Angels and Adam Question

If we are to believe that Angels only have one strike and they’re out, because they have no faith, instead knowing. Does Adam share the same fate? One strike and you’re out? If not, then can Angels be saved if they sin? I mean, there really wasn’t much of a difference between Adam and the Angels, was there? Both had everlasting life, both knew and saw God…

  • Where did you get your theology and, for that matter, your “world-view”?

It depends on what you mean by one strike and you are out. If you mean salvation, I think the unfolding of the Biblical narrative after Adam would show that Adam and his descendants did not have one strike before being out considering that for the rest of the Biblical story God is working to save Adam and his descendants and gives them chance after chance to repent. As for angels, the Bible seems to be silent either way on whether or not angels can be saved or whether they can repent. The loving nature of God would lead me to believe that it is not inconceivable that God also has a way for fallen angels to be reconciled to him.

1 Like

The difference is actually huge: God never speaks of angels as being of the image of God. Angels can’t have children and thus can’t experience family. Christ was human, not an angel. Angels don’t need to sleep. And there are other differences.

We had a big discussion the other night at a Bible study. We are studying 2 Peter, and the study referenced Jude a lot. Both seem to draw heavily on extra-canonical books such as the Book of Enoch regarding angels. They themselves were debated as to whether to include in the canon.
Anyway, much of what we “know” about angels seems to come from these non-Biblical sources. Makes it tough to understand as to what the nature of angels is,

1 Like

Another thorn in my side.

1 Like

That’s the sort of thing one could speculate on for pages!

Was it Origen who argued that for God’s love to overcome all and His sovereignty to be complete, even Satan has to get saved somehow?

Forget free will and cauterized consciences.

I think the differences are even bigger than what St. Roymond says. Angels are created spirits – a product of design rather than growth and learning as we are. The angels are what they are because God made them that way. We are what we have made ourselves to be – that is a whole different level of free will. Thus the Bible describes the angels as servants while we are children. This is not a job description but a difference in nature. The angels are tools like computers which can do a very good imitation of free will but it is not the real thing.

So… I don’t buy into the teachings of the non-canonical book of Enoch about a rebellion in heaven. Lucifer became our adversary because we chose to blame Him for our mistake, and so God reassigned him to such a role as part of His work and plan for our redemption.

I also don’t buy into this understanding of sin as mistakes. Mistakes are how we learn. Mistakes are not the problem. The problem is when we do not want to learn from our mistakes. Thus I think sin consists of self-destructive habits contrary to the very nature of life itself to learn and grow. This identification of sin with disobedience is a distortion which only serves those using religion as a tool of power. The wages of sin are death not because God retaliates some absurdly imagined harm to God, but because sin itself is destructive of our very being and everything good within us including free will.

That doesn’t sound familar, and I know my Bible pretty well.

What if I told you I do not necessarily believe in an individual named Satan…? But rather, anyone can be a Satan. The Satan in Job and the Serpent are different entities, in my belief. And who knows who this Lucifer character is, he’s only mentioned in the Bible once. And we don’t even know if that name is the intended translation.

1 Like
  • Of course they are different entities. One doesn’t have to walk far to reach that conclusion. The “Serpent” who seduced Eve and, through her, Adam, was condemned to “crawl on his belly” for the rest of his existence. Satan, or commonly: the Devil, is the “Father of lies” and doesn’t crawl to work his way into a human’s heart or life.
  • So, what if I told you I do not necessarily believe in an individual called "the Anti-Christ, but rather anyone can “be an anti-Christ”, typically, IMO, a misotheist? kind of like a former President.
  • BTW, about how long do you think Angels have been in existence?
    • Wouldn’t you think that, by now, all of the really old ones have figured out that they’re on the losing side of the rebellion against God, repented–especially after Jesus’ resurrection, and been forgiven? What?! now that there are evil humans on earth, the rebellious hold-outs think they have a good chance of “beating God”? LOL!
1 Like

I also believe there is no one Antichrist, the Bible is clear on this.

Not sure I follow your response. I never considered it was about beating God anymore, but rather, denying God what He wants by dragging as many people to Hell as possible. Best way to hurt someone is by taking away their family.

Can a sinning Angel repent and be forgiven? I don’t know. I didn’t think so.

  • And my point was: What would have to happen in order for a 2,000+ year old Angel–who’s only made “one strike”, namely: decide that God can’t have His way–to repent?
  • I don’t know what you call a conflict between what God wants and what one or more Angels want, but around where I live, it’s called “rebellion” or “revolution” or “engaging in war”. Where there’s conflict, there are only three possibilities, as I see it:
    • Somebody wins and somebody loses;
    • The parties reconcile and end the conflict;
    • Or the conflict continues until one or both parties die. In the case of God and the warring Angels, their fate is foretold in Psalm 82:6 -
      • 6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
        you are all sons of the Most High.’
        7 But you will die like mere mortals;
        you will fall like every other ruler.”
  • Bottom line: The question is not “Can a sinning Angel repent and be forgiven?” but “Will a sinning Angel repent and be forgiven?” And the answer is “No.”
  • So, if you can agree that a sinning Angel won’t repent, and is doomed “to die like a mere mortal”; what do you suppose is going to happen with all those people that he “dragged to Hell”?

Genesis chapter 3. The snake is pretty generally taken to refer to the angel we call Lucifer and “Satan” simply means adversary. I certainly don’t believe in talking animals.

No problem. I don’t see any real benefit in believing in Satan even if he is real. I don’t see much reason not to believe with a few restrictions. My understanding is that he was assigned to this role so we can blame things on him rather than on God, but taking responsibility yourself and not blaming anyone is even better.

Names are unimportant. They are just conventions. Labels for convenience only. So while I know the name “Lucifer” comes from a Bible passage which is certainly not talking about the devil, I still use this traditional name because there is no harm in doing so.

Wasn’t it a Seraphim? A serpent-faced being? Angels just sound like aliens to me. I’m sure the case has been made that they are.

I’m sorry. I really don’t know how to respond to you. I think we’re agreeing?

I don’t know enough about Angels, I don’t even believe half the passages people claim are about them, are.

  • Well that’s funny! I could have been offended or annoyed if you had told me that I don’t know what I’m talking about; but you’re telling that you don’t know what I’m talking about. Everybody on my “Ignore” list, so far, is there because they’ve annoyed me; you’re the first person I’m putting on that list because you don’t understand me. Not to worry, you won’t miss my input.

Do I get a prize for that? :stuck_out_tongue:

I simply found your dot point way of communicating, confusing. Or maybe I’m just tired. I wasn’t sure if you were expecting me to answer you, or if I was just getting a rhetorical lecture?

  • My “dot point way of communicating” isn’t really for others’ benefit; it’s for my own. Occasionally, someone say that it’s helpful or amusing, but your “confusing” is a first for me.
  • Let’s hope so.
  • Nah, you’ve trained me not to hold my breath while waiting for an answer.
  • If you ever think I’m giving a “rhetorical lecture”, let me know. Wait! … never mind. When you’re on my “Ignore” list, I won’t see the response.
1 Like

Don’t do that! I can change! :stuck_out_tongue: