The Elect replacing the Fallen Angels

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The medieval scholastics were in the habit of speculating about angels. The concept itself is mere speculation.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.


Speculation is not profitable or spiritually edifying.

Says you.


I want to know.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

Allegorical interpretation at it's finest! How else could one come up with such a notion. Come on, Augustine, you're better than this!
 
Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition
 
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.
 
Now the question is who will replace the place of Satan in heaven , He is also a fallen angel. there may be heavy competition ��

:think:

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

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

:think:

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

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.

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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top