How are we made in the Image of God?

[fastfredy0]

Frankly I think nobody on earth knows what is implied in being "made in the image of God". Some call it intellect, some call it 'spiritual intellect', some call it sentience, some call it free will. We don't know. If, for example, it is the arms-legs-head-trunk thing, it wouldn't make much difference whether saved or redeemed. Becoming conformed to the image of Christ would be a different matter. We have notions, some maybe better than others, but we don't know.

I can agree with that ... .though we have a few verses that give us a clue. Also, if it's a characteristic that is not in common with God, then said characteristic would not be part of what makes up the "image of God" and that's why I used the statement that non-Christians are called sons of Satan and thus it seems less likely that one could say they fit the "image of God" definition, though the exact definition of "image of God" not found in the Bible.

The Image of God has something to do with KNOWLEDGE ...
Colossians 3:10 and have put on the new self. You are being renewed in knowledge according to the image of your Creator.
The Image of God has something to do with Righteousness ...
Eph. 4:24 you put on the new self, the one created according to God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.


OTHER OPINIONS

10. How did God create man? (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
A. God created man male and female, after his own image [a], in knowledge , righteousness, and holiness [c], with dominion over the creatures [d]. [a] Genesis 1:27; Colossians 3:10; [c] Ephesians 4:24; [d] Genesis 1:28; see Psalm 8

The Heidelberg Catechism asks and answers the question:
Did God create man thus wicked and perverse? No; but God created man good, and after his own image—that is, in righteousness and true holiness.

The Belgic Confession limits the image of God in the same fashion:
We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God.

The Canons of Dordt say this about the subject:
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy.

 

[Josheb]

According to Anthony Hoekema, humankind is created in God's image, possessing both structural qualities (like reason and moral sensitivity) and functional aspects (like true knowledge, righteousness, and love) that enable us to be mirrors and representatives of God. This image also involves a three-part relationship to God, other people, and the natural world, and it is intended to be renewed and ultimately perfected.

All the attributes are true but that does not mean the attributes are the image. Rationally speaking, we are all, including Hoekema, making an equivalence based on correlation. Another word for that is "assumption."

1. God has intellect.
2. Humans have intellects.
3. Therefore, God's image must be that of intellect.

1. God has hands.
2. Humans have hands.
3. Therefore, God's image must be that of hands.

1. God drives a chariot.
2. Humans can drive chariots.
3. Therefore, the ability to drive chariots must be the image of God.

Any response other than "Amen!" is an indication the problem with that kind of argument is recognized but not applied to Hoekema. Anyone saying amen isn't thinking the matter through, including Hoekema (although I suspect Hoekema would agree he is only making a correlatively possible statement and not a definitive one.

So, I think we can know, actually.

And yet we do not.

Perhaps you'd care to examine Hoekema's argument and present the salient portion(s) in the thread so the matter can be decided in everyone's mind.

 

[Carbon]

All the attributes are true but that does not mean the attributes are the image. Rationally speaking, we are all, including Hoekema, making an equivalence based on correlation. Another word for that is "assumption."

1. God has intellect.
2. Humans have intellects.
3. Therefore, God's image must be that of intellect.

1. God has hands.
2. Humans have hands.
3. Therefore, God's image must be that of hands.

1. God drives a chariot.
2. Humans can drive chariots.
3. Therefore, the ability to drive chariots must be the image of God.

Any response other than "Amen!" is an indication the problem with that kind of argument is recognized but not applied to Hoekema. Anyone saying amen isn't thinking the matter through, including Hoekema (although I suspect Hoekema would agree he is only making a correlatively possible statement and not a definitive one.

And yet we do not.

Perhaps you'd care to examine Hoekema's argument and present the salient portion(s) in the thread so the matter can be decided in everyone's mind.

Seems you're missing the meaning.

 

[Josheb]

Seems you're missing the meaning.

Explain it to me.

[Content removed by moderator.]

Seems you're missing the meaning.

Prove it.

 

[Arial]

OTHER OPINIONS

10. How did God create man? (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
A. God created man male and female, after his own image [a], in knowledge , righteousness, and holiness [c], with dominion over the creatures [d]. [a] Genesis 1:27; Colossians 3:10; [c] Ephesians 4:24; [d] Genesis 1:28; see Psalm 8

The Heidelberg Catechism asks and answers the question:
Did God create man thus wicked and perverse? No; but God created man good, and after his own image—that is, in righteousness and true holiness.

The Belgic Confession limits the image of God in the same fashion:
We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God.

The Canons of Dordt say this about the subject:
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy.

I think this is correct, mostly. And I still think image and likeness are not the same thing exactly. The image is the one whose image we are to reflect in all our doings---good (according to God's standard). holy, righteous. Knowledge, I think pertains more to his likeness. Our knowledge comes from him, and from this knowledge comes wisdom in all our doings, including having dominion over the earth and all that is in it.

