NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I hate to do it. I hate to post another god thread, but this question's been bugging me for a while.

Do Angels have free will?

I think Angels are like humans that were exceptionally good in their lives-they do gods bidding for him on Earth, and have their angelic status in return, hence the term "Earning your halo".

I really dig the idea of Ben Afleck and Matt Damon being angels

Irrelevant whether they do or not.

Religious answer: Good, in a religious context, is defined as being in agreement with the will of God. Angels are, by virtue of what they are, inherently good. So their desires will be good desires. Now with good being defined as above, the actions of an angel with free will would coincide exactly with their action if it were determined by God.

Atheist answer: Angels don't exist, so they do not have anything.

Agnostic answer: I don't know.

I think Angels are like humans that were exceptionally good in their lives-they do gods bidding for him on Earth, and have their angelic status in return, hence the term "Earning your halo".
I'm not sure that your position is supported by Christian theology. I'm hoping to hear from someone who really knows Christian theology well because I'm looking for an "official" answer. Thanks though.

Religious answer: Good, in a religious context, is defined as being in agreement with the will of God. Angels are, by virtue of what they are, inherently good. So their desires will be good desires. Now with good being defined as above, the actions of an angel with free will would coincide exactly with their action if it were determined by God.

A real headache of an answer.

Atheist answer: Angels don't exist, so they do not have anything.

A foolish answer. Too blind.

Agnostic answer: I don't know.

My kind of answer. :D

I am pretty sure the answer would be:
Yes, but they do not have a “fallen” nature. Further, there is no way for them to repent if they choose to reject God.

I'm not sure that your position is supported by Christian theology. I'm hoping to hear from someone who really knows Christian theology well because I'm looking for an "official" answer. Thanks though.

At least I tried. :D

*snip*
Good, in a religious context, is defined as being in agreement with the will of God. Angels are, by virtue of what they are, inherently good. So their desires will be good desires. Now with good being defined as above, the actions of an angel with free will would coincide exactly with their action if it were determined by God.
*snip*
This answer is incomplete, in that demons are simply angels who have chosen to oppose God. They are what they choose to be, whether good or evil. The evil ones we call demons to distinguish them from the good ones.

I really dig the idea of Ben Afleck and Matt Damon being angels
And Jay and Silent Bob shooting the crap out of them

And Jay and Silent Bob shooting the crap out of them
Hey, Jay did all the shooting. Give credit where credit is due. Bob did, however, kill the demon Azriel.

As I understand it Lucifer and 1/3 of God's angels rebelled and were cast down to earth (hence demons).
If angels can rebel against God then they must have free will.

angels must have free will or lucifer wouldnt be ruling in hell now

their nature is utterly unlike ours of course, and they do live in the presence of god (which would be enough to make ME toe the mark) so they face less temptation than we do and are less likely to succumb to it.

All of the Angels, fallen and in Heaven, have always and will continue to have free will. This is quite obvious in the case of the fallen angels, since they are in rebelion against God. The issue is whether angels in Heaven, who commit no evil, still have free will. The answer is:

Being holy creatures, as they freely chose the path of righteousness, angels try to do the will of God.
Having seen the beatific vision, (That is, having fully experienced the presence of the Lord in Heaven) they have complete knowledge of the nature of goodness.
Since free will comprises the ability to do whatever one desires and is able to do, the angels in Heaven, in accordance with the nature of free will and their own holy natures, never offend God.

The only reasons that a human commits sin are that he/she has chosen to rebel against God, as the fallen angels did, or that he/she is confused about the nature of goodness, which is probably the case for most people.

Hey, Jay did all the shooting. Give credit where credit is due. Bob did, however, kill the demon Azriel.
Bob knows how to kick some ass (especially that train fight). I love dumb-comedy American movies.

I'm not sure that your position is supported by Christian theology. I'm hoping to hear from someone who really knows Christian theology well because I'm looking for an "official" answer. Thanks though.

I'll assume by "Angel" you mean the class descriptor of beings which serve or did serve God from heaven.

Etymology: Angel, derived from greek angelos, and its hebrew equivalent mala'ak; simply means "messenger"... And is applied biblically to any number of "messengers"...

There are however refferences to classes as such, such as the Seraphim. We also know, bibilically speaking that Satan is one of these fallen angels; and it was by his deceit in the Garden that the fall occured towards Adam and Eve... Since Satan, a fallen angel was present in the garden; it can be easily assumed he was never "human", thus a seperate created being, of a different sort (heavenly) than mankind by this reasoning. Thus, these Angels, that is classes such as Archangels, Seraphim, the supposed Nephalim and the like; are not, nor never were "humans" but a seperate order of creation then mankind in general.

Even amongst non-orthodox views, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is pictured not as God, but rather as the personification of the Archangel Michael, who was present with God in early creation.

So, gleaning from the various christian theological views; "Angels" that is the class of beings which serve or have served (in the case of Satan and the fallen angels) God from heaven. That they are a seperate creation, by God, from mankind; which occured independent of the creation of the universe in general (in heaven). And that occupy an realm of existance beyond mankind...

angels must have free will or lucifer wouldnt be ruling in hell now
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Free will = ablility to make a choice (In this case to follow or not follow God), right?
Lucifer/Satan "chose" to walk away from (rebel against) God.
So... you could say yes... the have a free will.

But, like TIN, I have no idea. LOL.

This is exactly what I was thinking.
Free will = ablility to make a choice (In this case to follow or not follow God), right?
Lucifer/Satan "chose" to walk away from (rebel against) God.
So... you could say yes... the have a free will.

But, like TIN, I have no idea. LOL.
Actually, God threw Lucifer out.

Well, yeah... I knew that. :p
I didn't mean in a physical way. :D

According to scripture (mainly excluded from the Bible) they do, according to logic and reason they don't. However, God does not abide by logic and reason, and the Bible may or may not be true, so.....

I don't know.

EDIT: I believe the excluded texts state that a group of angels became jealous of humans and angry at God. They rebelled against God, came to Earth and started having sex with women. They were eventually cast into Hell, where they are completely abandoned by God, and the children they impregnated the women with became a race of giants.

I don't know why they wouldn't include that text.

A quick Google search brings up a website that asks the same question as you did.
http://www.lbministry.org/id46.htm

Not quite sure that it answers it, though.

According to scripture (mainly excluded from the Bible) they do, according to logic and reason they don't. However, God does not abide by logic and reason, and the Bible may or may not be true, so.....

I don't know.
That's what was bugging me. I've heard some claims that angels are servants without free will. If so then assuming you beleive in the Judeo-Christian god, you have to assume he commanded Lucifer to stage his rebellion. If so then god intentionally created evil, and you can't assume he's completely benevolent. He may not be benevolent at all.

After the Rapture when all the good people are in Heaven for eternity, do they have free will?

As far as I can see, there are three possible answers:

1. Yes, they have complete free will. This means that they could conceivably sin in Heaven. A theological paradox.

2. No, they do not. For the rest of eternity, they can only follow God's commands. This is tidy as the aforementioned paradox is removed, but having humans without free will is another problem.

3. This is the scariest one. They do have free will, but would not want to sin. No sinning in heaven, yet everyone has free will. They would not want to sin because they have seen the Beatific vision. Sort of a moral lobotomy on a grand scale. All desire wiped clean by the purity of the All-Father.

After the Rapture when all the good people are in Heaven for eternity, do they have free will?

As far as I can see, there are three possible answers:

1. Yes, they have complete free will. This means that they could conceivably sin in Heaven. A theological paradox.

2. No, they do not. For the rest of eternity, they can only follow God's commands. This is tidy as the aforementioned paradox is removed, but having humans without free will is another problem.

3. This is the scariest one. They do have free will, but would not want to sin. No sinning in heaven, yet everyone has free will. They would not want to sin because they have seen the Beatific vision. Sort of a moral lobotomy on a grand scale. All desire wiped clean by the purity of the All-Father.
4. Nothing is a sin in heaven. You can become a serial rapist/murderer/cannibal and through god's magic none of your actions have any bad consequences. You can do whatever you want and nobody actually gets hurt.

After the Rapture when all the good people are in Heaven for eternity, do they have free will?

As far as I can see, there are three possible answers:

1. Yes, they have complete free will. This means that they could conceivably sin in Heaven. A theological paradox.

2. No, they do not. For the rest of eternity, they can only follow God's commands. This is tidy as the aforementioned paradox is removed, but having humans without free will is another problem.

3. This is the scariest one. They do have free will, but would not want to sin. No sinning in heaven, yet everyone has free will. They would not want to sin because they have seen the Beatific vision. Sort of a moral lobotomy on a grand scale. All desire wiped clean by the purity of the All-Father.

Which comes down to the definition of "free will"... And I believe many problems extend by what exactly is conveyed by that phrase...

IOW: Is "free-will" the ability to make choices apart from anything else?

Or... is "free-will" the ability to make choices without cooersion by an external force according to your own nature?

I side with the later... since the former would be philosophically impossible. If a person had choices without adherence to their own personal, to be made as such apart from it... Then they would be unable to choose anything at all.

If a person is presented with a plate of food, do they have complete freedom of choice to eat apart of all other criteria? The answer is of course no; their decision will be based upon their own internal desires, AKA their nature... Are they hungry? Do they like the food they have been presented with? These are things that the "will" will wrestle with in the decision making process. And this extends to all forms of choice presented to a person... If there is no "desire" operating in conjunction with the choice, then there is no choice, and your decisions are all arbitrary and unlikely... If a person had no desire to fulfill hunger, and had no desire for food, they would just sit there; unconcerned for the food, or their placement... And in fact, make no operational choice.

This is more or less the Calvinistic/Augustinian viewpoint of "free-will" in regards to theological/anthropological thought. And extends equally to humanity and the angels. They make the choices by the dictates of their own internal nature... The angels, and man, is create mutable; that is with the possibility of a change in their nature; theologically, such occured at the "fall" in both cases, of mankind, and the rebellion in heaven.. In the process the nature of the creation was changed through decietful prospects. And that, in this natural state after the fall, man, and satan and his cohorts, are bound by their nature to make choices in directions against the stated will of the Creator/God.

This extends through the Calvinistic principle that all things occur in the grand scheme in relation to the will and dictation by God... even if hidden. Even sin, the fall, and all the "bad" things operate in conjunction by this "will" or grand-plan; while at the same time being carried out by mankinds general state of nature, their "will" being made to choose freely within the course of their "natural state" after the fall. And thereby choices made back towards his states purposes are made in conjunction with an empowering of the person by God (The Spirit) through a change in nature of the person (new heart) whereby the direction of their will is changed, by altering the stimuli by which it chooses...

Do Angels have free will?

No.

If a person is presented with a plate of food, do they have complete freedom of choice to eat apart of all other criteria? The answer is of course no; their decision will be based upon their own internal desires, AKA their nature... Are they hungry? Do they like the food they have been presented with? These are things that the "will" will wrestle with in the decision making process. And this extends to all forms of choice presented to a person... If there is no "desire" operating in conjunction with the choice, then there is no choice, and your decisions are all arbitrary and unlikely... If a person had no desire to fulfill hunger, and had no desire for food, they would just sit there; unconcerned for the food, or their placement... And in fact, make no operational choice.

This is more or less the Calvinistic/Augustinian viewpoint of "free-will" in regards to theological/anthropological thought. And extends equally to humanity and the angels. They make the choices by the dictates of their own internal nature... The angels, and man, is create mutable; that is with the possibility of a change in their nature; theologically, such occured at the "fall" in both cases, of mankind, and the rebellion in heaven.. In the process the nature of the creation was changed through decietful prospects. And that, in this natural state after the fall, man, and satan and his cohorts, are bound by their nature to make choices in directions against the stated will of the Creator/God.


Hunger is a limited means of affecting free will, it only affects our decisions in certain circumstances. So our free will is obviously limited by it. If it was in our nature not to sin, and now it is in our nature to sin, then that is very different.
The phrase that I have highlighted is the key one. Our internal nature can be dictated by various things, and still allow us a degree of free will, but it is impossible for someone to have a choice within the restriction of with the stated will of God, or against it, as God being omniscient, will know what should happen at every choice, what would be the best choice to make. Therefore, if it was ever in our nature to make choices that were in accordance with the will of God, we cannot have had free will to any extent.

No.
So then god intentionally created Satan. So god isn't omnibenevolent?

Not even Saten has free will, He only thinks he does, an example would be in Job he has to ask permission from God in order to cause Job pain in an attempt to get him to curse god and god gave saten limitations. Saten didn't rebel, he only thought he did because god needed an evil to prove his might against.

Hunger is a limited means of affecting free will, it only affects our decisions in certain circumstances. So our free will is obviously limited by it. If it was in our nature not to sin, and now it is in our nature to sin, then that is very different.
The phrase that I have highlighted is the key one. Our internal nature can be dictated by various things, and still allow us a degree of free will, but it is impossible for someone to have a choice within the restriction of with the stated will of God, or against it, as God being omniscient, will know what should happen at every choice, what would be the best choice to make. Therefore, if it was ever in our nature to make choices that were in accordance with the will of God, we cannot have had free will to any extent.

Yes, out internal nature is effected, and changed, but the will is always free... That is, it makes decisions be its own internal criteria and desires, in accordance with its nature.

In the natural state, before the fall, the will of man was in a state of "innocence" in the theological view. Through "free-choice" it made decisions against the states purpose and laws of God, and thus became "Fallen" in nature...

After the fall, the will was adverse to God. That is, by its own nature and desires, chooses to do that which is adverse towards God's laws. And thus, in the fallen state, freely chooses to sin.

In the process of regeneration in this theological view, the nature is implanted with God's Spirit... whereby the desires are altered to seek God. Not the will... The will still makes the determining choices. It is here that the "will" is made capable to make choices freely as towards God, where before it made its choices freely adverse to Him. That is, in the state of innocents it was free and mutable.... In the fallen state it is free, but bound towards sin, and in the regenerative state it is made again capable to make choices towards God, and freely does so, by its own desires.

It is to be noted that on earth, in this theological view, man is not in a complete regenerative state, that is he still possesses desires towards sin; though those empowered by the Spirit are in possession of two natures, an "old" one of their fallen state, and the "new" one given of God.

"Desire" and "Will" are not the same thing.... The will is the determintive aspect, desire is one of the influences by which the will makes its determining actions.

The regenerate are engrafted with a desire to please God, and thus, their actions they seek are towards this desire in accordance with their engrafted nature as such. While the fallen man possesses no desire as such, and even when choosing to do that which is "good" in God's eyes, is done so from wicked desires as opposed to the core reason in service to God.

Thus, the "will" freely makes choices; but the "will" is not absolutely free.... It is in fact bound to the natural state of the being... And makes its choices freely in that state... The concept of regeneration is a change of state of the being, and thus an alteration of the decisions of the will in that regards. Though in all this, the will still makes its choices freely according to its nature.

And that, in man's present state man freely decides to act without regards to pleasing His creator... That is "evil".... That is, that which is "good" is that which is pleasing to God, and that which is "evil" is that which is not pleasing to God. Whereby it is not the act itself which is pleasing or displeasing, but the motivations for the act.

A biblical perspective is God's dealings with the King of Assyria... God used this king to punish His people Israel... That is, he used the King's evil motivations to act as a discipline upon His people... And then, He turns around and punishes the King.... While the acts of the King, in and of themselves were acts ordained of God, the motivations of the acts were of conceit and self-pleasure, and not to bring honor to the Creator/God...

This is called "free agency"... That is, man is a "Free agent"... And he makes his decisions uncoerced... But at the same time, regardless of the intent of the actions, all occur within the divine plan of the creator. And that the Creator can use such evil for Good...

