How do angels jibe with the Holy Spirit?

[CS1]

Thanks CS1. When the Lord himself descends from heaven in 1 Thes he has the voice of the archangel. That is his voice: We read, "

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
"
When Michael defeats Satan in Revelation it is with his blood: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," which continues a few verses further... "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. "

When Daniel inquires from God, we read, "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. " Jesus is the prince of peace in the Bible and he is Daniel's prince.

The term archangel simply means 'chief messenger' which Jesus is.

1thess 4: 16

where it says "the Lord himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.

This is not saying Jesus is the one shouting. it is saying The shout of the voice of an archangel will proceed the Lord Coming. Meaning When Jesu comes back There will be no doubt who it is. The dead in Christ will rise first.

 

[GWH]

I haven't studied angelology, so take what I say here with a grain of salt.

Are angels robots, programmed to obey God? If so, then how did a third of them fall?
I don't think angels are programmed robots. Your instincts seem correct: since some of them fell, they have free will and can be deceived. But I am not an Angel so I don't know what argument Satan might make to convince his angels to rebel against God.

Their fall implies MFW, and MFW implies ability to sin and to repent of sin, does it not?
We can never know the answer to this because, according to Jude, they have already been judged and reside in a prison of darkness. For them, there is no opportunity to repent,

Perhaps the unfallen angels did not commit the mortal/damning sin of hating God?
Scripture never explicitly says that unfallen angels are “forgiven” for minor offenses. In fact, the Bible doesn’t even present forgiveness as part of the angelic economy the way it does for humanity.

Yes, angels would have to be morons to choose leaving heaven, beginning with Satan.

There are just so many problematic questions that won't be answered until we get to heaven,
but David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they.
However, Heb. 2:14-18 indicates that the Son's moral perfection is what makes him superior to sinful humans and qualified to atone for sins--and Heb. 2:5-9 indicates this might include angels. Thus, I think the best guess is something along the lines I shared in the previous post.

What do you think?

 

[GWH]

angels have no salvation they obey or not. all angels were created for a specific work unto the Lord.

Title/work:

Archangels Jude 1:19 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Seraphim Isaiah 6:1–7
Cherubim Genesis 3:24; Ezekiel 10; Exodus 25:18–20
Guardian Angels Matthew 18:10 Psalms 91:11
Greek ángelos = Messager

The Angel of the LORD Exodus 3:2–6; Joshua 1:1–5
"The Bible’s angelic hierarchy includes Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangels, Guardian Angels, and the Angel of the LORD, each with unique titles and divine assignments. These roles reflect their functions in worship, protection, guidance, and the unfolding of God’s plan."

It sounds as though you view angels as robotic. Is that correct?
But what about the angels that fell? Did they not exercise MFW?

 

[Roger316]

Yes, angels would have to be morons to choose leaving heaven, beginning with Satan.

There are just so many problematic questions that won't be answered until we get to heaven,
but David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they.
However, Heb. 2:14-18 indicates that the Son's moral perfection is what makes him superior to sinful humans and qualified to atone for sins--and Heb. 2:5-9 indicates this might include angels. Thus, I think the best guess is something along the lines I shared in the previous post.

What do you think?

The central point in Hebrews 1–2 is not that Jesus outperforms angels in moral perfection, but that Jesus is the Messiah according to God’s eternal promise. His superiority does not arise from God surveying heaven and earth to find the most qualified candidate. Rather, the Father appointed the Son to be the Messiah from the beginning—His identity is rooted in divine election, not competitive merit. This is why Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that the Son is the one “whom He appointed heir of all things” and the one “of whom God says, ‘You are my Son’.” The Messiah is the Son because God made Him so.

The key to understanding Hebrews 1–2 is the background objection circulating in some Jewish circles: Jesus cannot be the Messiah because He is a man. The true Messiah, they believed, would be a theophany—a heavenly, angelic‑like manifestation of God. Jesus was not a theophany; therefore, He could not be the Messiah. Hebrews is written to dismantle that assumption.

Hebrews 1 responds by showing that the prophets themselves predicted a human Messiah—a real son of David, not a transient heavenly apparition. The chapter strings together texts that insist the Messiah is God’s royal Son, enthroned as the Davidic king. In other words, Scripture itself rules out the idea that the Messiah must be an angelic theophany.

