Purpose of angels: slaves?

[nobspeople]

The bible seems to indicate there are a few things angels do for god:
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/ ... oing-today

Why couldn't god do these things, one wonders? Anyway...
If god created all that is everywhere (even, it seems, thing we don't that exists - thank you blind faith), surely god could have done these things itself. But god uses, at least some times, angels.

Do the angels do this willingly? Seems about 1/3 had issues with it, among other things. So god casts them out, the bible says. Seems a bit harsh, but OK - god can be a jerk when it's upset.

So it seems at least some of the angels have free will (or god created the ones casts out to be destined to be casts out, which is another topic altogether). So are the angels staying with god - doing god's will - doing so out of choice or fear?

If it's due to fear, wouldn't that make them slaves, in a sense?

If it's not out of fear (their willing choice) does this mean they agree with god and what god's doing?

Or where the 2/3 created to not have a choice?

[bluegreenearth]

Since the God presented in the bible can read hearts (and rewards or punishes accordingly) there would be no point in serving God grudgingly or out of a sense of compulsion.

If I understand this correctly, God created angels to be freewill agents with the choice to willingly serve him and be rewarded or disobey him and be punished. Presumably, everything about the angels God created were perfect and sinless until one power-hungry angel freely chose to disobey God. Of course, God was having none of this and subsequently booted this mutinous angel off the good ship lollipop but not before a few other angels were tempted to rebel against God as well. So, they were also made to walk the plank. Meanwhile, the remaining angels who are loyal to God remain in paradise with him for eternity as their reward.

Did all this take place before God created humans to be freewill agents with the choice to willingly serve him and be rewarded or disobey him and be punished?

[bluegreenearth]

I don't know much about them. But, as you said, if they can rebel, then they seem to have free will and those who remain loyal to God, do it because they think it is good.

If angels have freewill and some of them freely rebel against God while others remain loyal, then doesn't this undermine the apologetic response to the problem of divine hiddenness?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean, please explain.

My understanding of one apologetic response to the problem of divine hiddenness is that God does not objectively demonstrate his existence to everyone in such way to make disbelief in his existence impossible because to do so would remove everyone's freewill choice to believe in God and obey him or disbelieve in God and reject him. If I've unintentionally straw-manned the apologetic, I'm confident someone will offer an appropriate correction.

[nobspeople]

I don't know much about them. But, as you said, if they can rebel, then they seem to have free will and those who remain loyal to God, do it because they think it is good.

If angels have freewill and some of them freely rebel against God while others remain loyal, then doesn't this undermine the apologetic response to the problem of divine hiddenness?

Curious:
How do you suggest this undermines divine hiddenness?

[bluegreenearth]

Curious:
How do you suggest this undermines divine hiddenness?

It seems to undermine the apologetic response to the problem of divine hiddenness because if angels were created by God as freewill agents with the ability to freely choose obedience or disobedience and have their choices subsequently rewarded or punished accordingly, then it necessarily follows that their freewill to make decisions which will be judged by God as acceptable or unacceptable is not violated by God objectively demonstrating his existence to them such that it is impossible for any angel to disbelieve in or deny his existence. Therefore, the apologetic argument claiming that God does not objectively reveal himself because the resulting ubiquitous belief in his existence would have occurred as a consequence of coercion rather than a freewill decision to seek a relationship with him is rendered invalid by the existence of angels whose freewill decisions to seek a relationship with him or rebel against him is not violated by God objectively demonstrating his existence to them.

[JehovahsWitness]

Could you clarify, please? Are you claiming all angels were created with free will, or only some types?

I am making no claim at all. Would you like me to share my faith based beliefs on this question?

[bluegreenearth]

Could you clarify, please? Are you claiming all angels were created with free will, or only some types?

I am making no claim at all. Would you like me to share my faith based beliefs on this question?

Credit where credit is due. I appreciate that you aren't making any claims about reality.

[JehovahsWitness]

I appreciate that you aren't making any claims about reality.

The only claim I am making it as follows (words in blue) : I claim to believe certain things in the bible . Would you like to hear what I believe on the question you asked: "yes" or "no"?

Could you clarify, please? Are you claiming all angels were created with free will, or only some types?

If "yes" I will tell you what I believe and why. If "no", have a nice life and goodbye.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[bluegreenearth]

The only claim I am making it as follows (words in blue) : I claim to believe certain things in the bible . Would you like to hear what I believe on the question you asked: "yes" or "no"?

Yes, as long as you aren't making any claims beyond claiming you believe certain things in the bible.

[brunumb]

The only claim I am making it as follows (words in blue) : I claim to believe certain things in the bible . Would you like to hear what I believe on the question you asked: "yes" or "no"?

Why should anyone here care what you believe when this is a forum for debate? Personal beliefs don't add up to arguments, as distinct from justifying those beliefs.

[1213]

My understanding of one apologetic response to the problem of divine hiddenness is that God does not objectively demonstrate his existence to everyone in such way to make disbelief in his existence impossible because to do so would remove everyone's freewill choice to believe in God and obey him or disbelieve in God and reject him. If I've unintentionally straw-manned the apologetic, I'm confident someone will offer an appropriate correction.

Ok, thanks. I think that is weird idea, because I don’t think the point is really to believe in the existence of God, but to become righteous, because eternal life is promised for righteous. For that, it is not necessary to know surely that God exists.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And I also don’t think there is good reason to think that God should be hidden, for people to have a freewill choice. People have free will and they can want whatever they want, but it does not mean everything should also go as they want. I think it is a poor argument for hiddenness, which also is a questionable argument, because I think God can be seen from His actions, or effect. Or what do you think, is gravity hidden, if we can see only its effect, but not the force itself?