[asa] Re: [asa] O Freunde, nicht diese Töne (was Re: [asa] animals)

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Mon May 14 2007 - 17:41:39 EDT

Of course I didn't mean to suggest that Thomas too didn't think his ideas about the soul had a scriptural basis. But whether or not a doctrine of the soul is being read out of or into scripture is another matter. I'm no expert on Calvin but I don't find his scriptural arguments too compelling, & when he speaks there of "when the soul is freed from the prison house of the body," it's Plato rather than the Bible speaking.

In God's ultimate creation humans will be new creations, yet new creations which have some continuity with the old: That's why we speak of resurrection. (Polkinghorne speaks of creatio ex vetere.) I don't see why, to the extent that non-humans have an ultimate future, the same shouldn't be true for them as well. (Continuity, not necessarily resurrection of individuals.) The scattered biblical verses that are of any relevance to the topic seem to point in that direction, not to creation of entities which have no connection with the present order of things.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] O Freunde, nicht diese Töne (was Re: [asa] animals)

Ok yes Thomas is primarily a philosophical claim. But
with Calvin, for example, dualism is primarily
theological. In Institutes he says: "Indeed, from
Scripture we have already taught that the soul is an
incorporeal susbtance; now we must add that, although
properly it is not spatially limite, still, set in the
body, it dwells there as in house;..."

And he clearly believes in a conscious intermediate
existence between death and resurrection, perhaps this is
seen most clearly in his tract "Psychopannychia".

My last sentence I am just saying that in God's ultimate
creation, sub-human creation will consist of new
creations, not resurrections of previously living beings.

  On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:33:03 -0400
  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> Right - I meant "primarily a philosophical claim and
>only secondarily a theological one."
>
> I don't want to get very speculative about "dog heaven"
>or anything like that. But the statement that God plans
>to unite "all things" in Christ & that "all things" are
>to be reconciled to God through the cross suggests very
>strongly that the non-human parts of creation have some
>place in God's ultimate future. & I don't take Is.11:6-9
>"literally," but it points toward something, & the
>imagery of animals in the peaceable kingdom can't be
>dismissed entirely.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your last
>sentence.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>;
><asa@calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson"
><burgytwo@juno.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] O Freunde, nicht diese Töne (was Re:
>[asa] animals)
>
>
> George can you clarify your second sentence, did you
>mean
> to say "...primarily a theological claim and only
> secondarily a theological one."
>
> And what is your thought about God's intention of
> creation, are animals here and now, or dead and gone,
>have
> any place in creation ultimately? Of course I am not
> questioning that animals or any other created sub-human
> thing would not be part of creation ultimately, but that
> are the self same creatures to be part of this creation.
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:30:45 -0400
> "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>> Much of this stuff about animals & souls is unhelpful.
>> 1st, the belief that human beings have eternal (or more
>>precisely, unless you're an Origenist semi-eternal) souls
>>is primarily a theological claim & only secondarily a
>>theological one. (Before anyone challenges this, please
>>look at Aquinas' discussion of souls in the Summa
>>Theologica & assess the relative importance of Aristotle
>>scripture there.) Even if we agree that human beings
>>have a rational soul which is separable from the body,
>>Christian hope is not for the survival of that soul but
>>for the resurrection of the total
>>body-soul-spirit-however you want to parse it person. &
>>therefore instead of discussing the future state, if any,
>>of non-human animals, the question ought to be posed in
>>terms of whether or not scripture & sound theology based
>>upon it give us any reason to think that such animals
>>have any place in God's intention for creation.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol or John
>>Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:22 AM
>> Subject: [asa] animals
>>
>>
>>> Jack wrote: "I am sure that animals do not have eternal
>>>souls, that is
>>> exclusively mans"
>>>
>>> On what grounds is this claim made?
>>>
>>> Curious Burgy
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>>with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>>message.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 14 17:42:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 14 2007 - 17:42:04 EDT