How do angels jibe with the Holy Spirit?

[Roger316]

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?

Well, the bottom line, for me, is this. When Daniel experienced an Angel he was so scared that his legs could no longer support his weight. I image that would be my reaction to angels. So I am a bit shocked when I hear other people's stories about angel encounters. Why didn't they do a face plant when they encountered an Angel?

As to your question 7. No — Hebrews never says that Christ is superior to angels because He was sinless. That idea simply does not appear anywhere in the argument of Hebrews 1–2. The author’s reasoning is far more theological, messianic, and identity‑based, not moral‑comparative.

 

[CS1]

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?...

Jesus is Superior and Lord because He is God. Man did not become GOD, God became a man.
Anyone who says they are a Christian and doesn't understand the Deity of Christ and His supremacy I would question their theology for one, and their relationship with Christ.

I am sorry, I do not believe that you do not know or understanding angelology.

I discern you are not unlearned by what you have written. You had or have an objective. IF not, your question would have not followed with such an exhausted post on the standing of angelology.
You rebuttals to those who answered proves you're dishonest. So, your response here :

"Hebrews 1:3-4 does not say Jesus is/was superior to angels but rather that he BECAME superior." And the other text you used.


Hebrews chapter one states, Jesus: Verses 2-3

" 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command."


Jesus has two naturals Divine and human. His name that was exalted above angels because to which Angel has God called His son? None. And it states let the angels worship HIM. Only God receives worship.

You said :
"Hebrews 2:10 does not say Jesus was perfect but rather that he was MADE perfect through what he suffered."

Again this is speaking to the humanity of Jesus as a man was lower than the angels as we were created. Jesus the son of Man was exalted because he is our second Adam that did not sin but died for all sin past, present , Future. John 19:28-30

Also you fail to see the titles of Christ and symbolism. Such as High Priest.

Jesus Made Fully Human​

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? 7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor 8 and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Jesus willfully stepped out of His Position with the Father to become a human being to save us by His death.

 

[GWH]

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.

I just noticed that my previous reply began with "Your like your jibing" instead of what I am sure that I typed, "I like your jibing...".

Thanks for answering, and here are my follow-up questions.

Are angels in heaven miserable? If not, then how are they not saved?

Given that angels serve, does Jesus not indicate that the greatest in heaven are those who serve? (Matt. 23:11-12, 20:26-27).

Also considerLuke 22:25-27, "Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

And Mark 10:45, ""For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Were the angels who fell also holy beings?
Do the angels who fell not need to be saved?
Does Scripture say God does not love His enemy angels and want them to repent?

Over...

 

[GWH]

Well, the bottom line, for me, is this. When Daniel experienced an Angel he was so scared that his legs could no longer support his weight. I image that would be my reaction to angels. So I am a bit shocked when I hear other people's stories about angel encounters. Why didn't they do a face plant when they encountered an Angel?

As to your question 7. No — Hebrews never says that Christ is superior to angels because He was sinless. That idea simply does not appear anywhere in the argument of Hebrews 1–2. The author’s reasoning is far more theological, messianic, and identity‑based, not moral‑comparative.

I realize sometimes it is difficult to keep up with a discussion.
In this case, please respond to what I said to CS1 in #277 regarding four passages in Hebrews.
Thanks.

 

[GWH]

Jesus is Superior and Lord because He is God. Man did not become GOD, God became a man.
Anyone who says they are a Christian and doesn't understand the Deity of Christ and His supremacy I would question their theology for one, and their relationship with Christ.

I am sorry, I do not believe that you do not know or understanding angelology.

I discern you are not unlearned by what you have written. You had or have an objective. IF not, your question would have not followed with such an exhausted post on the standing of angelology.
You rebuttals to those who answered proves you're dishonest. So, your response here :

"Hebrews 1:3-4 does not say Jesus is/was superior to angels but rather that he BECAME superior." And the other text you used.


Hebrews chapter one states, Jesus: Verses 2-3

" 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command."


Jesus has two naturals Divine and human. His name that was exalted above angels because to which Angel has God called His son? None. And it states let the angels worship HIM. Only God receives worship.

You said :
"Hebrews 2:10 does not say Jesus was perfect but rather that he was MADE perfect through what he suffered."

Again this is speaking to the humanity of Jesus as a man was lower than the angels as we were created. Jesus the son of Man was exalted because he is our second Adam that did not sin but died for all sin past, present , Future. John 19:28-30

Also you fail to see the titles of Christ and symbolism. Such as High Priest.

Jesus Made Fully Human​

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? 7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor 8 and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Jesus willfully stepped out of His Position with the Father to become a human being to save us by His death.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, CS. I will number my replies for easier reference.

1. There are many Christians who do not understand complex doctrines such as the Trinity, so you should not question their relationship with Christ on that basis.

2. I doubt anyone understands angelology, because Scripture does not reveal much about that doctrine. I liked how OMC explained their jibing with the HS in post #278.

3. When you insult folks, such as by saying "Your rebuttals to those who answered proves you're dishonest", you ought to provide a quote and post # as evidence, because without such I have no idea what you are talking about, so you seem judgmental.

4. You omitted the half of Heb. 1:3 that is relevant to what I said, which was "Hebrews 1:3-4 does not say Jesus is/was superior to angels but rather that he BECAME superior.

5. Yes, Hebrews 2:10 is about the humanity of Jesus, which was MADE perfect through what he suffered.

6. You did not respond to my observation that Heb. 2:17-18 does not say Jesus freed/helped sinners by being God but rather because of becoming a high priest via suffering.

7. Ditto re my observation that 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.

Over...

 

[OMC]

Are angels in heaven miserable? If not, then how are they not saved?

Given that angels serve, does Jesus not indicate that the greatest in heaven are those who serve? (Matt. 23:11-12, 20:26-27).

Also considerLuke 22:25-27, "Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

And Mark 10:45, ""For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Were the angels who fell also holy beings?
Do the angels who fell not need to be saved?
Does Scripture say God does not love His enemy angels and want them to repent?

