# The Elect replacing the Fallen Angels



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

I came across a medieval notion that the Elect believers will replace the number of the fallen angels in heaven. The sons of God (us) on earth replacing the Sons of God in heaven who fell.

Was this a true medieval concept or merely the insertion of a writer's idea onto the medieval data? And if so, do you have any links or quotes from these theologians? What evidences do we have to support or deny this concept?


----------



## Cymro (Apr 26, 2016)

It is said of man that he was created in the image of God, and not said about the angels. Ps8:5 reads "For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honour." Commentators would say that it reads "a little lower than God". Certainly this has application to Christ,but as believers have Union to Him and are members of His mystical body, then their dignity is higher than the angels. And as our Lord did not take on Him the nature of angels, then man is uniquely distinct from and elevated from these heavenly creatures. Christ took on our nature that we might take on His nature. Therefore it is impossible for man to be a replacement for those creatures who left their first estate. It does raise an interesting question, if Angels were not made in the image of God, then what is their constitution?


----------



## Philip (Apr 26, 2016)

I first encountered this in Anselm's _Cur Deus Homo_. So it's not a modern imposition.

Reference.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

Philip said:


> I first encountered this in Anselm's _Cur Deus Homo_. So it's not a modern imposition.
> 
> Reference.



Yes! Thanks...that is where I read it.

Where do you think Anselm got his ideas?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2016)

Cymro said:


> It is said of man that he was created in the image of God, and not said about the angels. Ps8:5 reads "For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honour." Commentators would say that it reads "a little lower than God". Certainly this has application to Christ,but as believers have Union to Him and are members of His mystical body, then their dignity is higher than the angels. And as our Lord did not take on Him the nature of angels, then man is uniquely distinct from and elevated from these heavenly creatures. Christ took on our nature that we might take on His nature. Therefore it is impossible for man to be a replacement for those creatures who left their first estate. It does raise an interesting question, if Angels were not made in the image of God, then what is their constitution?



I am not sure I would say the angels have less "dignity" than redeemed men and were they were not created in God's image. I would assume redeemed man will show forth the image of Our Lord better than angels because he (man) will display the mercy and grace of God which the angels are not able to reflect because they never fell like redeemed man did in Adam.


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 26, 2016)

Augustine advances this idea in his _Enchiridion_. I'll have to dig up the reference later. I'm guessing that could be Anselm's source.


----------



## rickclayfan (Apr 26, 2016)

The medieval scholastics were in the habit of speculating about angels. The concept itself is mere speculation.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

rickclayfan said:


> The medieval scholastics were in the habit of speculating about angels. The concept itself is mere speculation.



So?

What's wrong with speculation? There may be some tangential evidences to be found hidden in plain sight in Scripture (I think there is).


----------



## rickclayfan (Apr 26, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> What's wrong with speculation?


Speculation is not profitable or spiritually edifying. We should be weary of diligently seeking answers to questions Scripture sheds no light upon.



> There may be some tangential evidences to be found hidden in plain sight in Scripture (I think there is).


None come to mind. Perhaps Eph. 1:10, but it would be quite a stretch to interpret it as meaning that the elect replace the fallen angels.


----------



## mgkortus (Apr 26, 2016)

Hamalas said:


> Augustine advances this idea in his _Enchiridion_. I'll have to dig up the reference later. I'm guessing that could be Anselm's source.



Chapter 9 (28-30)


----------



## py3ak (Apr 26, 2016)

Augustine, _Enchiridion ad Laurentium_, Chapter 29

THE RESTORED PART OF HUMANITY SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROMISES OF GOD, SUCCEED TO THE PLACE WHICH THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS LOST

And so it pleased God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, that, since the whole body of the angels had not fallen into rebellion, the part of them which had fallen should remain in perdition eternally, and that the other part, which had in the rebellion remained steadfastly loyal, should rejoice in the sure and certain knowledge of their eternal happiness; but that, on the other hand, mankind, who constituted the remainder of the intelligent creation, having perished without exception under sin, both original and actual, and the consequent punishments, should be in part restored, and should fill up the gap which the rebellion and fall of the devils had left in the company of the angels. _For this is the promise to the saints, that at the resurrection they shall be equal to the angels of God._ And thus the Jerusalem which is above, which is the mother of us all, the city of God, shall not be spoiled of any of the number of her citizens, shall perhaps reign over even a more abundant population. We do not know the number either of the saints or of the devils; but we know that the children of the holy mother who was called barren on earth shall succeed to the place of the fallen angels, and shall dwell for ever in that peaceful abode from which they fell. But the number of the citizens, whether as it now is or as it shall be, is present to the thoughts of the great Creator, who calls those things which are not as though they were, _and ordereth all things in measure, and number, and weight_.​ (Emphasis added)

From the italicized lines, it is clear that Augustine was collating Luke 20:36 and Wisdom 11:20 in order to draw this particular theological deduction. Since God has ordered the number of all things, the number of the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem cannot be deficient; and since redeemed mankind will be equal to the angels, what could be more natural than to think of the one replacing the other?

Of course, that does leave a few questions. One, if both Augustine and Anselm leave open the idea that the number of redeemed mankind will be greater than that of the angels who fell, how is it that they are all equal to the angels? That isn't an insurmountable objection, but the view seems a bit like trying to have your cake after having eaten it. Second, and again this isn't insurmountable, it seems to give humanity and redemption a sort of ad hoc quality which cannot be acceptable to those who realize that Adam was created for the sake of Christ (Romans 5:14; Colossians 1:16). Third, is that the necessary implication of the text in Luke, or does the remark about equality with the angels occur in a more limited universe of discourse? Fourth, if one discounts the apocryphal work, what impetus is left for making this statement? Now certainly, Wisdom 11:20 is true enough; but should it be a driving force in our theological explorations?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

rickclayfan said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with speculation?
> ...






> Speculation is not profitable or spiritually edifying.



Says you.


I want to know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Augustine, _Enchiridion ad Laurentium_, Chapter 29
> 
> THE RESTORED PART OF HUMANITY SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROMISES OF GOD, SUCCEED TO THE PLACE WHICH THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS LOST
> 
> ...



The angels were called the Sons of God. They fell and so God is now raising up sons of God from among mankind. That is how one writer put it.


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> I want to know.



Then make sure it's the first question you ask in glory.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 26, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> The angels were called the Sons of God. They fell and so God is now raising up sons of God from among mankind. That is how one writer put it.



That's a nice simple way to put the idea, but it still leaves me with the same theological and exegetical questions.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The angels were called the Sons of God. They fell and so God is now raising up sons of God from among mankind. That is how one writer put it.
> ...



Yes. It seems a strange and exotic doctrine.... but one that seems to contribute to a narrative of God driving the universe forward with a plan regardless of what his creatures do. There is a beauty and a symmetry to it...if it were true.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 26, 2016)

Yes, I can see that. But perhaps a more profound perspective is not that God's plan adapts to achieve the same ends in spite of his creature's actions, but that God's plans always included their actions, even the ones that feel like a plot twist to us.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Yes, I can see that. But perhaps a more profound perspective is not that God's plan adapts to achieve the same ends in spite of his creature's actions, but that God's plans always included their actions, even the ones that feel like a plot twist to us.



Yes, that is what I meant to say. Even the rebellions of man and angel serve to further God's plan from the beginning.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 26, 2016)

Well, you can get there from Christological supralapsarianism, I think, without the numerical sidebar.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

Was man created before or after the fall of the evil angels?

I would say he was created before the fall of the angels. In fact, I believe the Fall was one fall (one event).

Anselm's answer seems convoluted and hard to follow:



> Anselm.. If man was created after the fall of evil angels, as some understand the account in Genesis, I do not think that I can prove from this either of these suppositions positively. For it is possible, I think, that the angels should have been created perfect in number, and that afterwards man was created to complete their number when it had been lessened; and it is also possible that they were not perfect in number, because God deferred completing the number, as he does even now, determining in his own time to create man. Wherefore, either God would only complete that which was not yet perfect, or, if it were also diminished, He would restore it. But if the whole creation took place at once, and those days in which Moses appears to describe a successive creation are not to be understood like such days as ours, I cannot see how angels could have been created perfect in number. Since, if it were so, it seems to me that some, either men or angels, would fall immediately, else in heaven's empire there would be more than the complete number required. If, therefore, all things were created at one and the same time, it should seem that angels, and the first two human beings, formed an incomplete number, so that, if no angel fell, the deficiency alone should be made up, but if any fell, the lost part should be restored; and that human nature, which had stood firm, though weaker than that of angels, might, as it were, justify God, and put the devil to silence, if he were to attribute his fall to weakness. And in case human nature fell, much more would it justify God against the devil, and even against itself, because, though made far weaker and of a mortal race, yet, in the elect, it would rise from its weakness to an estate exalted above that from which the devil was fallen, as far as good angels, to whom it should be equal, were advanced after the overthrow of the evil, because they persevered. From these reasons, I am rather inclined to the belief that there was not, originally, that complete number of angels necessary to perfect the celestial state; since, supposing that man and angels were not created at the same time, this is possible; and it would follow of necessity, if they were created at the same time, which is the opinion of the majority, because we read: "He, who liveth forever, created all things at once." But if the perfection of the created universe is to be understood as consisting, not so much in the number of beings, as in the number of natures; it follows that human nature was either made to consummate this perfection, or that it was superfluous, which we should not dare affirm of the nature of the smallest reptile. Wherefore, then, it was made for itself, and not merely to restore the number of beings possessing another nature. From which it is plain that, even had no angel fallen, men would yet have had their place in the celestial kingdom. And hence it follows that there was not a perfect number of angels, even before a part fell; otherwise, of necessity some men or angels must fall, because it would be impossible that any should continue beyond the perfect number.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

Do any of the reformers pick up this theme, or did it die with the Middle Ages?


----------



## bookslover (Apr 27, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Augustine, _Enchiridion ad Laurentium_, Chapter 29
> 
> THE RESTORED PART OF HUMANITY SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROMISES OF GOD, SUCCEED TO THE PLACE WHICH THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS LOST
> 
> ...



Allegorical interpretation at it's finest! How else could one come up with such a notion. Come on, Augustine, you're better than this!


----------



## Ajay (Apr 28, 2016)

Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2016)

AJAY said:


> Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition


----------



## Cymro (Apr 28, 2016)

A valid and unquestionable point Ajay.Good one!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 28, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> AJAY said:
> 
> 
> > Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition ��



Here is one good man's answer: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8281484312 (Jim Gables, from his predestination series, Perg).


----------



## py3ak (Apr 28, 2016)

bookslover said:


> Allegorical interpretation at it's finest! How else could one come up with such a notion. Come on, Augustine, you're better than this!



Augustine could deploy allegorical interpretation, but this isn't really an instance of that. He isn't saying that the things mentioned in the text are stand-ins for something else (e.g., 'angels' really mean 'the human soul' or something like that). It's more probably just an instance of asking the text a question it didn't mean to answer.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 29, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > AJAY said:
> ...



Yes, I am a fan of Jim Gables and just heard him last week in person. He preached a wonderful sermon on the importance of the burial of Jesus, a doctrine we often tend to just sort of gloss over. He is a gift to the church.

Jim Gables also first introduced to me a view of the Fall that I now hold to, which is in the minority perhaps.... that the Fall was one event. That the angels did not fall prior and then, as a second event, tempt men into falling at some point later...but that it all happened as one event.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 29, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



How could an unfallen angel tempt a person? I ask wondering how this could be because I have no problem thinking a fallen angel could do such but not an unfallen angel.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 29, 2016)

Earl, not an expert on this for sure- I believe the short answer would be that Satan fell when he committed the sin of lying to and tempting Adam and Eve. Part of the reasoning on that being when he fell is that God cursed him after that- as if he had not already been a cursed and doomed creature when he tempted our first parents. If you're interested you can go to the series of sermons I linked to above and find one perhaps entitled the fall of Satan. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Apr 29, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Earl, not an expert on this for sure- I believe the short answer would be that Satan fell when he committed the sin of lying to and tempting Adam and Eve. Part of the reasoning on that being when he fell is that God cursed him after that- as if he had not already been a cursed and doomed creature when he tempted our first parents. If you're interested you can go to the series of sermons I linked to above and find one perhaps entitled the fall of Satan.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Thank you Jeri


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 30, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Earl, not an expert on this for sure- I believe the short answer would be that Satan fell when he committed the sin of lying to and tempting Adam and Eve. Part of the reasoning on that being when he fell is that God cursed him after that- as if he had not already been a cursed and doomed creature when he tempted our first parents. If you're interested you can go to the series of sermons I linked to above and find one perhaps entitled the fall of Satan.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yes, but it was said that the Serpent was more subtil than the others...there seemed to be an innate cunning described even as the serpent approached. How do we reconcile this description? He was more cunning, he did not change into becoming more cunning.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 30, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > Earl, not an expert on this for sure- I believe the short answer would be that Satan fell when he committed the sin of lying to and tempting Adam and Eve. Part of the reasoning on that being when he fell is that God cursed him after that- as if he had not already been a cursed and doomed creature when he tempted our first parents. If you're interested you can go to the series of sermons I linked to above and find one perhaps entitled the fall of Satan.
> ...



