The way he pushed this idea I got the feeling it was very important to his personal theology that this be the case. So I have to speculate:
My guess is that if animals are self aware and have a capacity for rational thought on some level, and especially an understanding of good and evil, then that makes them sinners. That idea would probably be unacceptable to J Mac. and most christians.
Existential data suggests to me that animals are more than mere "biological machines" and that they are capable of rational thought on a level lower than our own. I've observed my many cats problem solving, for example, and they have likes and dislikes that are individually unique.
Certainly animal behavior can be patterned and changed through the choice application of stimuli. I would suggest that so can human behavior.
I don't have a problem with the concept of animals being sinful. The universe is fallen. Animals die. God's judgement in the flood included animals specifically, and God declared "I am sorry that I have made them" (Gen. 6:7)
Further, it would not have been necessary for the sacrificial animals of the priestly services under the old covenant to be pure and innocent in reality to fulfill the symbolic appearance of innocence. These were types and shadows; visual illustrations of the reality of Christ- the true and only acceptable substitionary sacrifice, innocent and pure and absolutely unspotted with sin.
And lastly there is the misconstrued idea that God must needs have a plan of redemption for the animals if they are indeed sinfull. I suppose that people think it would be necessarily consistant with the character of God that He provide a way of redemption and reconcilliation for any intelligent, self aware, and sinful creature. But evidentally not- for the fallen angels (demons) have no redeemer and no possibilty of salvation.
In fact, people should really get that- the reason demons can't be saved is not because of the extent of their wickedness but because they have no redeemer! The have no substitutionary sin bearer to be a propitiation for their sins.
And that brings to mind the topic of extraterrestrial intelligent life, and specifically one of the most oft heard Christian objections to that possibility-"did Jesus go to their planet and die for them too?"
My counter question is "why would God have to redeem them?"
I'm not advocating a specific view of animal behavior and certainly not suggesting that aliens absolutely exist- but I have to question the wisdom of absolutely rejecting animal reasonableness or the existence of intelligent lifeforms other than humans based on shakey thelogical presuppositions.
Posts
Very interesting. I dropped by to return the blog visit and thank you for your comments on mine. My husband really likes John MacArthur's teachings, but I'm not sure if he's heard this one.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree than animals have self-awareness and problem solving capabilities. I think the difference is that they did not receive the breath of life as Adam did, nor were they created in His image (which is another ball of theological wax). Animals behave according the nature they were created with. Mankind, on the other hand, does not.
OTOH, I don't believe animals go to hell, so they do not need to be saved from it. I can't back that up scripturally, but Matt. 25:41 tells us it was created for Satan and his angles. People only go there because they choose to reject redemption and the Redeemer. Animals don't have that capacity.
Hmm, well I reckon the same could be said about aliens. DH and I ponder this from time to time. He usually goes back to John 3:16, which states "world" in the singular, not plural. Anyway, interesting post. You've give me new food for thought.