The "my Sunday School teacher said so" argument is not an argument. I'm really sick of this random appeal to non-authorities.
If you want to draw the conclusion that Angels dont have free will, bring your evidence, and address the evidence already suggested regarding the fact they do have free will. To recap my case:
Church Tradition/Authorities: All the early Church Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda III have concluded that Angels have free will.
Bible: The fall of Satan, the fall of the demons, and the fall of the "sons of God" who procreated with the daughters of men in Genesis 6 (Cf. Jude 6-7). all demonstrate the Angelic exercise of free will.
This might be going a bit off topic but how is that angels, who are only spirits, could procreate with the "daughters of men?" And what exactly would be the result of it?
By the way, Thanks for the answer to my last question Iqbal.
I find it a tricky matter to ultimately decipher whether or not angels presently have free will. In order for one to even begin to claim that an angle does or does not have free will, one must first define his terms carefully. Free will, as I will definitively use it here, is the ability to accept or reject any contingently based behavior without having one's will to do so coerced or altered by an uncontrollable force (i.e., a intelligent mind with the power to dominate). It is true that in the Celestial realm where Christ dwells the potency of Christ's power is in insufficient, in itself, to determine whether or not an angel has been granted free choice. For the efficacy of Christ’s nature is not cause for free will or restrictive will; it is simply matter of necessary truth.
However, if you're definition of witnessing absolute divine omnipotence is such that all freely contingent propositions are in effect molded towards the effect of that power, then those propositions are necessarily true. That is to say, a heavenly creature that witnesses the true power of Christ and is left with no alternative but to embrace such glory is necessarily unable to reject such glory. For if an angel could reject the unveiled omnipotence of God, then it would seize to be the omnipotence of God. It in fact would be something short of the true omnipotence of God. Thus, one might argue that while the action remains free, it is the will that becomes coerced. In this sense, angels can not be seen as truly free creatures.
On the other hand, the definition of "freedom" must be contingently based upon the objective declaration of God's eternal Word. Christ calls all who follow him, his eternal "friends" and the angels continually sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" since they are free from the bonds of sin. As Saint Paul himself propounded, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. It's a contradiction in self terms. You are either restricted by God's love or the love for sin, without any other alternatives (Romans 6:16). Now if Christ had declared his Love and His nature to be restricted by a greater force, then angels could not be free. Yet, He has never done so. In accordance to the Anselmian proposition that one attribute the greatest possible qualities of being to the definition of God, Christ's love must be an unmatched, unrestricted, freely bestowed Love. Thus, Christ's love is the closest definition one can get to true freedom.
As such, since the angles are enthralled in the Love of Christ, and since that Love is the truest freedom possible, the angels are imprisoned in absolute freedom. You might say that angels are not free to be unfree. Sin would be the equivalent of enslavement. Being that angles are continually surrounded by God's beneficence, sin becomes a logically impossible state of being for the angelic host. Angels, therefore, must be free if they are truly enamored in Christ's love.
However, I fear I have gone too far in my analysis. For all is but speculation. In accordance to those who espouse lack of freedom for the angel's state of being, I might say they are "peripherally correct". On the outskirts, on the basis of an earthly logically sustained definition of freedom...angels are not truly free. Sin is a logical impossibility for the angel who witnesses God's full omnipotence. However for the theologian who deems that angels are truly free, I might claim that they are "substantively correct". The heart of God's wisdom, in accordance to his divine sovereignty, deems that freedom, by definition, must be attributed to God's state of being. Since angles are enveloped in that state of being, they must be absolutely free.
Therfore, both the individual who claims that angels are free and the individual who claims that angels are not free are both partially correct. The contradiction only exists if one defines freedom in precisely the same terms within both cases. However, since I do not believe that freedom can be clearly defined in this temporal state of being, (Afterall, our Lord states; "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" [John 8:36] denoting that the closer you are to Christ the closer you are to real freedom) I am left with no choice but to chose both sides as holding partially correct reasoning.
