How are we made in the Image of God?

[fastfredy0]

Reformed does not teach that man chooses to believe.

Reformed theology teaches are incapable of choosing to believe in Christ by their own will or power.
Reformed theology teaches saving grace overcomes man’s rebellion and ensures that he will choose Christ — freely, but irresistibly.

In short, God is the cause/enabler of Christians choosing Him.

Everyone that has heard of Christ chooses. The debate is as to the cause of one's choice.

 

[Eleanor]

Are you Eastern Orthodox? When it comes to original sin.they believe similarly.

Original sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), it is imputed (Ro 5:17, 18-19), and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[prism]

Original sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), it is imputed (Ro 5:17, 18-19), and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

That's why I asked if she's Eastern Orthodox.

Acc. to Google A.I. ...
"Eastern Orthodox Christianity believes in ancestral sin, which is the inherited consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience—namely, death and corruption—rather than a transmitted personal guilt. According to this view, all humanity is born into a fallen state and is subject to mortality and a tendency toward sin, but not to the personal guilt for the first sin. This inherited "sickness" is healed through baptism and the process of sanctification, which allows each person to be restored to a right relationship with God.

 

[Tambora]

Reformed theology teaches that before the foundation of the world God chose who he would give to Jesus.

Which leads to a conclusion that some of mankind is INCAPABLE to make a choice to serve only YHWH and reject all others.
So I don't know why some here are even bothering to tell me that they believe in choices when they know perfectly well that we are talking about the choice of whom they will serve.
.

 

[Tambora]

Original sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), it is imputed (Ro 5:17, 18-19), and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Ezekiel 18 tells me that no son will bear the iniquity of the father.
They will not bear it at all which means no son will inherit or be imputed with the sin of the father.
To make someone bear the sin of another is unjust.

 

[Tambora]

That's why I asked if she's Eastern Orthodox.

Acc. to Google A.I. ...
"Eastern Orthodox Christianity believes in ancestral sin, which is the inherited consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience—namely, death and corruption—rather than a transmitted personal guilt. According to this view, all humanity is born into a fallen state and is subject to mortality and a tendency toward sin, but not to the personal guilt for the first sin. This inherited "sickness" is healed through baptism and the process of sanctification, which allows each person to be restored to a right relationship with God.

I'm not Eastern Orthodox.

 

[prism]

I'm not Eastern Orthodox.

just wondering

 

[prism]

Ezekiel 18 tells me that no son will bear the iniquity of the father.
They will not bear it at all which means no son will inherit or be imputed with the sin of the father.
To make someone bear the sin of another is unjust.

Yet Romans 5 tells us...

Romans 5:12-14 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

How would you reconcile Rom 5 with Ezekiel 18?

 

[Josheb]

Naaman made the choice without any covenant condition.

Prove it.

Dogs are not made in the image of God.

That is the point. An ability to make decisions cannot be the image of God if animals NOT made in God's image can do so.

Now prove Naaman made a salvific decision outside any covenant condition. No appeals to silence, please.

 

[Tambora]

Yet Romans 5 tells us...

Romans 5:12-14 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

How would you reconcile Rom 5 with Ezekiel 18?

Easy.
Everybody sins because that is the way they were created, being understandably imperfect compared to God.
Not that complicated.

But no son will ever bear the sin of his father.
In other words you only bear your own sin.
Not that complicated either.

And God provided what was necessary (ie. a man of perfection) for each and every individual to make a choice of who they would serve.

 

[Tambora]

That is the point. An ability to make decisions cannot be the image of God if animals NOT made in God's image can do so.

I would suspect that the "image of God" must be something that applies to every single human being from conception till death.
My view on it is that the "image of God" is a status rather than any applied attributes.

Now prove Naaman made a salvific decision outside any covenant condition.

No one asked him to join Israel, or live in Israel, or abide by their laws.
He simply chose YHWH as the God he would serve and went back home with some bags of dirt.

No appeals to silence, please.

If you think a complete silence in scripture means it happened, [that’s quite a stretch].
You only insist on no appeals to silence because you are fully aware that there is no covenant in scripture which was required of Naaman.
None, nada, zip, a big fat goose egg.

 

[prism]

Easy.
Everybody sins because that is the way they were created, being understandably imperfect compared to God.
Not that complicated.

Sin is very complicated. 'everybody sins' is no explanation to reconcile Romans 5:12-14 with Ezekiel 18.
Besides we weren't created as sinful beings.

 

[Josheb]

I would suspect that the "image of God" must be something that applies to every single human being from conception till death.
My view on it is that the "image of God" is a status rather than any applied attributes.


