Re: [asa] Historical Theology and Current Theology re: Original Sin & Monogenism

 I guess I like to speculate on how God is manifest in the world, but

I don't put a lot of weight on it when it comes to a specific hierarchy.

I think I said in another post that life is more in the image of God than

non-life.  While I'm personally content that such judgment is both benign

and probable, it is significant to very little.  Outside of a very generalized

relationship between scientific and religious classification criteria (which

is nominally relevant to the list) it's much ado about nothing.

If I think about it, I would say that the most important issue to consider

in terms of men being created in the image of God would be that the concept

is, in my mind, more of a source of arrogance in modern humans than it is a

reassurance of our connection to deity.  As such I feel it should be applied

only in light of the responsibilities and blessings it implies and not the

elevated stature it provides. 

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----

From: gordon brown <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>

To: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:30 pm

Subject: Re: [asa] Historical Theology and Current Theology re: Original Sin & Monogenism

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, mlucid@aol.com wrote: 

> 

> Well, there it is, iddnit? I 

> never recognized an angel, but I know in my heart as well as I know 

> anything that if angels still exist they are unquestionably created 

> more in the image of God than I am.  That the Bible doesn't 

> specifically address this precise hierarchy is not in the least a 

> factor in my judgment.  That it might be a bad thing if I actually have 

> it wrong is not an issue for me either.  That it might be a problem for 

> someone else to determine the relative deity of man vs angel without 

> concrete proclamation from the sacred text would never have crossed my 

> mind until now. 

> 

> 

> 

> Maybe it's me.  Maybe I have a feeling that no one else has, but I 

> don't think so.  Aren't angels my deific superiors?  Is that me taking 

> liberties I have no business taking or is it me making an obvious 

> rational association given the general implications about angels in the 

> Bible?  Am I a blasphemer for my reflexive interpretations or is Gordon 

> not giving himself sufficient liberties with his faith?  Is there 

> really a way to answer this question or is each of us judged 

> independently under our individual challenges and blessings?  I can't 

> begin to answer for Gordon, and I'm not that all-fired sure about me 

> either, but I'm still pretty sure about the angels being created in the 

> image of God thing.  

> 

> 

> 

> -Mike (Friend of ASA) 

Mike, 

I feel as if I don't know much about angels, and so my comments about them
are quite tentative. You seem to want to linearly order all beings and
then find a dividing line between those who were created in God's image
and those who were not. What is the criterion for such an ordering? Man
was created a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7), but we will judge
angels (I Cor. 6:3). 

The context of Gen. 1:26,27 seems to be that man was made in the image of
God so that he would be qualified to rule over the others of God's
creatures. It was only man that received such a stewardship. 

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 28 12:49:30 2007