I agree that it took a major improvement in the operation of a primate’s brain to conceive of a biface tool–to "see’’ within a core stone the hand axes that were potentially there inside it. But that does not meet the threshold of abstract thought in my opinion. And teaching that art to the younger generation, in all probability, depended mostly on visual copying, not oral instruction. But who can say for sure? I just hope that God has all of this ‘on tape’, and if we please him in this life, he will allow us access to his tape library so we can see exactly how it DID happen. {Sort of a childish wish, perhaps, but as Paul said: Who can conceive of what God has in store?}
Al Leo
This is not a hill I am prepared to die on but the challenge I would like to pose is to try actually knapping a flint and building a fire (out of whatever natural materials happen to be at hand). It is not as easy as one might think and even learning through visual demonstration is at least suggestive of the ability to abstract.
The learner has to be able to replicate the task in whatever environment they happen to find themselves in.
I am certainly NOT contesting the fact that the average Neanderthal or early Homo sapiens was not MORE competent evolution-wise than I am. I would be lost if I had to make fire or hunting tools without the help of other humans in a working society. But I think the important question is: Do I realize that I am a Creature and the Higher Power that created me might have certain things in mind for me to do; i.e. am I able to covenant with my Creator? Making microlithic tools and needles to sew clothing, while admirable accomplishments, are not indicative that early Homo sapiens was covenant-capable.
regards,
Al Leo
At the core of creation is morality. Conceptual thought is nothing without moral agency being included. And that is what is being presented in the Adam & Eve cycle.
Isn’t “the law” in this passage more about membership in the chosen people of God (Judaism) than about God’s revealed will? There are plenty of places in Scripture where God reveals his will to people outside the Jewish covenant community.
The contrast between hearing and doing “the law” in v.13 indicate that Paul has more in view here than simply membership in the covenant community. What we see in vv. 14-16 is conscience performing the same role as “the law” does for the Jew. Notice that in vv. 21-22 Paul provides examples drawn from the 10 Commandments – theft, adultery, idolatry. The entire flow of Paul’s thought in Romans 1:18-3:20 is to establish the principle that everyone – Jew and Gentile alike – stands condemned as sinners and in need of the righteousness that comes through faith. Here is Douglas Moo’s introduction to the passage:
a. The Jews and the Judgment of God (2:1-16)
Paul develops his critique of the Jews in these verses in three paragraphs. The
first, w. 1-5, uses the second person singular to accuse the Jews of earning
for themselves the same wrath that is already falling on Gentile sinners. This
accusation is the main point of 2:1-16. God’s judgment is “according to truth,”
and he must fairly assess the works of every person (v. 2). And this criterion
of impartial “fairness” applies even to the Jew who is proud of being a member
of God’s people (w. 3-5).
The second two paragraphs (vv. 6-11 and 12-16) interrupt the second
person “accusation” style (it is resumed in v. 17) with explanation (in the
third person plural) of the indictment in vv. 1-5. Both paragraphs serve to
validate the inclusion of Jews along with Gentiles under sentence of God’s
wrath by showing that Jews stand on the same basic ground as Gentiles when
it comes to God’s judgment. For, in the first place, God’s impartiality demands
that he treat all people the same, judging every person according to what he
has done (vv. 6-11). To this, the Jews may object that they possess, in the
Mosaic law, a distinct advantage over the Gentiles. So, in the second place,
Paul shows that possession of the Mosaic law will make no difference in this
judgment (v. 12) — for (1) it is not the possession but the doing of the law
that matters (v. 13); and (2) the Gentiles also have “law” in some sense (w.
14-16).
Rom.2:[quote=“Jay313, post:16, topic:36171”]
The contrast between hearing and doing “the law” in v.13 indicate that Paul has more in view here than simply membership in the covenant community.
[/quote]
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
I may be wrong, but I have always thought that in these passages Paul was establishing the principle that a person need not be part of the Jewish covenant community to be a follower of Christ. Perhaps, as the first quote above indicates, each of us has been given a conscience by means of which we potentially can discern God’s will and become responsible for obeying it, without being a member of a covenant community–even a Christian community._It is my personal belief that being born into a Christian community (a Cradle Catholic) gives me a ‘heads up’ in both discerning and then choosing to follow God’s will, but I have met Gentiles whose chances of a reward in the afterlife seems as good or better than mine. Their parents and the society they were born into was effective in ‘bending the twig’ in the right direction.
In this regard, as I have noted in previous blogs, two passages from John’'s gospel seem to carry opposite messages, at least to me: John 14: 6 seems to require Jesus (Christ) as my savior; and John 6:44 seems to say that God calls each of us to heed Christ’s (Jesus) message, where Christ is God’s saving grace directed at any intelligent being anywhere in the Universe. But we suffer no penalty if circumstances prevent us from ever hearing of Jesus.
John14:6. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.”
John6:44 “ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.”
Al Leo
1 Like
That has been a common, though definitely minority, position in the church for a long time. Some traditions label it “heresy,” while others don’t. It is my opinion that there is no salvation outside of Christ, but I will not object if God does as he pleases without consulting me first.
I agree there is no salvation outside of Christ, but I do not see the name “Jesus” or “Yeshua” as a magic incantation. Could someone from a pre-Christian society deduce a conception of God and Christ sufficient for salvation? eg Job 9:33?
