> <<2) If we don't look beyond Gen.1, vv.26-28 seem to view the
> image of God in humanity as involving both relationship with God and
> with the rest of creation. With God, simply because it is the image &
> likeness _of God_. & as having the image of God, humanity is to have a
> certain relationship - "let them have dominion [which requires some
> careful interpretation]" - with the rest of creation. One can say
> formally that the latter is a consequence of having the image, but you
> can't really separate the two: If we are in an improper relationship
> with God's creation, we don't posses the image.>>
>
> I am in substantial agreement with the above paragraph except the last
> sentence. It is an overstatement. If that sentence is true, who then can
> possess God's image? Can you think of anyone who has a completely proper
> relationship with God's creation? I think the Calvinistic doctrine (as I
> recall it from my course in Ref. Doc. at Calvin college long ago) is that the
> image of God is marred in varying degrees but not destroyed by sin.
This depends in part on what one understands the imago to be.
If (cf. my earlier post) it involves rationality (that humanity
participates in the Logos) then you have to say that sinful humans
possess at least vestiges of it. But if it means to have "true fear of
God and faith in God" then human beings before regeneration don't have
it.
As you may be able to tell from my varied comments on this, I'm
still thinking through the matter. This is part of developing an
adequate theological anthropology that takes evolution seriously, a task
I wish I had more time to devote to.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy