-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
All Dogs Go to Heaven... Right?
- Thread starter MovieProducer
- Start date
Amen :thumbs: The over spiritualization (Randy Alcorn terms this Christoplatonism) of Heaven is a slap in God's face. Creation will be the way God intended it to be...extinct animals due to death and sin will roam again, and to say flat out that "no", our pets will not be in Heaven undermines God's sovereignty. It would fall into God's perfect character to do just that, and if it does not go against His nature...why not?
Forgive me but this will be rather a lengthy post to address your points
The other perspective historically taken (again Judistic and/or Christian) is only different in that man being spoken of here could refer to the saved alone, however context dictates otherwise here.
Thank you and I appreciate your attitude and openness of your view :thumbs:
No problem
The term 'spirit' used here is historically spoken of (both in Judism and Christain) as refering to the being itself, whether man or beast. But Solomon speaks of two things he knows -The spirit or being of the beast went into the earth (IOW - not to rise again), However the opposite happens to the spirit of man which will go back to God who gave it. In the majority of writing this historically is speaking of the judgment of God in which all men (saved and unsaved alike) must stand before him, illistrating the distinction between animals who die and remain and man who lives eternally.
The other perspective historically taken (again Judistic and/or Christian) is only different in that man being spoken of here could refer to the saved alone, however context dictates otherwise here.
Exactly and that is why my understanding of Greek helps me out quite a bit in this area. However one does not need Greek to know/see this if one looks at other translations and notes the distinction and sees this is both the intent and meaning of Paul statement. Here are some examples:
You forget the translators of the 16th century had a different way of saying things that most today do not understand and or forget to take note of so as to go back and look to see what they meant by their phrasings.
Again 'the creature' specifically means the creation as a whole, or the natural world creation. Another point that must be addressed here is that you are basing your assuption upon a word that does not exist in the original texts -they-. This is a word the KJV translators added for maintianing the personification of creation in accordance with 'their' translating of words, but their intent was to convey the plurality of all things in creation awaiting the removal of sin. Thus the word used to convey this purality was 'they'.
Here is another problem in your supposition, only man was given the 'breath of life' for it was only in man that God breathed it into, making him a 'living' soul. No other created thing has been given this. However yes, they also long to be delivered.
This also is not accurate. All things were affected by the fall and distorted by sin. Like the animals, trees and even the rocks are affected by sin. Scripture declares the earth will become worn like an old garment meaning that it is wearing out. Trees have tumors and diseases that are a direct result of the sin that entered into it via mans fall, as well as the rocks and ground ect.. which have been moved from their places, broken up and distorted by not only the destructive forces of nature, but within the earth itself. I can go more indepth on each of these but I don't feel it is necessary and believe it might sound belittling to overstate the obvious.
Again, this has never been the historical understanding nor is it the most accurate rendering/translation of the Greek. The creature refers more accurately to all creation or all things created and that specifcially refering to the natural world, though implication can be made include the spiritual but with the acknowledgment that they will not be affected (made new) as the creation itself will be. Otherwise you would have Satan and his demonic host being cleansed and renewed, removed from the judgment of God and brought back into a relationship with him. And we know this is not possible according to God's word.
The rest of the post...
We will disagree however but that isn't a big deal on this issue.
There is another aspect that many forget about also. That when we are glorified or in heaven we will not desire the things that we desire here. This world and it's 'things' will not have any hold upon us, and we will desire only those things that Chrst desire, not what we previously desired while in the flesh.
This is why context is key, and consistancy of its usage is necessary to establish our understanding of certain uses of phrases. Creation consistantly refers to those things temporally created and not eternally unless otherwise specified from scripture.(ie. the earth, stars or heavens, ect..) This is born out in the fact that, as you state, that creation here can not refer to everything created both physically and spiritually.
Yes, there is a distinction made but not in what you presume. The disctintion isn't of animate verse inanimate but between the wooden literal meaning and the personification of the object itself. The term 'creation' is spoken of as thing or object in the general sense, but when it is personified it takes on the charactoristics of an enity in the plural sense and thus 'the creature'. This was a common way of writing.
You're taking this far beyond it's intent. Remember the KJV has words and phrases that are distinctly different from our usage. Not that we can't come to know them but without study of the reasons they translated a word or phrase a certain way, you will have assumptions running rampant. You can check this against notations from the KJV translators or you can use commentaries from that time period to give a general understanding of why they used it. Also other translations allow us to see various ways the meaning can be conveyed. On this issue they are all consistant with what I gave originally.
I understand quite well, as I said I understand the Greek and Hebrew and how translation are rendered, in some cases poorly, others quite well, and in others it was good for that time period but misleading for some in a different time/era.
Acatully, I can and have. Historically this passage has never, to my knowledge and access to materials, been rendered as you state it. I can't find any commentators presently who agree or imply your view of the passage. And the Greek does not bear out your argument.
On this I have not given my view, one way or another. I know another poster or two have but not I. The problem is that only man was given the breath of life and only man has a living soul.
I agree that just because a creature has a spirit it does not necessarily need salvation. However though they have not 'sinned' as in violating the law, sin was passed onto all creation distorting and corrupting it all. All creation must be made new/ cleansed from the stain and corruption that has sin imparted. It is in this that they are not fit for heaven either, not only that they have not violated God's law but in the fact that they are stained with sin and corrupted by it's very existense in them.
Actaully the logic above would be faulty in that the resurrection is only spoken of for mankind (saved and unsaved). There is no resurrection of anything else ever spoken of in scripture. Not even in these passages.
In truth I actually appreciate you sharing. It is a different spin on the passage and made me have to go back and research some more
We will disagree however but that isn't a big deal on this issue.
There is another aspect that many forget about also. That when we are glorified or in heaven we will not desire the things that we desire here. This world and it's 'things' will not have any hold upon us, and we will desire only those things that Chrst desire, not what we previously desired while in the flesh.
Last edited by a moderator:
No brother, in maintains scriptural integrity of those things spoken of. No slap at all. I agree there will be animals in the new earth but they will not be resurrected pets as only those saved by grace will be resurrected to 'live again'. However I do agree there most likely will be dogs and cats and cows and all manner of other life.
Exactly how does the resurrection of our dead pets to 'live again' fall into God's perfect character?
I doubt that you are implying that God's perfect character is defined or given form by the fulfilling our fleshly selfish desires in this corrupted body. There will be no sorrow for us in that place, our desires will be to give glory and honor to God and not, how big is my house, or where is my pets.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you up to the part about resurrecting our pets to live again. I beleive God will have animals there but the resurrection is always spoke of as something that happens to man alone.
==Yes, you were. The Bible never says that animals have no soul or spirit, or life after death. That idea is of western origin, it is not Biblical. The Bible is very clear than animals have souls. For example, in Psalm 104:29-30 we are told:
"You hide Your Face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire and return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the ground"
The term "spirit" is also translated "breath", but it means the same thing. Animals have spirits. That is the Biblical teaching. Anyone who says that animals do not have spirits is either uninformed or misinformed. This fact has been acknowledged in church history. In fact, many big name Christian leaders have accepted the possibilty of life after death for animals. Among them are Hank Hanegraaf, Billy Graham, John MacArthur, Randy Alcorn, CS Lewis, Gary Habermas, JP Moreland, and John Wesley.
Thinking about John Wesley, he said:
"Something better remains after death for these poor creatures...that these, likewise, shall on eday be delievered from this bondage of corruption, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings" (Nov. 30, 1781) - (LINK)
His text is in full agreement with Scripture in Romans 8:19-22. Animals have not sinned. Their current condition is not their fault. It is our fault. God will, in the restoration of all things, renew them to their intended position.