No one asked him to join Israel, or live in Israel, or abide by their laws.

Argument from silence.

He simply chose YHWH as the God he would serve and went back home with some bags of dirt.

No, that's not what happened and you have yet to provide a verse stating all he did was choose and, more importantly, you haven't considered what God was doing in Naaman and his life to bring about the change.

If you think a complete silence in scripture means it happened, [that’s quite a stretch].

I think everyone, including you, should refrain from speculating and making assumptions where scripture is silent and I know arguments from silence (scripture does NOT say X, therefore X must be true) are fallacious arguments to be avoided by exegetical and rational Christians.

That is what you have done.

You only insist....

I am not the subject of this discussion. You can either prove Naaman made a choice that saved him from sin and wrath without God effecting that choice, or you cannot. This all started because of my statement about the inherent covenant context of salvation. You are arguing someone got saved outside of such a covenant.

That does not happen.

All salvation occurs within a Christological covenant, a covenant between God and Christ, into which He brings everyone He saves. You say, no, that is not the case..... a person chooses to be saved. But you cannot provide a single verse stating such a choice was made. You infer it from what is NOT said. That is sloppy exegesis.


Now, can you provide proof Naaman made a choice outside God's covenant and that choice is what saved him, or not?

 

[Eleanor]

Which leads to a conclusion that some of mankind is INCAPABLE to make a choice to serve only YHWH and reject all others.
So I don't know why some here are even bothering to tell me that they believe in choices when they know perfectly well that we are talking about the choice of whom they will serve.

Choice (free will) is the ability to choose what one prefers.
God gives some to prefer him and, therefore, they freely choose him.

 

[Eleanor]

Ezekiel 18 tells me that no son will bear the iniquity of the father.

The sons do not share (incur) the inquity of father Adam. . .that iniquity is imputed to them (Ro 5:17),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the righteousness of Christ also being Imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

They will not bear it at all which means no son will inherit or be imputed with the sin of the father.

That is your addition (of "impute") and misinterpretation of Eze 18:20, which in the light of Ro 5:17 means "inherit."

To make someone bear the sin of another is unjust.

"The son will not share (naturally incur) the guilt of the father," (Eze 18:20)
So Jesus bore my ("original;" i.e., inherited) sin unjustly?

 

[Eleanor]

. . .

 

[Eleanor]

Ezekiel 18 tells me that no son will bear the iniquity of the father.
They will not bear it at all which means no son will inherit or be imputed with the sin of the father.
To make someone bear the sin of another is unjust.

Correction of my last line of post #95 above which should be:

So Jesus bore my ("original;" i.e., imputed sin, Ro 5:17) unjustly?

 

[Arial]

Which leads to a conclusion that some of mankind is INCAPABLE to make a choice to serve only YHWH and reject all others.
So I don't know why some here are even bothering to tell me that they believe in choices when they know perfectly well that we are talking about the choice of whom they will serve.
.

Because your original post stated that R/C teaches that man can't make choices.

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.

What else has been said, I do not know.

But to say that the Reformed position leads to a conclusion that some of mankind are incapable of making the choice to serve YHWH, depends on how one is defining "incapable".

If it is being defined as having no inherent ability to make a choice, that is not the Reformed view.

If it is being defined as not being able to choose to believe in Christ, because man cannot choose other than what he wills to choose, then it is the Reformed view. To put it into less confusing language (my bad): Man cannot make a choice that is opposed to his own will. He may have conflicting will as in the case of "Give me your wallet or die." Either one of those things is opposed to his will. However, he will either offer up his wallet or he will die. We can assume he values his life more than his money, so the strongest pressure moves the will to the action of giving up his wallet.

If man in his natural state of being at enmity with God, prefers his supposed autonomy independent of a God who considers many of the things he does and loves to be sin, his will cannot bow to that God. The greater pressure is his love for sin. His will is in bondage to sin.

Would you like me to give the scriptures?

 

[Tambora]

Sin is very complicated. 'everybody sins' is no explanation to reconcile Romans 5:12-14 with Ezekiel 18.
Besides we weren't created as sinful beings.

Mankind was created with the capacity to sin because he didn't have the perfection of God.
Another of God's creation (angels) were also created with the capacity to sin.

God could accept mankind even while a sinner.
But God didn't accept those that chose another over Him.

 

[Tambora]

Now, can you provide proof Naaman made a choice outside God's covenant and that choice is what saved him, or not?

Simple.
I can prove scripture does not say Naaman entered into or agreed to a covenant because no scripture states he did.