem creatures which aren't made in his image?
3. But if Bossmanham is suggesting God only redeems creatures made in his image, then isn't God singling out for potential salvation one group (image-bearers) over and against another (non-image-bearers)? So if doctrines like reprobation and limited atonement are incompatible with God's love and justice, then why the double standard where image-bearers are concerned?
Bossmanham, you said:
ReplyDeleteThe image of God is never attributed to them.
Then later you said:
I want to stress the point that angels aren't made in the image of God. Another reason they aren't redeemable.
Unless there's a typo, you seem to be making a leap in logic. Just because the imago dei is not attributed to the angels doesn't mean they aren't made in God's image. In fact, some theologians see the essence of being made in God's image as having been created a 1. rational and 2. moral creature. Angels exhibit those characteristics, and so would suggest that they are made in God's Image. In fact, some (minority) believe that when God said in Genesis "Let us make man in our image and likeness", God was speaking to the angels. If that's the correct interpretation, then angels are said to be made in God's image. Though, I personally hold to the likely (and more popular) interpretation that those passages have persons of the Trinity speaking to one another.
Note how Arminians have to come up with so many different ad hoc rules about free will? It's not just angels that they have to worry about, but people in the afterlife too. (That is, while BSman tries to get away with saying the angels are different because they lack the image of God, it is certainly the case that we will retain the image of God in the afterlife--yet presumably without sin.)
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the more you probe it, the more Arminian free will seems to only apply to human beings from "the age of accountability" to death; all other times, God plays with different rules.
On the other hand, the Calvinist position is consistent regarding angels, living people, and the afterlife. God's not coming up with ad hoc exceptions in Calvinism. He's just consistent.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“That's a little more simplistic than what I stated. We know what God is like because He has revealed it to us in His word. The angels saw God in all of His glory. There is a huge difference in what we know of God and what the angels have seen and know of God.”
How does that render the fallen angels unforgivable? By making them more culpable? But even if, for the sake of argument, we say the fallen angels were more culpable, how does that render them unforgivable?
Are you saying that God can forgive little sins, but not forgive big sins?
“They didn't act out of ignorance.”
If Adam and Eve didn’t act out of ignorance, then how is their sin forgivable, but angelic sin is unforgivable?
“No it doesn't.”
If you don’t think Adam and Eve were in a condition of diminished responsibility, then why do you stress the difference between their knowledge and angelic knowledge?
“Anything we say about angels is based purely on speculation.”
i) So your claim about the difference between human and angelic knowledge is based on pure speculation. Does that mean we should discount your claim?
ii) Since the Bible reveals various truths about angels, how is “anything” we say about angels based on pure speculation?
“The Bible doesn't say enough about the nature of angels.”
I’ve stated some of the revealed similarities and possible differences between men and angels. Explain how that’s insufficient to address the issue at hand.
“The image of God is never attributed to them.”
Explain how that’s a salient distinction.
“Based on the evidence we do have, we can safely and logically speculate that there is something different about the angels, whether it's due to their nature or essence or experience, that makes them unable to be redeemed.”
i) If you can safely and logically postulate that to be the case, then specify the differential factor. If you can’t specify the differential factor, then your logical postulate has no discernible basis in fact.
ii) Why assume that your explanation is the only available explanation? Why does there have to be something about angels that renders them unredeemable? Why can’t it be something about the will of God?
“You and I don't have that info.”
If you don’t have enough info to state the relevant difference, then your claim that angels are intrinsically irredeemable is unwarranted. To make such a claim demands specific evidence, not the absence of specific evidence.
“Yet your position is no stronger than mine because of our lack of knowledge about the angelic nature.”
ReplyDeleteExcept that you oscillate erratically between the claim that we don’t know enough about angels and the claim that we do know enough. There’s nothing for me to refute when you refute yourself by making contradictory affirmations and denials.
“What we do have is ample Biblical evidence to show that men are rational libertarian agents able to make choices.”
i) Of course, that simply begs the question in favor of Arminianism.
ii) Moreover, my argument didn’t depend on Reformed assumptions. I was arguing from Arminian assumptions.
Do you affirm or deny that angels enjoy libertarian freedom? If so, then the fallen angels are free to repent.