 

[Josheb]

I think this is correct, mostly. And I still think image and likeness are not the same thing exactly. The image is the one whose image we are to reflect in all our doings---good (according to God's standard). holy, righteous. Knowledge, I think pertains more to his likeness. Our knowledge comes from him, and from this knowledge comes wisdom in all our doings, including having dominion over the earth and all that is in it.

That's interesting. Image would have to do more with a reflected presence and likeness would have to do with character or character development? Would we then say something like Adam reflected God's presence but lacked the likeness of (understanding and) wisdom wherever he lacked divine knowledge (such as that he would have obtained had he partaken from the tree of life instead of the tree of evil knowledge? Jesus, on the other hand, being the (eternal) image of God, was made in human likeness in that none had yet partaken of the tree of life and the knowledge thereof?

Can you tell me more about the distinctions between image and likeness?

 

[fastfredy0]

And I still think image and likeness are not the same thing exactly.

Maybe ... I don't see a definition in scripture so that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation/guessing/invention.

 

[Arial]

Maybe ... I don't see a definition in scripture so that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation/guessing/invention.

Look at Christ. The pure image and likeness of God on this earth as one of us. That is what we were created to be as humans bearing his image and likeness, and that is what we are being conformed to and will be fully at the consummation.

 

[makesends]

I can agree with that ... .though we have a few verses that give us a clue. Also, if it's a characteristic that is not in common with God, then said characteristic would not be part of what makes up the "image of God" and that's why I used the statement that non-Christians are called sons of Satan and thus it seems less likely that one could say they fit the "image of God" definition, though the exact definition of "image of God" not found in the Bible.

The Image of God has something to do with KNOWLEDGE ...
Colossians 3:10 and have put on the new self. You are being renewed in knowledge according to the image of your Creator.
The Image of God has something to do with Righteousness ...
Eph. 4:24 you put on the new self, the one created according to God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.

I'm not going to call false equivalence, in part because I don't know that those have no relation to the original [Genesis] term. They sound good in English, but I'm not sure those are talking about the same thing as Genesis does.

OTHER OPINIONS

10. How did God create man? (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
A. God created man male and female, after his own image [a], in knowledge , righteousness, and holiness [c], with dominion over the creatures [d]. [a] Genesis 1:27; Colossians 3:10; [c] Ephesians 4:24; [d] Genesis 1:28; see Psalm 8

The Heidelberg Catechism asks and answers the question:
Did God create man thus wicked and perverse? No; but God created man good, and after his own image—that is, in righteousness and true holiness.

The Belgic Confession limits the image of God in the same fashion:
We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God.

The Canons of Dordt say this about the subject:
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy.

Those don't sound much different from the above. So you win this round —apparently it is Orthodoxy that the Genesis reference is about Godliness and righteousness.

The question then, is, Does this mean that the Self-Deterministic are right, who teach that: 1) Sanctification is become more and more like Christ so that he can trust us with more important or particular things? 2) Growing in grace means becoming less dependent on God's help and more self-reliant to do holy and righteous things?

 

[makesends]

According to Anthony Hoekema, humankind is created in God's image, possessing both structural qualities (like reason and moral sensitivity) and functional aspects (like true knowledge, righteousness, and love) that enable us to be mirrors and representatives of God. This image also involves a three-part relationship to God, other people, and the natural world, and it is intended to be renewed and ultimately perfected.


So, I think we can know, actually.

That's a pretty good speculation, and, as @fastfredy0 demonstrated, apparently orthodoxy is on your side.

 

[Carbon]

Explain it to me.

[Content removed by moderator.]


Prove it.

Why? Do I owe you? I can see how this would go. Your welcome to believe as you like.

 

[Tambora]

So how was man created in image made to resemble God.

One of my explanations of mankind being an "image" of God is because man has the ability to make choices.
Freewill deniers don't like that.

 

[prism]

One of my explanations of mankind being an "image" of God is because man has the ability to make choices.
Freewill deniers don't like that.

I am a freewill denier, but agree, because God made Adam with the ability of choice, Adam made his choice and now we are slaves to sin and our selfishness apart from God's grace.

 

[makesends]

One of my explanations of mankind being an "image" of God is because man has the ability to make choices.
Freewill deniers don't like that.

You may call me a freewill denier. But I do believe man not only has the ability, but MUST, make real, significant choices—even with eternal consequences. But that is not libertarian free will. Only God, the one-and-only First Cause, has the ability to make unbound-in-keeping-with-his-self-existence, choices. All of our choices are caused. Our very existence is subject to God's upholding.

See? I don't deny that man makes choices. In fact, we are commanded to do so!

 

[Josheb]

Why?

"Why?"?

1. Because I'd like to know the answer.
2. Because a critical claim was made about me and I would like to know how you know I am missing the meaning.
3. Because I'd like to know by what measure you possess the ability to know what another person misses.
4. Because if no explanation is provided, then I'd like to know why broach something critical about someone and not explain it? Why leave them unknowing when it is within your ability to explain yourself.
5. Because it is the right thing to do.
6. Because I might learn something
7. Because you might learn something.
8. Because some appreciation might be expressed for your doing so if the criticism is correct and I learn how.
9. Because you'd want to prove you weren't trolling.
10. Because you're kind and benevolent and have my best interests in mind.
11. Because you want me to have a greater understanding of the image of God.
12. Because you want to take the opportunity to refine your own apologetic.

Want me to continue, because I can probably list another dozen reasons for proving your own assertions?

Do I owe you?

Non sequitur.

No one owes anything to anyone except to love them. You posted a comment about me, and I would like criticism explained op-relevantly. If you can, then please do so. If you cannot then please say so. Not because I am "owed" anything other than love but because doing so fulfills the purpose of the discussion board and is the rational thing to do. The purpose of a discussion board is to discuss one's views. Fulfill the purpose of the board by identifying the meaning I purportedly missed and how I definitely missed it. Or reword that statement so it better serves the thread.

I can see how this would go.

Once I understand that I missed the meaning and how I definitely did so, then the conjecture how this would go can be explained but I won't be entertaining another unexplained assertion until the first one has been addressed. I suspect if how things would go was correctly seen then Post 43 wouldn't exist and we won't be having this discussion, but I look forward to reading the proof.

Your welcome to believe as you like.

Non sequitur. A member's ability to believe what they want is irrelevant to the statement I "missed the meaning". The implication of not explaining the statement is you're willing to leave me unknowing.

You brought it up. Don't just post empty, unproven accusations. Prove to me I missed the meaning.

 

[Arial]

One of my explanations of mankind being an "image" of God is because man has the ability to make choices.
Freewill deniers don't like that.

That is a misunderstanding and misstatement of Calvinism/Reformed (that being your reference to as freewill deniers I presume). It never denies that humans have the ability to make choices. In fact, that very thing is part and parcel of the theology and doctrine. What it denies is that choice, when it comes to soteriology (salvation and how one is saved) being anything other than according to their desires. And humans by nature are sinners and do not desire to give their supposed autonomy over to God who will tell them he is King and they are subjects and servants of his. They are by nature, at enmity with him. The Bible is clear on that.

 

[Eleanor]

I'm not going to call false equivalence, in part because I don't know that those have no relation to the original [Genesis] term. They sound good in English, but I'm not sure those are talking about the same thing as Genesis does.

Those don't sound much different from the above. So you win this round —apparently it is Orthodoxy that the Genesis reference is about
Godliness and righteousness.

And knowledge of him (Eph 4:24, Col 3 :10).

The question then, is, Does this mean that the Self-Deterministic are right, who teach that: 1) Sanctification is become more and more like Christ so that he can trust us with more important or particular things? 2) Growing in grace means becoming less dependent on God's help and more self-reliant to do holy and righteous things?

 

[Tambora]

I am a freewill denier, but agree, because God made Adam with the ability of choice, Adam made his choice and now we are slaves to sin and our selfishness apart from God's grace.

I don't hold to "inherited sin".
Ezekiel chapter 18 is against it:

Ezekiel 18​

(1) The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,​

.​

.​

.​

(20) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.​

 

[Tambora]

That is a misunderstanding and misstatement of Calvinism/Reformed (that being your reference to as freewill deniers I presume). It never denies that humans have the ability to make choices. In fact, that very thing is part and parcel of the theology and doctrine. What it denies is that choice, when it comes to soteriology (salvation and how one is saved) being anything other than according to their desires. And humans by nature are sinners and do not desire to give their supposed autonomy over to God who will tell them he is King and they are subjects and servants of his. They are by nature, at enmity with him. The Bible is clear on that.

I'm not misunderstanding.
The Bible is clear from beginning to end that man is to make the choice of whom he will serve.
And that choice is crucial to salvation because there ain't gonna be no YHWH deniers in the body of Christ.
That's what I did.
I made my own conscious choice to serve YHWH over any other, and I know that I can choose to reject Him and serve another if I were to decide He was no longer good enough to be my master.

 

[makesends]

I'm not misunderstanding.
The Bible is clear from beginning to end that man is to make the choice of whom he will serve.
And that choice is crucial to salvation because there ain't gonna be no YHWH deniers in the body of Christ.
That's what I did.
I made my own conscious choice to serve YHWH over any other, and I know that I can choose to reject Him and serve another if I were to decide He was no longer good enough to be my master.

You ARE misrepresenting Calvinism/ Reformed Doctrine. The Bible is indeed clear that man is to make the choice of whom he will serve. Calvinist/Ref doesn't say otherwise.

I'd venture to guess that the rest of the Calvinist/Ref here, like I do, in fact claim that if one does NOT choose God, he is rejecting God. Further, if one does not choose God, he is not saved.

But the notion that one's salvation depends on the one's choice makes his salvation worse than tenuous. It contradicts salvation by grace. But if your own inability to pursue Christ faithfully doesn't convince you of your inability, then enjoy your faithfulness.