RE: [asa] Edinburgh mtg--Alexander

There was a discussion on this list, I think back in March, on what the
"image and likeness of God" really is. I'm not sure the question was really
resolved.
 
It seems to me there is relatively little scripture dealing with the "image
of God" in the Bible, and what there is seems to be conflicted between
different scriptures. More difficulty comes from later church traditions
conflating their own presumptions and interpretations with the sparse
Biblical data. In the OT, the only scriptures (using that particular
phrase) are found in Gen 1:26-27 and Gen 9:6.
 
In the NT, I don't find any clear reference to the fact that we are created
in the image of God, but rather that we are seeking to become conformed to
the image of God, which is represented by Christ (Rom 8:29; 1Cor 15:49; 2Cor
3:18; 4:4; Col 1:15; 3:10; Heb 1:3). So I would ask, are all men created in
the image of God at or before birth? If so, why does the NT clearly teach
that we can only receive the image of God by being renewed according to the
"new man" (Col 3:10)? Or are these scriptures talking about two different
images of God (i.e. different contexts)?
 
Another interesting direction to take this is: 1Cor 11:7 says that man was
made in the "image and glory of God", but the woman was made the "glory of
man". Paul stops short of saying that the woman is not the image of God,
but it's not clearly stated. Neither in Gen 1:27, where "in the image of
God he created HIM", but "male and female he created THEM". So is the woman
created in the image of God or not? I'm not trying to create a doctrine
here, just pointing out that the Biblical doctrine does not seem to be as
clear as some people's beliefs or church traditions on the subject. Hence,
emotional responses decrying others' views on what is the "image of God"
seem a bit premature.
 
There are at least four different views about what the "image" language is
referring to. http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/Novdec97.pdf I don't
believe any of these views justify anyone's attrocities or denies the status
of "humanness" to anyone of our race. These are objections which are rooted
in one's own conception of what the "image" is.
 
I find several of these views interesting and possibly of some merit.
However, I think my view at this point is that our being created in the
"image of God" mainly means we have a rational and spiritual being, if you
will a "spiritual body", making us capable of comprehending spiritual things
and having relationship with God. But though we were created as spiritual
beings, we inhabit a body of flesh and have become subject to sins, and thus
we fall short of the nature of God and are in need of redemption. This is
who we are. When the NT speaks of being conformed to the image of God, it
is speaking in a different context of changing our nature toward godliness
according to Christ's example. This is what we are (hopefully) becoming.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:18 AM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Edinburgh mtg--Alexander

In response to Dick Fischer's comments about the image of God in humans.
 
How do you decide who has the Image of God and who does not? What about
those who commit atrocities in war, whether the execution of Allied soldiers
in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 or My Lai?
Have Ken Ham or PZMyers got the Image of God? Stalin, Bresnev or Gorbachev?
 
I am afraid you are speaking rank nonsense. All Christian teaching as
stemming from the Bible teaches that all humans without exception are in the
Image of God, and because of sin that is distorted.
 
The Image of God brings out the absolute God-given value of every human
being and their responsibility before God. It is distorted not removed by
sin and all who read this have their Image of God distorted by their sin.
Only through Christ the perfect Image of God can our distorted Image be
straightened out.
The logic of your position is that we can see as subhuman those we consider
not to have the Image of God, and thus exterminate them as dear Adolf got
rid of Jews, Poles and Slavs.
 
Think again Dick, it is more important to see every human being however
awful as in the Image and Likeness of God than trying to locate Adam in
9678BC.
 
Your beliefs are very scary indeed and I prefer both Ken Ham's and Bishop
Spong's
 
I am appalled
 
Michael
 
 
dick Fischer wrote;

On the other, other hand, if every hominid who breathed air in the last
million years is in God's image then it includes Jeffrey Dahmer, the Boston
strangler, Osama Bin Laden, and other characters of dubious reputation.
Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that when Paul told us Christ was in
the image of God that he thought it lumped him in with pedophiles and axe
murderers. Certainly it is a category more esteemed than that.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 23:37:14 2007