The Elect replacing the Fallen Angels
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Professor
This all leads me towards the idea that he was already fallen with the other fallen angels.
Ajay
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
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
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Christ is the King of angels (Revelation 2:28; 22:16, cf. Isaiah 14:12)
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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
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
(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
Puritan Board Doctor
(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
(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
Last edited:
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).
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
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.
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.
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
God created in preparation for his 6 days of creation? I don't think so. Let's return to the OP.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
I don't understand your point here.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
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
ok, thanks. Valid point.
- Status