I would also point out that, in Scripture, death is never annihilation. I don't believe God creates conscious life simply to watch it cease to exist.
Having said all of that, however, Scripture does not directly answer this question. So there is a sense in which we will just have to wait and see. However I think the above evidence is enough to give us "hope" in this regard. I certainly believe my little Harley (passed: 5/21/09) is waiting for me. My guess is that he is with my grandmother (etc). She went to be with the Lord years before Harley was born. But she loved dogs and I am sure the Lord has given her Harley.
==I think the "problem" with your thinking on this issue is that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Animals do not need salvation. Sin is not their doing, it is not their fault. They are the victims of our sin. The Bible is clear that the current creation "groans" and looks to be "set free from slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" Rom 8:20-22). This will happen at the restoration of all things. God will deliver His creation from the curse and bondage that it has been subject to due to man's sin. Since this refers to the current creation, and since animals have conscious spirits, I believe current animals will be part of that restoration. I don't, however, believe that is the same as the resurrection of the saints (etc). My understanding is that they will be restored when the creation is restored (Rev 21:1-2). The resurrection is, as you pointed out, for the saved.
Scripture does speak to animals having a spirit but I have never read in any place of scripture that animals have souls. Perhaps you could point me to the verse?
I agree.
The 'possibility' isn't based upon scripture though but supposition of what a passage 'might' imply in addition to it's main point.
Your are taking quite a bit of literary license here. While I agree scripture speaks to the renewing of creation, this in no manner alludes to resurrecting old dead animals like God does with man. To make new or renew does not mean to raise all the dead of creation back to life, but like us who are renewed it speaks of that which is already existing being cleansed and made like we were just created but without the corruption.
Can you please show scripture that states or illistrates a reason for your position that God doesn't create conscious life only for it to exist no longer.
It doesn't quite seem to mesh with the reformed beliefs, to me. The reformed position states God creates some men specifically for the purpose of eternal punishment/condemnation and others for blessing, but it appears the life of all animals is more important than many of those of mankind.
While I agree that there will be animals, I must ask where is this scripture that 'indirectly' answers the question of the resurrection of our pets.
There are scriptures that state the spirit of the animal does cease to exist as it goes into the ground and the spirit of man goes back to God who 'gave it'. ext..
My comments are not directed specifically against your view but I don't see where you give even any good allusions to or implications of, the resurrection of past dead animals. Since you are typically more precise, I would like to see more on it.
So your premise is that all life that has ever been will be brought back to life to be restored and that the same attachments we had in this life will crossover into the next so that we will desire to be in the same relationship with that which we once loved and held dear? Also, there will not be one square inch of the earth that is not covered, shoulder to shoulder, with life. IOW - you wont be able to even turn around.
Does this continuing of attachment include my wife? Do you believe my affections for her to be with me and be mine, will continue like my affections will for my pets? (seriously asking).
I agree that animals will be there and that God might even create again those kinds creatures who once were but are now extinct. I see from scripture God releasing His creation from the bondage of sin, but you still have not given any tangable proof, even implied, that this renewing refers to God bringing back all life/resurrection of those animals He previouly created to be alive again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
I don't believe in a resurrection for pets/animals, just that somehow God might put our animals there, maybe by recreating them? I know it's a stretch but I haven't given up on seeing my dog(s) again! I realize this is beyond scripture and I don't make a big point of it.
interesting discussion you and martin are having, allan.
I don't subscribe to the idea that animals have "souls" either, as in the real "animal" in him, just as the soul is said to be the real man in us, with the body just the cage, or house, in which we live.
Animals have spirit, and intelligence, but no soul.
That worries me, you know.
Because that line of thought opens the possibilities we may be murdering when we go hunting.
Or it could turn out that, like, here we are so uppity about abortion, and we take our animals with souls to the vet to have them "put down", instead of taking them to animal hospital so the doctors can put them in tubes and respirators and machines to "keep life" in them like humans.
