A rejection of Original Sin and Atonement Theology

[TLK Valentine]

The bible says that humans are a little superior to the angels, the way that we are superior is that we are fully personal beings created in the image of God so only personal beings can love. While the bible does not explicitly say that angels cannot love, there is no biblical evidence of them loving. Angels are primarily just messengers and warriors for God. There is no need for them to love.

Then Biblically speaking, what is the purpose of the angels?

 

[ChetSinger]

Then Biblically speaking, what is the purpose of the angels?

If we're segueing into angels, the Hebrew bible has a multi-level hierarchy of spiritual beings. A lower level is represented by the word "malakh", usually translated "angel", and means a messenger. A higher level is represented by the term "bene Elohim" and is translated "sons of God". They, like us, have free will, creativity, and the ability to be entrusted with authority.

There's a lot more here:

https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Bible-Really-About-Heavenly-ebook/dp/B07GJWPXC3​

If you want to pursue this the author is a scholar of the Hebrew bible and has a large online presence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If we're segueing into angels, the Hebrew bible has a multi-level hierarchy of spiritual beings. A lower level is represented by the word "malakh", usually translated "angel", and means a messenger. A higher level is represented by the term "bene Elohim" and is translated "sons of God". They, like us, have free will, creativity, and the ability to be entrusted with authority.

There's a lot more here:

https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Bible-Really-About-Heavenly-ebook/dp/B07GJWPXC3​

If you want to pursue this the author is a scholar of the Hebrew bible and has a large online presence.

I was asking for Ed1wolf's opinion, really -- beings created by Love that are incapable of experiencing love... sounds like torment to me. I was hoping for a clarification.

 

[Clare73]

The bible says that humans are a little superior to the angels, the way that we are superior is that we are fully personal beings created in the image of God so only personal beings can love.

Michael and Gabriel are personal beings.
God is spirit and God loves.

While the bible does not explicitly say that angels cannot love,

Precisely. . .

And where Scripture makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learnng.

there is no biblical evidence of them loving. Angels are primarily just messengers and warriors for God. There is no need for them to love.

Let's not use human reasoning and human "wisdom" to arrive at divine truth.

If angels love God, they will love the elect.
Angels are also elect (1 Timothy 5:21) and in the body of Christ, the church (Hebrews 12:22-24). They are our brethren in Christ.

Angels are elect in Christ, and they love the elect in Christ.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed: Love. Angels cannot love.
tv: How do you know this?

While the Bible does not teach it explicitly it is implied by never providing an example where angels loved. Only God and humans can love.

ed: Only free will love of God can destroy evil forever.

tv: Well, that's even worse... and more nonsensical.

• First, God (who is Love), creates being incapable of Love.

• Yes, angels primary duties are to bring messages and engage in spiritual warfare. No need for love.

• tv: These beings attempt to wreck His home, so He banishes them.

  Well we dont know exactly what happened but it appears one named Lucifer wanted omnipotent power like God so God threw him out along with some minions of his.

• tv: God then gets to work on a new creation (our universe) to house beings (us) who are capable of love, so that we can fix the problem caused by his first creations.
  [*]BUT... He forgets to lock the workshop door, and His first creations sneak into our universe and infect it with the very problem He banished them for in the first place.

• No, God allowed Satan in to test us spiritually because the stronger we are spiritually the better we can defeat evil but we failed.
• 
  
• 
  

• tv: SO.... Now we have to choose to Love Him so that we can fix the problem caused by His first creation...

Yes, but He has given us Christ and His spirit to help us under the new covenant.

• • tv: and if we don't....
    
    [/quote]
  • Because if we dont, we are helping the evil one.

• tv: And of course, God, being God, knew all of this was going to turn out as it did even before He started, so none of this is a mistake that needs fixing, but rather a carefully arranged set of hoops we are expected to jump through for His pleasure, because... reasons.

Even Original Sin makes more sense than that.

