All dogs go to heaven - and the goldfish too :)

[Edial]

I presented in the Lutheran forum that animals go to heaven.
I was challenged by a member that animals have no souls.

What do you think?

1. According to Solomon they have spirits -
ECC 3:21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

2. According to Moses they are called souls -
Nephesh is soul in Hebrew.
In Genesis we see animals called nephesh (souls).
(Wherever I underlined, these are nephesh in Hebrew).

GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thingwith which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ..... 23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
GE 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

3. According to Apostle Paul, they will have a spiritual resurrected body -
If there is a natural body, there will be a spiritual body.
And that applies to all creatures.
The context below is the resurrection of humans.
It also implies quite strongly resurrection of all creatures.

1CO 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. ...
1CO 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

4. So no wonder that this verse below presents our animals and birds and fish joining us in heaven. :)

RO 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.


Animals do not sin and need no salvation of souls as in the context of a sinner.
Yet they are called souls in the Bible. :)

They live, breathe, like, dislike, remember, forget, attach, practice faithfulness, understand, react, change attitudes and love. :)
Yet since they were under our domain, they joined us in our suffering here on Earth.

Christ came for us, and the animals will join us, ... just as it was in the beginning.:)

So, there is a "doggy heaven". :)

And I actually plan to see all my goldfish that died. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[judaica]

I presented in the Lutheran forum that animals go to heaven.
I was challenged by a member that animals have no souls.

Well, I don't know if they have souls or not (at least in the same sense as we. I'd have to study the verses you provided in greater depth (I think there's a difference in hebraic thought between soul and spirit, but I'm not sure). But it's not necessary that they have souls in order to share in our redemption. Even if they did not have souls, and therefore did not actually go to heaven, there is still nothing to say that they will not be restored (resurrected ect) at the consumation of all things. The last verse you cited Romans 8:19, is I think where it's at. Death itself is not natural to the created order. It was through Adam's sin, as creation's "lord", that creation, (including the animal kingdom) fell into death and decay. It would make sense, that by virtue of Christ being the second Adam, that His redemptive work, not only restores us, who have fallen into death, but the whole of creation. That His work would restore whatever Adam lost. I don't know why so many christians (not just lutherans), are so dogmatic about animals either not going to heaven, or not being saved at all. Point blank, is that there will be a new heavens and a new earth. Now, unless this earth is only going to be populated by us, with no plant life, and no animal life whatsoever, I think it's safe to say there will be animals, and trees, and everything you can imagine and more. Could God create whole new animals and not resurrect Fido? Yeah, but it seems seriously out of step with how He seems to do things (ie redemption/restoration as opposed to just "starting over"). Take, the Ark for instance. God didn't destroy the animal kingdom, and then create new animals to repopulate the earth. He told Noah to take two (and sometimes seven) of every living creature.

They may not need redemption from actual personal sin, but they do need redemption from decay, death, desease, and a disordered nature (which to a certain degree correlates to our sinful nature). Animals cannot be said to be morally cupible like we can (they do not have a moral compass like we do and therefore aren't guilty of actual sin per se). But many animals exibit traits that are out of step (gorillas killing their young for example). Even the whole "survival of the fittest" that exist within nature, the "kill or be killed" kinda thing goes against what one would think the original intent of creation to be. So even though technically they don't sin (because they lack the moral compass in which to do so), if you take away that moral compass, they acting on their fallen nature, and us acting on ours, pretty much amounts to somewhat of the same thing.

And as you indicated, animals aren't stupid. They are very much aware of their own surroundings, are capable of discision making (at least the higher life forms), can feel and act on those feelings. They are extremely intelligent, but in their own way (ie intellegence should not be measured, by how well they can imitate us). I think one of the biggest flaws in the way we think about animals is that they are almost purely instinctive.

As a sidenote, it's interesting that in Gen 9:4-6, it says:

But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Judaica

[Tetzel]

Animals go to hell

[DaRev]

:doh: :doh:
Once again, you have demonstrated a certain lack of knowledge concerning word usage and context. Don't you know that words can have several different meanings and that the context in which they are used determines which meaning to apply? This is basic, elementary grammar.

The word "board" has several different meanings, but to use your logic, it can only mean "a piece of lumber." Tell us, then, how a "piece of lumber" governs a school? Or how to "piece of lumber" an airplane or a ship?

I presented in the Lutheran forum that animals go to heaven.
I was challenged by a member that animals have no souls.

What do you think?

1. According to Solomon they have spirits -
ECC 3:21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"


The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ruach." It also means "breath" or "wind." It is also synonomous with "life" or "living thing(s)." Certainly animals breathe. See below.


2. According to Moses they are called souls -
Nephesh is soul in Hebrew.
In Genesis we see animals called nephesh (souls).
(Wherever I underlined, these are nephesh in Hebrew).

GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thingwith which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ..... 23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
GE 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.


The word "nephesh" means "soul," but it also means "living thing, creature, self, appetite, emotion, desire." Context determines the correct meaning.
In many contexts it is synonomous with "ruach" when speaking of living things. It in no way automatically means "spirit being" or "immortal soul."


3. According to Apostle Paul, they will have a spiritual resurrected body -
If there is a natural body, there will be a spiritual body.
And that applies to all creatures.

How do you determine that??:scratch:

The context below is the resurrection of humans.
It also implies quite strongly resurrection of all creatures.

1CO 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. ...
1CO 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.


How does this verse speak of the resurrection of animals? Animals are not created in the image of God. They are not spirit-beings as humans are. They do not have immortal souls.


4. So no wonder that this verse below presents our animals and birds and fish joining us in heaven.

RO 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.


All of creation is in a fallen state, this is true. But this verse does not at all speak of the resurrection of animals, or of animals being in "heaven." You seem to forget also that our eternal destination is not heaven (interim state), but the earth. The New Earth will indeed have animals, Scripture tells us this. But this doesn't mean that our pets will be resurrected. I suppose that you think that trees and plants will also be resurrected??


Animals do not sin and need no salvation of souls as in the context of a sinner.
Yet they are called souls in the Bible.


They are called 'living things, creatures" in the Bible.

They live, breathe, like, dislike, remember, forget, attach, practice faithfulness, understand, react, change attitudes and love.
Yet since they were under our domain, they joined us in our suffering here on Earth.

Christ came for us, and the animals will join us, ... just as it was in the beginning.

So, there is a "doggy heaven".

And I actually plan to see all my goldfish that died.


I'm sure you will see goldfish, Ed, but I doubt that they will be the ones that died. Since animals do not have an immortal soul, they are not resurrected.


Might I suggest in all sincerity that you engage in some serious Bible study at your church. I'm sure that your Pastor can lead you through these things so that you will have a better understanding. Perhaps a course in etymology would be helpful to you as well.

Peace to you.:wave:

[judaica]

Might I suggest in all sincerity that you engage in some serious Bible study at your church. I'm sure that your Pastor can lead you through these things so that you will have a better understanding. Perhaps a course in etymology would be helpful to you as well.

Peace to you.:wave:

In all due respect sir, I don't see anything not serious about this issue. There are many christians, who have a very thorough grasp of Scripture who are very open to the idea of the resurrection of animals. One of the most famous was CS Lewis himself. I'm not sure I understand your connection between the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Our bodies are going to resurrection because Christ has resurrected, not because of any inherent immortality of our souls. At the end, there will be a RESTORATION of creation. The Church Fathers, such as Maximos the Confessor, have always taught this as creation returning unto God, the word itself implies it, not that God allows death to take over this one, and then starts fresh with a whole new one. That is not what redemption is. Redemption is the restoration of what was lost, the infusion of life into what was once dead. To start "fresh", can no more be called a restoration, than if God were to allow death to over take you or me, and then create a whole new person, and give them our names, and say to us, "See here, I'm going to restore you." Creation is not just some general abstract idea. Death has affected every living thing personally and individually. And yes, there is nothing to say that everything won't be restored. It is better in my opinion, to believe animals are going to heaven or that Fido will be resurrection, and have a solid view of the cosmic redemption of Christ (which is very foundational to christianity), than to limit Christ's actual redemption to mankind (because in not restoring Fido, Spot, ect. as silly as it may sound, that's exactly what it's doing). Christ is the Second Adam, the Lord, King, and Savior over all that was lost with the first Adam.