Hebrews 2 then argues that it was not only predicted but fitting that the Messiah be fully human. His humanity is not a downgrade from angelic glory; it is the very means by which He becomes our representative, our brother, and our high priest. By sharing flesh and blood, He destroys the devil, delivers His people, and becomes the merciful and faithful high priest who can truly help those who are tempted. The Messiah must be human precisely because He must be relatable, representative, and redemptive.

So the flow of Hebrews 1–2 is not: “Jesus is morally superior to angels, therefore He is Messiah.” It is: “Jesus is the promised human Messiah, therefore He is superior to angels.”

His superiority is rooted in appointment, identity, and mission, not in a comparison of moral performance between Jesus and unfallen angels.

 

[GWH]

The central point in Hebrews 1–2 is not that Jesus outperforms angels in moral perfection, but that Jesus is the Messiah according to God’s eternal promise. His superiority does not arise from God surveying heaven and earth to find the most qualified candidate. Rather, the Father appointed the Son to be the Messiah from the beginning—His identity is rooted in divine election, not competitive merit. This is why Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that the Son is the one “whom He appointed heir of all things” and the one “of whom God says, ‘You are my Son’.” The Messiah is the Son because God made Him so.

The key to understanding Hebrews 1–2 is the background objection circulating in some Jewish circles: Jesus cannot be the Messiah because He is a man. The true Messiah, they believed, would be a theophany—a heavenly, angelic‑like manifestation of God. Jesus was not a theophany; therefore, He could not be the Messiah. Hebrews is written to dismantle that assumption.

Hebrews 1 responds by showing that the prophets themselves predicted a human Messiah—a real son of David, not a transient heavenly apparition. The chapter strings together texts that insist the Messiah is God’s royal Son, enthroned as the Davidic king. In other words, Scripture itself rules out the idea that the Messiah must be an angelic theophany.

Hebrews 2 then argues that it was not only predicted but fitting that the Messiah be fully human. His humanity is not a downgrade from angelic glory; it is the very means by which He becomes our representative, our brother, and our high priest. By sharing flesh and blood, He destroys the devil, delivers His people, and becomes the merciful and faithful high priest who can truly help those who are tempted. The Messiah must be human precisely because He must be relatable, representative, and redemptive.

So the flow of Hebrews 1–2 is not: “Jesus is morally superior to angels, therefore He is Messiah.” It is: “Jesus is the promised human Messiah, therefore He is superior to angels.”

His superiority is rooted in appointment, identity, and mission, not in a comparison of moral performance between Jesus and unfallen angels.

It does not sound like you read the Scriptures I cited before replying, because they indicate that the reason Jesus was qualified to atone for sins was because of his moral perfection.

Not sure why you object to "theophany" as synonymous with incarnation.

Again, Jesus could not be Messiah, the atonement for sin, if he were a sinner.

 

[Roger316]

It does not sound like you read the Scriptures I cited before replying, because they indicate that the reason Jesus was qualified to atone for sins was because of his moral perfection.

I understand and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Not sure why you object to "theophany" as synonymous with incarnation.

Because a theophany is not an incarnation. These are two distinct things. The burning bush was a theophany, a manifestation of God, but unlike Jesus, it wasn't an incarnation of God.

Again, Jesus could not be Messiah, the atonement for sin, if he were a sinner.

Of course. Yes. Amen, for sure. I'm sorry if it sounded like I believed something else.

But i was responding to this statement: "David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they." And I agree with your assessment that Jesus was better than they, but not because he was sinless.

I was reacting to the following statement.

“If unfallen angels did not sin, then Jesus—being sinless—was no better than they.”

What I meant to say in reply was: Jesus is indeed “better” than the unfallen angels, but not because He is sinless. Unfallen angels are also sinless. Jesus’ superiority comes from His identity and appointment as Messiah, not from a moral comparison. This is in no way in contradiction to your valid points about the fact that Jesus' sinlessness qualifies him to be the messiah. I agree with that.

