To Joel and other ASAers:
I'd like to expand on an idea Joel introduced into the discussion of "image
of God." See my remarks below.
Joel Z Bandstra wrote on Monday, February 14, 2000 3:55 PM,
> I think it a mistake to define humanness in a scientifically testable
> fashion. I feel as though being human is more than a physical state.
That
> is, I think that humans have a spiritual being as well as a physical
being
> (a sort of duality I suppose). If this is so, it may still be possible
to
> observe physical results of the spiritual being (e.g. behavior) but it
> would not be possible to say what is human based solely on physical
> observation. Perhaps an appropriate analogy is the way that we know that
> God exists. It is certainly possible to look around and see evidence for
> the existence of God, but it is through God's supernatural revelation
that
> we can truly come to know.
As I have said several times in the last few days, I too think humanness
cannot be defined in a scientifically testable fashion. Once the discussion
was underway, I did say that the context of fossil finds could elucidate
human activity; the context would not, however, prove that the beings
involved were indeed human.
It seems to me that on this listserv, of all listservs, everyone should
begin with the assumption that Creation includes more than that which can
be scientifically examined. That "more" can be intimately associated with
the part of Creation amenable to scientific activity. And so it is not
surprising that the sum of all the human behaviors we can list is not
equivalent to the image of God which human beings bear.
I'm writing this because this matter--insisting that everything is
scientifically testable--should remind us of another discussion we've all
encountered. That is the secular claim that everything in life is in
principle explainable on a scientific basis--if you will, positivism. Once
again, I assume that no one in this group will buy that idea ("If my net
can't catch it, it ain't fish.") In rejecting positivism, we are not
talking just about Creation, but the Creator as well.
Because of both these biblical claims--first, that Creation consists of
more than the testable and second, that Creation is the product of God's
creative activity--it is fallacious to end an argument with, "If it cannot
be scientifically described, then we need not consider it."
We simply cannot get away from the biblical fact that human beings bear
God's image; in fact, what else defines them? Not for nothing does the New
Testament describe Christ's work in terms of restoring that broken image.
Just because this image is too difficult or impossible to define (really,
what else would we expect?) does not mean that we can ignore the image of
God concept in deciding who man is.
I hope you will agree that the Bible teaches it is the descendants of Adam
and Eve who bear that image.
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 16:18:52 EST