I don't subscribe to the idea that animals have "souls" either, as in the real "animal" in him, just as the soul is said to be the real man in us, with the body just the cage, or house, in which we live.
Animals have spirit, and intelligence, but no soul.
That worries me, you know.
Because that line of thought opens the possibilities we may be murdering when we go hunting.
Or it could turn out that, like, here we are so uppity about abortion, and we take our animals with souls to the vet to have them "put down", instead of taking them to animal hospital so the doctors can put them in tubes and respirators and machines to "keep life" in them like humans.
Marcia
Active Member
You might be talking tongue-in-cheek, but I'm sure you know murder means intentional killing of a human being (Gen. 9 - to kill someone is forbidden because it is killing someone made in the image of God). Also, we know that eating animals is not against scripture (though cruelty to animals is).
Last edited by a moderator:
No problem here.
tongue-in-cheek, yes, except my parakeets keep pecking on the bulge in my cheek...lol....
MovieProducer
New Member
Heh, well I've studied a little Greek and Hebrew too, and I don't know about you, but I understand 17th century English a whole lot better than first century Greek.:laugh:
Seriously though, I really don't place any stock in multi-version analysis. It's more confusing than helpful. But hey, to the extent it's relevant, I would simply mention that there are versions out there, both new and old, that distinguish between "creature" or "creatures" on the one hand, and "creation" on the other. Some of them are Luther's (1984 revision), the Reina-Valera 2004 (Gomez), and the "1599" Geneva Bible (2006 edition). The Geneva actually says in verse 22 "For we know that every creature groaneth..." instead of "the whole creation." This makes it virtually certain that Paul didn't mean "the entire physical creation including inanimate objects."
So we agree that he's referring to something plural, but I don't understand how you've determined that it's a plural "the creation" instead of a plural "the creature."
Except of course for all the animals Noah brought on the ark!
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
This is precisely the same breath of life that was breathed into Adam, which caused him to become a living soul.
I'm sorry; who longs to be delivered? The animals?
It's no prob, I don't doubt your sincerity:thumbsup: but your point is not obvious to me at all. It makes no difference to a leaf whether it is destroyed by a cow before the fall or a fungus after it. A rock could care less whether it was a mile deep in the crust or broken up into sand on the beach. In either case the fall did not change their outlook on life, and the restoration of all things doesn't improve their lot.
If anything, our resurrection is actually worse for rocks and trees because they're all going to be destroyed and replaced. Really, they have no reason to look forward to our resurrection and it makes no sense for Paul to be talking about them when he says "the creation." He must be talking about all the creatures.
To this point your argument doesn't compel me to conclude that dogs don't go to heaven. I know there's more in another post, but I'm going to bed!:wavey:
Great, even with a small amount of Greek and understanding the study of words and their usage in both the Koine and secular Greek scripts you should see my point fairly well.
Next - Actaully again - no, it does not make anything 'virtually certain' with respect to your view. Your problem still remains. Whether 'the creature' or 'the creation' these passages to my knowledge have never been contexually rendered according to your supposition. It is impossible even if one doesn't know or understand all the other language aspects. If one understands what personification not only is but does with the object to which it is applied then it makes a great deal of sense.
However, one point of contention I have, it is impossible to render 'ἡ κτίσις' in the Greek as 'every creature', this is not a good transliteration of the words. In a sense you are pulling this passage like silly putty to make it state something it does not. Primarily that its consistant meaning of 'all things created' is not to be applied in this case, and that this phrase is actaully is refering only to living objects instead of all created things which is it's normal rendering and understanding.
First because that is a more accurate transliteration of the Greek words written by the apostle. Also because the apostle is a personifying creation as a whole and epitomizes it as a single entity noted by usage of 'the' and thus giving it personal characteristics. Note also that they word 'they' is not even in the original manuscripts but was added.
Uh... sorry, no it isn't.
