/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Angels must have free will since they could rebel, is there any other possibility?

>Believing the book of Enoch

Don't do that

>>750558

I think Copts believe angels are automatons subject to the Will of God.

At least that's what their Christology says, that Human Will and Divine Will can never fully work together. That's their rejection of Theosis, too.

>>750556

Angels have a fugton of free will. According to Fr. Ripperger when God creates you He creates a guardian angel just for you and if it refuses to be your guardian it becomes a demon and God generates a new angel until one of them finally wants to be your guardian. So the more dislikeable you are by angels the more demons are generated just for you existing.

>>750587

>So the more dislikeable you are by angels the more demons are generated just for you existing

You completely misinterpret Fr. Ripperger. Also, what he teaches isn't necessarily true.

>He creates a guardian angel just for you and if it refuses to be your guardian it becomes a demon and God generates a new angel until one of them finally wants to be your guardian.

That's not how he says it either.

God doesn't create infinite angels until one decides to like you. The idea is God creates a Guardian angel and a personal Demon for you at creation. (That's his theory anyways)

According to Catholic doctrine the angels that rebelded did that before mankind. That's why Satan is already there to winnie the pooh Adam and Eve. As the bible says: the devil sins since the beginning.

As for the other good angels they can never rebel against good because they made their decision long ago to stay faithful with Him. Just like humans do when they go to heaven.

So every angel, from the lowest rank to the highest will never rebel because they love God with all their heart.

>>750590

That’s not what I heard him say. I heard him say God keeps going at it until one accepts you.

>>750595

You are mistaken.

Find me the video and I'll hunt down that spot of his sermon for you.

>>750595

Is it of me or does Fr. Ripperger comes up with some crazy theories sometimes that go against the regular teaching of the Church?

>>750597

I’m not sure if it actually goes against the teachings of the church, but it is wildly unpopular and I can’t blame him. I have lots of theories that are unpopular but fit perfectly within Catholic teaching.

>>750587

If this were true, then demons would vastly outnumber angels and hell would splinter into thousands of different groups like prautism. Astonishing theory.

>>750606

>prautism

Redpill me on this.

>>750602

I don't think it goes against the teachings of the church (as in dogmatical teachings), but he goes against the great majority of the theologians.

>>750608

lol, protestant + autism

>>750587

What's stopping Fr. Ripperger from falling once he gets to heaven if free will means possibility of fall?

It's just retarded, angels and men in heaven can't fall because their Hearts/Nous are illuminated by God.

>>750556

I don't think it's important.

Fun to theorize about, and certainly a popular subject of biblical fanfiction, but it's not something we need a solid answer on.

>>750655

I have a question kind of relating to this. If we get some theology wrong are we going to hell?

>>750684

only the gospel

If you believe a false gospel you are not saved

>>750645

>Angels, existing outside of time (though able to participate in it) do not exist for a while and then become evil one day like how people can snap and do evil things in a moment of passion..

What of Satan himself as well as the angels that birthed the nephilim? They appeared to be in "good standing" for lack of better terms before thinking himself better or committing adultery on Earth.

Anyone have any good articles on guardian angels?

That's the only concept that's interesting to me tbh.

This is only tangentially related to the thread, but where does the idea that there were neutral angels, who sided neither with God or the devil, come from? I've been reading a lot of medieval books and they're mentioned more often than one would expect, especially in Parzival and The Divine Comedy.

>>750686

And the book of Revelation

>>750725

if you get eschatology wrong you're not saved?

>>750726

It was more of a Revelation 22: 18-19 thing

>>750556

Angels underwent a similar trial to humans. When they were created God hid his presence from them and they were given a choice whether to follow Gods will or their own. Demons are the ones who decided to follow their own desires, Angels are the ones who obeyed God and had faith.

>>750712

That's Book of Enoch bullshit.

The sons of God in the genesis are the sons of Seth as Saint Augustine shows.

Angles being spiritual beings can't get a woman pregnant.

>>750726

Yes you are saved unless the church had already decided a dogma on some eschatology stuff and you knowing it, refuse to believe it.

>>750853

>That's Book of Enoch bullshit.

>

>The sons of God in the genesis are the sons of Seth as Saint Augustine shows.

>

>Angles being spiritual beings can't get a woman pregnant.

No one before him interpreted it that way. And they didn't get women pregnant in a typical way. They created monstrosities that ruled the earth. Mere "sons of Seth" don't do that (besides, we're ALL sons of Seth).

Seth was a good son like Abel anyhow. Yet this is giving him some curse on the level of Cain or something.