This isn't to convey that our choices are "limited"... The same choices are present, it is a matter of desire for choices, and against others, by which we choose, and it is those that change in that process... not the will itself. Hunger was an example... Another could be food choices, or colors you like or don't like.

The regenerative man seeks to pleasing God, not out of "force" but because that is in fact what he wills to do. While the unregernate is not forced to sin, but does so freely by his own will. And the "Act" of God, is not in forcing the will, but in changing the desires which effect the will. It's an enablement.

Not even Saten has free will, He only thinks he does, an example would be in Job he has to ask permission from God in order to cause Job pain in an attempt to get him to curse god and god gave saten limitations. Saten didn't rebel, he only thought he did because god needed an evil to prove his might against.

In the context of absolute freedom... No, he is still bound by his nature.

However, your example from Job is inconsistent with the Topic. In Job, we have evidence that Satan cannot act apart from the will of God... That is, what Satan does is in accordance with his purpose, not that he is forced one way or the other.

Satat did "rebel" in that he choose a direction which was counter to his appointed purpose; which was towards pleasing God. In Satan's fallen state, he still acts according to God's will and plans, but he does not act out of a wish to fulfill such.

In the "Grand scope" it is impossible to act against God's "divine plan", but you can act out of motivations which are not towards that plan (The Assyrian King)... So in a sense it both is and is not rebellion. But you are right, he thinks it is rebellion... And it is from that motivation as to why he has entered a fallen state.

In the context of absolute freedom... No, he is still bound by his nature.

However, your example from Job is inconsistent with the Topic. In Job, we have evidence that Satan cannot act apart from the will of God... That is, what Satan does is in accordance with his purpose, not that he is forced one way or the other.

Satat did "rebel" in that he choose a direction which was counter to his appointed purpose; which was towards pleasing God. In Satan's fallen state, he still acts according to God's will and plans, but he does not act out of a wish to fulfill such.

In the "Grand scope" it is impossible to act against God's "divine plan", but you can act out of motivations which are not towards that plan (The Assyrian King)... So in a sense it both is and is not rebellion. But you are right, he thinks it is rebellion... And it is from that motivation as to why he has entered a fallen state.
Of course, if your theory is true it proves unequivocally that God is nothing more than a whiny bitch with the temprament of a 2 year old and absolute power, but what else is new.

They do have free will, but would not want to sin. No sinning in heaven, yet everyone has free will. They would not want to sin because they have seen the Beatific vision. Sort of a moral lobotomy on a grand scale. All desire wiped clean by the purity of the All-Father.
Having the Beatific Vision does not take away desire. One only gets into heaven if one desires to do good rather than evil. The Beatific Vision, then, serves to augment one's understanding of goodness to such a point that one would never mistake an evil action for a good one.

Of course, if your theory is true it proves unequivocally that God is nothing more than a whiny bitch with the temprament of a 2 year old and absolute power, but what else is new.

In such a case, you should get with him, from your extrapolation, you would have much in common.

Which comes down to the definition of "free will"... And I believe many problems extend by what exactly is conveyed by that phrase...

IOW: Is "free-will" the ability to make choices apart from anything else?

Or... is "free-will" the ability to make choices without cooersion by an external force according to your own nature?

I side with the later... since the former would be philosophically impossible.

Keep in mind you said that.

If a person had choices without adherence to their own personal, to be made as such apart from it... Then they would be unable to choose anything at all.

If a person is presented with a plate of food, do they have complete freedom of choice to eat apart of all other criteria? The answer is of course no; their decision will be based upon their own internal desires, AKA their nature... Are they hungry? Do they like the food they have been presented with? These are things that the "will" will wrestle with in the decision making process. And this extends to all forms of choice presented to a person... If there is no "desire" operating in conjunction with the choice, then there is no choice, and your decisions are all arbitrary and unlikely...

And where did the aforementioned "nature" and "desire" come from in the first place, and how was it determined what they would be?

They make the choices by the dictates of their own internal nature...

Which presents us with some problems once we get around to considering the answer to that last question.

So then god intentionally created Satan. So god isn't omnibenevolent?

Nobody but the mentally handicapped, hippies, and children think God is omnibenevolent.

Satan was just an attempt to trash Pan (Pan= :cool: ) and his name comes from Set, the Egyptian god (I assume this is due to hostility caused by their enslavement)

Satan was just an attempt to trash Pan (Pan= :cool: ) and his name comes from Set, the Egyptian god (I assume this is due to hostility caused by their enslavement)

Sort of. But there's a bad combination there. Satan is God's adversary - sort of Lex Luthor to Superman - but man's adversary is Iblis. Two completely different Angels.

Sort of. But there's a bad combination there. Satan is God's adversary

I'd just like to point out that an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot have a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient "adversary" in any meaningful sense of the word. At best he could have someone it was amusing him to toy with for a while before he got tired of it and crushed him flat without even trying.

If there was anything persisting in apparent active opposition to such a being it could only be because that being wanted it that way.

Nobody but the mentally handicapped, hippies, and children think God is omnibenevolent.
Some theists claim that property for god.

Ok, I hate to do it. I hate to post another god thread, but this question's been bugging me for a while.

Do Angels have free will?


The very existance of evil is evidence to that effect. Lucifer, was one of the "covering cherubs" and his free will exersized in defiance of God's will is what caused sin, so I'd say that constitutes free will.

