Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Catholic, Protestant, Emergent, Evangelical, Dunker, Sprinkler, Calvinist, Arminian, etc., etc.We, as humans, seem to be overly fascinated with labeling ourselves and each other. It’s sort of a mental short-hand that helps us retain information and to categorize people, places and things. We really can’t avoid it.

While this ability has its uses, I’ve seen all too many times recently where the dark side of labels far outweighs the benefits. It is when we use labels to avoid treating other people as something other than what God created them to be that they become an abomination. There are times I find myself doing it just as much as anyone else.

This seems to happen in two key areas:

Objectifying Other People

When we use a lables for the purpose of grouping people – Christian and non-Christian, alike – together for the purpose of treating them as something less than human, we deny that they ALL have been made in the image of God – and how we treat the creation speaks volumes to how we, in our heart of hearts, treat our Creator.

Continue Reading This Article 

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm and is filed under Emergent Church, Legalism, Linked Articles, ODM Responses. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

60 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am

Labels are irrelevant, however they are mainly used to differentiate between theologies and philosophies held by various groups. that is how I use them.

As for the image of God What doe the God of the “image” have to say.

http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/03/imago-dei-part-1.html

http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/03/imago-dei-part-2.html

I don’t care about ideas. The Scriptures speak plainly. “The Rabbi and the Ugly Man” is a cute story but stirs no conviction within me.
Let the Holy Spirit do his job.

2   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 am

Chris P,

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it seems like you’re trying to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that ONLY Christians (or ‘the elect’) are made in the image of God.

If this is the case, it is hogwash.

3   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am

Chris P.
I have to say I came to the same conclusion or at least thought you seemed to be saying that. Are we correct? Is that what you are saying? Can you answer without attacking us? In truth, I don’t care if you want to attack us, just dont’ forget to answer the question. Thanks! :)

4   Matt    
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 am

He also seems to argue that the unregenerate have also lost “dominion” over the earth. Which means that the unregenerate have no right to use oil, cut down forests, strip mine, etc. God will hold them responsible for the green house gases and the melting polar ice caps. Chris P is some sort of environmentalist?

5   Pastor Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am

“ONLY Christians (or ‘the elect’) are made in the image of God.”

Wow, some Bible “scholar”; if you presume to be a teacher of God’s Word then you should know that only those born again (regenerated) and in Christ are restored to the Imago Dei irreversibly mangled in the fall. There is no inherent goodness of mankind…

6   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am

Ken – you’ve mashed two different concepts together that are not linked – being made in the image of God and being inherently ‘good’ are not synonymous. You’ve just demonstrated the failings of modrnist systematic theologies.

Great “scholarship” there…

7   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 am

Just to be a little bit more clear -

When Jesus answered the question “Who is my neighbor” with the story of the Good Samaritan, he as weighing in on a debate (”Who is my neighbor?” – which, itself was based on the question “Who is made in the image of God?”) The oral law contained a concept called pecuah nephesh, which established that all men were made in the image of God, and therefore, if faced with a life-or-death circumstance, one must break ceremonial laws if it will save a life.

The Sadducees denied the oral law, and taught that only God-fearing Jews were made in the image of God, and therefore “Loving my neighbor” applied only to these people. The Hillel Pharisees believed that all people, with the exception of the apostate Samaritans who rejected God’s law of worship, were created in the image of God. Jesus sided with Hillel, but then included Samaritans, as well, as those who are made in the image of God (thus the protagonist in the story is a Samaritan).

The answer to the question “Who is my neighbor (that I must love)?” is the same answer as that of the question “Who is made in the image of God?”

8   Matt    
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 am

Therefore, abortion is ok, because we are killing an animal, not something made in the image of God?

9   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Wow great spin guys. Unlike you folks I always answer the question. Funny how you never address scripture, but you give me oral law??
Diversionary tactics.
Mankind is the only being that has the potential to be restored to God’s image and likeness.Therefore abortion and any form of murder is evil.
What is the new creation then? Why would being born again even be necessary? Jesus is the only way to the Father, He being the only true Son. Only those who are in Him are Sons, and therefore they are imago dei. Through the first Adam sin and death entered into the world. Does that sound like imago dei?
I do not engage in mental exercise, although I am sure the studies I wrote tax your capacities. The word is the word. It is complete in and of itself. The Holy Spirit gives us the revelation It doesn’t come from rabbinical schools or today’s seminaries.

Only the regenerate show the image of God, period. You are using the word elect as inflammatory rhetoric. How transparent.

My point is, only Jesus is imago dei. Therefore only the Body of Christ is imago dei. The Bible is more than clear on this.
The rest of mankind is dead. He is the God of the living.
Why don;t you re-read the scriptures I cited and quit studying the Word as if it is a collection of unrelated books.
It’s one word from Genesis to Revelation, and is not bound to fallen man’s context of culture and historical eras.

10   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Only regenerate reflect the image of God? Really? So when two people who are not regenerated live 45 years together in a holy committed marraige they’re not reflecting God? Chris, that’s crap!
All people are made in God’s image.

11   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Chris P,

It is the soul that defines Imago Dei, as it is that which separates all men from animals. I did not ONLY give you oral law, but also Jesus’ ruling – IN SCRIPTURE – on the subject. It’s not my fault you choose to ignore the context.

Yes, the Bible is the word, from beginning to end. As Adam, we are all created in the image of God – from birth to death. Your study didn’t “tax my capacities”, it just was a string of supposition and isogetics that were as fragile as David Koresh’s explanation of himself as Christ returned.

12   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Almost forgot.
Matt’s environmentalist comment. Extracting oil from the earth is not a sign of taking dominon.
According to Genesis 1:26-30 man was told to rule over all that was living. His dominion consists of being on a higher level so to speak over the birds, animals, fish plants trees tc. all of thse exist to serve men. Which is why teaching evolution is wrong. It reverses God’s order. Man in God’s image consists of male and female reproducing life. This is why Paul wrote what he did in Romans 1. Homosexuals cannot procreate, therefore they are the reversal of God’s order. Evolution, the gay agenda, violat what god had ordred in creation. Chopping down a tree, drilling for oil, etc are irrelevant. It’s about procreation. That is dominion.
Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
Instead of using diversions why don’t you all stick on the topic?
Psalm 8: 4-8;Hebrews 2:5-12
The image of God as seen in taking dominion exist only in the second Adam.