Judaica

[DaRev]

In all due respect sir, I don't see anything not serious about this issue. There are many christians, who have a very thorough grasp of Scripture who are very open to the idea of the resurrection of animals. One of the most famous was CS Lewis himself. I'm not sure I understand your connection between the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. Our bodies are going to resurrection because Christ has resurrected, not because of any inherent immortality of our souls. At the end, there will be a RESTORATION of creation. The Church Fathers, such as Maximos the Confessor, have always taught this as creation returning unto God, the word itself implies it, not that God allows death to take over this one, and then starts fresh with a whole new one. That is not what redemption is. Redemption is the restoration of what was lost, the infusion of life into what was once dead. To start "fresh", can no more be called a restoration, than if God were to allow death to over take you or me, and then create a whole new person, and give them our names, and say to us, "See here, I'm going to restore you." Creation is not just some general abstract idea. Death has affected every living thing personally and individually. And yes, there is nothing to say that everything won't be restored. It is better in my opinion, to believe animals are going to heaven or that Fido will be resurrection, and have a solid view of the cosmic redemption of Christ (which is very foundational to christianity), than to limit Christ's actual redemption to mankind (because in not restoring Fido, Spot, ect. as silly as it may sound, that's exactly what it's doing). Christ is the Second Adam, the Lord, King, and Savior over all that was lost with the first Adam.

Judaica

The restoration of creation and the resurrection of animals are two entirely different things. Christ redeemed humanity through His passion, death, and resurrection. You and I, as souls in the image of God, will be resurrected to face judgement and inherit our eternal Kingdom, the New Earth. This is clear in Scripture.

While, at the same time, Christ's passion, death, and resurrection makes way for the restoration of Creation, it does not equate to the resurrection of Fido or Spot, because they are not souls in the image of God.

Two completely different things.

And my comment to Ed about serious Bible study does not mean I feel this issue is not serious. It's just that he needs to spend time studying the word of God because he demonstrates a rather serious lack of understanding of Scripture, exegesis, and hermeneutics.

[copticorthodoxy]

Animals go to hell

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[MORTANIUS]

Ultimately, it is the soul of Mankind that requires forgiveness and healing in our Sacraments and adherence to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Animals having souls for the same reason is non-existent and if they should happen to have ETERNAL Souls, well that is another topic that I'll leave to theologians who want to make a name for themselves rather than adhere to what is known.

Good luck.

[LutherNut]

Animals go to hell

Going to hell would also require an eternal or immortal soul that animals do not possess. So I would disagree with this assumption just as I disagree with Ed's about Fido and the goldfish "going to heaven."

[Edial]

... I disagree with Ed's about Fido and the goldfish "going to heaven."
On what basis?

[Edial]

:doh: :doh:
Once again, you have demonstrated a certain amount of ignorance of word usage and context. Don't you know that words can have several different meanings and that the context in which they are used determines which meaning to apply? This is basic, elementary grammar.

The word "board" has several different meanings, but to use your logic, it can only mean "a piece of lumber." Tell us, then, how a "piece of lumber" governs a school? Or how to "piece of lumber" an airplane or a ship.

The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ruach." It also means "breath" or "wind." It is also synonomous with "life" or "living thing(s)." Certainly animals breathe. See below.

...

