1st, my statement may be incomprehensible because you choose to garble the doctrine of the Trinity but it is plainly false to say that it is incomprehensible to "everyone." Furthermore you have confused the incomprehensibility of the Trinity - i.e., the fact, which all serious theologians will admit, that the inner life of God cannot be fully grasped by us - with a fake incomprehensibility of our doctrines of the Trinity - i.e., human attempts to understand what God has in fact revealed to us. Even a person who doesn't believe in God should be able to understand the distinction (changes being made in the terminology - e.g., "putative God" &c - where necessary
Even though you say in your 1st sentence "although he is not the Father," you immediately forget that when you say "it is fully akin to trusting in himself." You simply fail to realize that there is an actual distinction of persons in the Godhead. When Jesus prayed to the Father he wasn't talking to himself. Far from there being any "incomprehensibility" in the idea of the Son trusting in the Father, that is the essence of his Sonship since he receives his being from the Father. That, of course, is what the phrase "eternally begotten of the Father" in the Nicene Creed means.
& your insistence on phrasing the issue in terms of an historical Adam shows that you have not escapted from your YEC understanding of Christianity. You may not believe it anymore but I suspect that your understanding of Christianity is still framed in those terms. & that will of course make it difficult for you to understand Christian theology that is not formulated that narrowly.
If you really want to understand Christian theology - whether or not you want to believe it - then approach the subject with some humility and realize that you have no expertise in the area, just as you would any other discipline that you aren't familiar with.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
George Murphy said:
"The perfection of his humanity is shown in his perfect trust in God as his Father"
Unfortunately that is incomprehensible to everyone since, although he is not the Father, Jesus is fully God (the incomprehensibility of the trinity). Since Jesus is fully God it is akin to trusting fully in himself, unless Jesus (as son of God) has a different job description than God the Father. So it appears that the 'image of God' is a mystery in itself, and now it is tied-up and bundled into another mystery of the Trinity. (To say that Jesus emptied some of Himself, Philippians, is also a mystery since He is fully God.)
I guess it would be unfair to say Jesus is the perfect example of what "the image of God" looks like in a man because while Jesus is fully man, He's also fully God. In other words, He is infinitely more than 'Adam' would be had Adam not sinned and somehow darkened (or degraded) "the image of God" in all of us today. To demonstrate what it would mean to have the "perfect image of God" within a man, it would have to be demonstrated by someone who is also only a man, and not also part (or whole) God.
That's how it seems to me.
.Bernie
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 4:53 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
The perfection of his humanity is shown in his perfect trust in God as his Father and in his really loving other people as himself. Of course more could be said but that's the herat of it.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
George said:
"So where does humanity become fully the image of God? Maybe 25 December, 4 B.C. (with a bit of poetic license)."
When you (and other theologians) say Jesus is the perfect example of a human in the full image of God, what would be one example of that manifestation from Jesus? Is there anything you can point to in Jesus (by his works, etc.), and say "ah ha, there is the image of God?" Or is it just a theological spiritual statement that can't be observed? Is it anything different than other humans have, or is it just "on, all the time" (same thing al humans have, just more of it to a degree of 100%, 24x7)?
.Bernie
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:16 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
This gets beyond the question of the proper interpretation of the text in Gen.1 & becomes a question for broader Christian theology that reflects on the whole of scripture (including, of course, Gen.1), the Christian theological tradition & what we know of the world from science. I don't know how the author (& possible redactors) of the first creation account thought of the creation of humanity beyond what we're told in the text. Did he think of their being a primordial couple from which all others are descended? I'd guess so, but it's only a guess.
In any case humanity from the beginning is seen as commissioned to be God's regent in caring for creation, & that holds for all succeeding generations. We'd immediately have to add 2 caveats. 1st, as you noted, the ability of humans to carry out that commission is limited by their own abilities (understanding of the world, technology &c), as we know, those are things that developed gradually. So from the beginning the command "Have dominion" could be understood only with the qualification "to the extent you're able". & certainly the biblical writers knew this because their abilities to control other creatures, natural forces &c were far less than ours. (& that has to be borne in mind when we think of the implications of "have dominion." While we can read it as a license to exploit, people of the ancient world, with far less power, & who, moreover, were told by surrounding cultures that they'd been created to be slaves of the gods to do their scut work, would have seen it as a word of liberation.)
But the other - & theologically more serious considertaion - is that sin deflects us from the task God gives us. The point is not so much, as in traditional descriptions of the fall, that we lost some ability, but that, being turned away from God, we want to use the abilities we have for our own benefit - i.e., not to care for creation but to use it for our own good.
So where does humanity become fully the image of God? Maybe 25 December, 4 B.C. (with a bit of poetic license).
