Evidence for God from Science

Yes, they are. They are not afforded any love/redemption in Christ. The point is, it is God's will then not to either extend redemption to those he love, or he does not have a love/hate relationship with them.

Neo wrote:
I think you are stretching john 3:16. There could be sone exceptions. Take antichrist and false prophet, did Christ die for them too?

How am I stretching John 3:16? If you're asking if Christ died to save the antichrist and false prophet, I would say no. As far as salvation, Christ died for mankind only. I've been consistent with that from the beginning. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world...and the context is clear, that it's the world of humanity that the verse is talking about.

You are having a distorted view of God's love. That love is only available through Christ, extended to them whom it is afforded to...in Him. There is no obligation for God to love everyone in Christ, meaning non-human life - angels, plant life, bacteria, animals etc. Plus, the exceptions like Anti-christ and false prophet.

God's love TO US, TO ALL MANKIND, is through Christ. Because it's mankind alone that needs, and has been offered salvation through Christ.
Please tell me who is saying that Christ died for the salvation of non-human life. Nobody is saying that!

The problem you need to address is, did Christ die for this non-human life? If he loves them indeed, then why not?

What are you talking about? Because non-human life is not offered eternal life through the works of Christ, then you conclude that God can't possibly love non-human life? Could you show me scriptural basis for this?

Specifically how God cannot love Angels, BECAUSE Christ didn't die for them?

Christ died to bring HUMANITY back to God. Any life outside of humanity is not affected(as far as redemption) by Christ's atonement.

neo-x wrote:Yes, they are. They are not afforded any love/redemption in Christ. The point is, it is God's will then not to either extend redemption to those he love, or he does not have a love/hate relationship with them.

Says who?!?!

Where does scripture say this?

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I think you are stretching john 3:16. There could be sone exceptions. Take antichrist and false prophet, did Christ die for them too?

How am I stretching John 3:16? If you're asking if Christ died to save the antichrist and false prophet, I would say no. As far as salvation, Christ died for mankind only. I've been consistent with that from the beginning. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world...and the context is clear, that it's the world of humanity that the verse is talking about.

You are having a distorted view of God's love. That love is only available through Christ, extended to them whom it is afforded to...in Him. There is no obligation for God to love everyone in Christ, meaning non-human life - angels, plant life, bacteria, animals etc. Plus, the exceptions like Anti-christ and false prophet.

God's love TO US, TO ALL MANKIND, is through Christ. Because it's mankind alone that needs, and has been offered salvation through Christ.
Please tell me who is saying that Christ died for the salvation of non-human life. Nobody is saying that!

The problem you need to address is, did Christ die for this non-human life? If he loves them indeed, then why not?

What are you talking about? Because non-human life is not offered eternal life through the works of Christ, then you conclude that God can't possibly love non-human life? Could you show me scriptural basis for this?

Specifically how God cannot love Angels, BECAUSE Christ didn't die for them?

Christ died to bring HUMANITY back to God. Any life outside of humanity is not affected(as far as redemption) by Christ's atonement.

Then we agree on most points.

Exception being, if God loves angels, why not give them the chance to redemption? If he doesn't then his love is meaningless.

In other words, is God the father in the parable of the prodigal son, where Satan is the lost son?
Is God waiting for him with open arms, its just that Satan is refusing to come back?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Yes, they are. They are not afforded any love/redemption in Christ. The point is, it is God's will then not to either extend redemption to those he love, or he does not have a love/hate relationship with them.

Says who?!?!

Where does scripture say this?

Scripture doesn't say a lot of things about angels and their relation to God. But we do know that God doesn't save them. Meaning his love is not afforded to them or else they would have the chance.

That is just, reason.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Yes, they are. They are not afforded any love/redemption in Christ. The point is, it is God's will then not to either extend redemption to those he love, or he does not have a love/hate relationship with them.

Says who?!?!

Where does scripture say this?

Scripture doesn't say a lot of things about angels and their relation to God. But we do know that God doesn't save them. Meaning his love is not afforded to them or else they would have the chance.

That is just, reason.

As far as the underlined, says who?

Because God doesn't offer redemption for fallen angels, then it's reasonable to conclude that God doesn't love them? I don't see the reason in that.

I don't know why God doesn't offer some kind of redemption to fallen angels. But that doesn't lead me to toss aside who God is.

I just don't how you can say on one hand, that you don't know why God doesn't offer redemption to fallen angels. And on the other hand, claim to know that God doesn't love them.

That's quite a jump to go from not knowing why God doesn't do something, to KNOWING that God cannot love them.

Neo wrote:
Then we agree on most points.

Exception being, if God loves angels, why not give them the chance to redemption?

I can honestly say, "I don't know".

If he doesn't then his love is meaningless.

A bet there may be a few angels who would disagree with you.


For the life of me, I can't see how you think it's logical to conclude that God's love of angels is meaningless if He doesn't offer them redemption. Especially after you admitted that you don't know why God doesn't offer them redemption.

Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

Because there is no reason to offer humans the same as well. It is just his will. There is no contingency under which God is bound to allow humans the offer to redemption but not the angels.

Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

The thing is, the reason why God saves is not shrouded in mystery at all. Its because he loves us. So We know why he saves and therefore if he doesn't save then --- my conclusion, again.

Its not that I don't think any other conclusion can be reached. I just think it will have nothing to stand upon.

The angels were already in the heavenly realm though. They rejected Him having actually experienced Heaven. So the offer of redemption isn`t needed, they already made their choice.
God saves us, yes, but only if we want saving. He will not force us, same with the angels, and Satan.

Storyteller wrote:Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

Neo wrote:
Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

This almost sounds like you're saying that because God loves us, He's obligated to offer us redemption.


****edit

Or, it sounds like you're saying that because God redeemed humanity through Christ, then He is obligated to redeem fallen angels.

neo-x wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

God didn`t need to offer it, they already had it. They chose to turn away from God.

neo-x wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Maybe God doesn`t offer them redemption because they have already rejected Him?

How can you reject something which has not been offered to you?

Neo,

As far as I can see from scripture, angels were created as eternal(in the sense of immortality) spiritual beings, in the presence of God. They were already eternally in the presence of God. They didn't need redemption.

But we can only speculate to why the Angels that fell, weren't offered some kind of redemption.


Maybe this will help. Once we die, and are in the presence of God, if it were possible for us to reject Him, would God then be obligated to offer us redemption? And further, if He wouldn't offer us redemption, would that prove that He didn't love us?

Of course this is hypothetical, because I'm not suggesting that we can reject Him once we are in His presence.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
Love necessitates such action. I don't see what else is there to support the notion. The only way we know we have it is because we are told God loves us. That pretty much blots out any other reason. If he loves them then why not save them. Unless there is no love/hate relationship between God and angels.

This almost sounds like you're saying that because God loves us, He's obligated to offer us redemption.

I know how it sounds. But God is not obligated, but it follows under his will that he loves and saves. At least that is what the gospel says. Infact we have redemption because God loves and loved us first.