If, on the other hand, you deny that angels enjoy libertarian freedom, then we have a whole class of rational and moral agents who can function without libertarian freedom. In that case, why is libertarian freedom essential to men, but inessential to angels?
iii) Furthermore, if I were arguing from a Reformed standpoint, God was able to prevent any angels from falling away in the first place.
And if you deny that God can prevent heavenly angels from falling, do you also deny that God can prevent the saints in glory from falling?
“The angels we can only speculate about. Your speculative positions are no more valid than mine.”
What’s that supposed to mean? That contrary speculations are equally valid? That’s logical nonsense.
Or that your speculations and mine are equally invalid? Are your Arminian speculations invalid?
“I want to stress the point that angels aren't made in the image of God.”
i) Here you seem to infer that if Scripture doesn’t say angels are made in God’s image, then Scripture says angels are not made in God’s image. But the inference is blatantly fallacious.
ii) What makes you think angels are not made in God’s image? For example, Paul’s says that Christians “have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Col 3:10), and have also “put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24).
Here Paul includes knowledge, righteousness, and holiness in his definition of the imago Dei. Do you deny that before they fell, heavenly angels had the properties of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness?
“Another reason they aren't redeemable.”
Explain why that’s a precondition of forgiveness or redemption.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteSeveral issues:
i) I was responding to Arminians on Arminian grounds. They reject federal theology. And many of them also reject penal substitution (e.g. Grider). How Calvinism would answer the question is distinct from how Arminianism would answer the question.
ii) If, on the other hand, Brennon happens to be one of those Arminians who accepts penal substitution, then he’ll have to tackle the double jeopardy argument.
iii) The absence of federal headship doesn’t ipso facto eliminate the possibility of penal substitution. Rather, it eliminates the possibility of a one-to-many relation between the Redeemer and the redeemed. But you could still have a one-to-one relation. And that could be duplicated in as many cases as necessary. Christ becoming an angel to redeem one fallen angel at a time. Becoming a different angel each time. No big deal if you’re omnipotent.
iv) Of course, as you point out, the straightforward way for God to “save” all the angels is to simply elect all the angels. In that case, they don’t need to be saved in the first place.
I don't understand the assumption I believe is going on here, namely, that if a person sins, God would give them a means of redemption.
ReplyDeleteIf angels sinned, and are not redeemed, that means that they are not capable of being redeemed? Why assume that God would give them a method of redemption if they were, anyway?
Hey Steve, in your opinion, why do you think God doesn't want to save the fallen angels. (aside from the free will/calvinist debate.)
ReplyDeleteMath,
ReplyDeleteLFW is the bedrock assumption of Arminianism. Yet, it seems their nature limits them to evil choices. Where's the evidence that they're able to choose otherwise? If they're only able to choose to do evil actions, then doesn't this carry the same negative aspects that Arminians criticize in total depravity?
LFW is the ability to choose. The implication is the choice can actually be made. Jesus Himself said even evil men could do good things (Matt. 7:11). The point of total depravity is we cannot do or seek true spiritual good while separated from God. That doesn't mean even in their depraved state that they can't choose things, but it is necessary for God to work in them so they can choose truly good things.
No one did. Once again, maybe you should learn to read a little better.
Maybe you should take your own advice? I was asked, "Furthmore, how can they be held responsible for their evil deeds if they are not given a chance to be redeemed?"
I asked who asserted this. This is a straw man argument. No Arminian argues this. We hold firm that the offer of redemption is purely from God. It's not something He had to do, but chose to do out of His love and mercy. So, you go actually read some Arminian writings and come back.
The point here is that Arminians typically complain that God cannot condemn someone unless they had the ability to do otherwise (since that would supposedly be unjust).
Angels had the ability to do otherwise. Redemption isn't something the angels choose to do, it would be something offered by God. If God doesn't offer it, then it can't be chosen. He apparently did offer them the ability not to rebel.
John,
What does the reality of a fallen angel say to us?...
It doesn't say much different that what Adam did in the garden. He and Eve were untainted by original sin and chose to disobey. They simply chose to, there was no determining factor.
The clearly biblical idea of elect angels
Just because the word is used doesn't mean it carries the meaning Calvinists give it. Non-Calvinists view election differently that Calvinists.