My answer comes strictly from Scripture, because your questions about angels, salvation, misery, holiness, and repentance cannot be answered by speculation—they must be answered by what is written.

Are angels in heaven miserable? If not, how are they not saved?
I understand the logic —“If they’re not miserable, they must be saved”—but Scripture never uses the category of salvation for angels at all.
Salvation is a category for fallen humans, not for unfallen angels.
Why? Because salvation presupposes:
guilt
sin
wrath
condemnation
need for atonement
need for regeneration
need for adoption
Holy angels have none of these.
They are not miserable because they are not fallen. They are not saved because they do not need salvation.
So I reject the idea that “not miserable = saved.”
Scripture says “not fallen = not needing salvation.”

Given that angels serve, and Jesus says the greatest are those who serve—are angels the greatest?
Jesus’ statements about servanthood (Matt 20:26–27; 23:11–12; Luke 22:25–27; Mark 10:45) are directed toward humans, not angels.
Why?
Because Jesus is correcting human pride, human ambition, human hierarchy, human self‑exaltation.
Angels are not in that category.
Jesus is not ranking angels. He is ranking disciples.
So I reject the idea that angels are “the greatest” because they serve. Their servanthood is real, but it is not the same category Jesus is addressing.
Were the angels who fell also holy beings?
Yes, they were created holy. Their fall was final, irreversible, and unredeemable.
Scripture says:
“God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them into Tartarus.” (2 Pet 2:4)
“The angels who did not keep their own domain… He has kept in eternal chains.” (Jude 6)
There is no atonement for angels. No sacrifice. No mediator. No redemption. No gospel. No repentance offered.
Their fall is permanent.

Do fallen angels need to be saved?
I answer this without hesitation:
They need judgment, not salvation.
Scripture never presents fallen angels as candidates for mercy. They are enemies of God, enemies of truth, enemies of righteousness, enemies of the saints.
Jesus says hell was prepared for them (Matt 25:41). Not salvation. Not redemption. Not restoration.
Prepared for them.
So I reject the idea that fallen angels “need salvation.” They need judgment, and Scripture says they will receive it.

Does Scripture say God does not love His enemy angels and want them to repent?
Yes—Scripture says God does not offer repentance to angels.
Hebrews 2:16 is the decisive text, “He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham.”
Meaning:
Christ did not assume angelic nature.
Christ did not die for angels.
Christ did not redeem angels.
Christ did not rescue angels.
Christ did not provide repentance for angels.
Repentance is a gift (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).
God does not give that gift to angels.
There is zero biblical evidence that God loves fallen angels in the redemptive sense. There is zero biblical evidence that God desires their repentance. There is zero biblical evidence that God offers them mercy.
They are condemned, bound, awaiting judgment, and beyond redemption.
Holy angels are not miserable because they are unfallen, not because they are “saved”; Jesus’ teaching on servanthood applies to humans, not angels; fallen angels were originally holy but their fall is irreversible; I reject the idea that fallen angels need salvation or that God offers them repentance, because Scripture says Christ did not take hold of angels and hell was prepared for them; and I stand firmly on this: angels are not heirs of salvation, not candidates for redemption, and not objects of gospel mercy—only humans are.

 

[GWH]

My answer comes strictly from Scripture, because your questions about angels, salvation, misery, holiness, and repentance cannot be answered by speculation—they must be answered by what is written.

Are angels in heaven miserable? If not, how are they not saved?
I understand the logic —“If they’re not miserable, they must be saved”—but Scripture never uses the category of salvation for angels at all.
Salvation is a category for fallen humans, not for unfallen angels.
Why? Because salvation presupposes:
guilt
sin
wrath
condemnation
need for atonement
need for regeneration
need for adoption
Holy angels have none of these.
They are not miserable because they are not fallen. They are not saved because they do not need salvation.
So I reject the idea that “not miserable = saved.”
Scripture says “not fallen = not needing salvation.”

Given that angels serve, and Jesus says the greatest are those who serve—are angels the greatest?
Jesus’ statements about servanthood (Matt 20:26–27; 23:11–12; Luke 22:25–27; Mark 10:45) are directed toward humans, not angels.
Why?
Because Jesus is correcting human pride, human ambition, human hierarchy, human self‑exaltation.
Angels are not in that category.
Jesus is not ranking angels. He is ranking disciples.
So I reject the idea that angels are “the greatest” because they serve. Their servanthood is real, but it is not the same category Jesus is addressing.
Were the angels who fell also holy beings?
Yes, they were created holy. Their fall was final, irreversible, and unredeemable.
Scripture says:
“God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them into Tartarus.” (2 Pet 2:4)
“The angels who did not keep their own domain… He has kept in eternal chains.” (Jude 6)
There is no atonement for angels. No sacrifice. No mediator. No redemption. No gospel. No repentance offered.
Their fall is permanent.

Do fallen angels need to be saved?
I answer this without hesitation:
They need judgment, not salvation.
Scripture never presents fallen angels as candidates for mercy. They are enemies of God, enemies of truth, enemies of righteousness, enemies of the saints.
Jesus says hell was prepared for them (Matt 25:41). Not salvation. Not redemption. Not restoration.
Prepared for them.
So I reject the idea that fallen angels “need salvation.” They need judgment, and Scripture says they will receive it.

Does Scripture say God does not love His enemy angels and want them to repent?
Yes—Scripture says God does not offer repentance to angels.
Hebrews 2:16 is the decisive text, “He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham.”
Meaning:
Christ did not assume angelic nature.
Christ did not die for angels.
Christ did not redeem angels.
Christ did not rescue angels.
Christ did not provide repentance for angels.
Repentance is a gift (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).
God does not give that gift to angels.
There is zero biblical evidence that God loves fallen angels in the redemptive sense. There is zero biblical evidence that God desires their repentance. There is zero biblical evidence that God offers them mercy.
They are condemned, bound, awaiting judgment, and beyond redemption.
Holy angels are not miserable because they are unfallen, not because they are “saved”; Jesus’ teaching on servanthood applies to humans, not angels; fallen angels were originally holy but their fall is irreversible; I reject the idea that fallen angels need salvation or that God offers them repentance, because Scripture says Christ did not take hold of angels and hell was prepared for them; and I stand firmly on this: angels are not heirs of salvation, not candidates for redemption, and not objects of gospel mercy—only humans are.