A response to the latest post:Angels do not and can not procreate. Although there is a physicality attributed to the sprits after death, procreation is primarily necessary for the creation of other creatures. In Heaven creation completely cedes since God is infinitely present to sustain all things. Furthermore, creation only exists if one is placed within the realm of time and space. Outside of time however, the material creation can not logically ensue. For creation by its very term, suggests change and change presupposes temporality. Yet, God and His kingdom are eternal not temporal. This seems to fence around one of the many mysteries of God; an immaterial Being acting within a material world, while all the more remaining outside materiality. Also, refer to (Luke 20:33-37) for biblical warrant for my claim.
do angels have free will or not..lol..i dont really wanna read it..but it looks like there is alot of good info..and im gonna go wif what u say....so...
Freedom, with respect to the issue of “free will” (that both men and angels were similarly endowed with according to the Tradition of the Church) is nothing more and nothing less than a man's/angel's volitinal capacity exercised according to their own individual discretion. It is the freedom that enabled Satan to willingly reject the Love of God out of self-love, the freedom that enabled his demons to follow him, and the freedom that enabled Angels to fall from their heavenly condition to lust after the daughters of men. These are all Biblical precedents that attest to the free will of Angels, as defined above. To say that “sin is a logical impossibility for the angel who witnesses God's full omnipotence”, is to contradict the testimony of Church Tradition. For one who has experienced the pain of putting his hand on a hotplate, and who consequently suffered an undesirably horrible experience resulting from such an action, it may be deemed improbable that they would ever voluntarily and hence freely place their hands on a hotplate; the idea itself is implausible. However there is nothing to stop him from physically doing so; it is nonetheless a logical possibility that he touch that hot plate.
As a response to the latest post: Angels do not and can not procreate.
The response to which you responded with the above quote was an inquiry into the statement I made concerning fallen Angels. Angels fell from their heavenly and natural state and procreated with the daughters of men. This is not a matter of debate, because it is an historical event testified to by the Holy Scriptures (Genesis 6 LXX cf. Jude 6-7), Patristic/Apostolic Tradition, and other contextual factors (the Book of Enoch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon inter alia).
With regard to the issue of free will, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of the two positions I gave, the second I believe is more logically warranted. By the very nature of Christ’s love as well as spiritual revelation transposed unto the church fathers (which is the greatest form of evidence; the witness of the Holy Spirit) I can be certain that angels must presently have free will. How precisely that free will coincides with the earthly consideration of the term, I can only speculate.
With regard to your second post, I have two questions. If the fallen angels did procreate with men, does this entail that they had procured human qualities and dwelt in the temporal world until death? Do the children of such procreation remain on par in their characteristics to any other human child (that is to say are the offspring of such procreation wholly human or half-human imbued with supernatural power)?
I've never encountered this belief before, so I am curious to whether or not I understand its repercussions correctly.
Thanks for the responses Iqbal and Gmankbadi, they really cleared things up. So to summarize what you two said (for the befit of all the others interested in this topic) :
At the time when Satan and his angels fell, the Lord our God was giving a trial to the angelic hosts and in so doing, He did not reveal His true glory to them. This trial in my opinion can be likened to our life on earth where we too have the free will to "willingly reject the Love of God out of self-love" as Iqbal stated or embrace it out of Faith (Satan and his angels acted according to the former while the rest of the angelic hosts acted according to the latter.)
It is after this trial that it becomes a little tricky. After the point in which Lucifer fell, those angels who had willingly stayed by the Lord were allowed to experience His full glory and Holiness, as they do now. However, some argue that since God is omnipotent, the angels have no choice but to act according to His will since He has revealed His full glory unto them; however, this thinking is flawed as Iqbal's analogy shows:
For one who has experienced the pain of putting his hand on a hotplate, and who consequently suffered an undesirably horrible experience resulting from such an action, it may be deemed improbable that they would ever voluntarily and hence freely place their hands on a hotplate; the idea itself is implausible. However there is nothing to stop him from physically doing so; it is nonetheless a logical possibility that he touch that hot plate.