Not for His pleasure but to destroy evil forever. Apparently this is the only way it can be done. Just like God cannot go against logic, there are other rules of reality He cannot go against.

 

[Clare73]

While the Bible does not teach it explicitly it is implied by never providing an example where angels loved. Only God and humans can love.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I left no evidence at the crime scene, no example was ever provided that I was there, but that doesn't mean I wasn't there and didn't do the crime.

 

[TLK Valentine]

While the Bible does not teach it explicitly it is implied by never providing an example where angels loved. Only God and humans can love.

It is also never taught explicitly or implied that Jesus ever once went to the bathroom... but we can safely infer (or at least sincerely hope for his own sake) that he did so at least once in his earthly lifetime.

An argument from silence is not a good argument.

Yes, angels primary duties are to bring messages and engage in spiritual warfare. No need for love.

Wow, just... wow. Where to begin...

First of all, "No need for love" is nothing less than the mantra of a sociopath. Anything denied love will live (assuming it lives at all) as a monster.

Raise a dog without love and you get a beast whose only place is fighting in the pits...

...and needs to be put down lest it get loose and chew off some toddler's face... or your own.

Raise a human as such and you're guaranteed to breed a serial killer.

Second, "bring messages" to whom? angels were created before humans, and indeed everything else, so it's not like God's phone was ringing off the hook.

Similarly, "spiritual warfare" against whom? Obviously they were created before there was any hint of rebellion -- indeed, before they were created, there was nobody to rebel -- so who were they created to go to war against... the Klingons?

Well we dont know exactly what happened but it appears one named Lucifer wanted omnipotent power like God so God threw him out along with some minions of his.

Christian tradition claims that Lucifer suffered from pride -- which torpedoes your entire argument as pride is a misuse of love -- excessive love for self, to be more precise.

No, God allowed Satan in to test us spiritually because the stronger we are spiritually the better we can defeat evil but we failed.

There's a lot of failure to go around -- after all, evil was created in God's very presence by His very creation... If we were created to be better than the angels, God dropped the ball... again.

Yes, but He has given us Christ and His spirit to help us under the new covenant.

Because the old covenant was a bust.
Another failure?

Because if we dont, we are helping the evil one.

Funny -- they way you tell the story, "the evil one" is the only one who's actually succeeded at anything he set out to do.

Not for His pleasure but to destroy evil forever. Apparently this is the only way it can be done.

"Apparently"? You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Just like God cannot go against logic, there are other rules of reality He cannot go against.

God gets weaker and weaker... painting himself into a corner.


Now, I bring this up because it shows an important point -- the more we literalize these stories, the deeper down the rabbit hole we go in vain attempts to explain/justify the literalism, until we're stuck in near total incoherence.

(literalism, btw, is another one of those reasons I'm not, and most likely won't ever be, a Christian)

 

[Eloy Craft]

The definition of love should be agreed upon for this discussion. Jesus proved it by freely obeying His Father.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The definition of love should be agreed upon for this discussion. Jesus proved it by freely obeying His Father.

Ok then, let's agree on a definition of "love."

I've always used something simple as a starting point -- the state in which another's happiness/well-being is essential for one's own.

We can modify or build on it as needed.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Ok then, let's agree on a definition of "love."

I've always used something simple as a starting point -- the state in which another's happiness/well-being is essential for one's own.

We can modify or build on it as needed.

That's too much love. How about .... willing the good for another in all circumstances.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's too much love. How about .... willing the good for another in all circumstances.

If you ask why you're willing, we come to the same conclusion.

 

[Eloy Craft]

If you ask why you're willing, we come to the same conclusion.

If another's happiness is essential for my own I am codependent

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then Biblically speaking, what is the purpose of the angels?

Messengers, ambassadors, guardians and spiritual warriors.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Michael and Gabriel are personal beings.
God is spirit and God loves.

They have some aspects of personhood but IMO they dont seem to have the full orb of personhood. Since they were not fully created in the image of God.

clare: Precisely. . .

