Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM wrote:
> George wrote:
> One reason many Christians feel that relationship with Neanderthals
> is a
> problem is the idea that God really only cares about human beings. This
> deeper than specific questions about how to interpret Genesis &c. If only
> beings were created with some goal beyiond the merely biological, & only
> are to be saved by Christ, then it's necessary to draw the line between
> humans &
> all other organisms very sharply. We're in, they're out.
> But in fact the biblical picture of God's intention for creation is
> broader than that. If we understand that God's care is for every living
> & that the purpose of the work of Christ is the salvation of "the creation",
> "all things" &c, then it's not necessary to draw that line so sharply. That
> doesn't mean that _Homo sap_ is on the same level as every other species,
> it's not the only one God cares about. God will save Neanderthals in a way
> appropriate to "Neanderthalnis", chimps in a way appropriate to chimpness,
> just as the result of God's salvific action for humans is that we will be
> ultimately what God intends humans to be. & then we can let anthropology &
> related sciences try to determine what the biological relationships between
> _Homo sapiens_ & other species has been without theological constraints.
> I had asked about the origin of this idea that "the purpose of the work of
> Christ is the salvation of 'the creation',
> 'all things' &c," before, during our discussion about ET's, but without
> response. Since it is now claimed that it is part of the "biblical
> picture," I would like someone to cite a passage or two to back up that
> As I had mentioned before, while we are assured that God's loving-kindness
> extends to all living things on earth (and, perhaps, elsewhere), we are also
> informed, in Hebrews, that even angels will not be eternally saved by "the
> work of Christ."
Romans 8:18-25, Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 are the most obvious
The point of the discussion of angels in Hebrews 1 & 2 is that Christ is
superior to the angels & that he, rather than angels, is to be the object of our
worship. 2:16 is to be seen in this context. It doesn't mean that angels do
not share in God's ultimate purpose for creation as Hebrews 12:22, e.g., makes
clear. The traditional view (which can certainly be debated) is that the good
angels don't need to be saved because they never sinned.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 10:04:33 EST