The book of Enoch itself is quoted in the Epistle of Jude. And predates the NT, even physically shown now, with copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The only excuse I've seen that it's fake are Retard-tier excuses like "Well, Jude quoted the REAL Enoch.. and the fake one we have now just has portions of it".

Occam's Razor.

God and his angels could appear directly in front of Abraham and eat with him. Or enter Sodom and Gommorah, pretend they're men, walk in the cities, stay in Lot's house, grab him physically and direct him out of the city, etc..

It's their seed that's unnatural here. The scriptures never say they have physical limits.

>>750859

Yes Augustine was the first to offer this explanation I know.

>but St Jude quoted Enoch.

Not 100% of the book is fake. Like all apocryphal works it contains a bit of truth.

If the fanfiction of Enoch can tell as something is that Jews from that time had some pre Christian believes, regarding the Messiah for example.

The book of Enoch isn't canon for a reason. We shouldn't give that much importance to a Jewish fable (like all fables it is based on the truth)

>>750861

Yeah I agree that an angel can punch you on the face.

But for example they cannot eat or have other processes as humans.

One Coul imagine they had relations with women but their seed would be nothing, and they wouldn't get pregnant.

As St. Raphael said to Tobias in Tobit:

Tobit 12:19

I seemed indeed to eat and to drink with you but I use an invisible meat and drink, which cannot be seen by men.

One more thing. Saint Paul also quotes a gentile poet. Does that mean that that poem is Canon? No of course not.

But God permitted him to quote it because that part was true.

The same way God allowed Jude to quoto Enoch because that sentence was actually true.

And the book of Enoch has lots of correct stuff about Christ, but being right about something doesn't mean we should take it entirely.

>>750556

>Can the top tier angels like Michael rebel?

Satan was a "top tier" angel before he rebelled.

>>750558

>>Believing the book of Enoch

>

>Don't do that

You're an idolatrous fool. The book of Enoch is the word of God and if you had the spirit of God in you then you would read it and know that to be true. bible worship is idolatry. Worship God and not a book.

>>750853

>That's Book of Enoch bullshit.

the bible quotes, paraphrases, or refers to the book of Enoch hundreds of times. If those that actually wrotew the bible thought the book of enoch was valid then why should I listen to later church leaders that say it isn't?

What do demons do specifically? They "rebelled" yes. But what do they do currently? Can they attack people? The gospel shows that they can do possessions, diseases, and other similar things. But do they still do that? You don't see many possessions these days outside of on American megaprot healing tv shows.

How do you know if you're being attacked by demons?

>>750888

>The book of Enoch isn't canon for a reason

Yes, because the pagan imposters that claimed they had the authority from God to create his official word for humanity didn't want Christians to know how their satanic sect began. The catholic religion has been a Christian facade over Babylonian mysticism since it started.

The idea that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God is completely ludicrous. It was forced onto Christianity so that the religion could be controlled by the pagan emperors of Rome.

>>750590

>>750595

>>750596

You are both wrong in some degree. In the sermon he does say God creates a personal guardian angel for every single human, and if they refuse the task God has made them for then a new one was created to fill that role. The demon who would have been your guardian angel, Fr. Ripperger says could be more malicious toward you(in a way being a guardian demon) for the very fact it was created for the soul purpose of protecting you. Of course Fr. R did not suggest that this had a high turnover where a single person had multiple guardian angels fall. And of coarse all of this happened before creation started, with each angel knowing the totality of the task they were made for at the moment of their creation.

>>755438

book of enoch isn't scripture. sorry bro, you're 1,500 years too late.

>>755439

the Bible also quotes the assumption of Moses and a Greek dramatist, does not automatically make it scripture

>>755443

>The catholic religion has been a Christian facade over Babylonian mysticism since it started.

Uwotm8

>The idea that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God is completely ludicrous. It was forced onto Christianity so that the religion could be controlled by the pagan emperors of Rome.

I geuss no one's Christian then

>>750859

>No one before him interpreted it that way.

Which still doesn't give you the right to say he's wrong. The Church Fathers are split on the issue.

>And they didn't get women pregnant in a typical way.

of which you have no proof

>They created monstrosities that ruled the earth

of which again, you have no proof. Scripture merely says they were large men of heroic stature in those days.

> Mere "sons of Seth" don't do that

Well, no, the Scripture says that "sons of God" went to the daughters of men, and immediately after God says that He cannot abide men, thus shortening their lives. You know, just like St. Augustine points out.

>Seth was a good son like Abel anyhow. Yet this is giving him some curse on the level of Cain or something.

this is your personal head-canon

>Occam's Razor.

complete sophistry on your part

>>755443

>It was forced onto Christianity so that the religion could be controlled by the pagan emperors of Rome.

How did the Persian Church of the East catch it, then?

They were fiercely independent.