The unfallen angels were also sinless, but they could never serve as the Messiah, for the reasons that we both shared.
The issue is not whether unfallen angels sinned. Of course they didn’t, and in that sense their moral purity is real. But Hebrews never argues that Jesus is superior to angels because He is sinless while they are not. The author’s point is that Jesus is superior because He is the appointed Son, the promised Messiah, and the incarnate representative of humanity. Unfallen angels may be sinless, but they could never serve as Messiah—they are not sons of David, they are not appointed heirs, and they cannot share flesh and blood to redeem humanity. Jesus’ superiority rests on His identity and mission, not on a comparison of moral performance.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[GWH]

I understand and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Because a theophany is not an incarnation. These are two distinct things. The burning bush was a theophany, a manifestation of God, but unlike Jesus, it wasn't an incarnation of God.

Of course. Yes. Amen, for sure. I'm sorry if it sounded like I believed something else.

But i was responding to this statement: "David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they." And I agree with your assessment that Jesus was better than they, but not because he was sinless.

I was reacting to the following statement.


What I meant to say in reply was: Jesus is indeed “better” than the unfallen angels, but not because He is sinless. Unfallen angels are also sinless. Jesus’ superiority comes from His identity and appointment as Messiah, not from a moral comparison. This is in no way in contradiction to your valid points about the fact that Jesus' sinlessness qualifies him to be the messiah. I agree with that.

The unfallen angels were also sinless, but they could never serve as the Messiah, for the reasons that we both shared.
The issue is not whether unfallen angels sinned. Of course they didn’t, and in that sense their moral purity is real. But Hebrews never argues that Jesus is superior to angels because He is sinless while they are not. The author’s point is that Jesus is superior because He is the appointed Son, the promised Messiah, and the incarnate representative of humanity. Unfallen angels may be sinless, but they could never serve as Messiah—they are not sons of David, they are not appointed heirs, and they cannot share flesh and blood to redeem humanity. Jesus’ superiority rests on His identity and mission, not on a comparison of moral performance.

Sorry for the confusion.

I think Moses would beg to differ with your view that the burning bush was not physical.

I understand and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Because a theophany is not an incarnation. These are two distinct things. The burning bush was a theophany, a manifestation of God, but unlike Jesus, it wasn't an incarnation of God.

Of course. Yes. Amen, for sure. I'm sorry if it sounded like I believed something else.

But i was responding to this statement: "David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they." And I agree with your assessment that Jesus was better than they, but not because he was sinless.

I was reacting to the following statement.


What I meant to say in reply was: Jesus is indeed “better” than the unfallen angels, but not because He is sinless. Unfallen angels are also sinless. Jesus’ superiority comes from His identity and appointment as Messiah, not from a moral comparison. This is in no way in contradiction to your valid points about the fact that Jesus' sinlessness qualifies him to be the messiah. I agree with that.

The unfallen angels were also sinless, but they could never serve as the Messiah, for the reasons that we both shared.
The issue is not whether unfallen angels sinned. Of course they didn’t, and in that sense their moral purity is real. But Hebrews never argues that Jesus is superior to angels because He is sinless while they are not. The author’s point is that Jesus is superior because He is the appointed Son, the promised Messiah, and the incarnate representative of humanity. Unfallen angels may be sinless, but they could never serve as Messiah—they are not sons of David, they are not appointed heirs, and they cannot share flesh and blood to redeem humanity. Jesus’ superiority rests on His identity and mission, not on a comparison of moral performance.

Sorry for the confusion.

I think the confusion/disagreement arises because I use both-and logic: Jesus is superior BOTH because He is the Son AND because He is sinless, whereas you are viewing it as either-or: Jesus is superior EITHER because He is the Son OR because He is sinless.

Anyway, although Scripture never explicitly says that unfallen angels are forgiven for minor sins, I find reason to think such is the case because that is true of human saints who sin, and so perhaps angels share that "economy".

And if angels and humans are not robots, then they and we can choose to be just as foolish as Satan, but perhaps our earthly experiences teach us to persevere in valuing our rebirth right/inheritance, so in heaven humans will never fall again.

Does this seem logical/right?

 

[Roger316]

I think Moses would beg to differ with your view that the burning bush was not physical.

I didn't say it wasn't physical. Theophanies can be physical.

 

[Mem]

If there are fallen sons of God, and there are risen sons of God, then doesn't this imply there's a 'jibe' between them?

 

[CS1]

Yes, angels would have to be morons to choose leaving heaven, beginning with Satan.