Psalm 24:1-2

13   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm

“All people are made in God’s image”

I ask again then why did Christ come? You answered none of my questions. Surprise surpise. Chris L. Since Jesus did not plainly say he was speaking of a rabbinical dispute then don’t add it in. We are warned no to add to the book.
Did not a sovereign God write the book for all the church for all time. The disputes of 1st century Judaism which is not christianoty btw, are irrlelvant to the church. As I said diversions. What are you afraid of? That perhaps the scripture, as given ,was meant to be read literally?
The man asked who is my neighbor ,not who is born in the image of God. The Jesus you portray is grossly unfair to us.
Judiaism is not the church’s theology.

Colossians 1:15

14   Pastor Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Well said Chris P., let’s pray God grants them ears to hear what the Spirit says and may they forget the skubalon of unregenerate and totally depraved mankind – rabbis or not.

15   Neil    
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Chris P.

We all know why Christ came – I won’t take up space with that one. There is no conflict with the doctrine of the imago dei (that is that every human who ever lived where created in and with the image of God) and the doctrine commonly referred to as total depravity.

Being born with sin, Total depravity effaces, but does erase the image of God. According to the doctrine, all faculties of man have been effected by since – including the ability to please God. But this does not mean, nor is there any biblical evidence, that our ontological value to God has been erased.

I’ll turn the question back on you. If unregenerate humans have no value, then why did Christ come? Why die for just humans, why not die for dolphins and elevate them as well?

The answer lies in the ontological value of every human life, every human life was created in, and carries the image of God.

Now, Ken is correct to a point when he says there is no inherent goodness in man, that is as irrelevant to the discussion as it is true. Goodness (is based on ability – or lack thereof, and therefore is dependent) and Imago Dei (is ontological and therefore is independent) are two completely different and ultimately unrelated issues.

Finally, do we really want to go down the road of all the theological and practical ramifications of saying that only the regenerate have value in God’s eyes?

Neil

16   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Chris P

I ask again then why did Christ come?

To reconclie us to God by atoning for our sins (which trace back to Adam).

Where does it say that after Adam sinned that he was no longer made in the image of God?

Since Jesus did not plainly say he was speaking of a rabbinical dispute then don’t add it in. We are warned no to add to the book.

I’ve added nothing to the Bible. It does not ‘add in’ anything to understand what context Jesus was living in and speaking in. Jesus is not independent of the culture, language, geography, politics and time in which he was living.

Did not a sovereign God write the book for all the church for all time.

Yes, but it did not fall out of the sky, independent of the context in which it was written. We are to understand it in its context and apply it to our issues today.

Judiaism is not the church’s theology.

It was Jesus’ theology.

The church is a sect of Judiasm, not a separate entity (per Romans 11).

Ken,

Your sanctimonious blether is tiring. God has granted me ears to hear, but he’s given you a forked tongue and hands with which you do great evil to the body. I suggest you go away and never post here again until you decide to play the part of a Christian brother, in charity and behavior. Just because you are a legalistic blowhard intent on tearing apart God’s temple doesn’t mean the rest of us need to be infected with your evil tongue.

17   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Interestingly Chris you miss a very important part that scripture teaches…

Christ is the Image of God, and We are His Body… so in that we too are the Image of God… as we are also Son’s of God as Jesus was… He was the Firstborn… which implies there are to be more… and that is all who believe in Christ.

We are predestined to be conformed to His image… so again Jesus is not the Only Image of God…

I think you can look up the references yourself on this one…

To be blatantly technical… it is by vocation we are the image of God and now the image of Jesus…

Before Adam was the image of God as he was given created ability and also was given dominion over the earth… it was his vocation to take care of creation… to rule as God rules…

Yet Adam fell and forfeit all this… and was the only real human that ever lived… the rest of us are not whole… nor any longer God’s image…

Jesus, is the image of God… we agree. Yet, we too are by our vocation… as Jesus came to reconcile this world to the Father… so we too are to reconcile others to God… and later rule with Christ as priest and kings and together all being the image of God as we rule over the New Creation… as new creations ourselves.

This is not oral traditions but straight out bible teachings.

Blessings,
iggy

18   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Judaism is not part of the church. Israel is the Body of Christ both jew and gentile. Jesus called us back to the Law and the prophets, i.e. only what is found in the Scripture. Hillel has nothing to do with the church, unless of course he believed in Jesus by faith.
The addition of any cultural bias is “adding to”

Where we find the Bible quoting Greek poets, apocryphal writings and/or any rabbinical reference these things are now part of the canon. However, their sources are not
The gospels exist to reveal Christ, not talmudic teachings.
Under your “systematic theology” and in essence that is what it is, only 1st century jewish scholars could teach the Scriptures. But wait we would also have to read the prophets in light of ancient historical cultures. Jesus did not teach judaism. The scriptures are the living Word which reveal the living WQRD. God literally wrote the Bible. He chose what it consists of. In a sense everyhting asbout the Kingdom and the King “fell out of the sky” because it doesn’t come from us.
Once again I will ask the question;if a missionary arrives on a desert island and finds only one resident; preaches the gospel, and the resident comes to salvation, and then departs leaving the man a Bible;can that man read the scripture and understand it perfectly without the help of teachers and scholars linguists historians etc? Where is the Holy Spirit in what you promote here? Your system is more akin to the RCC and the “magesterial rule” method.

As for imago dei. Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn af all creation.
Now how can He be the firstbiorn of all creation, if Adam in Genesis 1 was the first man? Paul is talking about the new creation, not the old. That is how Christ is now the firstborn.
Put it together. Romans 5-6-7 tells us that we are reckon that we are dead, because quite literally we are. Jesus said we had to be “born again” Peter and Revelation say that the old earth and heavens will pass away in fire. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. We are a new creation, “Behold I am making all things new” The cross was not just for forgiveness, it is the tree of life that was ignored by Adam and Eve in favor the tree that looked good, and would make them “look good”.
The point of all this is simply. the old Adam and the old creation is dead before God, and is dying right before our eyes in what is called time. So the dear old long-married couple are dead men unless they are in Christ. At best they are a reflection of what might have been if only………
God’s image is found only in His Son. The scriptures say this not me. Let’s stick to what’s in the Word, and and not try to fill in the supposed gaps.