This all leads me towards the idea that he was already fallen with the other fallen angels.


----------



## Ajay (Apr 30, 2016)

1 John 3:8, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. 
Beginning means when? It is at the garden of eden or before the creation. 
Another question is when Adam was told by God You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ first time when Adam heard the word death, he really know what it means? Or he is ignorant of death. I need clarification. 

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 30, 2016)

Is the text, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made," speaking of the serpent's qualities as a superior but mere animal, and not of Satan's, per se? And perhaps was chosen by Satan for this reason? And, is it sin to be subtle, or cunning- I don't know all the thought on that Hebrew word. 

Also, I'm reminded of a recent thread titled Theories about Adam's Fall, where Adam's motivations and how he chose sin were discussed. Adam's sin is described in the Bible as his actual eating of the fruit, not his inner change toward sin that occurred before he ate. Is it correct to say that it was when he ate that he fell? In the same way, couldn't Satan's fall, biblically speaking, have been when he actually spoke the lie, and not when his inner workings and changes toward sin were occurring? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 30, 2016)

AJAY said:


> Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition



Christ is the King of angels (Revelation 2:28; 22:16, cf. Isaiah 14:12)


----------



## earl40 (Apr 30, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Also, I'm reminded of a recent thread titled Theories about Adam's Fall, where Adam's motivations and how he chose sin were discussed. Adam's sin is described in the Bible as his actual eating of the fruit, not his inner change toward sin that occurred before he ate.



I asked this a while ago and if I remember correctly the compulsion to eat and the eating were all part of the one sinful event.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 30, 2016)

AJAY said:


> 1 John 3:8, for the devil has sinned from the beginning.
> Beginning means when? It is at the garden of eden or before the creation.
> Another question is when Adam was told by God You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ first time when Adam heard the word death, he really know what it means? Or he is ignorant of death. I need clarification.
> 
> Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk



I had concluded he was ignorant of death. But if he had the bad example of Satan to inform him of the price of sin, this might make some sense (though Satan was not dead enough not to be subtil, and the judgment wasn't announced until Genesis 3, whereas usually the pronouncement of judgment occurs right after the transgression). It seems that Satan plotted the Fall but that it was one event perhaps.


----------



## Peairtach (May 1, 2016)

Personally, I believe that the creation and fall of the angels happened before the six days of creation. We are told that God created the heavens and the earth before we are told about the six days of creation, during which six days nothing is said of the creation of the angels or of the creation of the heaven of heavens.

God had the unformed and unfilled Earth ready as the answer to thwart the schemes of Satan and glorify Himself.

Where God thwarts the schemes of sinners and demons we learn from Scripture that He goes beyond what was originally thwarted. 

I don't know if we have any way of knowing if the number of the elect corresponds to the number of the fallen angels or is greater or smaller. But the fact that the elect are redeemed as well as created makes them a more glorious "replacement" to only created angels.

We must also remember that although we are created a little lower than the angels as regards our present powers, in Christ we are raised above them. T he book of Hebrews says they are our servants, and we are taught that we shall judge angels.

So if it is a "replacement" it's a "replacement +" If it is a "replacement" it could be a "replacement+" in terms of numbers, too.

As regards man being made in God's image and likeness, vis-a-vis the angels not being called this, this clearly does not mean that the angels weren't created in righteousness and holiness. In this respect they were made in God's image and likeness just like man. 

Man may be peculiarly said to be made in God's image and likeness in being that part of the visble and natural creation that peculiarly shows forth God's glory by his being made in righteousness and holiness, in having communion with God, by having certain gifts that reflect divine abilities on a finite scale, and in being given vicegerent dominion over the creation.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (May 1, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> Personally, I believe that the creation and fall of the angels happened before the six days of creation. We are told that God created the heavens and the earth before we are told about the six days of creation, during which six days nothing is said of the creation of the angels or of the creation of the heaven of heavens.
> 
> God had the unformed and unfilled Earth ready as the answer to thwart the schemes of Satan and glorify Himself.
> 
> ...



(1) But what about the "very good" aspect closing out the first Creation week; all seemed well.