There are just so many problematic questions that won't be answered until we get to heaven,
but David Lamb got me going by saying the unfallen angels did not sin, which implied that Jesus was no better than they.
However, Heb. 2:14-18 indicates that the Son's moral perfection is what makes him superior to sinful humans and qualified to atone for sins--and Heb. 2:5-9 indicates this might include angels. Thus, I think the best guess is something along the lines I shared in the previous post.

What do you think?

to say the "unfallen angels did not sin equates to "Jesus was no better than they."

An Angel who did not fall did not sin. do you listen to yourself ? Then to think David lamb is saying Jesus is no better. That is a blatant misrepresenting of the brother. I think you are needing help guy.

 

[GWH]

to say the "unfallen angels did not sin equates to "Jesus was no better than they."

An Angel who did not fall did not sin. do you listen to yourself ? Then to think David lamb is saying Jesus is no better. That is a blatant misrepresenting of the brother. I think you are needing help guy.

I think you should try to help by explaining how Jesus is morally better than anyone else who does not sin.
DL and I have no problem communicating/discussing amicably, because he clarifies rather than insults.
You need help discerning the difference between misunderstanding and misrepresenting someone, brother/guy.

 

[GWH]

Howdy Rog, yes, and I still find angelology to be problematic and tend to view them as a primitive foreshadowing of the Holy Spirit, even though the archangel is mentioned in 1Thes. 4:16 as accompanying the Lord when He returns.

What are your thoughts about the questions mentioned in my previous post?

BTW, I also still find Revelation to be problematic, raising more questions than it answers after studying it systematically beginning on page 8 of this thread.

Despite the many questions regarding angels that Scripture does not answer, including:
Are angels robots, programmed to obey God? If so, then how did a third of them fall?
Their fall implies MFW, and MFW implies ability to sin and to repent of sin, does it not?
Perhaps the unfallen angels did not commit the mortal/damning sin of hating God?
And they confess/confessed their minor sins immediately and so are/were forgiven rather than expelled from heaven?
Forgiven on the basis of belief in Christ's atonement, who is sinless and therefore their superior?

What would Christmas be without the carols involving angels?:
“Angels We Have Heard on High”
“Angels from the Realms of Glory”
“Silent Night, Holy Night”
“O Little Town of Bethlehem”
“Hark! The Herald Angels Sing”
“It Came Upon a Midnight Clear”

 

[GWH]

I realize that Scripture does not answer these questions, but I will take a stab at using right reasoning for a reasonable guess:

1. Q - Are angels robots, programmed to obey God?
A - Not per Scripture, which says some fell from heaven with Satan, and surely God did not cause them to do that.

2. Q - How did a third of the angels fall?
A - Apparently they had moral free will/the ability not to cooperate with God's will

3. Q - Why would angels decide to go to hell?
A - Apparently an earthly existence is needed for the purpose of teaching souls to appreciate the blessings of heaven.

4. Q - Does the fall of angels imply MFW, the ability to sin and to repent of sin?
A - Yes, but the last is not mentioned in Scripture.

5. Q - Perhaps the unfallen angels did not commit the mortal/damning sin of hating God?
A - Apparently not, and they presumably they confessed their minor sins immediately and so are/were forgiven
rather than expelled from heaven.

6. Q - Were the unfallen angels forgiven on the basis of belief in Christ's atonement and accepting Him as Lord?
A - What else?

7. Q - Is Christ superior to the unfallen angels because he alone is sinless?
A - The book of Hebrews says Christ is superior to humans because He is sinless,
so probably He is superior to angels for the same reason.

Comments?

 

[Roger316]

I realize that Scripture does not answer these questions, but I will take a stab at using right reasoning for a reasonable guess:

1. Q - Are angels robots, programmed to obey God?
A - Not per Scripture, which says some fell from heaven with Satan, and surely God did not cause them to do that.

2. Q - How did a third of the angels fall?
A - Apparently they had moral free will/the ability not to cooperate with God's will

3. Q - Why would angels decide to go to hell?
A - Apparently an earthly existence is needed for the purpose of teaching souls to appreciate the blessings of heaven.

4. Q - Does the fall of angels imply MFW, the ability to sin and to repent of sin?
A - Yes, but the last is not mentioned in Scripture.