My questions also come from Scripture--from what it does not say,
such as "angels in heaven are not saved".

Understand that logic comes from the Logos/God.
Happiness in heaven is saved enough.

Salvation also presupposes the need not to fall,
which holy angels have not done, so far. Not fallen = saved.

Do you presuppose the exit door from heaven is now locked?

Jesus' statements regarding servanthood indicate he will be washing our feet in heaven
and otherwise making sure our stay is a pleasant eternity.

Angels are indeed in the category of needing humility, beginning with Satan.

Scripture does not say "There is no atonement for angels. No sacrifice. No mediator. No redemption.
No gospel. No repentance offered. Their fall is permanent."

Scripture DOES say that God loves his enemies (Rom. 5:6-8).

Hell is also prepared for humans who fall/choose to hate God.

Heb. 2:16 does indeed apply to humans/refer to human salvation, but interpreting this as meaning holy angels
merit salvation because of their own goodness and therefore do not need God's gift/grace is problematic.

I don't know about you, but this is the first time I have bothered to think about angels to this extent,
so my comments are off the top of my head.

Over...

 

[OMC]

My questions also come from Scripture--from what it does not say,
such as "angels in heaven are not saved".

Understand that logic comes from the Logos/God.
Happiness in heaven is saved enough.

Salvation also presupposes the need not to fall,
which holy angels have not done, so far. Not fallen = saved.

Do you presuppose the exit door from heaven is now locked?

Jesus' statements regarding servanthood indicate he will be washing our feet in heaven
and otherwise making sure our stay is a pleasant eternity.

Angels are indeed in the category of needing humility, beginning with Satan.

Scripture does not say "There is no atonement for angels. No sacrifice. No mediator. No redemption.
No gospel. No repentance offered. Their fall is permanent."

Scripture DOES say that God loves his enemies (Rom. 5:6-8).

Hell is also prepared for humans who fall/choose to hate God.

Heb. 2:16 does indeed apply to humans/refer to human salvation, but interpreting this as meaning holy angels
merit salvation because of their own goodness and therefore do not need God's gift/grace is problematic.

I don't know about you, but this is the first time I have bothered to think about angels to this extent,
so my comments are off the top of my head.

you’re raising the right questions—questions that come from what Scripture does not say—but your conclusions are not following the biblical categories.
I will give you one integrated paragraph that addresses every point you raised, without fragmentation, and without importing anything Scripture does not teach.

I understand the logic: you’re reasoning that not fallen = saved, that happiness in heaven = saved enough, that God loves His enemies = God must love fallen angels redemptively, and that Jesus’ servanthood = angels must share in salvation.
But Scripture never uses the category of salvation for angels at all—holy or fallen—and never once speaks of angels being redeemed, forgiven, regenerated, adopted, justified, reconciled, washed, cleansed, or restored.
I reject the idea that “not fallen = saved,” because salvation in Scripture is never defined as “not miserable” or “not fallen”; salvation is defined as atonement, forgiveness, new birth, union with Christ, indwelling Spirit, adoption, and resurrection, none of which apply to angels.
I stand firmly on this: Hebrews 2:16 is not about merit—it is about nature: Christ did not take hold of angels because He did not assume angelic nature, and therefore angels have no mediator, no sacrifice, no priesthood, and no gospel.
You are right that Scripture does not explicitly say “there is no atonement for angels,” but it does say Christ’s atonement is only for the seed of Abraham, and Scripture never once offers repentance to angels, never once calls them to return, never once gives them a covenant, never once gives them a promise, never once gives them a path of restoration.
I acknowledge that God loves His enemies (Rom. 5:6–8), but this refers to human enemies, not fallen angels, because the entire context is human sin, human weakness, human ungodliness, human reconciliation, and human justification.
I reject the idea that hell being prepared for humans means angels share human salvation; Jesus says hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, and humans enter it only by joining their rebellion.
And I stand firmly on this: holy angels do not need salvation because they have never fallen, and fallen angels cannot receive salvation because Christ did not assume their nature, did not die for them, and did not offer them repentance.
The exit door from heaven is not “locked”—it was walked through once, by Satan and his angels—and Scripture shows no second exit, no second fall, and no second redemption. You are thinking rightly, but you are mixing categories Scripture keeps separate: humans are redeemed; angels are either unfallen or condemned.

 

[GWH]

you’re raising the right questions—questions that come from what Scripture does not say—but your conclusions are not following the biblical categories.
I will give you one integrated paragraph that addresses every point you raised, without fragmentation, and without importing anything Scripture does not teach.

I understand the logic: you’re reasoning that not fallen = saved, that happiness in heaven = saved enough, that God loves His enemies = God must love fallen angels redemptively, and that Jesus’ servanthood = angels must share in salvation.
But Scripture never uses the category of salvation for angels at all—holy or fallen—and never once speaks of angels being redeemed, forgiven, regenerated, adopted, justified, reconciled, washed, cleansed, or restored.
I reject the idea that “not fallen = saved,” because salvation in Scripture is never defined as “not miserable” or “not fallen”; salvation is defined as atonement, forgiveness, new birth, union with Christ, indwelling Spirit, adoption, and resurrection, none of which apply to angels.
I stand firmly on this: Hebrews 2:16 is not about merit—it is about nature: Christ did not take hold of angels because He did not assume angelic nature, and therefore angels have no mediator, no sacrifice, no priesthood, and no gospel.
You are right that Scripture does not explicitly say “there is no atonement for angels,” but it does say Christ’s atonement is only for the seed of Abraham, and Scripture never once offers repentance to angels, never once calls them to return, never once gives them a covenant, never once gives them a promise, never once gives them a path of restoration.
I acknowledge that God loves His enemies (Rom. 5:6–8), but this refers to human enemies, not fallen angels, because the entire context is human sin, human weakness, human ungodliness, human reconciliation, and human justification.
I reject the idea that hell being prepared for humans means angels share human salvation; Jesus says hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, and humans enter it only by joining their rebellion.
And I stand firmly on this: holy angels do not need salvation because they have never fallen, and fallen angels cannot receive salvation because Christ did not assume their nature, did not die for them, and did not offer them repentance.
The exit door from heaven is not “locked”—it was walked through once, by Satan and his angels—and Scripture shows no second exit, no second fall, and no second redemption. You are thinking rightly, but you are mixing categories Scripture keeps separate: humans are redeemed; angels are either unfallen or condemned.