Patrick,
1. On the one hand, Bossmanham is saying we don't know whether angels are redeemable, it's at best a speculative matter, etc.
That's not what I was saying. I was saying we don't know all the reasons the angels aren't redeemable because we don't know much about angels. They clearly aren't redeemable because atonement wasn't made for them as far as we know.
As for his reason, what precisely does being made in the image of God have to do with being redeemable or irredeemable
I don't know.
then isn't God singling out for potential salvation one group (image-bearers) over and against another (non-image-bearers)?
Yep, Patrick, God chose not to come incarnate as a dog and be the dog messiah. Likewise, He didn't come to redeem cats either. God put His image in us. We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a special status in creation.
(Jesus does redeem all of creation in a general way.)
Annoy,
Unless there's a typo, you seem to be making a leap in logic. Just because the imago dei is not attributed to the angels doesn't mean they aren't made in God's image.
It's not a leap in logic. Jesus died for those who bear His image, becoming incarnate as a human being. He didn't do the same thing for angels.
I personally hold to the likely (and more popular) interpretation that those passages have persons of the Trinity speaking to one another.
Then why on earth did you bring up the other one?
The nature, "me", is enjoying the beatin' Brennon is gettin' in here! :)
ReplyDeleteBut, as to the "image" of God, I wonder if this could be said of him too? "Brennon, is this not the reason you are wrong?":::>
Mar 12:24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Mar 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
We know the Elect Angels manifest in this creation looking like the images of men. You don't think so? Ask Abraham:::>
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
Gen 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth
Gen 18:3 and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.
It is not a question of speculation that humanity and angelic beings meet. It is a question of their stewardships and why?, as these Words imply:::>
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Oh yeah and as for what Pilgrimarbour noted:::>
"....There is a huge difference in what we know of God and what the angels have seen and know of God"
Yes, the fact is, neither the elect angels nor the reprobate angels know God or His gospel the way we are privileged to know Him and His Word. I would argue that in one respect, we know a lot more about God and how He works than the angels do....".
I would open up and respond this way to that response to Brennon. With regard to the "Elect" angels, this is true. With regard to the fallen angels and fallen demon possessed humanity, this is not so in the fact of these two things, at a minimum.
One, "fallen" angels are out! They have been cast out of Heaven already. Where is their place then now? Here in these corrupted present heavens and earth or the pit of darkness bound in chains.
Two, indwelling fallen humans. When they are indwelling fallen humans, their "knowledge" is broader in that they are actively controlling the mind and in some cases, the whole being of the human they are indwelling. And the human has a knowledge of fallen angels and how they think, too. Whatever that is has no bearing on what the Elect Angels will do with them both in the final judgment of their beings, when they too are cast into the eternal fires prepared for Satan and them.
Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteNote how Arminians have to come up with so many different ad hoc rules about free will
They're not ad hoc, Peter. They don't conform to your deterministic view so you just dismiss them. This statement either stems from your ignorance on the views of those who hold to LFW or is a deliberate misrepresentation.
It's not just angels that they have to worry about, but people in the afterlife too.
I don't worry about that at all. They do maintain the imago dei and LFW. Done.
Indeed, the more you probe it, the more Arminian free will seems to only apply to human beings from "the age of accountability" to death; all other times, God plays with different rules.
Again, this either stems from your ignorance on the views of those who hold to LFW or is a deliberate misrepresentation.
On the other hand, the Calvinist position is consistent regarding angels, living people, and the afterlife. God's not coming up with ad hoc exceptions in Calvinism. He's just consistent.
Consistency alone doesn't necessarily equal truth. Consistency is required for truth, which is why Arminianism is true.
Steve,
How does that render the fallen angels unforgivable? By making them more culpable?
Perhaps. It's just a speculation of mine.
If Adam and Eve didn’t act out of ignorance, then how is their sin forgivable, but angelic sin is unforgivable?
I didn't assert that.
If you don’t think Adam and Eve were in a condition of diminished responsibility, then why do you stress the difference between their knowledge and angelic knowledge?
Less knowledge doesn't equal no culpability. It might equal less culpability. But Adam and Eve knew 100% what they weren't supposed to do. So they didn't "act out of ignorance."
