Do Angels have Free Will?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Do angels have free will?

Do all of them have free will, or only Lucifer? It would make sense, that he was God's favourite, since God gave him the choice, and he praised God by that choice.

If you think the rest of them don't have free will, you probably do, however, need to ignore the Book of Enoch. Which of course the canon of the Bible does. Most of the accepted ones anyway.

[Difflugia]

The only thing about it, is that it isn't a sound enough argument,

It absolutely is. It's a counterexample to your argument. You were claiming that the presence of a definite article means that the status of archangel is unique. That argument isn't sound enough because there are cases where it's obviously not true.

because, it would be like saying, because "the" is used with other persons or things, that means that the use of "the" does not mean specifically one,

No, that would be like you saying that because "the" is used with other persons or things, the use of "the" doesn't necessarily mean specifically one. That's, in fact, what I said and if you'd have agreed with me, we'd both have been right.

and so, this could mean there is more than one true God. Never mind it says 'the true God'.

The presence of the definite article isn't what tells us that there's only one true god.

In the same vein, if Michael were called "the true archangel" (ὁ ἀληθινὸς ἀρχάγγελος), I might think differently.

The reason expressions such as "Joseph the carpenter", "John the Baptist", Matthew the tax collector", are there, is to distinguish them from others, with those common names. You can read Matthew 10:2-4

Exactly.

It is not here using archangel to differentiate Michael from other Michaels,

Nobody's saying that. It's to differentiate Michael from the other archangels.

but identifying Michael's role as the archangel, which means chief angel. The Bible says nothing of more than one chief, and certainly we do not find this role given to Gabriel, or any imagined angel named Raphael.

Not your Bible, but the Book of Enoch does. Book 1 Chapter 20 explicitly calls Michael one of the "seven named archangels" (ἀρχαγγέλων ὀνόματα ἑπτά, vv. 7-8). Since this is universally recognized as one of the sources used in the Epistle of Jude, we can be pretty certain that the author himself treated "archangel" as a class with multiple members.

We know what a chief is.

And some of your "chiefs" are one among many. You still haven't established that there is only one archangel, but have pretty definitive proof that there are multiple. Just as there are a number of people with the title "chief of police" or "chief architect," so there are also several with the title "chief angel." In fact, there are seven of them, according to the first book of Enoch.

To claim that the angels are not all under one leader, and that they are separated into different groups under different chiefs, is to go outside the scriptures, and rely on speculation as a basis for truth, which can never be truth.

If you need to artificially limit our knowledge of Greek to only "the scriptures" in order to justify the meaning you want, I think that tells us all we need to know about your position. Relying on multiple sources of evidence isn't "speculation" just because you don't like the direction it points.

Why would anyone want to risk that, to try to establish an idea?

A final appeal to emotion? Are we playing apologetics bingo?

[John17_3]

The only thing about it, is that it isn't a sound enough argument,

It absolutely is. It's a counterexample to your argument. You were claiming that the presence of a definite article means that the status of archangel is unique. That argument isn't sound enough because there are cases where it's obviously not true.

because, it would be like saying, because "the" is used with other persons or things, that means that the use of "the" does not mean specifically one,

No, that would be like you saying that because "the" is used with other persons or things, the use of "the" doesn't necessarily mean specifically one. That's, in fact, what I said and if you'd have agreed with me, we'd both have been right.

and so, this could mean there is more than one true God. Never mind it says 'the true God'.

The presence of the definite article isn't what tells us that there's only one true god.

In the same vein, if Michael were called "the true archangel" (ὁ ἀληθινὸς ἀρχάγγελος), I might think differently.

The reason expressions such as "Joseph the carpenter", "John the Baptist", Matthew the tax collector", are there, is to distinguish them from others, with those common names. You can read Matthew 10:2-4

Exactly.