19   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Iggy,

I would disagree – we are all, as Adam’s descendants, made in the image of God. It is because of this that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor (which is why 6 of the 10 commandments address how to love our neighbor).

We love our neighbor (with even our enemies being our neighbors) because they, too, are made in the image of God. As we treat them is how we treat God.

20   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm

iggy
Go to my blog and read my posts on this. I reference that scripture and more. Yes we are conformed to the image of the Son, but only the Son as second Adam is the image of the Father. We have to be re-made/born/created to be in the image of God. That is why to take human life as I said is a gross sin. If we murder we take away the “potential” of a person’s being reborn. In a manner of speaking only God has the right to “kill” us.

21   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm

We love our neighbors as Christ did. He died not only for their sins but literally took them to the cross. They are dead and now have the possibilty of resurrection. Dead men are not the image of God. They are dead.

Psalm 116:
8For you have delivered my soul from death,
my eyes from tears,
my feet from stumbling;
9I will walk before the LORD
in the land of the living.

22   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Anyone who has been through any basic theology class knows that every human being bears the image of God. It is not complete because of our fallen nature, but it is there. I can’t believe we are actually debating this issue. It is pretty basic.

23   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Once again I will ask the question;if a missionary arrives on a desert island and finds only one resident; preaches the gospel, and the resident comes to salvation, and then departs leaving the man a Bible;can that man read the scripture and understand it perfectly without the help of teachers and scholars linguists historians etc?

He can find what he needs in order to be saved (but since the kingdom is found in community, it’s hard to have community when you’re the only person). That does not mean that he can plumb all the dephth of scripture and have complete understanding (none of us can).

The scriptures are the living Word which reveal the living WQRD. God literally wrote the Bible. He chose what it consists of. In a sense everyhting asbout the Kingdom and the King “fell out of the sky” because it doesn’t come from us.

God inspired the men who wrote the Bible (not literally His hand), and we have to trust that the church fathers in the 300’s canonized the right books.

Judaism is not part of the church.

Really? I guess I’ll just tear out Genesis through Malachi.

We (gentiles) have been grafted into the tree – we are NOT the tree, nor are we a new tree – as Paul teaches, we have been grafted into the existing tree.

Jesus did not exist independent of his culture, and it is rather foolish to assume that we should not study what he studied and understand the world he lived in. To do so is folly.

Under your “systematic theology” and in essence that is what it is, only 1st century jewish scholars could teach the Scriptures.

straw man. The kingdom, as taught by Jesus, was not a hellenistic, western ’system’ – the house of cards you have built for yourself.

Where is the Holy Spirit in what you promote here? Your system is more akin to the RCC and the “magesterial rule” method.

The last part of this is ad homenim, so I’ll ignore it.

Where is the Holy Spirit? Can the Spirit not guide us to learn of the culture in which Christ lived? Does the Spirit only teach by fiat?

As for imago dei. Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn af all creation.

Jesus (the Word) existed in Genesis 1:3 – before Adam. This does not prevent Adam from being created in God’s image – a little lower than the angels, but above the beasts (I’ll assume you’re versed enough to know what I’m quoting).

When does God remove his image from Adam? By choosing to sin, is Adam so powerful as to remove the image in which he was created? By no means. If Adam was ‘predestined’ to sin, how could he ever have been in God’s image in the first place?

The entire teaching of ‘loving one’s neighbor’ – from the time it was given to Moses – is based upon man being something better than the beasts – regardless of his stance with God. That ’something better’ is the image of God. That you choose to ignore this and argue for such a narrow definition makes you a spiritual descendent of the Priests and Sadducees, who were destroyed utterly in 70 A.D.

Certainly, God’s image is shown perfectly in Christ, but that does not remove His image – even warped and shattered – from all men.

24   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm

nathan – I agree with you – it was Day one in my OT survey class in Bible College. That we’re debating it with someone who supposedly knows the scripture is mind-boggling.

25   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Chris P

That is why to take human life as I said is a gross sin. If we murder we take away the “potential” of a person’s being reborn. In a manner of speaking only God has the right to “kill” us.

Talk about extrapolative hooey! “Potential”?!? At least I only add sources who consider the text to be inspired, instead of just making it up out of whole cloth…

26   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.

These are just two verses. The image of God was not lost in the fall, it was corrupted. Man still bears the image. It is primarily our moral man than needs to be changed through Christ. Some theologians say that when we become followers of Christ, our full humanity is restored.

27   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Thanks, Nathan. I foolishly tried to only go by memory (a PC process is slowing me down, and I chose not to open another window to Biblegateway). It was stupid of me to not slow down and do it the right way.

Grace and peace,

Chris

28   Matt    
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Although this discussion has been great because it explains a lot of Chris P’s theology. Rap music, for instance, Chris P would say, came from the unregenerate, making it completely evil and beyond redemption. Am I right?

Not that I believe this. It’s just helpful undersanding CRN theology.

29   Pastor Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm

The great example of a Christian Chris L. says, “Just because you are a legalistic blowhard intent on tearing apart God’s temple doesn’t mean the rest of us need to be infected with your evil tongue.”

And this: “…go away and never post here again until you decide to play the part of a Christian brother, in charity and behavior.”

O, you mean the “charity” you display here? Right. I say you gotta love the way God eventually exposes hypocrites. :-)

30   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Ken,

Eventually even charity runs out… I think you’ve been given more in one day than you have doled out in a lifetime on the web… I (unlike you) do not claim to speak for God, and I do run out of patience eventually. Even He, while He is infinitely more patient than I, also runs out of patience, as displayed in a number of parables and with the children of Israel in the desert.