William Lane Craig and others say those who don't ever hear about Christ may be saved by Him anyway without them knowing who it is who is saving them. They will be judged on what has been revealed to them. I don't necessarily agree, but it is an opinion some much smarter than me hold to.
Does that mean we should discount your claim?
No, but I wouldn't form a dogma over what I speculate. I also wasn't saying we should discount yours, just that yours is no more forceful than mine. They're both speculative.
Since the Bible reveals various truths about angels, how is “anything” we say about angels based on pure speculation?
Didn't I get lectured one time on being "obtuse?" Anything beyond what scripture says is speculative.
If you can safely and logically postulate that to be the case, then specify the differential factor.
What have we been discussing? Angels aren't redeemable, humans are.
The nature, "me", is enjoying the beatin' Brennon is gettin' in here!
ReplyDeleteSomeone shows off their kindergarten mentality. Can't people discuss something without it being a "beating?" This is why I don't interact with you.
Brennon,
ReplyDeleteare we a bit touchie now?
Come on!
Would you like me to apologize?
Well, apparently, trying to be funny first with such a serious matter, failed you?
I apologize.
I have to say, your rebuttals haven't moved me your way one bit but in fact show the weakness of your positions. In fact, the irony is you seem to be beating up some of the rebuttals, IMO. [That may be perceived one way or another. What I mean it to mean is you are being a bit aggressive responsively, not discrediting the rebuttals in response to yours].
One thing I have to say to you is since I have been adding my two cents into these Calvinist/Arminianist blog debates, there appears to be this "short" fuse with Arminians.
You as well have at will and by choice chosen to disregard 1 Corinthians 13 and the admonition there, when it is to your advantage.
Couldn't that be considered immaturity or childish then?
That speaks volumns to an Elect who is tasked with enduring all things through the Love God first has loved us with for others.
Why is that, Brennon?
"...This is why I don't interact with you....".
1Co 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
1Co 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
1Co 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
1Co 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1Co 13:8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
Are we looking for the Truth of the matter here? Or are we arguing a position with the self's understanding?
Steve raises a valid point: "giving the devil his die".
Regarding the "elect angels" Bossmanham said...
ReplyDeleteJust because the word is used doesn't mean it carries the meaning Calvinists give it. Non-Calvinists view election differently that Calvinists.
I'm curious to know what Arminians think "elect angels" means beyond the fact that they are chosen by God. Chosen for what purpose or for whom, for example?
Brennon says:
ReplyDelete---
LFW is the ability to choose.
---
That's a sophomoric thing to say.
Brennon continues:
---
The implication is the choice can actually be made.
---
A) The choice, Brennon?
B) Doesn't this require you to hold to PAP?
C) If so, then doesn't that prove God has no free will? For how could God sin?
[I further note at this point that, much like Reppert before you, you've never defined what sin or evil is.]
Brennon says:
---
Yep, Patrick, God chose not to come incarnate as a dog and be the dog messiah.
---
That's because dogs never sinned to need a Messiah.
Brennon says:
---
We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a special status in creation.
---
And yet if we said that God provides the Elect with a special status, you throw a fit.
Brennon says:
---
They're not ad hoc, Peter.
---
They fit the definition of ad hoc.
Brennon says:
---
They don't conform to your deterministic view so you just dismiss them. This statement either stems from your ignorance on the views of those who hold to LFW or is a deliberate misrepresentation.
---
Ad hominem substitutes as argument now?
Show where I have misrepresented LFW ever. Show me where I am ignorant of any LFW view.
For that matter, you've never presented a positive argument for LFW yet either. Nor have you exegeted it (since it's impossible for you to do so).
I, on the other hand, have provided arguments for my compatiblistic view-point. I'd look forward to someday having an Arminian try to address them, but I'm just not that naive.
Brennon said:
---
I don't worry about that at all. They do maintain the imago dei and LFW. Done.
---
So why don't they sin in heaven with their precious LFW, but they do sin on Earth with their same precious LFW?
Holy cow! Who could have possibly seen that question coming? Certainly not scholar Brennon!
I look forward to your ad hoc response. Or rather, to fit your current form, your "No it's not, so you're wrong" non-argument comeback.
Brennon said:
---
Again, this either stems from your ignorance on the views of those who hold to LFW or is a deliberate misrepresentation.
