Thanks for the response.
Perhaps as expected, I do not agree with much of your conclusions, but you
have opened my mind on some concepts which I did not think about before...
In that passage in Romans, it does seem to indicate that all creatures are
yearning for the time that we may reunite in that eternal Paradise on High,
just as we were together in that earthly Paradise long ago.
However, no where in that passage does it say that they are assured of any
redemption from the Blood of Christ. Their individual destinies appear to
be based on their service to God and, in some cases, Man. Likewise, in
Hebrews, I again found no reason to believe that the angels have such an
assurance. Indeed, a demon, which I have always assumed to be a "fallen"
angel, can "believe in God," and recognize Christ as His Son, to no avail
(James 2:19, and elsewhere.)
In Hebrews 2:9-18, it is obvious that the author was explaining why Christ
was willing to temporarily humble Himself below the level of angels, and the
making "...propitiation for the sins..." of angels wasn't it.
In the verses in Colossians and Ephesians, it is unfortunate that the
translators decided to add "things" to the adjective "all," and other
places. If they had added "men" instead, with equal justification, then much
of this confusion would have been eliminated.
Some of God's creatures will make it to heaven, some will not. But through
the sacrifice of His Son, we, alone, have the path of forgiveness open to
us.
Have a good week-end.
Norm Woodward
Warner Robins Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?
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
> goes
> deeper than specific questions about how to interpret Genesis &c. If only
> human
> beings were created with some goal beyiond the merely biological, & only
> humans
> 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
> much
> broader than that. If we understand that God's care is for every living
> thing,
> & 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,
> but
> 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,
> &c,
> 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
> concept.
> 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
references.
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.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 18:10:29 EST