The thinking that Iqbal's analogy disproved can also be proven to be flawed because as Gmankbadi stated:
Thus, Christ's love is the closest definition one can get to true freedom.
Thus the angels now in Heaven, have free will, and in their continuous choice to worship the Lord unceasingly they have found true freedom in Christ's love.
As for the question about the angles who lusted after the daughters of men, I'm pretty much clueless, so I wait for an answer which I'm sure will clear things up.
This horrible summary of mine is nothing compared to the actual posts of both Iqbal and Gmankbadi, and so I encourage all those truly interested in this topic to read them, understand them, and appreciate the time and effort it took to write them. Thanks again to Iqbal and Gmankbadi.
With regard to the issue of free will, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of the two positions I gave, the second I believe is more logically warranted. By the very nature of Christ’s love as well as spiritual revelation transposed unto the church fathers (which is the greatest form of evidence; the witness of the Holy Spirit) I can be certain that angels must presently have free will. How precisely that free will coincides with the earthly consideration of the term, I can only speculate.
Fair enough.
If the fallen angels did procreate with men, does this entail that they had procured human qualities and dwelt in the temporal world until death?
One would presume so, though the data we have on the incident doesn't delve into such details.
Do the children of such procreation remain on par in their characteristics to any other human child (that is to say are the offspring of such procreation wholly human or half-human imbued with supernatural power)?
Indeed. As you may know from the account in Genesis 6, the offspring of these illicit relationships were the Nephilim. In what regard these Nephilim were peculiar in their supernatural abilities is debated. Some Fathers and contemporary scholars refer to their physical size and strength.
yes abouna said something about not knowing the full glory of the heavens...
but he said it this way..they werent full angels...
but i think the fist thing is what he meant...meaning he was not entirely wrong IQBAL..
First of all, I addressed the position of Abouna as you presented it. So it's not my problem if you're having second thoughts with respect to what he was actually saying. I'm at least glad that I made a disclaimer in one of my previous posts regarding the fact that I will not presume the position so imputed upon Abouna to be his actual position until hearing him actually present this position for himself.
Second of all, as I already argued, despite the fact Angels are currently fully aware and informed regarding the heavenly condition, they nonetheless have the volitional capacity to reject it for whatever reason, even if it would seem highly implausible that they would ever do such a thing.
yes abouna said something about not knowing the full glory of the heavens...
but he said it this way..they werent full angels...
but i think the fist thing is what he meant...meaning he was not entirely wrong IQBAL..
First of all, I addressed the position of Abouna as you presented it. So it's not my problem if you're having second thoughts with respect to what he was actually saying. I'm at least glad that I made a disclaimer in one of my previous posts regarding the fact that I will not presume the position so imputed upon Abouna to be his actual position until hearing him actually present this position for himself.
Second of all, as I already argued, despite the fact Angels are currently fully aware and informed regarding the heavenly condition, they nonetheless have the volitional capacity to reject it for whatever reason, even if it would seem highly implausible that they would ever do such a thing.
iqbal..im not having second thought..
i didnt change anything i said..but that maybe abouna had said it wrong and tred to say what luke90 meant...
im not adding or taking anything away..i am generalising..i never knew that was a crime :p dw..u r forgiven :p
hmm.. ii hav ah question. if angels have free will and can do what they want, then why did Satan have to ask God for permission before he did all that stuff to Job?
Um not too sure, and I'm probably wrong, and please forgive me if I am, but I think it has to do with the fact that anything God does not permiss can not happen?
Um not too sure, and I'm probably wrong, and please forgive me if I am, but I think it has to do with the fact that anything God does not permiss can not happen
but then that would mean that angels can't do anything without obtaining permission.. which would mean that they don't have free will.. ?
WMA has hit the nail on the head, and he is correct in his observation that the objection you present likewise challenges the free will of man. I will further explicate the implications of WMA's remarks by saying that your objection challenges the omnipotence of God.