---
So you say, and yet once again do not show.
Brennon said:
---
Consistency alone doesn't necessarily equal truth. Consistency is required for truth, which is why Arminianism is true.
---
I stand utterly amazed at your logic skills.
"Consistency alone doesn't necessarily equal truth. Consistency is required for truth, which is why Arminianism is true."
ReplyDeleteLol.
Bossmanham said:
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I was saying. I was saying we don't know all the reasons the angels aren't redeemable because we don't know much about angels. They clearly aren't redeemable because atonement wasn't made for them as far as we know.
1. You're altering your original claim. Your original claim wasn't whether we know angels aren't redeemed because no redemption was made for them. Rather your claim was that angels aren't redeemable because they aren't made in the image of God.
Anyone can go back and re-read what you wrote above to see you've changed your original claim.
2. Even here you claim "we don't know all the reasons the angels aren't redeemable," yet then state angels "clearly aren't redeemable." Again, you're contradicting yourself.
As for his reason, what precisely does being made in the image of God have to do with being redeemable or irredeemable
I don't know.
So you're withdrawing your stronger claim that angels aren't redeemable ("I want to stress the point that angels aren't made in the image of God. Another reason they aren't redeemable.") and instead claiming ignorance on the topic.
Yep, Patrick, God chose not to come incarnate as a dog and be the dog messiah. Likewise, He didn't come to redeem cats either. God put His image in us. We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a special status in creation.
1. There are fallen and unfallen angels. But most Christians don't ordinarily think dogs and cats are capable of sinning to fall in the first place. Or are you suggesting dogs and cats are capable of sinning?
2. Again, you're failing to answer what it is specifically about bearing God's image which makes it a precondition for redemption. You just keep repeating that it is, period. But there's no argument from Scripture or otherwise for why you think so.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Less knowledge doesn't equal no culpability. It might equal less culpability. But Adam and Eve knew 100% what they weren't supposed to do. So they didn't ‘act out of ignorance’.”
If Adam and Eve knew for a fact (“100%”) where their duty lay, then why do you drive a wedge between their knowledge and angelic knowledge to explain why fallen men are redeemable but fallen angels are irredeemable? Wouldn’t 100% knowledge of their duty render them 100% culpable for dereliction of duty?
“William Lane Craig and others say those who don't ever hear about Christ may be saved by Him anyway without them knowing who it is who is saving them. They will be judged on what has been revealed to them.”
How is that germane to why sinful men are redeemable but sinful angels are not?
“What have we been discussing? Angels aren't redeemable, humans are.”
That fails to specify the differential factor. That would be the end-result of the differential factor. I’m waiting for you to specify the differential factor that accounts for why men are redeemable while angels are irredeemable. All you’ve done is to paraphrase your original claim. That’s not an explanation. All you’ve given us is a disguised tautology: angels irredeemable because they’re irredeemable. But what is the differential factor that accounts for that result? If you can’t tell us, then you’re in no position to justify your assertion.
Patrick, and Brennon, for that matter; I have seen this claim before and I make note of it here:::>
ReplyDelete".... Yep, Patrick, God chose not to come incarnate as a dog and be the dog messiah. Likewise, He didn't come to redeem cats either. God put His image in us. We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a special status in creation.....".
"and be the dog Messiah"
Would you explain these words then, however strained they become in light of the Light of them?
Psa 36:5 Your steadfast love, O LORD, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds.
Psa 36:6 Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O LORD.
Psa 36:7 How precious is your steadfast love, O God! The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.
Psa 36:8 They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
Psa 36:9 For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.
and:::>
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
Sometimes I believe one is so narrow in their desire to establish themself with their beliefs, they are like the old saw, can't see the forest for the trees?
This is just my eisegesis, but I suppose even the serpent will no longer be cursed then!
Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
natamllc,
ReplyDeleteAnimals can be saved in some sense without being saved in the sense under consideration in this context. Similarly, a term like "save" can be used in more than one way when applied to humans (Matthew 8:25, for example). God does sometimes save animals in some sense. Apparently, at least some animals will be resurrected (Romans 8:19-23). But Brennon, Peter, and Patrick weren't suggesting that God never saves animals in any sense.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI gladly accept your words.