Yes, Scripture does not teach soteriology with reference to angels, which is why we have so many unanswered questions about angelology.

I apply Biblical teachings about soteriology with reference to humans to angels as logically as possible.
Just because Scripture does not apply those teachings to angels does not mean they are not applicable.

Your stand on Heb. 2:16 is problematic, because it does indeed imply angelic merit, needing no mediator, etc.
Adding the word "only" to it makes it even more problematic--leaning toward the L in TULIP.

God's main enemy is Satan, and there is no reason to deny that God loves Satan but hates his evil-doing (lies and murder).

Yes, Scripture is silent about how/why some angels exited and whether others are free to follow.

A solution would be if angels had no free will, but then the fall of some would be due to God's faulty programming.
And I still find it problematic to view any creature as sinless/holy.

Don't you?

 

[OMC]

I apply Biblical teachings about soteriology with reference to humans to angels as logically as possible.
Just because Scripture does not apply those teachings to angels does not mean they are not applicable.

Your stand on Heb. 2:16 is problematic, because it does indeed imply angelic merit, needing no mediator, etc.
Adding the word "only" to it makes it even more problematic--leaning toward the L in TULIP.

God's main enemy is Satan, and there is no reason to deny that God loves Satan but hates his evil-doing (lies and murder).

Yes, Scripture is silent about how/why some angels exited and whether others are free to follow.

A solution would be if angels had no free will, but then the fall of some would be due to God's faulty programming.
And I still find it problematic to view any creature as sinless/holy

your entire argument here rests on applying human soteriology to angelic ontology, and that is the exact point where logic must bow to revelation.
I acknowledge your reasoning—your desire to extend biblical categories to angels, your concern about Heb. 2:16 implying merit, your belief that God must love Satan as an enemy, your discomfort with sinless creatures, and your attempt to preserve angelic free will—but every one of these conclusions comes from importing human categories into a realm Scripture treats separately.
I reject the idea that “silence = applicability,” because Scripture’s silence about angelic salvation is not an invitation to extend human soteriology upward; it is a boundary marker showing that angels belong to a different moral economy.
And the moment you apply human salvation categories to angels, you collapse the very distinctions Scripture insists on.
You said:

“Just because Scripture does not apply those teachings to angels does not mean they are not applicable.”

Brother, that is the exact opposite of how revelation works.
Scripture does not say:
angels are redeemed
angels are forgiven
angels are regenerated
angels are adopted
angels are indwelt
angels are resurrected
angels are justified
angels are reconciled
angels are sanctified
angels are glorified
And Scripture never invites us to extend these categories to them.
Silence in revelation is not an invitation. Silence is a boundary.
Your reading of Heb. 2:16 is reversed.
You said, “Heb. 2:16 implies angelic merit.”
But the text says: οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται “He does not take hold of angels.”
This does not imply merit
.It implies non‑assumption of nature.
Christ did not:
become an angel
take angelic flesh
become their mediator
die for them
offer repentance to them
bear their sins
represent them as High Priest
This is not merit. This is nature.
He took hold of Abraham’s seed, not angels.

Your argument requires the text to say: “He did not need to take hold of angels.”
But the text says: “He did not take hold of angels.”
Different meaning entirely.
Your concern about “adding the word only” misunderstands the grammar.
You said: “Adding ‘only’ leans toward the L in TULIP.”
Brother, the word “only” is not added. It is implied by the contrast:
not angels
but Abraham’s seed
This is a binary exclusion, not a theological insertion.
It is not Calvinism It is grammar.

Your claim that God loves Satan is not supported by Scripture.
You said: “There is no reason to deny that God loves Satan but hates his evil-doing.”
I see the logic, but I Scripture never says:
God loves Satan
God loves fallen angels
God reconciles them
God seeks their repentance
God offers them mercy
God is patient toward them
God desires their salvation
Every text about God’s love for enemies refers to humans:
weak
ungodly
sinners
hostile
children of wrath
objects of mercy
vessels of compassion
Never angels.
Romans 5:6–8 is anthropological, not angelological.
Your free‑will argument collapses under Scripture’s angelology.
You said: “If angels had no free will, their fall would be due to God’s faulty programming.”
But Scripture shows:
angels are created holy
angels are created stable
angels are created obedient
angels are created without sin
angels are created without corruption
angels are created without death
angels are created without flesh
angels are created without temptation from within
Their fall was:
once
decisive
irreversible
cosmic
judicial
final
This is not “faulty programming.” This is cosmic rebellion.
And Scripture never says holy angels are “sinless by merit.” They are sinless by creation.
Your discomfort with sinless creatures is understandable—but not biblical.
You said: “I still find it problematic to view any creature as sinless/holy.”
But Scripture says:
angels are holy ones (Ps. 89:7)
angels are elect (1 Tim. 5:21)
angels are righteous (Rev. 19:10)
angels are obedient (Ps. 103:20)
angels are without corruption (Heb. 1:7)
angels are without sin (Heb. 12:22)
Their holiness is creational, not soteriological.
They are holy because God made them holy. Not because they earned holiness. Not because they were redeemed. Not because they persevered. Not because they were sanctified.
I acknowledge your desire to apply human soteriology to angels, but I Scripture never invites such an extension and consistently treats angels as a separate moral order;
I reject the idea that Heb. 2:16 implies angelic merit, because the text is about Christ’s assumption of human nature, not angelic worthiness;
I reject the idea that God loves Satan redemptively, because every text about divine love for enemies refers to humans, not fallen angels;
I reject the idea that silence means applicability, because silence in revelation marks the boundary of a category.
Angels are not saved, do not need salvation, and cannot receive salvation—holy angels are holy by creation, fallen angels are condemned by rebellion, and human soteriology cannot be applied to them without overturning the very distinctions Scripture insists on.