5. Q - Perhaps the unfallen angels did not commit the mortal/damning sin of hating God?
A - Apparently not, and they presumably they confessed their minor sins immediately and so are/were forgiven
rather than expelled from heaven.

6. Q - Were the unfallen angels forgiven on the basis of belief in Christ's atonement and accepting Him as Lord?
A - What else?

7. Q - Is Christ superior to the unfallen angels because he alone is sinless?
A - The book of Hebrews says Christ is superior to humans because He is sinless,
so probably He is superior to angels for the same reason.

Comments?

We don't have answers to these questions because the Bible is written to human beings, in human language, to address issues regarding God's will for mankind. I said this to another man who was interested in angelology and became a podcaster. He rejected what I said, dismissing it because the topic interested him so much. I was trying to encourage him to stick with what we know from the text and not to speculate about things. We know what it is like to live as a human being. We don't know what it is like to live as an angel. We should leave it at that.

 

[GWH]

We don't have answers to these questions because the Bible is written to human beings, in human language, to address issues regarding God's will for mankind. I said this to another man who was interested in angelology and became a podcaster. He rejected what I said, dismissing it because the topic interested him so much. I was trying to encourage him to stick with what we know from the text and not to speculate about things. We know what it is like to live as a human being. We don't know what it is like to live as an angel. We should leave it at that.

Thanks for your comments, Rog, with which I mainly agree, but I would not let the Scripture off quite so easily, because the Bible does not answer these questions about angels even though it begs such questions by mentioning them.

There are many such topics introduced in Scripture, and IMO it is not wrong to speculate about them as long as the reasoning employed is guided by what is clearly taught (a Holy Hermeneutic/the HS), so that opinions do not contradict the Gospel/Creed. Banning speculation would put CC out of business!

Thus, I would welcome your evaluation of my answers with the understanding that our views are merely humble opinions.

1. Q - Are angels robots, programmed to obey God?
A - Not per Scripture, which says some fell from heaven with Satan, and surely God did not cause them to do that.

2. Q - How did a third of the angels fall?
A - Apparently they had moral free will/the ability not to cooperate with God's will

3. Q - Why would angels decide to go to hell?
A - Apparently an earthly existence is needed for the purpose of teaching souls to appreciate the blessings of heaven.

4. Q - Does the fall of angels imply MFW, the ability to sin and to repent of sin?
A - Yes, but the last is not mentioned in Scripture.

5. Q - Perhaps the unfallen angels did not commit the mortal/damning sin of hating God?
A - Apparently not, and they presumably they confessed their minor sins immediately and so are/were forgiven
rather than expelled from heaven.

6. Q - Were the unfallen angels forgiven on the basis of belief in Christ's atonement and accepting Him as Lord?
A - What else?

7. Q - Is Christ superior to the unfallen angels because he alone is sinless?
A - The book of Hebrews says Christ is superior to humans because He is sinless,
so probably He is superior to angels for the same reason.

How would you answer/guess/speculate/opine/reason?

 

[CS1]

I think you should try to help by explaining how Jesus is morally better than anyone else who does not sin.
DL and I have no problem communicating/discussing amicably, because he clarifies rather than insults.
You need help discerning the difference between misunderstanding and misrepresenting someone, brother/guy.

Let me get this right? You and DL think I should explain how Jesus is morally better than anyone else who does not sin?

First everyone other than Jesus, did sin. 2cor 5:21NLT " For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ."
Are you a Christian or an atheist? Are you a believer in Christ or part of a Theological cult like JW's or LDS?
The attack on the Person of Jesus with this false narrative created by DL and others is foolishness. What you call an insult I would look in the mirror guy. It was not I who said :
Q - Is Christ superior to the unfallen angels because he alone is sinless?
A - The book of Hebrews says Christ is superior to humans because He is sinless,
so probably He is superior to angels for the same reason.

This question is asked from no biblical understanding at all. Jesus is superior to angels because HE is GOD not a created being like angels. John 1:1, John 18:6, John 8:59, John 10:32-33 I AM He.

 

[GWH]

Let me get this right? You and DL think I should explain how Jesus is morally better than anyone else who does not sin?