The free will of man, and Angels alike, is such that we can voluntarily perform any action we so choose, as long as it is according to the permissive will of God. We must make this distinction between God's permissive will, desirous will, and binding will.
Let me give you an analogy. A parent may desire that their child not go to a party. This represents their desirous will. However, they may nonetheless allow that child to go to the party in any event. Thus, though the child acts against the parent's desire, he/she nonetheless acts according to their permissive will. On the other hand, since the parent has greater power than the child, the parent may lock the child in the house, take away the keys to the car, and ultimately use their overriding authority and power to coerce the fulfillment of their desirous will, which in turn becomes their binding will. God operates in similar fashion to Angels and men alike. When we sin, we go against the desirous will of God, yet by virtue of the very fact that we are able to sin, we are acting in sync with His permissive will. God nonetheless has both the authority and power to stop us from performing certain actions for His own reasons. Our will, though free, can never thwart the binding will of God.
WMA has hit the nail on the head, and he is correct in his observation that the objection you present likewise challenges the free will of man. I will further explicate the implications of WMA's remarks by saying that your objection challenges the omnipotence of God.
The free will of man, and Angels alike, is such that we can voluntarily perform any action we so choose, as long as it is according to the permissive will of God. We must make this distinction between God's permissive will, desirous will, and binding will.
Let me give you an analogy. A parent may desire that their child not go to a party. This represents their desirous will. However, they may nonetheless allow that child to go to the party in any event. Thus, though the child acts against the parent's desire, he/she nonetheless acts according to their permissive will. On the other hand, since the parent has greater power than the child, the parent may lock the child in the house, take away the keys to the car, and ultimately use their overriding authority and power to coerce the fulfillment of their desirous will, which in turn becomes their binding will. God operates in similar fashion to Angels and men alike. When we sin, we go against the desirous will of God, yet by virtue of the very fact that we are able to sin, we are acting in sync with His permissive will. God nonetheless has both the authority and power to stop us from performing certain actions for His own reasons. Our will, though free, can never thwart the binding will of God.
your parents may be able to lock your door and take away your car keys, but you can always jump out the window and get a friend to pick you up..
[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=board=4;threadid=3906;start=45#msg55316 date=1148430273]your parents may be able to lock your door and take away your car keys, but you can always jump out the window and get a friend to pick you up..
I think you misunderstand how an analogy works. An analogy may posit a hypothesis, as is the case with my analogy, and as such, as much as can be logically assumed hypothetically should be assumed for arguments sake. In other words, you are to assume for arguments sake that the parents took all measures to prevent the child from going to the movies. Im not going to sit here and explicitly cover every and any possibility. Maybe the child blasts a rocket through the roof, and hops on his friends helicopter and flies out? Do you see how ridiculous it can get?
Another aspect of analogy that you fail to understand is the fact that an analogy is intended to show general similarity to make a point; i do not posit an analogy to try and prove exact similarity between two situations. Unlike God, human parents are limited in their abilities. Whereas a child may be able to thwart the binding will of their parent, no man can thwart the binding will of God who knows all things, and can perform all things.
in the parent example, the parents did their own will although it did not match the childs will, therefore the child didn't have the freedom to do what he/she wanted. which means that the childs free will is, to a certain extent, limited...
does this mean that the free will of angels and humans is 'limited' to only what God permits ?
You are confusing power and will. All humans and angels have free will, but we are limited in our power to enact that will by virtue of being limited creatures. God alone, being omnipotent, Has the power to do as He wishes without any hindrance, and we, being subject to Him, do not have the ability to override Him; we would need to be equal to or greater than Him to do so, and this ofcourse is impossible. Our will is therefore absolutely free, as is the will of Angels, but this freedom is understood and practised within the context of our circumstances and natural abilities.
Iqbal is absolutely correct. Not just did he hammer the nail on the head but hit the nail all the way in the wood. The will and power of God is stronger than our's or the angel's. God is all-powerful and He knows that He is omniscient in will and power, but can easily override our will and do His.