 

[GWH]

your entire argument here rests on applying human soteriology to angelic ontology, and that is the exact point where logic must bow to revelation.
I acknowledge your reasoning—your desire to extend biblical categories to angels, your concern about Heb. 2:16 implying merit, your belief that God must love Satan as an enemy, your discomfort with sinless creatures, and your attempt to preserve angelic free will—but every one of these conclusions comes from importing human categories into a realm Scripture treats separately.
I reject the idea that “silence = applicability,” because Scripture’s silence about angelic salvation is not an invitation to extend human soteriology upward; it is a boundary marker showing that angels belong to a different moral economy.
And the moment you apply human salvation categories to angels, you collapse the very distinctions Scripture insists on.
You said:


Brother, that is the exact opposite of how revelation works.
Scripture does not say:
angels are redeemed
angels are forgiven
angels are regenerated
angels are adopted
angels are indwelt
angels are resurrected
angels are justified
angels are reconciled
angels are sanctified
angels are glorified
And Scripture never invites us to extend these categories to them.
Silence in revelation is not an invitation. Silence is a boundary.
Your reading of Heb. 2:16 is reversed.
You said, “Heb. 2:16 implies angelic merit.”
But the text says: οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται “He does not take hold of angels.”
This does not imply merit
.It implies non‑assumption of nature.
Christ did not:
become an angel
take angelic flesh
become their mediator
die for them
offer repentance to them
bear their sins
represent them as High Priest
This is not merit. This is nature.
He took hold of Abraham’s seed, not angels.

Your argument requires the text to say: “He did not need to take hold of angels.”
But the text says: “He did not take hold of angels.”
Different meaning entirely.
Your concern about “adding the word only” misunderstands the grammar.
You said: “Adding ‘only’ leans toward the L in TULIP.”
Brother, the word “only” is not added. It is implied by the contrast:
not angels
but Abraham’s seed
This is a binary exclusion, not a theological insertion.
It is not Calvinism It is grammar.

Your claim that God loves Satan is not supported by Scripture.
You said: “There is no reason to deny that God loves Satan but hates his evil-doing.”
I see the logic, but I Scripture never says:
God loves Satan
God loves fallen angels
God reconciles them
God seeks their repentance
God offers them mercy
God is patient toward them
God desires their salvation
Every text about God’s love for enemies refers to humans:
weak
ungodly
sinners
hostile
children of wrath
objects of mercy
vessels of compassion
Never angels.
Romans 5:6–8 is anthropological, not angelological.
Your free‑will argument collapses under Scripture’s angelology.
You said: “If angels had no free will, their fall would be due to God’s faulty programming.”
But Scripture shows:
angels are created holy
angels are created stable
angels are created obedient
angels are created without sin
angels are created without corruption
angels are created without death
angels are created without flesh
angels are created without temptation from within
Their fall was:
once
decisive
irreversible
cosmic
judicial
final
This is not “faulty programming.” This is cosmic rebellion.
And Scripture never says holy angels are “sinless by merit.” They are sinless by creation.
Your discomfort with sinless creatures is understandable—but not biblical.
You said: “I still find it problematic to view any creature as sinless/holy.”
But Scripture says:
angels are holy ones (Ps. 89:7)
angels are elect (1 Tim. 5:21)
angels are righteous (Rev. 19:10)
angels are obedient (Ps. 103:20)
angels are without corruption (Heb. 1:7)
angels are without sin (Heb. 12:22)
Their holiness is creational, not soteriological.
They are holy because God made them holy. Not because they earned holiness. Not because they were redeemed. Not because they persevered. Not because they were sanctified.
I acknowledge your desire to apply human soteriology to angels, but I Scripture never invites such an extension and consistently treats angels as a separate moral order;
I reject the idea that Heb. 2:16 implies angelic merit, because the text is about Christ’s assumption of human nature, not angelic worthiness;
I reject the idea that God loves Satan redemptively, because every text about divine love for enemies refers to humans, not fallen angels;
I reject the idea that silence means applicability, because silence in revelation marks the boundary of a category.
Angels are not saved, do not need salvation, and cannot receive salvation—holy angels are holy by creation, fallen angels are condemned by rebellion, and human soteriology cannot be applied to them without overturning the very distinctions Scripture insists on.

Not sure my questions and application of human soteriology to angels is an argument, but in the absence of revelation we are left with logic. I am glad you understand my reasoning and concern that Heb. 2:16 can zi5. g to merit or to limited love if one is not careful.
Whether or not angels belong to a different moral economy is the issue we are discussing/trying to figure out because Scripture is unclear about the distinction and silent about the ten and seven items you listed.

Hence the questions remain unanswered:

1. Why did God make only some angels holy?
2. How did God make unfallen angels "holy"?
3. If angels are not holy because they earned it or were redeemed, then how?
4. What separate moral order does Scripture assign to angels?
5. Why reject the idea that God loves Satan when Scripture assigns him to the order of enemy.
6. Why reject the idea that silence means applicability and assume it marks the boundary of a category?
7. Why is it not problematic to believe angels are just as sinless as Jesus and thus do not need salvation?

Over... Feel free to sleep on it.
(It seems that we have transitioned to the topic of how angels jibe with Jesus :^)

 

[OMC]

Not sure my questions and application of human soteriology to angels is an argument, but in the absence of revelation we are left with logic. I am glad you understand my reasoning and concern that Heb. 2:16 can zi5. g to merit or to limited love if one is not careful.
Whether or not angels belong to a different moral economy is the issue we are discussing/trying to figure out because Scripture is unclear about the distinction and silent about the ten and seven items you listed.