When it became obvious that your only intent was to be vile and divisive, I chose the advice of Titus 3:10 and asked you to leave…

Ken said:

*sugh* O well, I just prayed for you anyway…

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” (Matt 6:5)

31   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm

well said, Chris

32   Pastor Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Um, I believe the issue was in the “how” you asked me to leave. And exactly when have I prayed on the street corners to be seen by men. Oops, Chris L. took the Scripture out of context. Maybe I should accuse him of having no idea how to exegete the Bible. :-0

33   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm

See we don’t agree on everything.

The reason we are not in the image of God is that we lost the vocation. In that some teach that it is the “rationalism” that makes us in His image, and some teach it is other attributes. Yet, there was a purpose for which man was created in the image and that was to take dominion, and to multiply… and to tend the Garden… and to glorify God. In Genesis notice Eve states:

5:3. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

We are in the image of Adam… thus the reason we are in Adam as we are fallen… and as redeemed we are in Christ.
So according to the Bible all man from Adam on are in the image of Adam… not God.

Blessings,
iggy

34   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Chris P….

I am stating we must be reborn to be the image of Christ…

To say God is done with the Jew is not true as you would have to throw out most of Revelation…

Yet, about the Israel thing… you are way off… We are engrafted into Israel… all the elect, which are the children of faith through the promise of Abraham are the elect… that mean we the church are engrafted into Israel… and have become adopted by God. Romans 11 explains that the one’s God “foreknew” were the descendants of Abraham… and THEY are the elect… read it carefully…

Also read in that same chapter how we are grafted into Israel… BTW… Jesus was the New Israel in Scripture so there is an understanding that both Jew and Gentile must be part of the Tree of Life who is Jesus.

So, we agree in some points and not on others… but I recommend not to let a theological system interfere with what the Bible teaches.

Blessings,
iggy

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pm

iggy,

I would have to go back to Nathan’s quoted verses, particularly Genesis 9:6 (the Noaic covenant, well after the death of Adam and his children and his grandchildren):

God speaking to Noah:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.”

Or I Cor 11:7

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;

James 3:9

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.

Nowhere is the likeness of God removed from man in the scriptures. Yes, it is damaged and renewed in Christ, but it is not removed. It is because of this likeness that we are to treat all humans as we would want to be treated.

As for my previous quote to Ken, while I am sure that if he were here, he would quibble with the usage of street corner, I am sure most any intelligent person today would see that ’street corner’ in the original context would include street corners, newspapers and internet message boards today. I would hope even a person like Ken would be that intelligent – but then again, possibly not…

Hopefully, he will not return until he decides to converse in a civil manner and he will no longer try our patience with his pagan babbling.

36   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Right and if you read it in a transliteration of Hebrew it would read…

God speaking to Noah:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made Adam.”

For man and Adam are the same word…. in some ways this is a play on the word man and Adam.

Also, again, we are in Adam until we come to Jesus… we are now as fallen man in the image of fallen Adam… Genesis 5:3

The verse you quoted from Noah must be taken in the context of that

Also God did make mankind in His Image… yet after that we are the image of Adam… as i pointed to the scripture that said that.

The term Son of God is only used for Adam, Jesus and the Angels… and later believers in Jesus. It has to do with being the direct creation (with the exception of Jesus as He is the direct begotten not a creation of God) regardless it is that man is now fallen…

As regenerate man, born of the Spirit we are now in the image of God as we are a new creation… and all man that receive Christ are “in Christ”.

Blessings,
iggy

37   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 24th, 2007 at 3:56 am

Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

God made man in His image. I never said that this was not so. That fact precludes anyone from murdering another even post-fall. However this verse spaks only of the fact that man was originally made in the image of God. It does not say that man existed in the image of God at the time this as spoken to Noah. How does a murderous and rebellious race show God’s image?
Only man can become part of the new creation through the power of the resurrection. Paul goes out of his way to stress that fact. Only a dead man can be resurrected. Therefore all in the first Adam are “literally” dead because of sin. The image of God cannot be found in a dead man.

James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.
I Cor 11:
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;

These passages are taken from letters to regenerate believers. Therefore they are moot. They are addressed to those who are already reborn in His image.

1. Chris P
I ask again then why did Christ come?
Chris L.
To reconclie us to God by atoning for our sins (which trace back to Adam).
Chris P. That is accomplished by the death of the old Adam.
Chris L. Where does it say that after Adam sinned that he was no longer made in the image of God?
Chris P. Romans 5 tells us that daeth entered through Adam therefore all are dead. Dead men do not portay God’s image. They are rebellious sinners Doesn’t sound like any God I know.

Chris L. I’ve added nothing to the Bible. It does not ‘add in’ anything to understand what context Jesus was living in and speaking in. Jesus is not independent of the culture, language, geography, politics and time in which he was living.
Chris P. However they are not the times in which He is currently living. Your view appears to be that outsiden of talmudic rabbinicalism the NT cannot be understood. My point is that rabbinical study is not required at all. The Bible is not a textbook.

Did not a sovereign God write the book for all the church for all time.
Chris L. Yes, but it did not fall out of the sky, independent of the context in which it was written. We are to understand it in its context and apply it to our issues today.
Chris P. The Bible transcends all cultural and historical contexts or it is essentially worthless to us. It came from God just as Jesus and the Kingdom come from god.

Judiaism is not the church’s theology.
Chris L. It was Jesus’ theology.The church is a sect of Judiasm, not a separate entity (per Romans 11).
Chris P. I am amazed that no one here has called you on both of these statements. First and foremost Jesus Christ is God. If he were merely a man or a good teacher you might have a point. Jesus did not come to be a good Jew. He came to reconcile creation back to its Creator. What is called talmudic and kabbalic judaism came out of the exile. Synagogues as ameeting place came out of the exile. Judaism waqs not a religion founded by God. The post exile prophets prophecied to a people who were caught up in a religion.

Because of Romans 1-4 it is clear that the Abrahamic covenant is the overriding context The Mosaic covenant is contained within that, and only for a time. Jesus said that it was fulfilled, the night before He died.
As for the church being a “sect” of judaism……please.
As for your twisting my other comments.
I am not hellenistic, and I built no house of cards
Hellenism is the pre-cursor to the Roman abomination and I am definitely anti-rome.
I am not a descendant of the scribes and pharisees. The scribes did not believe in the resurrection and I most certainly do. The pharisees did not accept Jesus as Messiah and I most certainly do.
BTW are the terms hogwash and hooey found in the midrash?

As for Matt
It may shock you that as part of the pastoral staff at my church I lead worship. Most of our songs are written in our church and they are retro 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, reggae, afro-caribbean, indigenous styled, rock,celtic, middle eastern, etc. You need to read my series on culture and the kingdom of God.

Iggy,
We are conformed to Christs image, and He is the image of the Father. Therefore we are the image of God in Him alone.

What it boils down to is this;
1.The scriptures are a stand alone book. They are to be read literally.
2. Fallen man no longer exists in the inage of God, else He wouldn’t be fallen man.
3. Imago dei exists only in the Body of Christ
4. Since man was originally made in the image of God we are forbidden to take life for the very reason that man once existed in God’s image, and only man can be re created in His image. That is what I meant by potential.
5. The kingdom does not exist in community. It exists in the King
6 Exegesis is not necessarily a “community” project. Look at the RCC to see where it can go off the deep end.
7. The Holy Spirit can teach by fiat. Why not? God created by fiat. He sent His son by fiat and he commands by fiat.
I define fiat as a determined act of His will. His will be done.

As for the “who is my neighbor?” comment;where is the “Biblical” evidence that Jesus was weighing in on a pharisee sadducee debate? How would knowing about this 1st century debate enhance the understanding that I already have of this passge?

38   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 24th, 2007 at 4:12 am

One more thing;
I am not preaching replacement theology, nor am I blowing off the jews. We are ingrafted into Israel that is the true Israel. Paul spoke of in Romans 9. There are jews who are no friend of Christ and will never be. In fact whether what we call anti-christ is a man or a system it will come from talmudic rabbinicalism. According to ephesians 2 the church is both jew and gentile and according to Romans 4:

9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
Israel, the restructured olive tree, is jew and gentile, and the roots are Abraham Isaac and Jacob the law and the prop-hets. Israel is all who believe by faith alone. The law was given essentially so tha men would break it. israel was entruested with the oracles/law however all of that is fulfilled in Christ.

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 5:22 am

Chris P.

1.The scriptures are a stand alone book. They are to be read literally.

Sorry, Chris, but you are sadly mistaken on what ‘literally’ means, and it is already more than obvious that you pick and choose what you want to be literal and what you do not want to be literal (just look at your goofy isogesis of Genesis 9:6 – “Oh it doesn’t REALLY mean what it literally says. It means that is was ORIGINALLY that, but that it is no more.”

The Bible is NOT a textbook, I agree – but it has lots of questions and gaps that require conversation to figure out what they mean. It was originally an oral record, which FORCED this to happen.

For the Bible to exist in a complete vacuum, apart from the culture in which it was written, we would also have to agree, then, that it meant something different THEN than it does NOW – because parts of it certainly would have meant something different to any listener/reader THEN (who had the full context) than it does NOW (if we choose to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the context – which I believe has been revealed by the Spirit for specifically the purpose of having the best understanding of the Word).

2. Fallen man no longer exists in the inage of God, else He wouldn’t be fallen man.

Fallen man IS fallen, I agree, but you have not successfully shown (other than by your stated and restated opinion) that God ever states LITERALLY in the Bible that man is no longer made in His image. In fact, Genesis 9:6 LITERALLY says just the opposite, which is just inconvenient for you, and so therefore it must not mean what it LITERALLY says.

What it comes down to, though, is a perfect example of where the Bible ISN’T *crystal clear* – what exactly does ‘image of God’ mean. It is apparent that you take this to mean ’sinless’ and reconciled – a mirror of the nature of God.

I, however, take this to come from Genesis 2:7, where the key ingredient which makes man in the image of God is ruach – spirit. It is because of this ruach that man exists even when he has died and is no longer made of dust. Thus it is that unregenerate man when he dies is unable to be with God and goes to hell, but regenerate man is reconciled to God in Heaven. This is why animals only go back to dust.

3. Imago dei exists only in the Body of Christ

The FULLY RESTORED Imago dei exists only in the Body of Christ. They are the only ones who will have a new body and live within a new heaven and new earth.

4. Since man was originally made in the image of God we are forbidden to take life for the very reason that man once existed in God’s image, and only man can be re created in His image. That is what I meant by potential.

I guess you can just sit opposed to 3000+ years of basic scriptural understanding of man being made in the image of God, but that won’t be anything new to you…

5. The kingdom does not exist in community. It exists in the King

Yes, you cannot have a kingdom without a King. But the kingdom – as taught by Christ – is experienced in community, not as an individual. It is only insertion of Hellenistic Western values that place the individual as prime (which is why systematic theologies were developed, where they never existed before) that converted Jesus’ (and Hebrew) teaching of kingdom as only found in community to a twisted ‘kingdom of one’ theology focused only on eternity.

The Kingdom HAS a King, in Jesus, and we (plural) are the temple (singular). Individuals are accountable for their own sins, yes, but the kingdom is not an individual ‘experience’.

6 Exegesis is not necessarily a “community” project. Look at the RCC to see where it can go off the deep end.

Without a community, you cannot have effective exegesis. Yes, it can go awry, but is it more likely to do so in a vacuum of one, or in a diverse community with appointed elders – where the scripture can be discussed and wrestled with, and where we are guided by the Holy Spirit to find how best to live it today?

7. The Holy Spirit can teach by fiat. Why not? God created by fiat. He sent His son by fiat and he commands by fiat.
I define fiat as a determined act of His will. His will be done.

“by fiat” basically means ‘from nothing’. I did not say that the Holy Spirit cannot teach by fiat. I asked where it says that Holy Spirit must ONLY teach by fiat (i.e. direct revelation based on nothing else)… (direct quote: “Does the Spirit only teach by fiat?” emphasis added)

As for the “who is my neighbor?” comment;where is the “Biblical” evidence that Jesus was weighing in on a pharisee sadducee debate? How would knowing about this 1st century debate enhance the understanding that I already have of this passge?