The word "nephesh" means "soul," but it also means "living thing, creature, self, appetite, emotion, desire." Context determines the correct meaning.
In many contexts it is synonomous with "ruach" when speaking of living things. It in no way automatically means "spirit being" or "immortal soul."
And how have you determined that what I say are homographs?

Are they homographs in Hebrew?

Creature has several words in Hebrew, yet Hebrew uses basar, cheyah and nephesh.
Why does English use only creature for some of these?
Why does Hebrew uses on occasions cheyah and nephesh in a same sentence, yet English uses creature for both words?

Because English cannot perfectly translate the meaning of nephesh.

I did do an exhaustive study on soul in the OT and NT.:)
(I did not have time to do the same for "spirit", although it is almost exhaustive).

Did you know that in at least one instance two different reputable translations translate soul in one and spirit in a same text?

Why do you think is that?

The true definitions of nephesh and ruah are so intertwined, that it is impossible for another language to capture the exact meanings of words of the English soul and spirit.

In English, only most of the meanings of nephesh is captured in soul and most of the ruah is captured in spirit, but not all.

If the ancient Hebrew is the inspired language of God, it captures complete understanding of soul and spirit.

HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.


This text presents the complex interdependance of these two words that analogously could be separated only by the word of God.

Yet, these two are distinctly different from each other although somehow intertwined.

Nephesh is 100% soul in it's true definition.

Ruah is 100% spirit in it's true definition.

How does this verse speak of the resurrection of animals?


Animals are not created in the image of God. They are not spirit-beings as humans are. They do not have immortal souls.
The 1 Cor 15 verse presented that animals will have new bodies.

And, neither you nor I could state that they have no soul, not Scripturally, that is.
Yet they are called nephesh, same as we are and that what gets saved in us.

judaica presented a further response to your question ...

"But it's not necessary that they have souls in order to share in our redemption. Even if they did not have souls, and therefore did not actually go to heaven, there is still nothing to say that they will not be restored (resurrected ect) at the consumation of all things. The last verse you cited Romans 8:19, is I think where it's at. Death itself is not natural to the created order. It was through Adam's sin, as creation's "lord", that creation, (including the animal kingdom) fell into death and decay. It would make sense, that by virtue of Christ being the second Adam, that His redemptive work, not only restores us, who have fallen into death, but the whole of creation. That His work would restore whatever Adam lost. I don't know why so many christians (not just lutherans), are so dogmatic about animals either not going to heaven, or not being saved at all. Point blank, is that there will be a new heavens and a new earth. Now, unless this earth is only going to be populated by us, with no plant life, and no animal life whatsoever, I think it's safe to say there will be animals, and trees, and everything you can imagine and more. Could God create whole new animals and not resurrect Fido? Yeah, but it seems seriously out of step with how He seems to do things (ie redemption/restoration as opposed to just "starting over"). Take, the Ark for instance. God didn't destroy the animal kingdom, and then create new animals to repopulate the earth. He told Noah to take two (and sometimes seven) of every living creature.

They may not need redemption from actual personal sin, but they do need redemption from decay, death, desease, and a disordered nature (which to a certain degree correlates to our sinful nature). Animals cannot be said to be morally cupible like we can (they do not have a moral compass like we do and therefore aren't guilty of actual sin per se). But many animals exibit traits that are out of step (gorillas killing their young for example). Even the whole "survival of the fittest" that exist within nature, the "kill or be killed" kinda thing goes against what one would think the original intent of creation to be. So even though technically they don't sin (because they lack the moral compass in which to do so), if you take away that moral compass, they acting on their fallen nature, and us acting on ours, pretty much amounts to somewhat of the same thing."



You seem to forget also that our eternal destination is not heaven (interim state), but the earth. The New Earth will indeed have animals, Scripture tells us this. But this doesn't mean that our pets will be resurrected..
All animals that are here will have spiritual bodies.
If there is a natural body there will be a spiritual body.

See the verses on 1 Cor 15 in the OP.