And where Scripture makes an end to teaching, we must make an end to learnng.
Let's not use human reasoning and human "wisdom" to arrive at divine truth.

There are many teachings of the bible that are not explicit and only implied. Such as women being allowed to partake of communion or the Lords Supper. Nowhere does the bible say that women can partake but it is strongly implied. That may be the case with this. God gave us the ability to reason and learn implied teachings as well.

clare: If angels love God, they will love the elect.
Angels are also elect (1 Timothy 5:21) and in the body of Christ, the church (Hebrews 12:22-24). They are our brethren in Christ.

Angels are elect in Christ, and they love the elect in Christ.

Elect just means chosen in the case of angels, most scholars believe I Timothy is referring to the angels chosen to help judge the earth mentioned in Matthew 25:31. There is no evidence that any angels were redeemed by Christ because the few that rebelled and joined Lucifer in his rebellion were left to their fate. In fact in order for Christ to redeem angels He would be human, divine and angelic. But He is only human and divine. Hebrews is referring to the new Jerusalem or heaven. Angels have always resided in heaven, it is not referring to the church. The church is only made up of the redeemed, the rebellious angels were never redeemed and never will be, they will reside in hell with Lucifer forever. Only rebellious humans are redeemed and will make up the church.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I left no evidence at the crime scene, no example was ever provided that I was there, but that doesn't mean I wasn't there and didn't do the crime.

True but it IS evidence that you probably had not been there. But also see my response about implicit biblical teachings like whether women can partake in the communion meal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Messengers, ambassadors, guardians and spiritual warriors.

As before, however, I wish to point out that the angels were created first. Nobody to deliver messages or be ambassadors to, nothing to guard, and they ended up being their own enemy.

 

[Clare73]

They have some aspects of personhood but IMO they dont seem to have the full orb of personhood. Since
they were not fully created in the image of God.

And you know that, how?

There are many teachings of the bible that are not explicit and only implied. Such as women being allowed to partake of communion or the Lords Supper. Nowhere does the bible say that women can partake but it is strongly implied.

On what basis would that even be questioned?
Did not Christ die to atone for the sins of women as well as the sins of men?

That may be the case with this. God gave us the ability to reason and learn implied teachings as well.

Uh. . .but I hear it quite loud and clear in the quite explicit "there is neither male nor female in Christ."

Elect just means chosen in the case of angels, most scholars believe I Timothy is referring to the angels chosen to help judge the earth mentioned in Matthew 25:31. There is no evidence that any angels were redeemed by Christ because the few that rebelled and joined Lucifer in his rebellion were left to their fate.

Agreed. . .what does redemption have to do with it?

In fact in order for Christ to redeem angels He would be human, divine and angelic. But He is only human and divine.
Hebrews is referring to the new Jerusalem or heaven. Angels have always resided in heaven, it is not referring to the church.

Oh, but indeed it is!

The New Jerusalem is the bride of the Lamb; i.e., the bride of Christ, which is the church!

The church is only made up of the redeemed, the rebellious angels were never redeemed and never will be, they will reside in hell with Lucifer forever. Only rebellious humans are redeemed and will make up the church.

NOT according to Hebrews 12:22-24, where the "New Jerusalem" is the bride of Christ, the church, which includes
"thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly ("assembly" = ekklesia = church)."

Your "ability to reason and learn implied teachings" is not doing too well here.

 

[Clare73]

True but it IS evidence that you probably had not been there.

NO, it is evidence only that there was no evidence of me being there.

But also see my response about implicit biblical teachings like whether women can partake in the communion meal.

Addressed in post #57, above.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They have some aspects of personhood but IMO they dont seem to have the full orb of personhood. Since they were not fully created in the image of God.

That's a term that gets tossed around a lot without discussion. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"?

 

[Clare73]

That's a term that gets tossed around a lot without discussion. What does it mean to be "in the image of God"?

Created in righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10)