The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Another of my random questions

Don't laugh at me TOO hard, but do animals go to heaven or hell? What Scriptures or whatever backs your belief?

Ans: Neither! 1) Adam was not the Federal Head of the animal kingdom and thus animals are not imputed with guilt nor do they inherit a corrupt nature (Original Sin) due to the Fall. 2) Animals were not created with the "imago dei". They are not subject to the law or its penalty due to transgression. 3) The Lord Christ took on human flesh so that He could atone for the elect and not animals.

In His Grace,

Great reasons!

What was Francis of Assisi's doctrine of animals? Didn't he actually believe we should preach to them?

I'm not laughing, because I thought of this whole issue not too long ago myself after having to put down our beloved house dog right before Christmas. And I thought I was kind of nuts for searching the scriptures for any answer because I believe what Pilgrim says is probably right on.

But, since you brought this subject up, what about Romans 8:19-23? And especially v. 21 - what does it really mean here "the creation itself will be <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">liberated</span> from its bondage to decay"? And also the whole issue that all the living, breathing animals that have had to suffer too with Adam's sin and that God chose to destroy not only most of mankind in the flood but also the animals. It made me think, if the animals also received the curse of death here because of us, why couldn't they be "redeemed" with us? I know this is my own thinking because there is absolutely nothing that says the animals are redeemed. But I am curious about the Romans passage.

I didn't even think of that verse!

If one were to rely upon this passage in Romans to justify a view which posits that animals are to be reanimated and found it heaven, then to be consistent, one would also have to include everything in the irrational world that God had created, e.g., trees, bushes, weeds, mosquitoes, in fact everything and anything which had been created. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

What the text is saying is that the irrational creation (personified) is waiting with great anticipation for the New Heavens and New Earth where the "futility" it was subjected to, e.g., decay, disease, etc., will be no more and its full potential, purpose and peace can then and there be realized. One might see this restoration as being typified in the flood, where the wicked were destroyed (albeit not wickedness) and all emerged new (relatively speaking). In the New Heaven and New Earth, which is going to be preceded by the destroying of the earth by fire (cf. 2Pet 3:10, 11; Rev. 21:1) the entire creation will enjoy the benefits of the redemption of the sons of God in that all that resulted from the curse will be no more. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/joy.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Regarding St. Francis, he didn't so much have a doctrine of animals, and he didn't really encourage the rest of us to preach to the animals, or to the trees, though he paid particular attention to animals and trees as individual creations of God, not simply as background in some vague modern conception of nature. For information, here are a couple of passages from Chesterton on Francis:

"Everything would be in every sense a character. This is the quality in which, as a poet, he is the very opposite of a pantheist. He did not call nature his mother; he called a particular donkey his brother or a particular sparrow his sister. If he had called a pelican his aunt or an elephant his uncle, as he might possibly have done, he would still have meant that they were particular creatures assigned by their Creator to particular places; not mere expressions of the evolutionary energy of things."

And again, "But even apart from any miraculous powers,men of that magnetic sort, with that intense interest in animals, often have an extraordinary power over them. St. Francis's power was always exercised with this elaborate politeness. Much of it was doubtless a sort of symbolic joke, a pious pantomime intended to convey the vital distinction in his divine mission, that he not only loved but reverenced God in all his creatures."

So far as I have read, however, Francis made no claims that animals would be in heaven.

Sam

You may find this if interest; St. Francis of Assisi (patron saint of animals)

This web page contains an interpretation of several of his works. IMHO it is false theology, but it does clear the muddy waters a little of what Pet-Man believed.

Francis wrote a Canticle of the Creatures, an ode to God’s living things. “All praise to you, Oh Lord, for all these brother and sister creatures.”

Another article based on Pet-Man's beliefs: Will I See My Little Doggy in Heaven?

Makes sense to me.

This isn't as silly a question as you may suppose. We spent a deal of time in a seminary class discussing this issue and the Romans 8 passage. One of the Senior members of my ordination council also brought the subject up during my questioning.

It becomes important to the local Pastor, because members of their churches will ask the question when they lose a beloved pet.

I personally, tend to think animals have no soul. Yet, I could be wrong on this issue because of little Biblical support for or against.

Who knows? We're Reformed. Maybe the elect animals go to heaven and the rest just taste great. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

SDG,
Dan

That is some good stuff!

Hey bestrech,

You mentioned going through this in sem. Did you deal with the Hebrew of Gen. 1:24 and 20-21? Do you think (as I do) that the word nephesh in those vv. should be translated as "beings" or something similar? Interesting though, that the sea animals that move (swarm) and the land animals that move are referred to by a Hebrew term that we translate as "living soul" in v. 30.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that "animals go to heaven," but perhaps there will be animals other than man subsequent to the resurrection. But even that does not suggest that there will be a personal identity between the animals who die now and the animals that *may* live after the final resurrection.

IMHO, regardless of how one translates "nephesh", it seems to me that there is a marked distinction in God's creation between animals and mankind. Comparing Gen 1:24, 25 with 26 and 27, we see that the animals were created "after their own kind", but man was created "in the image of God" and was given dominion over the animals. In fact, I would posit that only mankind was given a "soul" when the Scripture says:

Genesis 2:7 (ASV) "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

We do not read that God breathed into any of the animals in this manner. And I believe that it is at this point that man, although a created, living being was here given the "soul". I see a corollary in redemption found in Ezekiel 37:1-14, and particularly in vv. 8-10.

Believing that Isaiah 11, at least in part, refers to the New Heaven and New Earth, it would seem to indicate that there will be animals living alongside of man. (cf. vv. 6-9) Reason would also seem to lend support to the idea as well, since: 1) in the original creation, prior to the Fall, there were animals in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. 2) Animals were included in the Ark with righteous Noah and family and preserved from the ensuing destruction of the earth.

In His Grace,

I ONLY eat Reformed beef myself. My wife "selects" it every week at the grocery store. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

I like Reformed bacon.

It's fried in irresistible grease...