I don't want Bill to be accused unjustly. I am the writer of the paragraph
below. It represents a thought I had on one occasion, and which I
immediately rejected for the reason I mentioned in the quoted paragraph
below, as well as for the reasons Paul adds below.
I posted it because I considered it a possible implication of a comment
that appeared in an earlier post. You've rejected it as strongly as I did,
for which I'm grateful.
The idea occurred to me when I was either involved in a talk.origins
thread, or reading one, in which one of the atheists in the group was
arguing that there is no evidence of any spiritual reality, and therefore,
there isn't any spiritual reality. The thought occurred to me that perhaps
in the perceptions of some people there really _isn't_ any spiritual
reality. That is, they simply do not have whatever it is in the human
being that perceives spiritual things. It was probably shortly after I
read Clouser's paper, and that thought led naturally to the thought that if
Clouser's view of the making of Adam was correct, then those who had not
had God revealed to them had no spiritual consciousness. Well, from a
Calvinist viewpoint there is a sense in which that is correct: it is God
who enables individuals to recognize that His claims in Scripture are true.
_Then_ they can trust in Christ. But the lack of spiritual perception --
at least the ability to trust in Jesus Christ -- is universal in all men
for whom God has not worked regeneration, and my thoughts above imply that
there is some biological connection.
So I'm quite relieved to see my idea rejected as roundly as it has been.
Thanks.
I wrote
>>
>> Biologically, it's pretty unlikely that any pure-blooded "spiritual" or
>> "non-spiritual" folks would be around now. However, the spiritual
>> implications were what I was after. One of those implications might be
>> that people who have not put their trust in Christ -- regardless of what
>> their ancestors did or didn't do -- are no different from animals
>> spiritually. To put it in Calvinistic terms, one might claim that those
>> who are not Elect are no different from animals spiritually. _That_ is the
>> implication that scares me. I don't consider that view supportable,
>> because Scripture maintains that men are responsible for their sins. But
>> it certainly would be a dangerous view in the hands of a Christian Identity
>> group.
>>
>
Paul wrote
>There is NO justification in the Bible, or in Calvinism, for claiming that any
>child of Adam is "no different from animals", or is spiritually superior.
>
>Genesis 1: 26-27: "Let us make man [mankind] in our image ..."
>
>Acts 17:26: "And he made from ONE every nation of men to live on all the face
>of the earth..."
>
>Mankind is ONE species, ONE original family, ONE genetic stock. Both the
>Bible
>and modern science agree on this. I know you weren't implying otherwise, but
>I
>want to get this out on the net loud and clear. There is no need to be scared
>of racial implications in Christianity.
>
>As for being spiritually superior, read Romans 2.
>
>Also, just for the record, Internet world, we recognize that Jesus, our only
>Lord and Savior, was Jewish, that he was not "Western" or "Eastern" either.
>He
>came from the Middle East. He had black hair and dark brown skin and eyes
>like
>every other man of that time and place.
I'll just settle for Him being Jewish and a middle easterner with dark
skin, dark hair and dark eyes. I'm always amazed at the variability of
complexion, hair coloring and other features of people whose appearance
stereotypes have led us to think we know.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)