At least at the time of Lucifer's rebellion, angel's had free will and could sin. Since Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelled against God, they committed sin and were expelled from Heaven.

I haven't ever thought about it, but it very well could be that when the other 2/3 of the angels affirmatively chose not to rebel, their act of faith may have "sealed' them from damnation -- somewhat like Abraham was saved through his faith (evidenced by his actions).

And where did the aforementioned "nature" and "desire" come from in the first place, and how was it determined what they would be?

Which presents us with some problems once we get around to considering the answer to that last question.

Depends on what nature you reffer to.

The present natural state of man, ie. his nature, came as a consequence of the fall. (desire is merely that aspect of motivation which the heart imposes upon the will in its determinitive process). That is, his "desire" is to sin because his nature is in a corrupted state from the fall.

The regenerative nature comes from God's bestowing grace. And thus, his desire is towards pleasing God, as that is his nature in regeneration by God.

Depends on what nature you reffer to.

The present natural state of man, ie. his nature, came as a consequence of the fall. (desire is merely that aspect of motivation which the heart imposes upon the will in its determinitive process). That is, his "desire" is to sin because his nature is in a corrupted state from the fall.The regenerative nature comes from God's bestowing grace. And thus, his desire is towards pleasing God, as that is his nature in regeneration by God.

Alright... but then how did the fall happen in the first place as it would seem the desire to sin would not have been present prior to it's occurance?

Alright... but then how did the fall happen in the first place as it would seem the desire to sin would not have been present prior to it's occurance?


That reality is referred to frequently in theological circles as "the mistery of iniquity". The reality is, if there is a reasonable explanation for it, it ceases to be sin and has a valid purpose for existance.

Alright... but then how did the fall happen in the first place as it would seem the desire to sin would not have been present prior to it's occurance?

I explained that earlier in the framework of this theology...

Prior to the fall, man's "nature" was in a state of innocence; neither fallen nor regenerative. That is, it was free and mutable by its own choices. But by listening to the serpent, and answer the desires to which he appeased, the first of mankind sealed their fate, as it were. Thus their nature became altered by being subject to the knowledge of sin (something which they lacked in innocence), and had desire in that direction to sin, in the fulfillment of their own desires, which were no longer based upon the pleasure of their Lord, God.

I explained that earlier in the framework of this theology...

See... I don't think you really did.

Prior to the fall, man's "nature" was in a state of innocence; neither fallen nor regenerative. That is, it was free and mutable by its own choices.

Remember earlier when I said to keep in mind you said that one thing? This was why.

You stated that free will was the ability to make choices according to your own nature, and that making choices completely independent of such a thing was "philosophically impossible". Now however you appear to have reversed that state of affairs prior to the fall and would have man's nature be a result of the choices he made instead of the other way around.

But by listening to the serpent, and answer the desires to which he appeased, the first of mankind sealed their fate, as it were.

And on what basis did they make the choice to listen to the serpent if it was not already their nature to do such a thing? And if it WAS already their nature to do such a thing, how was that so?

See... I don't think you really did.



Remember earlier when I said to keep in mind you said that one thing? This was why.

You stated that free will was the ability to make choices according to your own nature, and that making choices completely independent of such a thing was "philosophically impossible". Now however you appear to have reversed that state of affairs prior to the fall and would have man's nature be a result of the choices he made instead of the other way around.



And on what basis did they make the choice to listen to the serpent if it was not already their nature to do such a thing? And if it WAS already their nature to do such a thing, how was that so?

Ok, prior to the fall, man's nature was in a state of innocence, though mutable (changable within the realm of their choices).

The concept of it was that, the serpent preyed upon this innocent state, to trick mankind, who at that time lacked the understanding of sin. God provides them with a commandment, not to eat of this tree.... The serpent preys upon three desires in the process of the trickery... A desire for food, a desire for knowledge and a desire for power... In the process of answering these desires at the behest of the "serpent", they attain the knowledge of good and evil (a state which they lacked before), and thus their innocent nature is corrupted (and thus occurs the fall). In the post-eden state, mankind is in possession of this corrupted nature, this nature to appease (like in the fall) their own desires, as opposed to seeking to please their Creator.

Thus occurs the point and framework for the reason of regeneration by the Spirit. God empowers through His Spirit His people... giving them a new "heart" (that is, new desires towards Him, so that they may fulfill his purposes in salvation)... That is, God provides His people with the power to return to Him in saving faith; giving them a desire, which presses their will towards pleasing Him instead of centering on themselves. "For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure..." [PH 2:13]... So that, while the acts and the will of the regenerated christian is that of themselves, the work by which this occurs is that of God through His Spirit. (Apart from God's saving work in the heart of the sinner, the sinner is incapable [by his own heart] of turning to God, because his will refuses to make that choice, instead answering the desires of his heart)... Thus the regenerative process is that of imparting a new heart, with new desires; which then alter the course of decisions the will makes. The will in all of this is not cooerced... It is free... That is, it still makes its own choices apart from external force, but still makes it according to the nature of the being/agent (free-agency as opposed to absolute free-will).

Given that to belive in Angels you belive in God.
Given that God is Omnipitent and Omipresent.
Given that God created all.

This means that whatever is present is put there by God.

So, God knows everything and can control everything, so if God wished to God could stop/start/change everything.

Within this framework, freewill and the fall from grace become choices God has made not the entities themselves.
So free will does not exist, as if God did not approve for this to happen it would not could not and it would not even occur as a possibility to happen.