I suppose that you think that trees and plants will also be resurrected??
Do you really believe we can have a comprehensive conversation here?:)

They are called 'living things, creatures" in the Bible.
Because there is no perfect translation for nephesh.

And we are also called nephesh.
And our nephesh is what gets saved.

I'm sure you will see goldfish, Ed, but I doubt that they will be the ones that died. Since animals do not have an immortal soul, they are not resurrected.
Animals would have resurrected bodies as per the OP verses.

And you would need to Scripturally disprove that they do not have a soul (nephesh), although they are plainly called nephesh.

You need to prove that not because you say it is so, but objectively.

Might I suggest in all sincerity that you engage in some serious Bible study at your church. I'm sure that your Pastor can lead you through these things so that you will have a better understanding.

This is my personal Bible study that is as serious as any study, since it affects life itself.

And when my pastor who is a pastor for well over 40 years attended the Bible study that I lead, he openly recommended it at his Sunday morning Bible study.

Perhaps a course in etymology would be helpful to you as well.

Hebrew neshama is from the root NSHM or breath.

We are called the same nephesh.

PS 150:6 Let everything that has breath {neshama} praise the LORD. Praise the LORD.

Animals have neshama (breath) also. :)

I would not even attempt to expound on this verse, since it might appear that you believe that God relates only to humans.
JOB 38:41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

Peace to you.:wave:
DaRev, you call yourself a pastor. OK. But since you prefer to use certain sarcasm and put downs rather routinely (in other threads too), I cannot take these words and the wave in sincerity.

(I would take these from non-pastors however, since they have no reputation as high as the one of a pastor among the Lutherans. I might even respond to them with a sarcasm or two of my own).

Sorry about that,
Ed

[judaica]

The restoration of creation and the resurrection of animals are two entirely different things.

I have to disagree with you here. The restoration of creation coincides with the fall of creation. When the first Adam fell, everything under his dominion fell with him, the earth, the animals ect. They die because of Adam's sin. Christ the second Adam came to restore ALL that which the first Adam destroyed. If not, if Christ will not restore all that which Adam destroyed, then His redemption is limited (ie does not span the scope of Adam's transgression). Is it possible? Yes. Christ doesn't have to redeem anyone or anything. But then again, I'm not a calvinist. For me personally, I don't like limiting Christ's redemption in any way shape or form.

Christ redeemed humanity through His passion, death, and resurrection. You and I, as souls in the image of God, will be resurrected to face judgement and inherit our eternal Kingdom, the New Earth. This is clear in Scripture.

I'm not denying what's in Scripture. What I am saying to you, is that it is my belief, that this redemption is not limited to mere human beings, but includes ALL who fall under Adam's transgression.

While, at the same time, Christ's passion, death, and resurrection makes way for the restoration of Creation, it does not equate to the resurrection of Fido or Spot, because they are not souls in the image of God.

Two completely different things.

Since when did animals cease to be a part of creation? How is this not like calvinists saying, the "world" does not mean, "the world", but only a select number? That "creation" doesn't actually mean "creation", but only a select number or kinds of creatures?

To go back to my question previously. What is the connection between possessing a soul (in the image of God), and being resurrected? Define, "in the image of God" please.

And to note, by the resurrection of animals, I am not at all implying that their resurrection will in any way look like ours, or occure in the same way. I don't know. All that I am claiming (as a personal belief, not as dogmatic fact) is that they (who too, have fallen through Adam's transgression), will be restored (by virtue of Christ as the second Adam, as Lord and King over all creation).

And my comment to Ed about serious Bible study does not mean I feel this issue is not serious. It's just that he needs to spend time studying the word of God because he demonstrates a rather serious lack of understanding of Scripture, exegesis, and hermeneutics.

