Quote:
Originally Posted by gerudoman
The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Romans 5; 1 Pet. 2:24). If, there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well.(1)
|
Granted, this is only
if they have sinned. Perhaps they made good on the deal which our ancestors botched.
Quote:
|
Only God can forgive sins. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), is forever a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:17, 21) and died for the sins of people here on earth (Rom. 5:8). Therefore, I conclude that the only members left in the Trinity to die for the sins of another race would be the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't seem credible since the focus of the Trinitarian effort in this world has been for the Father to elect a people (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33), the Son to redeem them (John 6:39; 17:9,24; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24), and the Holy Spirit to fill, guide, and indwell them (Acts 4:29-31; John 16:13; Rom. 8:9-14). The focus of their effort has been this world and the redemption of mankind, not anywhere else.
|
Since God's inner life is unknowable to us unless He reveals it to us, it is insufficient to say that "the focus of their effort has been this world" and not anywhere else. Unless God actually reveals to us that He is not doing anything else on other planets, then it will remain unknown to us.
The other problem is that your theory assumes the absolute necessity of suffering and death in order for redemption. God, not being constrained by any necessity outside of Himself, is not constrained by absolute necessity to effect the work of redemption in such a way either.
Quote:
|
Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer? I think this question can be answered by the Bible where it says that creation is groaning, waiting for its redemption at the return of Christ (Rom. 8:22). That would mean that all of creation was affected by the fall. When Adam sinned, the ground was cursed and death entered the world. If that is so, then any other beings out there that were made in God's image, would have fallen too since they would be part of creation.(2) I don't see how they could escape the effect of the fall. They would be sinners too and need a redeemer. Then they would fall under the first objection above.
|
It doesn't make sense to suppose that other rational creatures would fall because of another set of rational creatures had fallen. For instance, the fall of the angels did not cause the fall of man. Man's own sin caused the fall of man. It is central to Paul's theology that the human race is in a state of alienation from God due to an original sin-- because we all share in a common ancestor. It cannot be said that two wholly different races of intelligent beings, as in our theorized case, share in the same common ancestor.
Quote:
|
Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence. Creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: The Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did not evolve. Second, the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible. Also, missing links abound. The fossil record is spotty at best. DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life form development.
|
The options of creation and evolution aren't completely exclusive. Some people decide to hold to either/or, but one can equally transcend the divide and go for 'both/and.'
While the Bible does offer a creation account, it is very unclear what exactly the Bible intends to assert actually took place in creation. It seems that the Genesis creation texts-- both of them-- are crafted in such a way as to be targeted to the Jewish audience which would hear them. That is to say, it is a story with definite fundamental truths being asserted, in a narrative context which would be highly accessible to its original audience. The two creation texts clearly bear this out, for they structure the creation story around two different (but not exclusive) theologies. The first story witnesses especially to the orderedness of creation, and its goodness.
If you are interested, I highly recommend Joseph Ratzinger's treatment of Genesis, a book he wrote by the title of, "In the Beginning." You can
read some excerpts from it here.
Your objection that, "God created life therefore it did not evolve" is perhaps misguided. It could turn out to be the case that God created life and decided to move it by natural processes, such as evolution. These are not necessarily exclusive categories.
Your second objection, that there are gaps, is true but trivial. There are enough fossils for particular species to make the theory of evolution rational to believe in at least those particular species. It is simply impossible that we will fill up all gaps, because the nature of a historical science like evolution will be limited by the fortuitous preservation and discovery of ancient fossils. But there is sufficient evidence to hold it for many instances, and it is rational to suppose that other 'missing links' (although these missing links are often exaggerated by people trying to debunk evolution) can likewise be explained. If we combine this with other salient facts of biology-- the common genetic material, relations between species, etc.-- then it seems unlikely that any other scientific explanation will be able to come near to the explanatory power of evolution.
-Rob