Hence the questions remain unanswered:

1. Why did God make only some angels holy?
2. How did God make unfallen angels "holy"?
3. If angels are not holy because they earned it or were redeemed, then how?
4. What separate moral order does Scripture assign to angels?
5. Why reject the idea that God loves Satan when Scripture assigns him to the order of enemy.
6. Why reject the idea that silence means applicability and assume it marks the boundary of a category?
7. Why is it not problematic to believe angels are just as sinless as Jesus and thus do not need salvation?

Over... Feel free to sleep on it.
(It seems that we have transitioned to the topic of how angels jibe with Jesus :^)

lol, you are keeping me busy and I love IT. I will return shortly with my findings.

 

[OMC]

1. Why did God make only some angels holy?
2. How did God make unfallen angels "holy"?
3. If angels are not holy because they earned it or were redeemed, then how?
4. What separate moral order does Scripture assign to angels?
5. Why reject the idea that God loves Satan when Scripture assigns him to the order of enemy.
6. Why reject the idea that silence means applicability and assume it marks the boundary of a category?
7. Why is it not problematic to believe angels are just as sinless as Jesus and thus do not need salvation?

1. Why did God make only some angels holy?​

Because Scripture teaches that all angels were created holy, not some. The fall of angels was after creation, not during it.
Jesus says of Satan, “He was a murderer from the beginning.” (John 8:44)
This does not mean Satan was created evil; it means his rebellion began early in the created order. So I reject the idea that God made “some holy and some not.” He made them all holy; some fell.

2. How did God make unfallen angels “holy”?​

By creative act, not by redemption.
Scripture calls them:
“holy ones” (Ps. 89:7)
“elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21)
Their holiness is:
ontological (part of their nature)
creational (given at creation)
functional (they obey perfectly)
It is not:
earned
merited
rewarded
redeemed
restored
Their holiness is the result of God’s creative will, not a soteriological process.

3. If angels are not holy because they earned it or were redeemed, then how?​

By God’s decree, the same way Adam was created upright.

Ecclesiastes 7:29: “God made man upright.”
Likewise, God made angels:
upright
pure
obedient
glorious
Their holiness is original, not acquired.
This is why fallen angels are never offered repentance—there is no redemptive category for beings whose holiness was creational, not covenantal.

4. What separate moral order does Scripture assign to angels?​

Scripture assigns angels to a non‑redemptive moral order.
Humans:
sin
repent
believe
are redeemed
are indwelt
are resurrected
are glorified

Angels:

obey or rebel
serve or oppose
worship or blaspheme
stand or fall
are judged without redemption
There is no gospel for angels. There is no mediator for angels. There is no covenant for angels. There is no atonement for angels.
This is the “separate moral order.”

5. Why reject the idea that God loves Satan when Scripture assigns him to the order of enemy?​

Because Scripture distinguishes human enemies (objects of mercy) from cosmic enemies (objects of judgment).
Romans 5:6–8 speaks of:
the weak
the ungodly
sinners
humans
those reconciled
those justified
Never angels.

Satan is:
“the evil one” (Matt. 13:19)
“the father of lies” (John 8:44)
“the accuser” (Rev. 12:10)
“the enemy” (Matt. 13:39)
“condemned” (2 Pet. 2:4)
God’s love for human enemies is redemptive.
God’s stance toward Satan is judicial.

6. Why reject the idea that silence means applicability and assume it marks the boundary of a category?​

Because Scripture’s silence on angelic redemption is not accidental—it is structural.
Silence is meaningful when:
the category is defined
the boundaries are clear
the exclusions are explicit
Hebrews 2:16 is the boundary marker: “He does not take hold of angels.”
This is not silence. This is exclusion.
Silence is only ambiguous when Scripture leaves a category open. Here, Scripture closes the category.

7. Why is it not problematic to believe angels are just as sinless as Jesus and thus do not need salvation​

Because “sinless like Jesus” does not mean “equal to Jesus.”
Jesus is:
sinless by nature
sinless by incarnation
sinless by deity
sinless by moral perfection
sinless by active obedience
sinless by eternal identity

Angels are:
sinless by creation
sinless by original holiness
sinless by divine decree
Jesus’ sinlessness is essential. Angels’ sinlessness is derivative.

Jesus is the source of holiness. Angels are recipients of holiness.

Therefore:
Jesus does not need salvation because He is God.
Angels do not need salvation because they have not fallen.
Humans need salvation because they have fallen.
Three different reasons. Three different categories.

We can dive into any one of these points as you wish.

 

[GWH]

1. Why did God make only some angels holy?​

Because Scripture teaches that all angels were created holy, not some. The fall of angels was after creation, not during it.
Jesus says of Satan, “He was a murderer from the beginning.” (John 8:44)
This does not mean Satan was created evil; it means his rebellion began early in the created order. So I reject the idea that God made “some holy and some not.” He made them all holy; some fell.

2. How did God make unfallen angels “holy”?​

By creative act, not by redemption.
Scripture calls them:
“holy ones” (Ps. 89:7)
“elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21)
Their holiness is:
ontological (part of their nature)
creational (given at creation)
functional (they obey perfectly)
It is not:
earned
merited
rewarded
redeemed
restored
Their holiness is the result of God’s creative will, not a soteriological process.

3. If angels are not holy because they earned it or were redeemed, then how?​

By God’s decree, the same way Adam was created upright.

Ecclesiastes 7:29: “God made man upright.”
Likewise, God made angels:
upright
pure
obedient
glorious
Their holiness is original, not acquired.
This is why fallen angels are never offered repentance—there is no redemptive category for beings whose holiness was creational, not covenantal.

4. What separate moral order does Scripture assign to angels?​

Scripture assigns angels to a non‑redemptive moral order.
Humans:
sin
repent
believe
are redeemed
are indwelt
are resurrected
are glorified

Angels:

obey or rebel
serve or oppose
worship or blaspheme
stand or fall
are judged without redemption
There is no gospel for angels. There is no mediator for angels. There is no covenant for angels. There is no atonement for angels.
This is the “separate moral order.”