Well, I haven't been privy to any of his comments save the ones in this thread. But I myself, among other christians are very well versed in Scripture (does that mean we know the ends and outs of Scripture? No. No one does), but it does go to show that a christian's question of, "will animals be resurrected?" does not stem from a "rather serious lack of understanding of Scripture, exegesis, and hermeneutics". And as far as this topic alone is concerned, I think it is extremely unfair to insinuate such, not only about the author of this thread, but indirectly, anyone who may wonder about this as well. I'm not trying to be judgmental or harsh. Please forgive me if I come across that way. It's just when I read your reply to Ed, and even your reply to me here, it really makes me (and I'm sure Ed) feel as though we're being talked down to and as if we don't understand Scripture very well (you even said as much)."

As far as I know, the Church has never pronounced on this issue. At the most, your beliefs, my beliefs, Ed's beliefs (as much as we may think they are held up by Scripture), are the beliefs of individual christians, pious though they may be. They are not the teachings of the (undivided) Church, as far as I know. As such, none of our beliefs should be promulgated as, "so says the Scriptures". Even if we think we can prove them by the Scriptures, if it's not something that belongs to the Faith, as professed everywhere, by all, then it's just our opinions. And maybe one day (in heaven) we'll find out that our opinions were right. But so long as we walk this earth, they should not be foistered upon someone else as dogmatic fact, nor should it be insinuated that someone has a "serious lack of understand Scripture" because they hold to the opposite view.

Judaica

[DaRev]

DaRev, you call yourself a pastor. OK. But since you prefer to use certain sarcasm and put downs rather routinely (in other threads too), I cannot take these words and the wave in sincerity.

I do not post to be belittling or condescending, but rather to correct, rebuke, and teach in as loving a manner as is possible on online forums such as these. If my words come across as such, I offer my most humble apologies.

It is my duty as a called and ordained servant of the Word to offer such correction when one is in error. Your opinions and ideas concerning certain issues or Scripture passages are just that, your opinions and ideas. They do not necessarily agree with Scripture and the teaching of the Church catholic which is based upon the Scriptures alone. When someone offers an opinion that is not in line with orthodox teaching, I try to point out such error.

In the future, I will continue to correct my erring brethren, but will not belabor the point. I belive that those who read the posts on this forum will be able to determine the truth for themselves, or at least will approach their own clergy for clarification.

Again, my apologies for anything that may have been take as offensive.


Blessings, DaRev

[DaRev]

My last word on the subject...

Nowhere does Scripture even allude to the resurrection of animals that have died. The restoration (or redemption) of Creation refers to the restoring of Creation to its created state. Before the Fall, there was no death and all creatures lived together. Scripture most certainly does speak of a time when these things will happen. It also speaks of the resurrection of Mankind since that is who Christ came to save. The Scriptures plainly speak of the redemption of Mankind. Jesus said in Matthew 28 to make disciples of all nations. The Greek word for "nations" is "ethnos" which is where we get the word "ethnicity." This does not include animals or any other part of Creation. Human beings are a special part of Creation, created in the image of God, "a little lower than the angels." This cannot be said of any other part of Creation. Remember that all of Creation was made for Mankind.

As far as I know, the Church has never pronounced on this issue. At the most, your beliefs, my beliefs, Ed's beliefs (as much as we may think they are held up by Scripture), are the beliefs of individual christians, pious though they may be. They are not the teachings of the (undivided) Church, as far as I know.

Actually, my beliefs are those held by the Church.

As long as you (and Ed and anyone else of that matter) recognize that your opinions on the matter are just that, your opinions, then I can do no more than offer correction based upon the Word of God and the teaching of the Church catholic, especially when challenged.

As a very wise man once said. "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me."


Blessings,
DaRev

[Edial]

...

Actually, my beliefs are those held by the Church.

As long as you (and Ed and anyone else of that matter) recognize that your opinions on the matter are just that, your opinions, then I can do no more than offer correction based upon the Word of God and the teaching of the Church catholic, especially when challenged.

As a very wise man once said. "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me."


