Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation

Bernie - Just to extrapolate this line of thinking a bit, and very
speculatively, to address Christine's question ...perhaps we are too
disposed to ignore a certain different comparison. Consider the relative
positions on the gray scale when considering the "distance" between the
transcendent Creator and the whole of all of the living kinds mentioned
below, as contrasted with the "distances" among those living kinds. I am
inclined to think that we (from our understandably anthropomorphic
perspective) a little too quick to think of ourselves as so distinctly
different from other living creatures. In that light, Christine's
thoughts about "redeeming and adopting all as children" would perhaps
not be so easily dismissed.

 From another perspective, they ARE already part of the kingdom (though
not redeemed in any sense I can think of, other than perhaps saved from
extinction) if we live in the kingdom today.

And from yet another, if the kingdom is yet to come, and in a
different-than-physical form, who can even speculate rationally about
what essence of which creatures would (or would not) experience some
sort of continuity and relationship with us?

Just thinking out loud....again....
Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Christine said:
> " ... put all these things together, and I see a picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming and adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a loving God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His other "good" creatures, His "pets" if you will, in His kingdom too."
>
> Hi Christine- To what level of animals does that hold true? For example, I know tigers, bears, and pandas are cute, so they are in. But what about snakes, spiders, mosquitos, worms, bacteria, and viruses? Where do you draw the line?
>
> I think one of the problems is when people refuse to see the grey-scale in all this. But I think seeing the grey-scale is part of the solution. When did humans become accountable for sin? Grey-scale. Who is or isn't a Christian now? Grey-scale. The black & white thinking brings on the errors. The literal Adam and strict literal interpretation of Genesis is part of that black & white thinking method, I think.
>
> BTW- I know this has probably all been discussed before, but probably it will always need to be re-visited and rehashed- that's human nature, and new people coming into the discussion. Plus, our ideas change over time.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Christine Smith
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:36 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation (was: CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution))
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> I hesistate to bring this up since we've covered this before on the listserv (before you joined us?) and because most people regard this as a side issue, but you pushed one of my buttons here, so I can't resist responding :)
>
> You write:
> "the way I see it, is that sin was always there. Only, humans have evolved a conscience so then it became known to us. For example, a bear or lion can kill another of its kind simply for selfish reasons. It can also rape. That is not a sin for them (it is actually normal evolution- part of God's plan). But they are also not offered eternal life and a relationship with God. When humans evolved the conscience, we are able to view that as 'sin' whereas lower animals are 'blind' to that. With our conscience, we are no longer 'blind' to this and many other spiritual things (unless we get calloused to sin and then blind ourselves). We then have a choice to receive God or not- being "born again" and becoming "new creatures in Christ.""
>
> I respond:
> I agree with you that actions normally called "sin" for us, are not "sinful" for animals, because they are not under the law, and so cannot be held accountable. Whether or not our moral ethical conscience "evolved" or not I'm not sure, but to be sure, we were specially made aware of our relationship with God and what He has defined as right and wrong. Likewise, I agree that only becoming "new creatures in Christ" do we find salvation and eternal life.
>
> HOWEVER....I see no reason why this excludes animals from eternal life. We have just affirmed they are sinless, and in fact, operate according to God's plan, which includes evolution. I also would affirm that animals have souls (or are souls, whatever terminology you prefer)--again, perhaps not in the same sense that we have them (which includes an awareness of and participation in a relationship with God), but nevertheless, they do share with us the "breath of life" and they do exhibit the (rudimentary) capacity for emotions and reason and sentience that I think are a direct reflection of the divine essence. Put the two together--absense of sinfullness/fulfillment of God's creative plan (translating to NOT needing salvation/redemption through Christ), and their having a spiritual nature, and I see no reason for their exclusion. Moreover, we are taught in Romans that "all creation" is waiting to share in the glory of God, that God saved animals and
> people in the flood, that God cares for His creation through the provision of all their needs, and Scripture speaks of a "new earth" and uses imagery that includes animals, not just humanity---put all these things together, and I see a picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming and adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a loving God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His other "good" creatures, His "pets" if you will, in His kingdom too.
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
>
> "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7
>
> Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.
>
> Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 16:34:56 2008