Thank you.
What is your answer to the question Steve has put over, then?
natamllc,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "the question Steve has put over"? Are you referring to the original post in general? Or a particular question Steve raised concerning animals? Or a particular question about some other subject?
Well, that is a good point Jason,
ReplyDeletetake your liberty and pick either of the ones you identified. I would like to hear your thoughts on them all!
I only have time to respond to a select few things and after will abandon this meta. I just don't have the time to spend with the back-and-forth and have to abandon it at some point.
ReplyDeletePatrick,
You said - On the one hand, Bossmanham is saying we don't know whether angels are redeemable
I never siad that. I have consistently affirmed that angels are not redeemable. We know this because Christ did not atone for the angels.
I have said we don't know all of the reasons this is true, apart from Christ not atoning for them. I pointed out that the Bible only attributes the imago dei to humans. I have made several other speculative claims that are no more or less valid than anyone elses here (namely that God, in His secret declarative/contradictory will determined that He would only, and for no other reason than He decided to [ie arbitrarily], cause a select few angels to sin and hence be damned) since we don't know that much about the nature of angels.
So no, my position has not changed. I can't help it if you guys can't follow a logical argument.
So you're withdrawing your stronger claim that angels aren't redeemable
No I never withdrew that. I admitted I don't know completely. Sometimes it's better to admit when you don't know something than to act like you do (see Socrates).
Even here you claim "we don't know all the reasons the angels aren't redeemable,"
No, I have never said that. I have always said we don't know the reasons. Please try to properly represent my view.
Steve,
Wouldn’t 100% knowledge of their duty render them 100% culpable for dereliction of duty?
Yes...I never said any differently. Adam and Eve's duty was to tend the garden and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The angel's duty was to serve God in His presence. It's not about how much they knew of their duty, it was the nature of their duty and ther knowledge of God that made the difference.
It is a safe assumption that the angels had a clearer vision of the nature of God since they have seen God. Some theologians have posited that the beatific vision is the ultimate experience for the Christian. Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the ultimate end of human existence after physical death. If angels have seen God face to face and have then revolted even after this, then inductively we could say this may have something to do with them being unredeemable.
How is that germane to why sinful men are redeemable but sinful angels are not?
You broght up the question of diminished responsibility due to knowledge thing.
Being polite now, I have to say I am missing the logic with this,
ReplyDeleteBrennon:::>
"....I have said we don't know all of the reasons this is true, apart from Christ not atoning for them. I pointed out that the Bible only attributes the imago dei to humans. I have made several other speculative claims that are no more or less valid than anyone elses here (namely that God, in His secret declarative/contradictory will determined that He would only, and for no other reason than He decided to [ie arbitrarily], cause a select few angels to sin and hence be damned) since we don't know that much about the nature of angels....".
Yes, with human logic and reason, some things written to the Saints seem contradictory.
But for the Elect, these words apply:::>
1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
and
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1Co 2:16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
How one gets to the place of "Spiritual" understanding I suppose depends on their obedience of Faith.
Brennon, as for this statement of fact:
"....I can't help it if you guys can't follow a logical argument...."
Hmmmmm, could it be just possibly that you were not following a "Spiritually" logical argument? I have read all the comments in here and some of them are not all that reasoned, spiritually logical.
Brennon, you wrote further:
"....No I never withdrew that. I admitted I don't know completely. Sometimes it's better to admit when you don't know something than to act like you do (see Socrates)....".
You are right that you do not know completely. None of us do. We only “know” in part. That is why reasoning spiritually logically with others is so very important for Christians.
For me, seeing I have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide me into "all" truth, too, I won't be seeing Socrates then.
I have to ask you? What's wrong with the Mind of Christ or revelation from the Holy Ghost?
Neither of them spoke from their own Authority.
Brennon, further:
"....I have always said we don't know the reasons...."
Ok, maybe you don't know, but why include others in your ignorance of these things? Is it possible that some in here involved in this debate have an understanding of the reasons and you are not one of them?
Brennon, further in response to Steve: "....Adam and Eve's duty was to tend the garden and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The angel's duty was to serve God in His presence...."