First everyone other than Jesus, did sin. 2cor 5:21NLT " For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ."
Are you a Christian or an atheist? Are you a believer in Christ or part of a Theological cult like JW's or LDS?
The attack on the Person of Jesus with this false narrative created by DL and others is foolishness. What you call an insult I would look in the mirror guy. It was not I who said :
Q - Is Christ superior to the unfallen angels because he alone is sinless?
A - The book of Hebrews says Christ is superior to humans because He is sinless,
so probably He is superior to angels for the same reason.

This question is asked from no biblical understanding at all. Jesus is superior to angels because HE is GOD not a created being like angels. John 1:1, John 18:6, John 8:59, John 10:32-33 I AM He.

No one is stopping you from right understanding.
My understanding is that Jesus is superior to anyone else because he did not sin.
I do not understand why you ask whether I am a Christian or an atheist.
I do not understand what narrative DL etal. created that you think is foolishness.
I continually look in a mirror or critique my own beliefs.
I admit not understanding angelology, which is why I ask questions.
Hebrews 1:3-4 does not say Jesus is/was superior to angels but rather that he BECAME superior.
Hebrews 2:10 does not say Jesus was perfect but rather that he was MADE perfect through what he suffered.
Heb. 2:17-18 does not say Jesus freed/helped sinners by being God but rather because of becoming a high priest via suffering.
Heb. 4:14-15 does not say Jesus is our high priest because he is God but rather because he was tempted and did not sin.

Understand?...

 

[OMC]

I have difficulty jibing the role of angels with the role of the Holy Spirit, so I would like to explore that question
starting from Hebrews 1:14, "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?"

Does this teaching not conflict with the ministry of the Holy Spirit described in the Gospel of John as our advocate (14:16-17),
the testifier about Jesus (15:26) and guide (16:12-15)?

Hebrews 1:14 teaches that angels are ministering spirits sent to serve believers, and I affirm that their ministry is real—protection, deliverance, guidance, and execution of God’s providence—but I confess that Scripture never presents angels as doing the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the indwelling Advocate, the One who regenerates, sanctifies, teaches, convicts, seals, and glorifies; angels never indwell, never regenerate, never testify within the believer, and never guide the conscience. So I reject the idea that Hebrews 1:14 conflicts with John 14–16; angels minister externally as servants of God’s providence, while the Spirit ministers internally as God Himself dwelling in us. Their roles are complementary, not competitive: angels serve the heirs of salvation, but the Spirit creates the heirs of salvation.

 

[GWH]

Hebrews 1:14 teaches that angels are ministering spirits sent to serve believers, and I affirm that their ministry is real—protection, deliverance, guidance, and execution of God’s providence—but I confess that Scripture never presents angels as doing the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the indwelling Advocate, the One who regenerates, sanctifies, teaches, convicts, seals, and glorifies; angels never indwell, never regenerate, never testify within the believer, and never guide the conscience. So I reject the idea that Hebrews 1:14 conflicts with John 14–16; angels minister externally as servants of God’s providence, while the Spirit ministers internally as God Himself dwelling in us. Their roles are complementary, not competitive: angels serve the heirs of salvation, but the Spirit creates the heirs of salvation.

Your like your jibing of angels and the HS by saying the former are external and the latter is internal.

The question prompted by belief in angels is whether they also are heirs of salvation, asked in my #275.
How would you answer them--again, using reasoning guided by GW = the HS, so that it does not contradict the Gospel/Creed?

 

[OMC]

Your like your jibing of angels and the HS by saying the former are external and the latter is internal.

The question prompted by belief in angels is whether they also are heirs of salvation

No. Angels are not heirs of salvation.
Hebrews 1:14 says angels are “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation.” The grammar is decisive:
angels = servants
believers = heirs
Angels serve the heirs; they are not heirs themselves.
Why?
Because salvation is not for angels.
Scripture says:
Christ did not take on the nature of angels (Hebrews 2:16).
Angels long to look into salvation (1 Peter 1:12).
Angels rejoice when humans repent (Luke 15:10).
Angels are never called sons of God in the redemptive sense (Galatians 4:5–7).
Angels are judged by redeemed humans (1 Corinthians 6:3).
Angels are created holy beings who serve God. They do not need salvation, nor do they receive it.
Fallen angels (demons) cannot be saved. Holy angels do not need to be saved.
Therefore:
Angels minister to salvation’s heirs, but they are not heirs of salvation.