Actually, there were 8 primary debates going on at the time of Jesus, and he weighed in on EVERY ONE OF THEM. This included ruling on divorce (the only time he sided with Shammai and the Sadducees), who is my neighbor (he took it farther than Hillel), is there a physical resurrection (he sided with Hillel), eating on the Sabbath (he sided with Hillel), healing on the Sabbath (he sided with Hillel – and went even farther), how to love my neighbor (he sided with Hillel), to provide for one’s parents (he sided with Hillel) and so on.

How would knowing the first century debate on the Good Samaritan help? Why did Jesus choose a priest AND a Levite (since priests WERE Levites)? Why is it important that the man was ‘half dead’? Why is it specifically a Samaritan who helps the man? Why did it happen on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho? Why was Jesus asked the question in the first place? While a few of these questions I can answer partly directly from the Biblical text, I cannot FULLY answer then without knowing the culture and the land in which the text was written, as well.

For instance, by choosing the Jericho road, Jesus was choosing a ‘road’ that is barely a few feet wide with a wall on one side and a precipitous drop on the other. The idea of the priest and the Levite “passing by on the other side” would most likely have provoked laughter in the audience – and it would have spoken to just how difficult it would have been for the priest and the Levite to ignore the situation.

By choosing the priest and the Levite (and the Samaritan), Jesus chose the groups which held ONLY to the pentetuch, whereas the concept of pecuah nephesh came from all three parts of TaNaKh, and from the oral law. There were very real questions being asked of Jesus here – when does the need to save/protect life (or to bury a dead body in the wilderness) supercede following ceremonial cleanliness laws (which is why the priest and Levite would have passed on – to stay ceremonially clean, not out of indifference as some might literally interpret it)? The scriptures were certainly not clear on this question – it required study, wisdom and a community decision led by the Ruach Ha Kodesh to do this.

I am not preaching replacement theology nor am I blowing off the jews.

You certainly could have fooled me.

“I’m not a misogynist”, said the man before turning to his wife – “Now go make me my dinner!”

We are ingrafted into Israel that is the true Israel. Paul spoke of in Romans 9. There are jews who are no friend of Christ and will never be. In fact whether what we call anti-christ is a man or a system it will come from talmudic rabbinicalism.

Wow. I am so glad that you have eschatology figured out to know exactly where this will all come from. And what isogetics of yours prove this?

The law was given essentially so tha men would break it.

Ah, so God just set Adam up, and he really had no choice but to fail. Thanks for clearing that up… Oh, but wait, if Adam had no choice but to fail, then it would be God’s fault that he failed, which just isn’t possible, since God cannot sin. If Adam HAD TO sin, then (by your definition of ‘Image of God’) he could never have been made in God’s image in the first place.

Thank you for your lesson on why systematic theologies fail. I’ll stick with what Jesus taught and the context in which He taught, thank you very much.

40   Matt    
March 24th, 2007 at 6:25 am

James 3:9
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.

These passages are taken from letters to regenerate believers. Therefore they are moot. They are addressed to those who are already reborn in His image.”

While this passage is written to believers, it isn’t saying it’s only wrong to curse the regenerate. It just says “men”. We are not allowed to curse anyone because all are made in God’s likeness.

41   Matt    
March 24th, 2007 at 6:27 am

My above post I was experimenting with quotes. I need to work on that. Can anyone point me to instructions on how to do that?

My main point is that James 3:9 is written to believers, it isn’t saying it’s only wrong to curse the regenerate. It just says “men”. We are not allowed to curse anyone because all are made in God’s likeness.

42   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 7:27 am

Matt – Yes, I agree with that, as well. It would make no sense to only be about other believers (which are always referred to in a more exclusive way, such as ‘brothers’, etc.)

As for quotes – you need to use the “blockquote” tag – which is used the same way you add bold, italics, etc. (I’ can’t demonstrate here, because it will convert the tag to html…

43   Neil S.    
March 24th, 2007 at 8:32 am

Ken,

The issue with you in particular is – you rarely interject anything of substance, mostly you just drop in now and then to insult.

That’s why I have tried to understand you deep set anger, since you main goal seems to be to insult and not contribute.

Neil

44   Neil S.    
March 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am

Chris P,

At the risk of raising another issue. We are not ingrafted into Israel – unless you are speaking of a non-dispensational type spiritual Israel. In romans Paul says that Israel and Gentiles are each branches neither is the vine.

Neil

45   Neil S.    
March 24th, 2007 at 8:44 am

Everyone picks and chooses what is literal and what is not. As for discussions like this, the first one to resort to questioning the other’s belief in the Bible is usually building on the thinner ice – and they know it.

As for the imago dei – all humans possess it.

Neil

(insert insult from Ken here)

46   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 9:55 am

Chris….

Weird thing is that we are in agreement except on finer points which I think you just need to study out further… you confuse and think the Body and the Kingdom are separate things… they are not…

We are the Body of Christ… He is the Head…

This same Body is also the Church…

We are in the Kingdom of God and Christ is the King…

The Kingdom is not about being an individual in Christ… it can’t be… an individual cannot be a kingdom… Yet all that are in Christ. The Kingdom is said to be like yeast… ever expanding… Matt 13:33 ( oh a man can be a kingdom unto himself, yet that is what is wrong right now with fallen man… he thinks he is a kingdom to himself yet really is part of the kingdom of darkness).

It is about how the Gospel, (Good News of the Kingdom… that Christ has Risen) has come… it starts in believers becoming a New Creation… (you call it regeneration) and will come to the New Heaven and New Earth…

The weird thing is that you seem to be arguing with me on points we agree….

Why is that?

I pointed out man was made originally in the image of God.

Then after the fall, Genesis 5:3 it is state Seth is in the image of Adam…

Noah is referring to three things actually…

1. Adam was made in the image of God.
2. Man must pay for his death of murder by his own death.
3. This is also prophetic of Jesus… (I won’t go into this as right now you can’t even grasp we are agreeing. Suffice it to say it ties into Jesus being the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15: 45) But it take a bit to get there…

Really I don’t have time to unpack all the finer points here… so let’s say we agree on the big points… yet remember i am also an “emergent” heretic as defined by Ken Silva and the rest of the CRN camp so what I believe is wrong… yet we agree! So where does that logic take you? LOL!

be blessed by the thought!
iggy

47   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 10:23 am

Iggy,

it took me a mintue to figure out which Chris you were writing to.