Comments
The "my Sunday School teacher said so" argument is not an argument. I'm really sick of this random appeal to non-authorities.
If you want to draw the conclusion that Angels dont have free will, bring your evidence, and address the evidence already suggested regarding the fact they do have free will. To recap my case:
Church Tradition/Authorities: All the early Church Fathers, including His Holiness Pope Shenouda III have concluded that Angels have free will.
Bible: The fall of Satan, the fall of the demons, and the fall of the "sons of God" who procreated with the daughters of men in Genesis 6 (Cf. Jude 6-7). all demonstrate the Angelic exercise of free will.
By the way, Thanks for the answer to my last question Iqbal.
However, if you're definition of witnessing absolute divine omnipotence is such that all freely contingent propositions are in effect molded towards the effect of that power, then those propositions are necessarily true. That is to say, a heavenly creature that witnesses the true power of Christ and is left with no alternative but to embrace such glory is necessarily unable to reject such glory. For if an angel could reject the unveiled omnipotence of God, then it would seize to be the omnipotence of God. It in fact would be something short of the true omnipotence of God. Thus, one might argue that while the action remains free, it is the will that becomes coerced. In this sense, angels can not be seen as truly free creatures.
On the other hand, the definition of "freedom" must be contingently based upon the objective declaration of God's eternal Word. Christ calls all who follow him, his eternal "friends" and the angels continually sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" since they are free from the bonds of sin. As Saint Paul himself propounded, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. It's a contradiction in self terms. You are either restricted by God's love or the love for sin, without any other alternatives (Romans 6:16). Now if Christ had declared his Love and His nature to be restricted by a greater force, then angels could not be free. Yet, He has never done so. In accordance to the Anselmian proposition that one attribute the greatest possible qualities of being to the definition of God, Christ's love must be an unmatched, unrestricted, freely bestowed Love. Thus, Christ's love is the closest definition one can get to true freedom.
As such, since the angles are enthralled in the Love of Christ, and since that Love is the truest freedom possible, the angels are imprisoned in absolute freedom. You might say that angels are not free to be unfree. Sin would be the equivalent of enslavement. Being that angles are continually surrounded by God's beneficence, sin becomes a logically impossible state of being for the angelic host. Angels, therefore, must be free if they are truly enamored in Christ's love.
However, I fear I have gone too far in my analysis. For all is but speculation. In accordance to those who espouse lack of freedom for the angel's state of being, I might say they are "peripherally correct". On the outskirts, on the basis of an earthly logically sustained definition of freedom...angels are not truly free. Sin is a logical impossibility for the angel who witnesses God's full omnipotence. However for the theologian who deems that angels are truly free, I might claim that they are "substantively correct". The heart of God's wisdom, in accordance to his divine sovereignty, deems that freedom, by definition, must be attributed to God's state of being. Since angles are enveloped in that state of being, they must be absolutely free.
Therfore, both the individual who claims that angels are free and the individual who claims that angels are not free are both partially correct. The contradiction only exists if one defines freedom in precisely the same terms within both cases. However, since I do not believe that freedom can be clearly defined in this temporal state of being, (Afterall, our Lord states; "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" [John 8:36] denoting that the closer you are to Christ the closer you are to real freedom) I am left with no choice but to chose both sides as holding partially correct reasoning.
A response to the latest post: Angels do not and can not procreate. Although there is a physicality attributed to the sprits after death, procreation is primarily necessary for the creation of other creatures. In Heaven creation completely cedes since God is infinitely present to sustain all things. Furthermore, creation only exists if one is placed within the realm of time and space. Outside of time however, the material creation can not logically ensue. For creation by its very term, suggests change and change presupposes temporality. Yet, God and His kingdom are eternal not temporal. This seems to fence around one of the many mysteries of God; an immaterial Being acting within a material world, while all the more remaining outside materiality. Also, refer to (Luke 20:33-37) for biblical warrant for my claim.
do angels have free will or not..lol..i dont really wanna read it..but it looks like there is alot of good info..and im gonna go wif what u say....so...
free will..or no free will...