Both Judistic beliefs and Christain have always differentiated between these two aspects - the breath of life given by God to man and the breath of life or lifes breath regarding animals. These are not and have never been viewed as the same things.
Man is the only one that scripture states God breathed the breath of life into - refering historically to spiritual life. This is distinct from animal life as man is the only one who is ascribed to have been given life by the breath of God Almighty, and are the only ones declared by God via scripture to become a living soul because of it. The 'breath of life' here, refering to animals, simply refers to them as being alive and breathing denoting that they were not killed with rest in the flood. They were alive and breathing. This is the only place it is ever used in relation to an animal and in not even alluded to anywhere else. The fact that some see a 'possibility' or 'potential of' reanimating of certain or all animals does not negate the contextual usage intended here to pertain to all created things.
No, all of creation, both the animate and inanimate. This is normal rendering from context as well as it's consistant usage, not to mention it is the historical position of the text. Again, this is about 'all created things' physically which includes living and non-living things.
You again miss the personification here. Jesus stated that if the Jews did not proclaim at his coming to Jerusalem the very rocks would cry out. According to Jesus those inanimate objects do care, and it is simply a personification of His creation. Isa 55:12 is another personification speaking of the inanimate objects proclaiming their joy during that time of release from bondage. And many others that show this same thing.
When you start with a misunderstanding you will end up with the wrong conclusion, of which it is my opinion you have done. I have already given some scriptures with show even the inanimate objects of creation will be glad to be set free from corruption. the dead animals, from this passage however does not imply nor insinuate they will be 'resurrected' or come back to life again. This imagery is replete throughout scripture of creation (reference both living and non) as being expectant for and joyful at it's release. The fact is, animals are not literally/currently looking forward to Christ's return anymore than a tree is. However since God created all things without sin and corruption, this new state which only deteriorates and fails is a complete contradiction to what it was created as and thus it (creation), in a sense, yearns to be freed.
Good night :wavey:
Last edited by a moderator:
I am going to remove myself from here as I don't have much more time to spend on it. I really enjoyed the discussions though, quite thought provoking.
The Lord, and if we see our pets again, God be praised, and if not well... God still be praised, forever and ever - Amen. :thumbs:
I might jump on once or twice but nothing like previously and even then maybe a few sound bites
The Lord, and if we see our pets again, God be praised, and if not well... God still be praised, forever and ever - Amen. :thumbs:
I might jump on once or twice but nothing like previously and even then maybe a few sound bites
I ran into an old Church of Christ guy the other day, bummed out because he'd lost his blue healer dog, dead from a rattlesnake bite, and bitter because he'd never see his faithful companion again. I told him I wasn't so sure. I quoted Romans 8:21:
So I said there was at least some scriptural support for the idea that his dog would go to heaven.
He's not much for listening to a Baptist, but I did see a glint of hope in his eyes.
Was I right?
In context, that verse isn't referring to dogs.
The truth is, the Bible doesn't really say whether or not our dogs will be in Heaven. I tend to think that they will, but in light of the lack of Biblical support for that belief, I'm willing to admit that it may just be sentimentality on my part.
On the other hand, it doesn't say they won't, either.
Some people will say, "Well, if you have to have your dog there for it to be Heaven for you, then God will arrange for your dog to be there".
I hear that one a lot, but I really can't imagine where it comes from. Heaven isn't about us. It's about God and His glory. It's true that Heaven will be a place of happiness and bliss, but that's because we'll be in God's presence and this blanket of sin will finally be lifted off of us, not because we'll have a cosmic genie to cater to our every need.
Nothing would make me happier than to see all the dogs I've loved in Heaven, but I think it's best to just leave that one up to God.
MovieProducer
New Member
You and I take opposite approaches to bible study. You take two words that are different (creature/creation) and insist they are the same, and then you take two words that are the same (breath of life/breath of life), and insist they are different.:tongue3: