Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM wrote:
> <snip>
>
> As I have already pointed out, there are other things to be saved
> from
> besides sin.
>
> <snip>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
> Perhaps, in everyway, everyday, we rely on God's loving kindness.
> But, as we were talking about Christ on the cross...
> Why else did He die besides to save us from eternal consequences from our
> sins?
> And if one never sinned, why else would Christ die for her/him/it?
Why can't you simply admit that Col.1:20, Eph.1:10 & Rom.8:18-25 do
say what they say, that Is.11:6-9 does use the imagery (N.B.) of God's future
involving non-human animals - & THEN
add that there's a great deal we don't know about the whys & hows of all
this?
I don't think it terribly helpful to speculate about "dog heaven" &c,
but it's even less helpful - & frankly just wrong - to suggest that human
beings are the only part of nature that God finally cares about.
Theologians for the past 2000 years have discussed various theories
or models of the Atonement - i.e., how & why Christ's Incarnation, life,
death & resurrection are effective in bringing about human salvation. There
is no single model which has been made dogmatically binding. But that
Christ's Incarnation, life, death & resurrection _are_ effective in bringing
about human salvation is at the heart of Christian faith. Far less do we
have any definitive model of the salvation of the rest of creation, _ta
panta_ - but the texts I've noted & I think the whole thrust of the biblical
story point in that direction.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 08:35:50 EST