5. Why reject the idea that God loves Satan when Scripture assigns him to the order of enemy?​

Because Scripture distinguishes human enemies (objects of mercy) from cosmic enemies (objects of judgment).
Romans 5:6–8 speaks of:
the weak
the ungodly
sinners
humans
those reconciled
those justified
Never angels.

Satan is:
“the evil one” (Matt. 13:19)
“the father of lies” (John 8:44)
“the accuser” (Rev. 12:10)
“the enemy” (Matt. 13:39)
“condemned” (2 Pet. 2:4)
God’s love for human enemies is redemptive.
God’s stance toward Satan is judicial.

6. Why reject the idea that silence means applicability and assume it marks the boundary of a category?​

Because Scripture’s silence on angelic redemption is not accidental—it is structural.
Silence is meaningful when:
the category is defined
the boundaries are clear
the exclusions are explicit
Hebrews 2:16 is the boundary marker: “He does not take hold of angels.”
This is not silence. This is exclusion.
Silence is only ambiguous when Scripture leaves a category open. Here, Scripture closes the category.

7. Why is it not problematic to believe angels are just as sinless as Jesus and thus do not need salvation​

Because “sinless like Jesus” does not mean “equal to Jesus.”
Jesus is:
sinless by nature
sinless by incarnation
sinless by deity
sinless by moral perfection
sinless by active obedience
sinless by eternal identity

Angels are:
sinless by creation
sinless by original holiness
sinless by divine decree
Jesus’ sinlessness is essential. Angels’ sinlessness is derivative.

Jesus is the source of holiness. Angels are recipients of holiness.

Therefore:
Jesus does not need salvation because He is God.
Angels do not need salvation because they have not fallen.
Humans need salvation because they have fallen.
Three different reasons. Three different categories.

We can dive into any one of these points as you wish.

I am also enjoying our mental/spiritual exercise.

Re #1: You did not cite Scripture saying "all angels were created holy", but I agree that the fall of some of the holy angels occurred after their creation.

Re #2: Saying "by creative act/will" explains nothing, because some of them with the same ontology/nature fell.

Re #3: Ditto.

Re #4: Both humans and angels:
obey or rebel
serve or oppose
worship or blaspheme
stand or fall
are judged without redemption

Re #5: Scripture does not distinguish human enemies from cosmic enemies by saying God only loves the first type.
Romans 5:6–8 may include the second type.

Re #6: Scripture’s silence on angelic redemption may indeed be accidental. If that topic had been defined clearly and explicitly, that would not constitute silence on the topic! Heb. 2:16 may be viewed as omission rather than as exclusion.

Re #7: “sinless like Jesus” does indeed mean “equal to Jesus” in that way.

A triune question: Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic?

 

[OMC]

Re #1: You did not cite Scripture saying "all angels were created holy",

the phrase “angels were created holy” is not a single proof‑text but a conclusion drawn from multiple passages that presuppose original holiness.
Their holiness is:
ontological — part of their nature
functional — expressed in perfect obedience
positional — they stand in God’s presence
non‑redemptive — not acquired through forgiveness
This is why Scripture calls them:
“holy ones” (Ps. 89:7)
“elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21)
Their holiness is given, not earned.

Saying "by creative act/will" explains nothing, because some of them with the same ontology/nature fell

The Bible never says, “God created angels holy,” in one sentence.Instead, it shows that angels:
left their original state (Jude 6)
sinned after creation (2 Pet. 2:4)
fell from heaven (Rev. 12:9)
These verbs — left, sinned, fell — only make sense if their starting point was holiness.
You cannot “leave” corruption. You cannot “fall” from evil. You cannot “sin” unless you were originally righteous.
This is the same logic Scripture uses for Adam:he was created upright (Eccl. 7:29), then fell.
Angels follow the same pattern.

Scripture does not distinguish human enemies from cosmic enemies by saying God only loves the first type.
Romans 5:6–8 may include the second type.

Romans 5:6–8 cannot include Satan or fallen angels, because the entire argument of Romans 5 is explicitly and exclusively anthropological, not angelological. And I reject the idea that God’s redemptive love extends to cosmic enemies, because Scripture repeatedly and explicitly excludes angels from Christ’s saving work. I stand firmly on this: Romans 5 describes God’s love for fallen humans, not fallen angels, and the text itself makes that unavoidable.

Scripture’s silence on angelic redemption may indeed be accidental. If that topic had been defined clearly and explicitly, that would not constitute silence on the topic! Heb. 2:16 may be viewed as omission rather than as exclusion.

that silence might simply mean Scripture didn’t address angelic redemption, not that it denies it. But Hebrews 2:16 is not silence, and not omission. It is a grammatical exclusion built into the argument of Hebrews 1–2. And I reject the idea that the Spirit “accidentally” omitted angelic redemption, because the entire structure of Hebrews is designed to contrast two natures Christ did or did not assume. I stand firmly on this: Hebrews 2:16 is the single most explicit boundary marker in Scripture — Christ did not take hold of angels, and therefore angels are outside the scope of redemption.

“sinless like Jesus” does indeed mean “equal to Jesus” in that way.

I acknowledge why you say this — because in human experience, “sinless” sounds like a single category. But Scripture never treats sinlessness as a flat, interchangeable attribute. It treats it as a multi‑order property, and the order determines the meaning.
I reject the idea that creaturely sinlessness equals divine sinlessness, because Scripture distinguishes four different orders of sinlessness, and only one of them is essential, uncreated, and infinite.
And I stand firmly on this: two beings can both be “sinless,” but the kind of sinlessness is not equal — Christ’s is divine, angels’ is creational, Adam’s was probationary, and glorified humans’ is derivative.
There are four biblical orders of sinlessness:
Divine sinlessness — essential, uncreated, immutable
Angelic sinlessness — creational, mutable
Adamic sinlessness — upright, probationary
Glorified human sinlessness — redeemed, confirmed, derivative
Christ belongs to the first category.
Angels belong to the second.
Adam belonged to the third.
The redeemed will belong to the fourth.