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm, the Word of the Lord in my spirit tells me Adam's duty was far more than simple gardening work. And, as for angel's duties, how do you account for this verse in light of your knowledge of their duties?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
When you actually take the time to "let" the Holy Ghost "open" up your understanding to what He has given to us as "His" record of both visible and invisible events, you might find a deeper and richer understanding of the duties of all creations, creatures both visible and invisible.
What is clear from Scripture, thus from God Himself, the Holy Ghost, is this, He has made Himself very well known to us, the sons of Adam's race. Why, in fact, He sent Jesus to share in flesh and blood with us, so that it is irresponsible for any of us to ignore Him, "Who" He is and "Why".
By His very carnal and natural existence on earth after being born to the Virgin, Mary, we can know a lot about God and angels and the Devil himself.
What is known about God is evident to us!
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
What I hope you realize is you can be certain about your own personal "life" after suffering death. It need not be an uncertainty to you.
The more sure Word of Prophecy, that the Elect stand on, is this, Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and then He was seen by many. In fact, the Holy Ghost shows us "where" Jesus went and "what" Jesus did when He gave up the Ghost and before He departed from Mary at the Garden tomb:
Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
From where I sit, excluding myself, as I recuse myself because of your objection to my earlier comments, there have been several well thought out, logical arguments put over in here. There has been "sound" spiritual reasoning in them all.
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear to me is this. I am convinced one need not become a Spiritual giant of the Faith to be saved and be a part of God's Elect, knowing the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent.
Three Scriptural bases come to mind to make clear that assertion.
One is found in Ephesians, another, Colossians and third, in Hebrews.
Here they are for your consideration:
Paul made this known about why he prays for certain people, which seems somewhat contradictory to other admonitions about prayer and praying for all people that he gives to those under his charge, cf. 1 Tim. 2.
Eph 1:15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,
Eph 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers,
Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Brennon, might it simply be that you are not there yet? Where, yet? Ah, your "faith" in the Lord Jesus Christ and your "love" for all the Saints?
Now, consider this that Paul wrote about Epaphras:::>
Col 1:7 just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf
Col 1:8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.
"Epaphras" is here "known" to be a "beloved" fellow servant, a faithful minister of Christ on the behalf of others and he has an ability that is characteristic of True Spiritual men; he knows others to be "in" the Love the Spirit gives! This equally means, he is able to “discern” when someone is not!
Finally, consider these last verses and understand that, those saved are saved by God's Grace and Mercy, predestined and foreordained to Eternal Life, however, while remaining in this life, that does not necessarily include they have a fuller understanding of the deep things of God:::>
Heb 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.
"....And this we will do if God permits", "....if God permits....", hmmmmmm.
So, you are right in that one bit above, Brennon: "....(namely that God, in His secret declarative/contradictory will determined that He would only, and for no other reason than He decided to...".
Of course, I would reason with you that there are "no" contradictions with God and just because He has not permitted some to go on to maturity in some "spiritual" matters in Christ and He seems to be contradictory to them, He is not!
Bossmanham said:
ReplyDeleteI never siad that. I have consistently affirmed that angels are not redeemable. We know this because Christ did not atone for the angels.
I have said we don't know all of the reasons this is true, apart from Christ not atoning for them. I pointed out that the Bible only attributes the imago dei to humans. I have made several other speculative claims that are no more or less valid than anyone elses here (namely that God, in His secret declarative/contradictory will determined that He would only, and for no other reason than He decided to [ie arbitrarily], cause a select few angels to sin and hence be damned) since we don't know that much about the nature of angels.
So no, my position has not changed. I can't help it if you guys can't follow a logical argument.
1. Um, this should've been pretty obvious, but the very point at issue in this combox debate has not been whether Christ redeemed the angels (yes/no), but whether they are redeemable in the first place. (And, no, this isn't a slight difference.)
2. For you to equivocate between the two is either illogical or dishonest.
3. Anyone can go back and re-read the thread to see what was said, what wasn't said, etc.
natamllc wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well, that is a good point Jason, take your liberty and pick either of the ones you identified. I would like to hear your thoughts on them all!"
I appreciate the interest, but I don't have anything to add to the discussion.
Jason,
ReplyDeletewow, oh well, you had me going there for a moment.
But, needless to say, you just added to the discussion! :)