Ok, prior to the fall, man's nature was in a state of innocence, though mutable (changable within the realm of their choices).

Yes, I got that the last post. But repeating it doesn't change that this pre-fall explanation is contradicting your position on the dependency relationship between choices and nature.

The concept of it was that, the serpent preyed upon this innocent state, to trick mankind, who at that time lacked the understanding of sin. God provides them with a commandment, not to eat of this tree.... The serpent preys upon three desires in the process of the trickery... A desire for food, a desire for knowledge and a desire for power... In the process of answering these desires at the behest of the "serpent", they attain the knowledge of good and evil (a state which they lacked before), and thus their innocent nature is corrupted (and thus occurs the fall). In the post-eden state, mankind is in possession of this corrupted nature, this nature to appease (like in the fall) their own desires, as opposed to seeking to please their Creator.

If I accept your explanation here then this was the case pre-fall as well. Obviously their nature was not neutral if it more strongly inclined them to listen to the serpent and appease their desires (as you stated them) for food, knowledge and power.... over-riding any desire they might have had to listen to the instructions given them by God.

Which still leaves us with the question of how that came to be if choices cannot be made independent of nature.

Thus occurs the point and framework for the reason of regeneration by the Spirit. God empowers through His Spirit His people... giving them a new "heart" (that is, new desires towards Him, so that they may fulfill his purposes in salvation)... That is, God provides His people with the power to return to Him in saving faith; giving them a desire, which presses their will towards pleasing Him instead of centering on themselves.

If he could do that I would have thought it would be set up like that in the first place. Wouldn't you?

"For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure..." [PH 2:13]... So that, while the acts and the will of the regenerated christian is that of themselves, the work by which this occurs is that of God through His Spirit. (Apart from God's saving work in the heart of the sinner, the sinner is incapable [by his own heart] of turning to God, because his will refuses to make that choice, instead answering the desires of his heart)... Thus the regenerative process is that of imparting a new heart, with new desires; which then alter the course of decisions the will makes. The will in all of this is not cooerced... It is free... That is, it still makes its own choices apart from external force, but still makes it according to the nature of the being/agent (free-agency as opposed to absolute free-will).

Only in your explanation it is NOT apart from external force. You just said that left to their own devices man would not turn to God, but God steps in and interferes, altering their nature so that this can occur. And since it is also your position that nature is what determines choice this is most certainly an external imposition of someone else's will on your own.

Yes, I got that the last post. But repeating it doesn't change that this pre-fall explanation is contradicting your position on the dependency relationship between choices and nature.

Two seperate natures... The natural state pre-fall of innocence, is neither the "regenerative" state nor the "fallen state". And thus, they still made their choice to partake, according to their state of innocence.


If I accept your explanation here then this was the case pre-fall as well. Obviously their nature was not neutral if it more strongly inclined them to listen to the serpent and appease their desires (as you stated them) for food, knowledge and power.... over-riding any desire they might have had to listen to the instructions given them by God.

No, it's not the case pre-fall in this context. Their nature was neither inclinded to obedience (regenerative) nor to disobedience (fallen)... But existed in neutrality in this case.


Which still leaves us with the question of how that came to be if choices cannot be made independent of nature.

You're still confusing natures. That is, pre-fall choices are made by nature of inocence, post-fall by corruption... Regenerative operating by the new nature imparted through God's saving work.



If he could do that I would have thought it would be set up like that in the first place. Wouldn't you?

No... I do not.



Only in your explanation it is NOT apart from external force. You just said that left to their own devices man would not turn to God, but God steps in and interferes, altering their nature so that this can occur. And since it is also your position that nature is what determines choice this is most certainly an external imposition of someone else's will on your own.

Left to their "fallen nature" they would... And yes, God does "interfere" in the sense of His impartation of a "new heart" upon the fallen man, so as to bring him to saving faith. It is not imposition of will... but a freeing of it. The regenerate are not dragged against their will, they are brought in by their will... A will which has been freed from the corrupting influnce of the fall through regeneration in the Spirit (by God).

Two seperate natures... The natural state pre-fall of innocence, is neither the "regenerative" state nor the "fallen state". And thus, they still made their choice to partake, according to their state of innocence.

I am quite aware that you are positing two seperate natures. My point is that your position regarding one of them is inconsistent with your position regarding the other. See below.

No, it's not the case pre-fall in this context. Their nature was neither inclinded to obedience (regenerative) nor to disobedience (fallen)... But existed in neutrality in this case.

From your previous post. Emphasis added:

"If a person is presented with a plate of food, do they have complete freedom of choice to eat apart of all other criteria? The answer is of course no; their decision will be based upon their own internal desires, AKA their nature... Are they hungry? Do they like the food they have been presented with? These are things that the "will" will wrestle with in the decision making process. And this extends to all forms of choice presented to a person... If there is no "desire" operating in conjunction with the choice, then there is no choice, and your decisions are all arbitrary and unlikely... If a person had no desire to fulfill hunger, and had no desire for food, they would just sit there; unconcerned for the food, or their placement... And in fact, make no operational choice."

This position is inconsistent with your later claim that pre-fall they had a "neutral" nature not inclined to either obedience or disobedience of God and yet chose to disobey. You said yourself no operational choice could occur in such a situation. the claim of a neutral nature is also inconsistent with the simultaneous claim that the serpent preyed on an already existing desire for food, knowledge and power which was clearly in opposition to God's commmand not to pursue them by eating the fruit.