I think part of the basis of disagreement is what exactly ‘the image of God’ implies. It seems that you and Mr. Pajak take the view that imago dei implies sinlessness and connection with the Father. In that sense, I would agree that not all men are imago dei.

However, I (and the Judeo-Christian traditional interpretation) see it much less specifically:

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Image of God

It would be difficult to overstate the centrality of the image of God as a crucial theme in biblical theology. From the beginning of the end in Genesis (protology) to the end of the beginning in Revelation (eschatology), the image of God is crucial for understanding the flow of redemptive history. God creates humans in his image, justly punishes them for rebellion, yet graciously provides redemption from that rebellion, and then finally consummates redemptive history by transforming the whole creation into new heavens and a new earth.

Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that God created humankind as male and female in his image (tselem [,l,x]) and likeness (demut [tWm.D]). It is doubtful that distinctions between the meanings of these two words are to be pressed. Rather, the pair of words conveys one idea through a literary device known as hendiadys. Later, in Genesis 5:1-3, after God’s image-bearers had sinned against him, the language of Genesis 1:26-27 is repeated as a prelude to a list of Adam’s posterity. Significantly, this passage links God’s original creation of humans in his likeness with the subsequent human procreation of children in Adam’s image and likeness. Following the Genesis narrative further, after the flood of Noah, Genesis 9:6 indicates that due to the image of God capital punishment is required in cases of murder. To murder a creature who images God is tantamount to an attempt to murder the God who created the image-bearer, and the heinous nature of this offense warrants the forfeiture of the murderer’s life as well.

But what is meant by the terms “image” and “likeness”? Three approaches to this question are commonly found, and no doubt all three have some merit. Many have concluded that humans are image-bearers due to their superior intellectual structure. Others have stressed that God mandates that humans function as rulers and managers of the creation as they image him (Gen 1:26-28; Psalm 8:5-8). Yet another approach stresses the created relationships of humans; they image God as they relate to him, to each other, and to nature. Just as the Creator is a being in relationship, so are his creatures. Putting these views together, humans are like God in that they are uniquely gifted intellectually (and in many other ways) so that they may relate to God and to each other as they live as stewards of the world God has given them to manage. While an image is a physical representation of a person or thing (Exod 20:4; Matt 22:20), the human body does not mechanically image God, as if God had a body. Rather, the whole human being, including the body, images God’s attributes by ethical living in concrete settings.

Sadly, the pristine beauty and harmony of this original created order were shattered by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, and the record in Genesis 3 as well as the history of human cultures show how alienation between humans and God, humans and other humans, and humans and nature quickly became the normal state of affairs. Yet even in this sorry state of alienation and disharmony, humans can still image God, although in an inconsistent and perverted fashion (Gen 5:1-3; 9:6; Ps. 8 cf. 1 Cor 11:7; James 3:9). God calls his redeemed covenant people to the highest ethical standard. They are to be like him; their ethical obedience images God.

In the New Testament the teaching of Jesus indicates the value of human beings implicit in their being God’s image-bearers (Matt 6:26; 12:12). More important, Jesus himself perfectly images God in his life and ministry as he relates sinlessly to God, people, and nature. As the first Adam failed the satanic test, the second Adam passed with flying colors (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus did not forsake God as did Adam, but as the sin-bearer Jesus was forsaken by God (Matt 27:46) so that he might restore his people to harmonious relationships to God, neighbor, and nature.

It is primarily Paul who develops the New Testament teaching on the image of God. Paul sees Jesus as the one who preexisted in God’s form (morphe Php 2:6) and whose incarnation supremely imaged God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; cf. John 1:1, 14, 18; 14:9; Heb 1:3). Jesus’ work of redemption is both compared and contrasted to Adam’s work of rebellion (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22). Those who believe in Jesus are renewed in the image (eikon [eijkwvn]) of God and are expected to live as renewed people (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10). Their destiny is ultimately to be made like Jesus, to image him perfectly as he perfectly images God (1 Cor 15:49; Eph 4:13; Php 3:21). In this respect Christians are like children who look up to their big brother and want to be like him (Rom 8:29). For the Christian, then, godliness in a world is Christ-likeness.

For Paul salvation from start to finish, encompassing regeneration, sanctification, and glorification, is nothing less than new creation (Rom 8:18-30; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17; Gal 2:20; 6:15; Eph 2:10; cf. John 3:5; 5:24). This new creation is not merely individual but corporate and cosmic as well. The salvation of individual believers places them into community with other believers whose destiny augurs that of the physical uNIVerse itself (Rom 8:19-21; 1 Cor 15:24-28; Col 1:16; cf. Matt 19:28; Heb 2:5-8). The community of believers in Jesus has already experienced image renewal and with perseverance they hope for the consummation of that renewal. In the meantime their ethical obedience is not merely to be like God but to be like Christ, who has provided not only an incarnate model for godliness but also a dynamic for attaining godliness through the Spirit (John 13:14; 1 Cor 11:1; Eph 4:32-5:2; Php 2:5; Col 3:13; 1 Thess 1:6; 1 John 3:3).

Any discussion of the image of God would be incomplete without some elucidation of the glorious future that awaits those who have been renewed in the image of God. This is the prospect of new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells. God’s plan of redemption in Christ would be severely truncated if it involved only the “spiritual” salvation of individuals who believe in Jesus. The original created order encompassed not only a “spiritual” relationship to God but also a social relationship to other humans and a material relationship to the world. Thus biblical eschatology envisions the restoration of all three of these relationships in a world where God’s people may experience unhindered fellowship with him (Rev 21:3-5) because the Edenic curse has been removed (Rev 22:3). Ever since Abraham, the prototypical person of God, God’s people have longed for this time when life in all its facets may be lived fully to God’s glory. This glorious biblical vision of a time when creatures will fully reflect the Creator’s splendor ought to provide strong encouragement to Christians who presently reflect God’s likeness in an imperfect yet improving manner.

David L. Turner

48   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am

The biggest point of this conversation I hope that is not missed is that though Chris L and I may disagree we are not tossing “heretic’ and other labels out at each other.