Blessings,
DaRev
When Luther said that he actually went against the teachings of the church and called upon the Scriptures.
(Teachings of the church being the commentaries on various matters of the Scriptures).

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I do not post to be belittling or condescending, but rather to correct, rebuke, and teach in as loving a manner as is possible on online forums such as these. If my words come across as such, I offer my most humble apologies.

It is my duty as a called and ordained servant of the Word to offer such correction when one is in error. Your opinions and ideas concerning certain issues or Scripture passages are just that, your opinions and ideas. They do not necessarily agree with Scripture and the teaching of the Church catholic which is based upon the Scriptures alone. When someone offers an opinion that is not in line with orthodox teaching, I try to point out such error.

In the future, I will continue to correct my erring brethren, but will not belabor the point. I belive that those who read the posts on this forum will be able to determine the truth for themselves, or at least will approach their own clergy for clarification.

Again, my apologies for anything that may have been take as offensive.


Blessings, DaRev
DaRev, one of the surprising things that I found since becoming a believer is that somehow I do not take offenses the way I used to.
Also, come to think of it, I do not find you being offensive, since I myself am doing this and that which is far from being perfect yet I demand some others to consider perfection in attitude towards myself. :)

Lately, I actually need to force myself to keep on being angry at someone. :)
And I do find that refreshing. :)

Concerning your duties as a minister, I do not agree with you concerning the views as presented from a non-bending angle, since the church accepts various views on a same topic.

I think that you might not like to address differing views, yet this is allowed in the Confessions.

I see the Confessions as the reflections of the Scriptures, yet not as Scriptures.
However, what I do present, I try to show that there are no Scriptures to refute that and no Confession to deny it.

I think that the methodology that I address the interpretation of the Scriptures with and theology is the safest and fairest way that excludes dogmatics, keeps one open to constant learning and maintains vibrancy in the word that is alive.

I do appreciate your views more than you might think, especially concerning the infallibility and authority of the Scriptures.

You also carry a substantial knowledge of the Confessions, which I lack.

Yet the approach that I have, I do not think it is incorrect, since it cannot be shown to be incorrect.
It is different, but not incorrect.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

When Luther said that he actually went against the teachings of the church and called upon the Scriptures.
(Teachings of the church being the commentaries on various matters of the Scriptures).

Thanks,
Ed

When he said that, he was going against the teachings of Rome, not against the teachings of the Church catholic.

;)

[Edial]

When he said that, he was going against the teachings of Rome, not against the teachings of the Church catholic.

;)
Oh, come on.
The teaching of the Church catholic from becoming that of the one of Rome is when it is not questioned and views are accepted as dogmas.

I do not agree at all.

[DaRev]

Oh, come on.
The teaching of the Church catholic from becoming that of the one of Rome is when it is not questioned and views are accepted as dogmas.

I do not agree at all.

That is your perogative.

I, on the otherhand, do believe in absolutes.

[Protoevangel]

When Luther said that he actually went against the teachings of the church and called upon the Scriptures.
(Teachings of the church being the commentaries on various matters of the Scriptures).

Thanks,
Ed
This is incorrect. Luther stood with the Church catholic against the recent innovations and abuses of Rome.

It is plainly and clearly explained in the Confessions.

"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..."

[Edial]

That is your perogative.

I, on the otherhand, do believe in absolutes.
I also believe in absolutes.

My absolute are Scriptures.
Some of the commentaries to them are the Confessions.

It stops there.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

I also believe in absolutes.

My absolute are Scriptures.
Some of the commentaries to them are the Confessions.

It stops there.

Thanks,
Ed

The Confessions are not commentaries but a true exposition of what the Scriptures teach.

Big difference.

[Edial]

The Confessions are not commentaries but a true exposition of what the Scriptures teach.

Big difference.
Regardless, our absolutes appear to differ at least at that.

However, our disagreements went beyond the Confessions in a dogmatic flavor.

And that should not be.