Re: [asa] The image of God

Hi Bernie,

I couldn't find any reference to a "Masters in Ministry" from on the Luther Rice website.

Perhaps you'd like to inform us - concisely - just how many credit hours were involved in this study, and, of those, how many involved the study of systematic theology.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> “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.”
>
>
>
> What do you mean that I’m not familiar with theology? I have a Masters
> in Ministry degree from Luther Rice University (www.lru.edu). I think
> that credential should say I have some familiarity with it. This is
> another example of ‘heat’ feedback, not ‘light.’
>
>
>
> “You simply fail to realize that there is an actual distinction of
> persons in the Godhead.”
>
>
>
> Yes- I know- it is one of those ’distinctions’ that we can’t really
> grasp. That was my point, my conclusion that “the image of God” is a
> mystery wrapped-up in other “mysteries” like the trinity. So of course
> science will never have anything to say about that thing (the ‘image of
> God’) since that thing can’t be coherently defined or understood. Not
> even theologians in the same sect can understand it (the ‘image of God’)
> in the same way.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:44 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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 Sun Oct 11 17:30:59 2009