The word “sinless” can apply to all four, but the ontology behind the word is radically different.

A triune question: Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic?

These are not four questions — they are one question asked four ways:
Is God capable of moral mutation?
And I stand firmly on this: No. Not by nature, not by will, not by action, not by possibility.

 

[GWH]

the phrase “angels were created holy” is not a single proof‑text but a conclusion drawn from multiple passages that presuppose original holiness.
Their holiness is:
ontological — part of their nature
functional — expressed in perfect obedience
positional — they stand in God’s presence
non‑redemptive — not acquired through forgiveness
This is why Scripture calls them:
“holy ones” (Ps. 89:7)
“elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21)
Their holiness is given, not earned.

The Bible never says, “God created angels holy,” in one sentence.Instead, it shows that angels:
left their original state (Jude 6)
sinned after creation (2 Pet. 2:4)
fell from heaven (Rev. 12:9)
These verbs — left, sinned, fell — only make sense if their starting point was holiness.
You cannot “leave” corruption. You cannot “fall” from evil. You cannot “sin” unless you were originally righteous.
This is the same logic Scripture uses for Adam:he was created upright (Eccl. 7:29), then fell.
Angels follow the same pattern.

Romans 5:6–8 cannot include Satan or fallen angels, because the entire argument of Romans 5 is explicitly and exclusively anthropological, not angelological. And I reject the idea that God’s redemptive love extends to cosmic enemies, because Scripture repeatedly and explicitly excludes angels from Christ’s saving work. I stand firmly on this: Romans 5 describes God’s love for fallen humans, not fallen angels, and the text itself makes that unavoidable.

that silence might simply mean Scripture didn’t address angelic redemption, not that it denies it. But Hebrews 2:16 is not silence, and not omission. It is a grammatical exclusion built into the argument of Hebrews 1–2. And I reject the idea that the Spirit “accidentally” omitted angelic redemption, because the entire structure of Hebrews is designed to contrast two natures Christ did or did not assume. I stand firmly on this: Hebrews 2:16 is the single most explicit boundary marker in Scripture — Christ did not take hold of angels, and therefore angels are outside the scope of redemption.

I acknowledge why you say this — because in human experience, “sinless” sounds like a single category. But Scripture never treats sinlessness as a flat, interchangeable attribute. It treats it as a multi‑order property, and the order determines the meaning.
I reject the idea that creaturely sinlessness equals divine sinlessness, because Scripture distinguishes four different orders of sinlessness, and only one of them is essential, uncreated, and infinite.
And I stand firmly on this: two beings can both be “sinless,” but the kind of sinlessness is not equal — Christ’s is divine, angels’ is creational, Adam’s was probationary, and glorified humans’ is derivative.
There are four biblical orders of sinlessness:
Divine sinlessness — essential, uncreated, immutable
Angelic sinlessness — creational, mutable
Adamic sinlessness — upright, probationary
Glorified human sinlessness — redeemed, confirmed, derivative
Christ belongs to the first category.
Angels belong to the second.
Adam belonged to the third.
The redeemed will belong to the fourth.

The word “sinless” can apply to all four, but the ontology behind the word is radically different.

These are not four questions — they are one question asked four ways:
Is God capable of moral mutation?
And I stand firmly on this: No. Not by nature, not by will, not by action, not by possibility.

I suppose you are familiar with the concept of mortal and venial sin. Would that apply to angels?
Perhaps those who fell committed mortal sin, whereas the sins of the rest are venial, like those Christians commit.

We would also assume mortal sin is unrepented, whereas venial sins are confessed, like Christians should do per 1John 1:8-9.
Thus, like Christians, their holiness would be given, received and continued. God initiated; some angels cooperated (although not perfectly/sinlessly)--some did not.

We cannot firmly/infallibly exclude John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Rom. 5:6-8 and Matt. 5:44&48 from meaning that God loves everyone, including angelic demons. Ditto re Heb. 2:16, because it is apparent that the writer/Paul did not consider angelic soteriology as he wrote and preached the Gospel. That question did not dawn on him; that issue was not revealed to him; angels were outside the scope of his commission, because they were not Gentiles.

I grant you that divine sinfulness would be a different order of sinfulness, and will you grant/consider this?:

If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom. 9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt. 22:37-40).

The cliché “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom. 3:22-26). God’s decision to be all-loving is rational, because God is pleased by doing good for creatures, but it is free because God could have chosen to anoint Satan to embody evil logic/lies rather than Jesus to manifest love and truth (John 1:14, Phil. 2:9-11), and this earthly existence would be hell (Rev. 19:11-13, 20:7-10 & 21:6-8).

If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce (although we are unable to imagine an alternative moral reality in detail, cf. Kant). This is why we should not take God and divine love for granted. Instead, we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal. 3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psa. 66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”

 

[GWH]

So anyway, the best guess I can think of with regard to jibing the soteriology of angels and humans indwelt by the Holy Spirit is to apply the concept of mortal and venial sin to angels by saying that perhaps those who fell committed mortal sin without repenting, whereas the sins of the rest are venial and are confessed, like those Christians commit (per 1John 1:8-9). Thus, comparable to the case for Christians, God initiated their holiness in heaven; some angels cooperated (although not perfectly/sinlessly)--some did not.

We cannot firmly/infallibly preclude John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Rom. 5:6-8 and Matt. 5:44&48 from meaning that God's love for everyone includes angels and even angelic demons, because it is apparent that Paul did not consider angelic soteriology as he wrote and preached the Gospel. That question did not dawn on him; that issue was not revealed to him; angels were outside the scope of his commission, because they were not Gentiles.

 

[GWH]

Having reached a satisfactory conclusion regarding the OP question with the help of y'all, and having concluded a systematic study of Revelation that included angels in the "Systematic Bible Study" thread, at this point I intend to consider angels in the thread on "The Holy Spirit" and will let this one sink into oblivion. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.