Freedom, with respect to the issue of “free will” (that both men and angels were similarly endowed with according to the Tradition of the Church) is nothing more and nothing less than a man's/angel's volitinal capacity exercised according to their own individual discretion. It is the freedom that enabled Satan to willingly reject the Love of God out of self-love, the freedom that enabled his demons to follow him, and the freedom that enabled Angels to fall from their heavenly condition to lust after the daughters of men. These are all Biblical precedents that attest to the free will of Angels, as defined above. To say that “sin is a logical impossibility for the angel who witnesses God's full omnipotence”, is to contradict the testimony of Church Tradition.
For one who has experienced the pain of putting his hand on a hotplate, and who consequently suffered an undesirably horrible experience resulting from such an action, it may be deemed improbable that they would ever voluntarily and hence freely place their hands on a hotplate; the idea itself is implausible. However there is nothing to stop him from physically doing so; it is nonetheless a logical possibility that he touch that hot plate. The response to which you responded with the above quote was an inquiry into the statement I made concerning fallen Angels. Angels fell from their heavenly and natural state and procreated with the daughters of men. This is not a matter of debate, because it is an historical event testified to by the Holy Scriptures (Genesis 6 LXX cf. Jude 6-7), Patristic/Apostolic Tradition, and other contextual factors (the Book of Enoch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon inter alia).
With regard to the issue of free will, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of the two positions I gave, the second I believe is more logically warranted. By the very nature of Christ’s love as well as spiritual revelation transposed unto the church fathers (which is the greatest form of evidence; the witness of the Holy Spirit) I can be certain that angels must presently have free will. How precisely that free will coincides with the earthly consideration of the term, I can only speculate.
With regard to your second post, I have two questions. If the fallen angels did procreate with men, does this entail that they had procured human qualities and dwelt in the temporal world until death? Do the children of such procreation remain on par in their characteristics to any other human child (that is to say are the offspring of such procreation wholly human or half-human imbued with supernatural power)?
I've never encountered this belief before, so I am curious to whether or not I understand its repercussions correctly.
God bless
At the time when Satan and his angels fell, the Lord our God was giving a trial to the angelic hosts and in so doing, He did not reveal His true glory to them. This trial in my opinion can be likened to our life on earth where we too have the free will to "willingly reject the Love of God out of self-love" as Iqbal stated or embrace it out of Faith (Satan and his angels acted according to the former while the rest of the angelic hosts acted according to the latter.)
It is after this trial that it becomes a little tricky. After the point in which Lucifer fell, those angels who had willingly stayed by the Lord were allowed to experience His full glory and Holiness, as they do now. However, some argue that since God is omnipotent, the angels have no choice but to act according to His will since He has revealed His full glory unto them; however, this thinking is flawed as Iqbal's analogy shows: The thinking that Iqbal's analogy disproved can also be proven to be flawed because as Gmankbadi stated: Thus the angels now in Heaven, have free will, and in their continuous choice to worship the Lord unceasingly they have found true freedom in Christ's love.
As for the question about the angles who lusted after the daughters of men, I'm pretty much clueless, so I wait for an answer which I'm sure will clear things up.
This horrible summary of mine is nothing compared to the actual posts of both Iqbal and Gmankbadi, and so I encourage all those truly interested in this topic to read them, understand them, and appreciate the time and effort it took to write them. Thanks again to Iqbal and Gmankbadi.
but he said it this way..they werent full angels...
but i think the fist thing is what he meant...meaning he was not entirely wrong IQBAL
Second of all, as I already argued, despite the fact Angels are currently fully aware and informed regarding the heavenly condition, they nonetheless have the volitional capacity to reject it for whatever reason, even if it would seem highly implausible that they would ever do such a thing.
why, First of all, I addressed the position of Abouna as you presented it. So it's not my problem if you're having second thoughts with respect to what he was actually saying. I'm at least glad that I made a disclaimer in one of my previous posts regarding the fact that I will not presume the position so imputed upon Abouna to be his actual position until hearing him actually present this position for himself.
Second of all, as I already argued, despite the fact Angels are currently fully aware and informed regarding the heavenly condition, they nonetheless have the volitional capacity to reject it for whatever reason, even if it would seem highly implausible that they would ever do such a thing.
iqbal..im not having second thought..
i didnt change anything i said..but that maybe abouna had said it wrong and tred to say what luke90 meant...
im not adding or taking anything away..i am generalising..i never knew that was a crime :p dw..u r forgiven :p
if angels have free will and can do what they want, then why did Satan have to ask God for permission before he did all that stuff to Job?
WMA has hit the nail on the head, and he is correct in his observation that the objection you present likewise challenges the free will of man. I will further explicate the implications of WMA's remarks by saying that your objection challenges the omnipotence of God.
The free will of man, and Angels alike, is such that we can voluntarily perform any action we so choose, as long as it is according to the permissive will of God. We must make this distinction between God's permissive will, desirous will, and binding will.
Let me give you an analogy. A parent may desire that their child not go to a party. This represents their desirous will. However, they may nonetheless allow that child to go to the party in any event. Thus, though the child acts against the parent's desire, he/she nonetheless acts according to their permissive will. On the other hand, since the parent has greater power than the child, the parent may lock the child in the house, take away the keys to the car, and ultimately use their overriding authority and power to coerce the fulfillment of their desirous will, which in turn becomes their binding will. God operates in similar fashion to Angels and men alike. When we sin, we go against the desirous will of God, yet by virtue of the very fact that we are able to sin, we are acting in sync with His permissive will. God nonetheless has both the authority and power to stop us from performing certain actions for His own reasons. Our will, though free, can never thwart the binding will of God.
God Bless.
I continuously learn a great deal from these forums
And you are indeed a most valuable contributor to the educational ministry of this forum.
Hizz_child,
WMA has hit the nail on the head, and he is correct in his observation that the objection you present likewise challenges the free will of man. I will further explicate the implications of WMA's remarks by saying that your objection challenges the omnipotence of God.
The free will of man, and Angels alike, is such that we can voluntarily perform any action we so choose, as long as it is according to the permissive will of God. We must make this distinction between God's permissive will, desirous will, and binding will.
Let me give you an analogy. A parent may desire that their child not go to a party. This represents their desirous will. However, they may nonetheless allow that child to go to the party in any event. Thus, though the child acts against the parent's desire, he/she nonetheless acts according to their permissive will. On the other hand, since the parent has greater power than the child, the parent may lock the child in the house, take away the keys to the car, and ultimately use their overriding authority and power to coerce the fulfillment of their desirous will, which in turn becomes their binding will. God operates in similar fashion to Angels and men alike. When we sin, we go against the desirous will of God, yet by virtue of the very fact that we are able to sin, we are acting in sync with His permissive will. God nonetheless has both the authority and power to stop us from performing certain actions for His own reasons. Our will, though free, can never thwart the binding will of God.
your parents may be able to lock your door and take away your car keys, but you can always jump out the window and get a friend to pick you up..
I think you misunderstand how an analogy works. An analogy may posit a hypothesis, as is the case with my analogy, and as such, as much as can be logically assumed hypothetically should be assumed for arguments sake. In other words, you are to assume for arguments sake that the parents took all measures to prevent the child from going to the movies. Im not going to sit here and explicitly cover every and any possibility. Maybe the child blasts a rocket through the roof, and hops on his friends helicopter and flies out? Do you see how ridiculous it can get?
Another aspect of analogy that you fail to understand is the fact that an analogy is intended to show general similarity to make a point; i do not posit an analogy to try and prove exact similarity between two situations. Unlike God, human parents are limited in their abilities. Whereas a child may be able to thwart the binding will of their parent, no man can thwart the binding will of God who knows all things, and can perform all things.
does this mean that the free will of angels and humans is 'limited' to only what God permits ?
can u please write it for us.. :P :-X ;D ;)
shokran