I will go along with you on this, @Jay313, if you concur that the Chess Master Allegory of salvation is how Christ does it!
Even though I’m an amateur chess player, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about … and I’m afraid to ask!
Universalists sometimes refer to this model of salvation.
Back in the sixties or seventies…it is said that chess groups would host public tournaments of 50 players against one Grand Master. He would walk around a long table, making a move and moving to the next player. By the time he came full circle, his opponent had to have made a move and he repeat the process.
At the end of the day, he has check- mated all players - - never once violating any player’s free will.
In this model, God is the chess master… and he checkmates all souls into heaven.
Haven’t seen that analogy. By the way, it’s called a simultaneous exhibition, and they still are common. Some grandmasters have done them blindfolded. I can’t seem to look away from the board without losing my train of thought. It’s also worth noting that the GM usually makes a few poor moves just to make it more interesting and give the amateurs a chance. Does that affect your analogy? Haha
1 Like
I have tried interpreting your Grand Master analogy several different ways, George, but none of them helps me better understand Jesus’ role in the Christian church. First of all, why is it so uncommon nowadays to use the title: Jesus the Christ? I think that 95+% of the Christians I know think that Jesus Christ are two names that apply to a Jewish preacher at the beginning of the modern era–his first and last names, so to speak. I have a dismal understanding of orthodox Christian dogma, but I am most comfortable believing that Jesus was the name by which other humans referred to him, but after he disclosed his godlike nature and the role his Father set for him, he earned the title: messiah, savior, or Kristos (from Latin or Greek meaning anointed one–one sent to save humankind from the death of sinfulness and gain the life of the spirit.
This viewpoint is especially satisfying to me since now Christ becomes a title for a Spiritual quality, not a name of a certain human being on this earth. This makes it much easier to believe that some upright people, born on the other side of the globe and who were destined never to know the man, Jesus, can still lead a life pleasing to God and earn eternal life. Catholics are taught that they are ‘baptized in Christ’ through a baptism of desire. That’s OK, but it seems more clumsy than need be. [I suppose it is in direct opposition to strict Calvinism where **humans can do nothing** on their own to **earn** salvation] And, although I will not live to see the day, we humans are bound someday to make contact with another intelligent species somewhere in our galaxy. If evolution was God’s way of creation on their home planet, they may have turned out with more or less predilection to sin than we Homo sapiens. In any case, God’s saving grace (the Spirit of Christ) would be available to help them freely choose to become co-creators with the Father.
There must others with this view who have expressed so much better that I have. Can anyone lead me to sources?
Al Leo
Answer to Number 1: Or course, @aleo, the name “Jesus Christ” is treated more as a surname, rather than a Title.
In the Good Ol’ days, when Greek and Latin were more widely known, it was more common for people to see someone else use the phrase “Jesus the Christ”. But perhaps greater traction could be achieved by using an adjusted title:
“Jesus the Anointed”. Of course, the problem with this version is even “anointing” is becoming a more elusive notion in English/American culture.
“Jesus the Sacred” or “Jesus God’s Chosen” might be better “translations” in the sense of capturing the idea without being bound to literal linguistic cognates.
But can anything beat “Jesus the Messiah” ?!
To answer your initial point about the Chess Master Analogy, don’t you rather chafe under the idea that those who died before Jesus was ever born are, arguably, not envisioned to be included in the salvation message of the Gospels? Or that folks in distant Africa before the arrival of missionaries are also not subject to salvation?
If we envision the role of Chess Master belonging specifically to Jesus, then the somewhat claustrophobic appearance of those who can achieve salvation can be remedied. At the Great Judgment, Jesus spends 1 hour with every waiting soul (simultaneously!).
He shares his heartache, his intentions, his vision for humanity. And each soul shares his thoughts with Jesus. At the end of the hour, everyone is convinced that He is, indeed, the Savior of all Humanity.
Beautiful Ending to an Exciting Book!
Leo, wouldn’t you buy a book like that?
To some extent, perhaps I have. The Our Father that I pray to is a God of infinite love and compassion who has always–even in pre-Adam days–wanted his children to know and to love him. As humans became more knowledgeable and could begin to appreciate the awesome power that our Creator has at his command, they (even ‘the people of the Book’) would cease to believe God could truly love such a seemingly insignificant player on the Universal Stage as we frail mortal humans. {I don’t really fault the New Atheists for taking this approach. Reason is just NOT going to get one to this incredible but most important Truth–God truly loves me} So, NOT to expiate some horrible sin by taking the role of a sacrificial goat, God sent his saving spirit into the world in the form of Jesus, who accepted the role of humble carpenter and accepted pain and death on the cross to show us that in dying to to our earthly animal Natures we can gain everlasting life in the Spirit. The products of Darwinian evolution are not all God wants them to be. His task in Creation has just begun.
I will admit to some schizophrenia. I want to hold on to the orthodox (Catholic) Christian Faith in which I was reared. I think it better serves youngsters growing up. But as one progress up the Piaget-Kohlberg scale of moral development (at least past #3) I believe one is better served by what I have outlined above. Comments?
Al Leo
1 Like
Genesis 1:24-31
[24] And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
[27] So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. [30] And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. [31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (ESV)