The other point is that Chris P is in agreement with a labeled heretic (by Ken Silva’s definition). SO what does that make Chris P…

1. A heretic also. (As he is in agreement with a know emergent)
2. Wrong on his theology.
3. Has to admit iggy may be saved after all…. thus is not a heretic
4. Must admit that not all emergents are heretics as iggy is not a heretic, yet is an emerging church person…

Either way this points to the hypocrisy and dangers of labeling… yet, somehow I think this will all still be rationalized away by Ken and Chris P.

This will not surprise me as it take humility to admit one can be wrong…

Also, it shows the diversity of thought that can be in Christianity… yet all views here are well within the “orthodox view”… which is pretty generous as far as orthodoxy…

Blessings,
iggy

49   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am

Iggy,

As noted, the disagreement seems to be around the definition of ‘image of God’ more than anything else…

50   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 11:13 am

Oops – hit enter too soon.

It just seems that the traditionally held view (which I hold, in this case) is better supported, whereas (ironically) your and Chris P’s view is a systematic view that is out of the mainstream of thought.

Why exactly, though, is it so important to you (Chris) that all men are NOT made in God’s image? Why is this important in your ’system’?

51   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am

Actually my view comes out of a bit of the Jewish view… and a bit of N.T. Wright… he is reformed though so that is what may be the similarity…

Again, I am not saying you are all wrong, nor that I am absolutely completely right… if it was as clear as some claim we would not even be discussing this!

LOL!,
iggy

52   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 11:23 am

Iggy,

It’s odd that you say it comes from the Jewish view, as I got chided early in this thread by Chris for pulling in the Talmudic proverb about the ugly man and the rabbi…

53   Tim    
March 24th, 2007 at 11:29 am

I find it pretty undeniable that all humans are made in the image of God. Echoing what Nathan said, It’s hard to believe that this is being argued, but oh well. Remember when Paul talked to the people at Mars Hill. He quoted one of their philosophers, saying that we all are God’s offspring. I think that also supports the idea that we all bear the image of God. I think offspring could also be interpreted to mean children. But to those who disagree, what do you think offspring means?

I remember reading something on either CRN or apprising on Tony Campolo, pretty much bashing him for saying that non-Christians are children of God. I think that comes from a poor understanding of what child of God means. Some might disagree with me here, but I believe that we are all God’s ‘children’, or ‘offspring’ because we are created by Him and made in the image of Him. Those of the Church, however, is more than just ‘children’. We are sons and heirs of God. We are reconciled. We, through Christ, have a special place. (thanks to my dad for showing me the difference between children and sons)

I think James 3:9 singlehandedly proves that we are all in the image of God. Chris, look at what Matt said and take a close look at the verse. He is talking TO the elect, but he is cleraly talking ABOUT all men. It not too difficult, really…

And being in the image of God and total depravity do not conflict in any way, I’m not quite sure how they even could…

Kudos to Iggy who I disagree with for not getting bashful or contentious about this.

And Chris P, just because you disagree with someone doesn’t give you the right to be hostile…can’t we disagree nicely?

54   Tim    
March 24th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Chris L & Iggy, what do you think about everyone being a child of God?

Iggy, about us being born in the image of Adam, that also could be interpreted to mean that since Adam is in the image of God, and Seth is in the image of Adam, therefore Seth is also in the image of God, and the rest of Adam’s offspring are in the image of God. I have heard it interpreted like that, and I think it makes sense, but what do you think?
And also, how do you interpret James 3:9?

love in Christ, tim

55   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Tim…

James is talking to “brothers”…

So he is talking to those who are “in Christ” and are now Sons of God and new creations thus the image of God through Christ.

Blessings,
iggy

56   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Tim,

I would agree with what you have written on that subject. It makes sense to me. While this can seem like an exercise in semantics, where I see the importance is in how we then treat each other – both brothers and non-Christians.

While I do not see ‘loving your neighbor’ as something that is all hugs, kisses, bunnies and butterflies, I see it as far more kind and gentle than what passes for ‘love’ within the church today. What I see far too much of is not ‘tough love’, it’s just ‘tough’ – and its roots are in who is made in God’s image, the labels we use to de-humanize them, and the rhetoric we use to mock and (attempt to) call down God’s wrath upon them.

The Sadducees of the first century believed that only God-fearing Jews were made in God’s image, which was why they believe that these were their only ‘neighbors’ whom they had to love. We can bury our heads in the collective sand and pretend this wasn’t so – or ignore it – as the context for the question asked of Jesus and Jesus’ ultimate answer – but the answer is the same – all men are made in God’s image, and, as such, all our are neighbors whom we are to love.

57   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Iggy,

James – in the same passage – distinguishes between all ‘men’ and ‘brothers’:

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. James 3:7-10

Not only does he distinguish between the two, but he makes it clear in verses 7 and 8 that he is talking about all creatures and all men.

58   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

James 3:1. Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

Then James expounds on this as he talks of how the natural man has tamed all things yet not the tongue….

Then,

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.”

James goes back into “we” and then ends with “my brothers”…

Again, we do not have to agree, it is just how I read the passage.

Blessings,
iggy

59   Zan    
March 24th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Do the people who believe that only Christians are made in the image of God also believe that only certain “elected” people are chosen by God to be saved (predestination)? It would seem to me that these two ideas would fit well with each other, as both categorize certain people as lesser with regards to their importance to God.

60   Tim    
March 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Iggy, I guess we can agree to disagree. lol

Chris, I know what you mean by people reducing love to simply ‘tough.’ But still, why does love always have to do with telling people the straight up truth. Where is that the main focus of love? At CRN, there are quite a few posts about how if someone does not tell their (CRN’s) idea of what truth means, they do not really have Biblical love. Do you think that’s really a truthful meaning of love? When I read about love in the Bible, it’s almost always about simply giving yourself to serve someone else. It’s not done in word, but in action. Just read what John says about love in 1 John. I think some are losing that true, more biblical, kind of love.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Mar 29 2007 / 11am:

    [...] As noted previously, I don’t find labels all that useful when they’re used to divide and separate people.  [...]