....if there is no sin in Heaven

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeWillProvide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HeWillProvide

Guest
if there is no sin in heaven, how did Lucifer initially succumb to pride and rebel?

isn’t it possible that more angels could decide to join Lucifer later on? or even souls decide to join him?
 
You are right that there is no sin in heaven, so this probely means that Satan was not in heaven when chose to rebel. Most likely he was given the choice to serve God or not before entering heaven but he chose to sin so most likely he did enter heaven like other angels did.

The angels were created in a certain period time and once they made their choice they were final for all eternity, so more fallen angels is not possible.

Someone please correct me if im wrong.

God bless
 
Spirit beings (some who are angels) are endowed with free choice, but their nature is such that they can decide once, and once only, Whom (or whom) they will serve. One third rebelled and chose to follow the evil one. They cannot turn back, and there is no repentance for them. Those who chose to serve the Lord God have also made a permanent choice. Otherwise, there would be the possibility of chaos in heaven. Not going to happen.

Souls can join the evil one, and many, if not most, actually do. But, it is during this life that they choose. At the moment of death, our fate is sealed for eternity. Heaven or hell. Period. Those bound for heaven, yet not purged of all sin, or attachment to sin, make a stop on their way. It is not a comfortable one, but they are assured that they are en route to heaven. Those who chose against God are condemned, even in this life. They have opted out of mercy.
 
The angels were not in Heaven – that is, they did not have the Beatific Vision. If they did, they could not have sinned.
40.png
Summa:
To be established or confirmed in good is of the nature of beatitude. But the angels were not confirmed in good as soon as they were created; the fall of some of them shows this. Therefore the angels were not in beatitude from their creation.
Click to expand...
ibid.:
The beatified angels cannot sin. The reason for this is, because their beatitude consists in seeing God through His essence. Now, God’s essence is the very essence of goodness. Consequently the angel beholding God is disposed towards God in the same way as anyone else not seeing God is to the common form of goodness. Now it is impossible for any man either to will or to do anything except aiming at what is good; or for him to wish to turn away from good precisely as such. Therefore the beatified angel can neither will nor act, except as aiming towards God. Now whoever wills or acts in this manner cannot sin. Consequently the beatified angel cannot sin.
Click to expand...
 
HeWillProvide said:
if there is no sin in heaven, how did Lucifer initially succumb to pride and rebel?

isn’t it possible that more angels could decide to join Lucifer later on? or even souls decide to join him?
Click to expand...
I hope this doesnt sound rude but where did you ever get the idea that there was never any sin in heaven?Do you ever read the Bible or study sacred scriptures?One third of the angels rebelled,were cast out of Heaven and thrown down into Hell.Do you believe other angels are going to go down to Hell and join him?
 
valentino said:
I hope this doesnt sound rude but where did you ever get the idea that there was never any sin in heaven?Do you ever read the Bible or study sacred scriptures?One third of the angels rebelled,were cast out of Heaven and thrown down into Hell.Do you believe other angels are going to go down to Hell and join him?
Click to expand...
If we are defining Heaven as the Beatific Vision, then there can be no sin in Heaven, it is incompatible with God.
Apoc 21:27:
There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve were in Paradise at first, so too were the angels in a neutral state prior to their choice in the test.

First moment – Creation
Second " – Test
Third " – Beatification/Damnation
 
NO, somethings are logically necessitative:

Love implies a lover and abeloved.

The Lover is GOd, the beloved are men and angels: Rational beings.

Love, in order for it to communicate itself meaningfully, must be communicated freely: WOuld you be loved by RObots that you programmed to shower you with affection?

SO, to love is to have the freedom to choose not only love, but the opposite of love: SIn.

If a being were to choose love, they would be truly free, for they would choose that which empowers and enobles their free choice: GOd.

BUt if they choose sin, they are no longer fully free: Can the devil do other than Sin? Can unregenerate man do any supernaturally pleasing work?

No. THerefore, After having CHosen sin, the freedom of CHoice is in bondage to sin, but not broken: FOr a man can will other than what he does, even if he does not do it.

But for the Angels of GOd to have made this Choice (And it had to be a choice at some point in order to reciprocate his love), they had to exist in a primordial state, other than what they are: For No man Can sin in God’s presence, for Neither man or angel can desire other than God.
 