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
George said: "My own view is that the image of God refers to the commission given humanity to represent God in ruling/caring for creation - "let them have dominion &" helps to explain the concept. "
Did that commission happen at one time for all existing humans, or is it an emergent thing, as they are gradually given representation for God as their capabilities (in intellect, etc.) emerge? One is a direct action by God, the other is sort of built into the system (like fully gifted creation). Since we know that man gradually evolved, an emergence seems rational. Otherwise, you have God looking at the intermediate state of mankind, in various stages within the population, then saying "OK, now is my time to bestow my image upon them all." That would seem to be arbitrary, as if one year prior wasn't good enough, but waiting for the next year might have been too much of a delay.
.Bernie
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:57 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
Bernie -
Since you mention me, let me jump in. It's clear from the use of the plural "them" and the phrase "male and female he created them" in Gen.1:26-28 that the reference is to humanity in general and not just to a single male human. Thus it is proper to translate 'adham in v.26 as "humankind" as NRSV does. (Of course that can also be the sense of "man" in the older KJV.) It's a bit confusing that the male singular is also used in v.27 but it's possible to read this as Westermann does in his Genesis 1-11, "according to the image of God he created it" - "it" being "humanity. Hebrew has no neuter 3d person pronoun. Or the use of the singular my emphasize that each individual shares in the image.
It's open to harmonizers to argue that "male and female" refer to Adam and Eve, not humankind in general. But that's artificial since the 1st creation account knows nothing of individuals named Adam and Eve.
My own view is that the image of God refers to the commission given humanity to represent God in ruling/caring for creation - "let them have dominion &" helps to explain the concept. But the old idea that it means rationality isn't completely off base since humans have to be rational to exercise such regency.
All the speculations aside, nothing is said in Genesis about humanity losing the image of God, how much of it was lost, etc. As a matter of fact that whole idea of humanity as the image of God isn't pursued in the OT. It gets picked up in the NT where Christ is the true image of God - which means that Christ, not "Adam", shows us what humanity is supposed to be.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>I was just reviewing "the image of God" from my favorite textbook and theologian "Christian Theology" by Millard J. Erickson, and I think it leads me to a fascinating question for Denis Lamoureux and his theories.
>
> Millard describes the three views/theories of "the image of God,' labeled "substantive, relational, and functional." He also says all three views are not completely satisfying (pg. 517 chapter summary), then gives a detailed analysis using Scripture with his own opinion.
>
> So it seems to me, after looking at Millard's discussion, that the image of God is completely spiritual (as well as a mystery), and in no way can be scientifically measured, etc. (just like the existence of God, the Devil, etc.).
>
> However- this does pose a very interesting question for Denis Lamoureux. As I understand Denis, he says "there is no Adam" just like there is no firmament. Can we go farther? The only mention of "made in the image of God" is also from the same passage! No firmament, no literal man named Adam.. why not also no literal 'image of God' given at one point. Wouldn't that be consistent? It is all Gen. chapter 1! Shouldn't the same hermeneutic be used on the whole chapter?
>
> Also- since we know that God made humans biologically through evolution, and there is no literal Adam, that means to give 'man and woman' an 'image of God' it would likely have been given to all people everywhere at that point. This solves the problem of man one man being picked as a representative, then trying to figure out how some humans have the image and some don't, and how the image descends to children. So giving the 'image' all at one to all humans at one time means there was no single guy picked-out, contrary to Dick Fischer's thesis. So _with_biological_evolution_, we have these choices for theology:
>
> 1. "Image" given at one time to all humans, and their descendents. Who teaches this view SPECIFICALLY (I don't know)? This way, there's no mystery as to how descendents get it.. they just get it by birth. (I think George Murphy would likely accept this, amongst many other possible theories too.)
>
> 2. "Image" given to one representative person, with mystery as to how descendents and peers get it (Dick Fisher, and Roman Catholic church?).
>
> 3. "Image" is figurative like the firmament. It just describes our God-like attributes (love, compassion, intelligence, etc.). (This is MY extension of Lamoureux's work, although I'm not a believer, it would have been my theory if I remained). This is consistent with saying 'there is no literal Adam like there is no literal firmament.' In this sense, the image is from EMERGENCE. Humans are accountable to sin to the degree that they are able to perceive it (Luke 12). It is a figurative term for a capability/structure that humans have, as it is a part of their structure/make-up (MADE in the image of God).
>
> Luke 12:
> 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
>
> Interesting quote:
> RE: Millord pg. 536 in summary:
> "The image is universal in humankind. It was to Adam, human, that the image was given. Whether one regards him as the first human being or as a representative or symbolic being, "Adam" was the whole human race and "Eve" was the mother of all living.
>
> After this discussion finishes up, I'd like to next talk about "the entrance of sin" into the world in regards to evolution (so please save that for later).
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 10 22:45:07 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 10 2009 - 22:45:07 EDT