I am not "confusing" the two natures you are speaking of. I am simply pointing out that your explanation for the existence and influences of these natures directly contradicts your own explanation of how choice operates.

Left to their "fallen nature" they would... And yes, God does "interfere" in the sense of His impartation of a "new heart" upon the fallen man, so as to bring him to saving faith. It is not imposition of will... but a freeing of it.

It is an alteration of it by an external force. It is taking what it would be if left to it's own devices and changing it to suit the desires of that external force. Trying to justify this by saying that the interference is a good thing doesn't change that it is interference.

The regenerate are not dragged against their will, they are brought in by their will...

By imposing a change on what their will is... which IS dragging them against what their will was before it was externally overridden.

Argue the merits and motivations of that psychological reprogramming if you will, but that doesn't change what it is that you are describing here.

Ok, I hate to do it. I hate to post another god thread, but this question's been bugging me for a while.

Do Angels have free will?
*sigh*

Okay, let's start with the beginning, you know about the easter bunny, well...

Perhaps at the beginning...

As was mentioned by a previous poster (I'm too lazy to look back and identify), the word "angel" comes from the Greek aggelos which is the translation of a Hebrew word that means "messenger". (The full descent of the word is from Hebrew, via Greek, via Latin angelus, via French, into English).

The word, in Hebrew and translated into Greek, could mean either a human or inhuman (that is, what one might refer to as "divine") messenger - YHWH being an equal opportunity employer. In the Vulgate (the vulgar, that is, people's, Latin translation of the Greek), angelus refers only to the modern idea of "angel", that of a divine being, legatus referring to human messengers.

There are any number of misconceptions - or rather, conceptions, as they are only "mis-" in view of one or another official doctrine - regarding angels.

In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church (one of a number of self-avowed "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"es, a title claimed also by Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, and possibly others), and as far as I am aware, in all official Christian dogma, humans do NOT become angels. The two are completely different creatures, and neither one may become the other. The popular belief that, when a person dies, they can go directly to heaven, lift up a harp and halo, and flutter around once they earn their wings, is an example of folk religion (that is, religious belief as espoused by lay people, often built upon long standing traditions, that has nothing to do with, or is expressly opposed by, theologicians).

As for free will, that entirely depends on what the word is taken to mean, and to what extent one takes such senses to be true.

Re: "Satan". "satan" is a transliteration of a Hebrew word, cognate to the Arabic "shaitan", and yes, to the Egyptian "set" (Satan isn't derived from Set - it just happens that the Semitic peoples, sharing cultural and linguistic origins in common, used similar words to refer to same concepts). The word "satan" literally means "adversary", or "opposer".

In the Book Of Job, while I am not certain, I'm led to believe that "satan" is not a name but a title - the satan is YHWH's chief prosecutor.

Further, while the folk religious belief of a being named "Satan" developed during the years after the Babylonian exile, eventually becoming the Christian concept of "the devil" and the Islamic concept of "Iblis", even in the Greek Gospels we find "satan" as "adversary", not to YHWH, but to humanity. The storied temptation of Jesus the Nazarene in the desert is exactly in line with the role played by the satan of Job.

To speak of "the Devil" as an adversary to "the God" is the result of literally millenia of folk religious belief having little to do either with Jewish scripture and belief, actual Christian scripture (not the Gospels but John's apocalypse provide a firm basis for the role of devil, seeking to destroy creation and humanity as opposed to the traditional Hebrew concept of "adversary").

For that matter, much of the modern understanding of angels, and specifically of "Lucifer" and devils and hell, were codified by Milton in Paradise Lost. The idea of 1/3 of the angels this and 2/3 of the angels that, etc, may have existed in the popular mind prior to his composition, but it was Milton who scripted an entire history to an "event" that the Roman Catholic Church denies outright. (New Advent maintains that "Lucifer" is only the name of Venus, the morning star - and that is precisely the context in which the name is used, both in Roman thought, and in translating the Hebrew/Greek).

That's not to say that the RCC opposes, if one will, the existence of "the Devil and his angels". Doctrine is that ALL of the angels were created innocent in the beginning, and that it was by their own free will that they fell and became demons.

Finally, as a related topic - all of the discussion of "the Fall [of man, not of angels]" is moot. The serpent of the Genesis story is not anything but a serpent - the Hebrews never held the serpent to be some spiritual creature taking upon a form to corrupt humanity, and indeed, the story itself makes it clear that the serpent is only a serpent - it would make little sense for the Elohim to curse the serpent to a legless existence if he(/they) knew the serpent was indeed not a serpent. To the extent that it applies to human "free will", then it's not moot, but since I only skimmed, and this topic applies not to humanity but to the concept of angels, the discussion is moot to angels alone (a comparison of the two might be fitting, but that would require many assumptions taken unquestioningly).

On Edit: newadvent.org has articles that touch upon the matters, within their Catholic Encyclopedia. Certainly, it isn't necessarily authoritative for anything other than the Roman chuch, but it's the one I'm most able to speak for, and the one (with Eastern Orthodoxy) with the longest standing and most unified dogma, so there is a single approach to consider (as opposed to Protestantism, wherein each denomination there may be no consensus, much less popular religion!).