Somebody help me: the angels were in Heaven(in the prescience of God).They had the Beatific Vision.Right?One third of the angels werethrown out of Heaven and cast into Hell
 
NO.

“THey lost their place in heaven” does not mean they had the beatific vision. THey were in an intermediate heavenly place. Logic necessitates it.
 
According to my understanding, the Angels exist outside of time as God does. Therefore by definition, they cannot learn, grow, or change because all these require time. The Angels are already complete. Like Man, God gave them free will. When they made their initial decision to submit to or reject God, that was also their final decision. With no change of knowledge, wisdom, or circumstances, there is no cause for a change of decision. Therefore it is not possible.

With regards to being cast out of Heaven, I would say that Heaven is not a physical place, but a state of being (the Beatific Vision). Because Lucifer never accepted God’s love, he was never in that state of being. Heaven is described as if it were a physical place so that we can understand it more easily. In the Old Covenant, the Israelites would not have understood that the New Jerusalem would be a spiritual kingdom rather than physical kingdom.
 
As I previously posted here in a similar context:

The nine orders are indeed mentioned in the Bible, though the basis is, in my view, exceedingly thin. For instance, Colossians 1:16: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” Now, why we would read Paul here in speaking of “thrones” and “principalities” as celestial creatures instead of as a reference to earthly kingdoms and states, I have no idea. But we do – this is one of the key Biblical passages in establishing the angelic orders of Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers.

Among the anathemata against Origen issued by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, we find:
II. If anyone shall [deny] that [of the immaterial intelligences] . . . some became and are called Cherubim, others Seraphim, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.
So it is, as best I can tell, a dogmatically taught truth that these orders exist. And there is a Biblical basis, for however much it may be worth. Hope this helps.​
So this was dogmatically defined by an ecumenical council 1500 years ago, indicating strongly that it was a matter of common Christian belief well before then (i.e., not made up that Wednesday). Like the OP, I don’t really see it in the Bible, but the Christians of the first few centuries of the Church apparently did.
 
valentino said:
I hope this doesnt sound rude but where did you ever get the idea that there was never any sin in heaven?Do you ever read the Bible or study sacred scriptures?One third of the angels rebelled,were cast out of Heaven and thrown down into Hell.Do you believe other angels are going to go down to Hell and join him?
Click to expand...
Are you saying there** is** sin in heaven?

I don’t believe other angels are going down to Hell - I was asking if it was possible if there is no sin in Heaven.

Yes, I read the bible and study sacred scripture (aren’t they the same thing?)
 
Oops, sorry about my previous post, it was supposed to go in this thread. If anyone wondered why it was vaguely on topic (about angels) but bizarrely inapropos, that’s why. 😊
 
Gregory_I said:
NO.

“THey lost their place in heaven” does not mean they had the beatific vision. THey were in an intermediate heavenly place. Logic necessitates it.
Click to expand...
thanks.now inregards to the quote:THose who indescrimanatly defend… meaning we should question the Pope’s decision?When?
 
It simply means that those who applaud the Holy Fathers EVERY action do not help him or aid him in making the right choice or the most prudent action.

For example, in the Jansenist Controversy in the 17th Century, the POpe decided to condemn FIve propositions in a book Called the AUgustinus that the Jansenists used as a basis for their particular doctrinal position.

THese Five propositions that were condemned are heretical, and the Jansenists admitted that and said that they did not believe them or subscribe to them in any way; But they did not agree that they were to be found in the book called Augustinus. They drew up a draft showing what Calvin Taught, What Augustine Taught, and What they Taught. Alot of people called them Calvinist Catholics, but this is unjust, since they anathematized Calvin and all his particular beliefs.

It’s really a sad story, and the Jansenists did make some mistakes, but they never subscribed to any of the notions reffered to them as a heresy.

THat is one example of how a Pope can make an unwise decision or censure by listening to a certain party without any discernment because he trusts Them. In this case, the Jesuits had the POpes ear, and the Jesuits hated the fact that the Jansenists were criticizing them for promoting lax morals.

It was really very POlitical.

Or when Pope Pius XI censured St. Padre Pio unjustly because he trusted the wrong people: Was that wise?

THose sorts of things where faith and politics get mixed up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top