It is not here using archangel to differentiate Michael from other Michaels,

Nobody's saying that. It's to differentiate Michael from the other archangels.

but identifying Michael's role as the archangel, which means chief angel. The Bible says nothing of more than one chief, and certainly we do not find this role given to Gabriel, or any imagined angel named Raphael.

Not your Bible, but the Book of Enoch does. Book 1 Chapter 20 explicitly calls Michael one of the "seven named archangels" (ἀρχαγγέλων ὀνόματα ἑπτά, vv. 7-8). Since this is universally recognized as one of the sources used in the Epistle of Jude, we can be pretty certain that the author himself treated "archangel" as a class with multiple members.

We know what a chief is.

And some of your "chiefs" are one among many. You still haven't established that there is only one archangel, but have pretty definitive proof that there are multiple. Just as there are a number of people with the title "chief of police" or "chief architect," so there are also several with the title "chief angel." In fact, there are seven of them, according to the first book of Enoch.

To claim that the angels are not all under one leader, and that they are separated into different groups under different chiefs, is to go outside the scriptures, and rely on speculation as a basis for truth, which can never be truth.

If you need to artificially limit our knowledge of Greek to only "the scriptures" in order to justify the meaning you want, I think that tells us all we need to know about your position. Relying on multiple sources of evidence isn't "speculation" just because you don't like the direction it points.

Why would anyone want to risk that, to try to establish an idea?

A final appeal to emotion? Are we playing apologetics bingo?

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.
It was not making an argument on the definite article, but correcting an insertion of the indefinite article.
Please review the post, if you are unclear.

If you are making an argument otherwise, please provide the scriptures - non apocryphal - that say there is more than one arch-angel.

[Difflugia]

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

It was not making an argument on the definite article, but correcting an insertion of the indefinite article.
Please review the post, if you are unclear.

Nobody's "inserting" an indefinite article, but I was correcting your misunderstanding of what information the definite article does and doesn't convey.

If you are making an argument otherwise, please provide the scriptures - non apocryphal - that say there is more than one arch-angel.

If this is really the crux of your argument, then you haven't supported your claim. The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

[Capbook]

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

It was not making an argument on the definite article, but correcting an insertion of the indefinite article.
Please review the post, if you are unclear.

Nobody's "inserting" an indefinite article, but I was correcting your misunderstanding of what information the definite article does and doesn't convey.

If you are making an argument otherwise, please provide the scriptures - non apocryphal - that say there is more than one arch-angel.

If this is really the crux of your argument, then you haven't supported your claim. The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

In the Protestant Bible there are only two verse that mention "archangel" 1Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.
And I believe there is only one archangel, Michael.
And lexicon defines archangel as chief of the angels.

NT:743 archangelos, archangelou, ho
archangel, i. e. chief of the angels 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9.
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[onewithhim]

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

It was not making an argument on the definite article, but correcting an insertion of the indefinite article.
Please review the post, if you are unclear.

Nobody's "inserting" an indefinite article, but I was correcting your misunderstanding of what information the definite article does and doesn't convey.

If you are making an argument otherwise, please provide the scriptures - non apocryphal - that say there is more than one arch-angel.

If this is really the crux of your argument, then you haven't supported your claim. The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

No they have not. The Bible contains ONE name for the archangel: Michael. The Scriptures don't refer to any other angel as an archangel.

[Difflugia]

And lexicon defines archangel as chief of the angels.

NT:743 archangelos, archangelou, ho
archangel, i. e. chief of the angels 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9.
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Either you or your source cut off the bulk of Thayer's entry. The full entry supports my position:

The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

No they have not.

I meant that they logically fail, not that there isn't someone, somewhere that can be convinced by bad arguments.

In the Protestant Bible there are only two verse that mention "archangel" 1Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.

The Bible contains ONE name for the archangel: Michael. The Scriptures don't refer to any other angel as an archangel.

The Scriptures also contain ONE name for someone from Magdala: Mary and ONE name for a Zealot: Simon. Since we can't conclude that there is only one of either of those, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. That means the argument is a non sequitur. Like I said, the argument logically fails.