I am quite aware that you are positing two seperate natures. My point is that your position regarding one of them is inconsistent with your position regarding the other. See below.



From your previous post. Emphasis added:

"If a person is presented with a plate of food, do they have complete freedom of choice to eat apart of all other criteria? The answer is of course no; their decision will be based upon their own internal desires, AKA their nature... Are they hungry? Do they like the food they have been presented with? These are things that the "will" will wrestle with in the decision making process. And this extends to all forms of choice presented to a person... If there is no "desire" operating in conjunction with the choice, then there is no choice, and your decisions are all arbitrary and unlikely... If a person had no desire to fulfill hunger, and had no desire for food, they would just sit there; unconcerned for the food, or their placement... And in fact, make no operational choice."

This position is inconsistent with your later claim that pre-fall they had a "neutral" nature not inclined to either obedience or disobedience of God and yet chose to disobey. You said yourself no operational choice could occur in such a situation. the claim of a neutral nature is also inconsistent with the simultaneous claim that the serpent preyed on an already existing desire for food, knowledge and power which was clearly in opposition to God's commmand not to pursue them by eating the fruit.

Once again, neutrality is not "lack of desire".... And the point in the choice is by the nature... That is that the will makes choices in accordance with the desires... pre-fall the desire was not to disobey, and the will did not choose because of its desire for disobedience, it chose through other desires, which of themselves, are not sin... but acted in a way towards disobedience, in which it was. Post-fall the desire is to disobey and disregard.


I am not "confusing" the two natures you are speaking of. I am simply pointing out that your explanation for the existence and influences of these natures directly contradicts your own explanation of how choice operates.


No it doesn't... You're confusing the desire for food, the desire for knowledge and the desire for power with necessitant sinfull desire to disobey... Different concepts here.... The same is applicable here... Adam and Eve were not punished for "Eating" they were punished for "eating from a tree that they were commanded not to"... They did not "Eat" from a desire to disobey (as post fall), but from the desire for food (pre-fall innocence)... But in doing so, their nature is corrupted in possessing the desire for disobedience.


It is an alteration of it by an external force. It is taking what it would be if left to it's own devices and changing it to suit the desires of that external force. Trying to justify this by saying that the interference is a good thing doesn't change that it is interference.
By imposing a change on what their will is... which IS dragging them against what their will was before it was externally overridden.
Argue the merits and motivations of that psychological reprogramming if you will, but that doesn't change what it is that you are describing here.

Once again, no... You're confusing "nature" and "will"... They are not the same thing... There is no change upon the will... The change is upon the nature, freeing it from the binding enslaving force of sin, thus "freeing" the will to make decisions which are pleasing to God. There is no "interference in the will" of the person, the will remains free... And is in fact "freeer" through regeneration, in that it is capable of making choices which before it would not, in lieu of the nature of fallen man. The nature is changed.... The will determines by the nature... the will isn't changed, the will isn't cooerced, the will simply makes decisions based upon the relative input it receives from the heart and mind. The will isn't over-ridden.... And it is not "psychological reprogramming"... With the presence of a "new heart" which was given by God through His Spirit, the person is capable of making choices to please God, and not to disobey Him. There is no "external over-riding" of the will... The will is never over-riden in the process... And it is never forced to make decisions it does not "want" to...

Ok, I hate to do it. I hate to post another god thread, but this question's been bugging me for a while.

Do Angels have free will?

There are three types of angels:
1) Resurrected Beings ala Jesus, Adam (Micheal), Moses, etc. They can shake your hand :)

2) Those who have yet to come to earth ala your future kids could act as angels till they are born than they have to stop. They won't try to shake your hand because they have no body yet just spirit.

3) Lucifer's army and Lucifer.(These are referenced as Fallen Angels but they are still angels.) They have no body and can't shake your hand. They may forget and try though.

Yes, all Angels have free will to choose good over evil.
Those who kept their first estate are in Heaven or in earth as people with bodies.
Those who didn't keep first estate are with Lucifer. Never to have a body (unless they possess someone or pigs lol)

The second estate:
This is earth, all your actions determine whether you keep second estate. Sadly, Judah didn't keep this...
But you can't lose this by default or by ignorance so not knowing god will not disqualify you for keeping it.
Youmust first gain full knowledge of the gospel, have the Holy Preisthood, and than turn against it and deny the Holy Spirit. Which is why Judah was a candidate for losing it. He had all the criteria.

I am part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. So I can't speak for all religions. But I know mine.

Well, not being dead, or having God on speed-dial, I wouldn't know. However, from a religious standpoint, I would assume yes, but obviously, more is expected of an angel, and they will be expected to follow God's will.

Given that to belive in Angels you belive in God.
Given that God is Omnipitent and Omipresent.
Given that God created all.

This means that whatever is present is put there by God.

So, God knows everything and can control everything, so if God wished to God could stop/start/change everything.

Within this framework, freewill and the fall from grace become choices God has made not the entities themselves.
So free will does not exist, as if God did not approve for this to happen it would not could not and it would not even occur as a possibility to happen.
You said that God could stop/start/change everything.
True
You concluded from this that he does.
Unvalid
God could also create an entity which acts independent of God, supposing that God is omnipotent.
Also, the fact that God knows what we will do does not mean that we do not have free will. Knowledge of an occurance is not neccessarily equivalent to control of that occurance.