M
1. Presuming angels had free will, what would have caused 1/3 to follow Satan into rebellion?
A. It IS a presumption that angels had free will; so you'd first have to get over that hurdle with the Calvinists.
B. I'm not a Calvinist, and I do believe the angels had some degree of free will, so I would give an answer about epistemic distance and the normal ruination of pride.
- Many Christian philosophers believe God's creatures are made with varying degrees of epistemic distance from God.
- With this as a premise, we might conclude angels were created at a precise epistemic distance which would make rebellion so absurd as to be unlikely, and completely unforgivable.... but yet still be possible.
- If it is even possible for an angel to freely rebel, then pride could take over any being that is able to have pride and rebel.
2. Why didn’t God come up with a plan for the angels to be saved?
A. I think the Calvinist view would be that saving the fallen angels was not part of God's sovereign plan, and it did not please him to do so.
Even as an Arminian, I think this is well within God's sovereignty... he doesn't owe his creation anything.
B. On the Arminian view, I would suggest the fallen angels are fallen to such a degree, so depraved and apostate, that they are wholly and utterly unwilling, under any circumstance, to ever repent... and so God owes them no means of reconciliation.
(If a man's eyes are opened by God, to see his glory, we believe all men, or at least some men, would respond and repent... but the angels BEGAN with their eyes already open to God's glory, and became apostate by closing them.)
- They once knew God so well, and so closely and personally, that to rebel against him would be to commit an act that would seer their own conscience to such a degree they are forever incapable of repentance.
- They have made their own hearts into things so black and impenetrable that even the complete knowledge and grace of God could not breach their dark hearts.
C. Of course it is also possible to somewhat reconcile these two views: God had his own plans and purposes, and he therefore allowed the angels to fall and PUT THEMSELVES into such a state as to be irredeemable.
(This would be my personal view.)
3. What is the image of God; does it mean to have 2 arms and 2 legs?
A. Since God is spirit, it doesn't seem likely that to be "in his image" is talking about the "visual image" of having 2 arms and 2 legs.
B. But God could have chosen any form for us, and yet when he created humans, this special creature to have a special relationship with him, he chose, out of all possible options, this peculiar physical form we have.... so I do think this form we have is very special.
4. Was Adam's dominion a thing which Satan took from him after the Fall?
A. This depends entirely on how we define Adam's dominion.
B. It seems to me, from simply reading the text, that Adam's dominion was not something political, like that of a prince, but merely a physical dominance over the rest of creation.
C. Since man STILL has this physical dominance over the rest of creation, it would seem to me this dominion over the earth is still intact.
* This whole issue about dominion depends entirely on how we define dominion.
* A different definition of dominion would lead to a different conclusion, by I'm just going directly from the text in Genesis 1.
...
A. It IS a presumption that angels had free will; so you'd first have to get over that hurdle with the Calvinists.
B. I'm not a Calvinist, and I do believe the angels had some degree of free will, so I would give an answer about epistemic distance and the normal ruination of pride.
- Many Christian philosophers believe God's creatures are made with varying degrees of epistemic distance from God.
- With this as a premise, we might conclude angels were created at a precise epistemic distance which would make rebellion so absurd as to be unlikely, and completely unforgivable.... but yet still be possible.
- If it is even possible for an angel to freely rebel, then pride could take over any being that is able to have pride and rebel.
2. Why didn’t God come up with a plan for the angels to be saved?
A. I think the Calvinist view would be that saving the fallen angels was not part of God's sovereign plan, and it did not please him to do so.
Even as an Arminian, I think this is well within God's sovereignty... he doesn't owe his creation anything.
B. On the Arminian view, I would suggest the fallen angels are fallen to such a degree, so depraved and apostate, that they are wholly and utterly unwilling, under any circumstance, to ever repent... and so God owes them no means of reconciliation.
(If a man's eyes are opened by God, to see his glory, we believe all men, or at least some men, would respond and repent... but the angels BEGAN with their eyes already open to God's glory, and became apostate by closing them.)
- They once knew God so well, and so closely and personally, that to rebel against him would be to commit an act that would seer their own conscience to such a degree they are forever incapable of repentance.
- They have made their own hearts into things so black and impenetrable that even the complete knowledge and grace of God could not breach their dark hearts.
C. Of course it is also possible to somewhat reconcile these two views: God had his own plans and purposes, and he therefore allowed the angels to fall and PUT THEMSELVES into such a state as to be irredeemable.
(This would be my personal view.)
3. What is the image of God; does it mean to have 2 arms and 2 legs?
A. Since God is spirit, it doesn't seem likely that to be "in his image" is talking about the "visual image" of having 2 arms and 2 legs.
B. But God could have chosen any form for us, and yet when he created humans, this special creature to have a special relationship with him, he chose, out of all possible options, this peculiar physical form we have.... so I do think this form we have is very special.
4. Was Adam's dominion a thing which Satan took from him after the Fall?
A. This depends entirely on how we define Adam's dominion.
B. It seems to me, from simply reading the text, that Adam's dominion was not something political, like that of a prince, but merely a physical dominance over the rest of creation.
C. Since man STILL has this physical dominance over the rest of creation, it would seem to me this dominion over the earth is still intact.
* This whole issue about dominion depends entirely on how we define dominion.
* A different definition of dominion would lead to a different conclusion, by I'm just going directly from the text in Genesis 1.
...
I don’t think people do have dominion over the earth, even Christians. At least not the
way God intended ie dominion over animals, no weeds, no sickness etc. I think
the damage done to planet earth is not recoverable which is why there will be a new earth.
I have given things more thought and maybe the only thing which is recoverable
is mankind, hence the salvation which is available. In one sense fallen earth
is under the dominion of Satan as it’s become corrupted and can’t be recovered.
Re the image of God, God certainly is spirit, but Jesus appeared both in the
Old Testament and New as a man. So maybe we really are made in His physically
Image. Presumably it was Jesus who walked with Adam and Eve in Eden?
Still not sure about the angels. There must have been some sort of free will there.
Not sure though that Calvinism and Armenians comes into play, as they are
not made in the image of God. They already had knowledge of good and evil.
They already had immortal heavenly bodies. So if they fall they can’t be saved.
Maybe man would also have had this issue if they had eaten of the tree of life
after the fall. But were stopped from doing so.
Anyway interesting subject.