And I believe there is only one archangel, Michael.

I'm sure you believe lots of things.

[Capbook]

And lexicon defines archangel as chief of the angels.

NT:743 archangelos, archangelou, ho
archangel, i. e. chief of the angels 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9.
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Either you or your source cut off the bulk of Thayer's entry. The full entry supports my position:

The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

No they have not.

I meant that they logically fail, not that there isn't someone, somewhere that can be convinced by bad arguments.

In the Protestant Bible there are only two verse that mention "archangel" 1Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.

The Bible contains ONE name for the archangel: Michael. The Scriptures don't refer to any other angel as an archangel.

The Scriptures also contain ONE name for someone from Magdala: Mary and ONE name for a Zealot: Simon. Since we can't conclude that there is only one of either of those, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. That means the argument is a non sequitur. Like I said, the argument logically fails.

And I believe there is only one archangel, Michael.

I'm sure you believe lots of things.

Have you find some angels whose name means "Who as God or Who is like God"? As another archangel?
Only Dan 10:13 mentions "one of the chief princes", and Barnes explains that phrase below;

But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes - Margin, “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.” The proper meaning of this name (מיכאל mı̂ykâ'êl) is, “Who as God,” and is a name given, undoubtedly, from some resemblance to God. The exact reason why it is given is not anywhere stated; but may it not be this - that one looking on the majesty and glory of the chief of the angels would instinctively ask, “Who, after all, is like God?

[onewithhim]

And lexicon defines archangel as chief of the angels.

NT:743 archangelos, archangelou, ho
archangel, i. e. chief of the angels 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9.
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Either you or your source cut off the bulk of Thayer's entry. The full entry supports my position:

The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

No they have not.

I meant that they logically fail, not that there isn't someone, somewhere that can be convinced by bad arguments.

In the Protestant Bible there are only two verse that mention "archangel" 1Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.

The Bible contains ONE name for the archangel: Michael. The Scriptures don't refer to any other angel as an archangel.

The Scriptures also contain ONE name for someone from Magdala: Mary and ONE name for a Zealot: Simon. Since we can't conclude that there is only one of either of those, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. That means the argument is a non sequitur. Like I said, the argument logically fails.

And I believe there is only one archangel, Michael.

I'm sure you believe lots of things.

Have you find some angels whose name means "Who as God or Who is like God"? As another archangel?
Only Dan 10:13 mentions "one of the chief princes", and Barnes explains that phrase below;

But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes - Margin, “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.”

I have always said that the passage you quote here ("one of the chief princes") really means "the first," or first in rank. Barnes is on the money with that one.

[Capbook]

And lexicon defines archangel as chief of the angels.

NT:743 archangelos, archangelou, ho
archangel, i. e. chief of the angels 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9.
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Either you or your source cut off the bulk of Thayer's entry. The full entry supports my position:

The Bible doesn't say that there is only one archangel. Your arguments from grammar, vocabulary, and scripture have all failed.

No they have not.

I meant that they logically fail, not that there isn't someone, somewhere that can be convinced by bad arguments.

In the Protestant Bible there are only two verse that mention "archangel" 1Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.

The Bible contains ONE name for the archangel: Michael. The Scriptures don't refer to any other angel as an archangel.

The Scriptures also contain ONE name for someone from Magdala: Mary and ONE name for a Zealot: Simon. Since we can't conclude that there is only one of either of those, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. That means the argument is a non sequitur. Like I said, the argument logically fails.

And I believe there is only one archangel, Michael.

I'm sure you believe lots of things.

Have you find some angels whose name means "Who as God or Who is like God"? As another archangel?
Only Dan 10:13 mentions "one of the chief princes", and Barnes explains that phrase below;

But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes - Margin, “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.”

I have always said that the passage you quote here ("one of the chief princes") really means "the first," or first in rank. Barnes is on the money with that one.

I believe we agree with that, but Difflugia.