(2) You say, "God had the unformed and unfilled Earth ready as the answer to thwart the schemes of Satan and glorify Himself." But this seems to mean that Garden was Plan B or that man was the answer to angel-sin and not part of the original plan to begin with. In the very least your response seems to make the Garden and Creation of Man as a response and reply to angel-sin.

(3) I am not sure if man is peculiarly in God's image. When God said "Let us make man in our image..." He might have been talking to the Divine Council or assembled heavenly host. Sort of like me entering a meeting and saying, "Let's order pizza" and then me alone ordering the pizza, God may have announced to all the angels, ":et us make man in our image..." and then He (God only) created man as the whole entourage watched. I would like to explore the topic further whether or not angels contained the image of God in some fashion.
https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/were-angels-created-in-the-image-of-god/


----------



## Peairtach (May 2, 2016)

(1) The six days of creation doesn't say anything about the creation or fall of angels and so "all things being very good" is not referring to them.

(2) No Plan B, shown by the fact that the Earth was already prepared. It just had to be formed and filled and particularly provided with men, one of whom would be the glorious God-man who would destroy the works of the Devil.

(3) Certainly the angels share in something of Man being made in God's image e.g. being made in righteousness and holiness. I believe "Let us make Man in our image" more naturally refers to dialogue within the Godhead i. e. the Three Persons. We have similar plural language in relation to the Tower of Babel.

If you want added material for speculation about elect men replacing fallen angels, you could compare Revelation 12:4 with Zechariah 13:8-9.



Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (May 2, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> (1) The six days of creation doesn't say anything about the creation or fall of angels and so "all things being very good" is not referring to them.
> 
> (2) No Plan B, shown by the fact that the Earth was already prepared. It just had to be formed and filled and particularly provided with men, one of whom would be the glorious God-man who would destroy the works of the Devil.
> 
> ...



Job tells us that the angels were created before the world, right?

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).


----------



## Peairtach (May 2, 2016)

> Job tells us that the angels were created before the world, right?
> 
> “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).



That's what I'm saying. The angels were created before the Six Days of creation.


----------



## earl40 (May 2, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> > Job tells us that the angels were created before the world, right?
> >
> > “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).
> 
> ...



Also some more speculation is that Augustine said that the separation of day and night was God separating the angels. 

So far as God creating angels before time began would necessitate a creature being outside of time which is problematic in that God is the only being outside of such.


----------



## Peairtach (May 2, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > > Job tells us that the angels were created before the world, right?
> ...



Not before time began. He made the heavens and the earth in the beginning including the heaven of heavens and the angels. This was before the six days of forming and filling the natural world.

The statement "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is not a summary statement of the work of creation including the six days, but a reference to an act of creation in preparation for the six days, namely the creation of the unformed and unfilled earth and outer space, and, possibly, the heaven of heavens and the angels.

Any way we're slightly off topic on the subject of whether -part of - the divine intention was to replace the fallen angels with the elect.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (May 2, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> > Job tells us that the angels were created before the world, right?
> >
> > “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).
> 
> ...



They were just created before the creation of the earth. What was created before the six days of creation? Nothing. They were created within those first few days.


----------



## Pergamum (May 2, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Peairtach said:
> ...



God created in preparation for his 6 days of creation? I don't think so. Let's return to the OP.


----------



## Peairtach (May 3, 2016)

Well I'm dropping out, Pergy. It would be interesting to see what different Reformers and Puritans said about this, but they didn't think it was clear enough or important enough to make it part of their confessional system, anyway.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peairtach (May 3, 2016)

The danger would be that if such a notion was misunderstood that God would be viewed as having a functional view of His people. rather than treating them as His beloved and as individuals.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (May 3, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> The danger would be that if such a notion was misunderstood that God would be viewed as having a functional view of His people. rather than treating them as His beloved and as individuals.
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk



I don't understand your point here.


----------



## Peairtach (May 4, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > The danger would be that if such a notion was misunderstood that God would be viewed as having a functional view of His people. rather than treating them as His beloved and as individuals.
> ...


Just that if it was the case that one of God's purposes in electing His people was to replace the fallen angels, or more than replace them - which case has not been established - it would need to be made clear that it was His great love for His elect which had priority over filling gaps in the ranks of angels, which was a secondary or co-ordinate matter.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Peairtach said:
> ...



ok, thanks. Valid point.


----------

