We're not going to use this, are we?
Recording.
Nine o'clock, so I guess I'll get started.
I'll give a little introduction.
My name is Rob Torcent, for those of you who don't know.
And I am a Master of Systematic Theology, or Master of SIGA Theology student at the Divinity School
with a focus in systematic theology.
This is my wife, Julia. We've been married two and a half years.
And my thesis for the program had to do with the image of God,
and its relation to modern technology.
So that's why I thought this would be a good class.
If I was going to teach a class here, I could do it on the doctrine of the image of God
and just kind of run from there.
So this is more of a systematic theology,
but the way that I'm going to approach unpacking this for you
is going to be more kind of like a lecture sermon or a lerman,
as a former professor of mine once called it.
So it's going to be more expositional.
We're going to kind of look over all the different texts of Scripture
that deal with the image of God,
and then we're going to kind of make a systematic conclusion about this.
All right.
So why don't I just get started on this
with a word of prayer.
Heavenly Father, thank you so much for bringing us here this morning.
We have the privilege of being able to benefit from your word
and to hear your voice spoken through it.
Help us understand ourselves more in light of who you are.
We pray all this in Christ's name.
Amen.
In 1920, there was published a book entitled
Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.
The author was Carl Binding, who was a jurist,
and Alfred Haack, who was a psychiatrist.
It was a description of people who were intellectually disabled
as mentally dead,
human ballasts,
and empty shells of human beings.
In short, this book advocated elimination,
life unworthy of life,
was the saying.
This demonstrates the power of ideas,
and it led to eugenics
and the so-called final solution
of the Nazi regime.
Now, this is a repugnant idea.
I don't think I have to describe that to you.
And our first instinct
is to recoil from it.
Yet, this kind of thought
of being able to make qualitative judgments
over what deserves life
and what doesn't deserve life
is all but endemic in modern thought.
In fact,
I think it's led to,
today,
so pregnant in our minds
and society,
a crisis of humanity
and what it means to be human.
The eugenics movement
moved into America
after World War II,
and it led to,
even now,
a fight over these bills
that militate
against partiality in abortion,
that is,
abortion over race
or gender
or disability.
You see these fights
even lately
in 2019.
So this is widespread,
and it encompasses
every issue
that you could possibly imagine.
It encompasses
gender issues,
this distinction
between sex and gender,
the LGBTQ issues,
social justice issues,
political issues,
ethical issues.
All of these
revolve fundamentally
around
the doctrine
of what it means
to be a human.
Now,
the earliest roots
of this confusion
have to do
in scientism
and logical positivism,
which is this idea
that everything
can be scientifically
deduced
and has to be verified
demonstrably
in order for it
to be true.
In fact,
C.S. Lewis
talks about this
in Abolition of Man,
where he
very provokingly
asks,
what will happen
to the human being
if we subject it
objectively
to science
in the same way
we subject it
to the world
around us?
And his thesis
was that we would
essentially lose
our humanity.
So that returns
to the question,
what does it mean
to be human?
In fact,
that's the same question
that David poses
in Psalm 8,
verse 4,
when he asks,
what is man
that you take
thought of him
and the son of man
that you are
mindful of him?
And the answer
is rooted
in the creation
of humanity
in God's image.
So if you have
your Bibles with me,
I'd invite you,
it's okay if you don't,
it's a bit more
informal this morning,
turn with me
to Psalm 8.
We're going to use
this as a platform
to hop around
and unpack
in systematic form
what the Bible
says about humanity
and what it means
to be created
in God's image.
And for the next few weeks,
we're going to be discussing
the doctrine
of the image of God
as the Bible's answer
to what humanity is
and what makes us
so distinct and special
in God's plan
and creation.
Basically,
we're going to be doing
a theological
and biblical anthropology.
And it's going to be
somewhat difficult
to directly
unpack the image of God
just in itself
because the nature
of systematic theology
means that we're going
to have to go
and touch on
every doctrine
as it relates
to the image of God.
So we're going to be
talking about
theology proper.
We're going to be
talking about
creation.
sin,
Christ,
redemption,
sanctification.
And eventually,
in our last class,
we're going to be
talking about
glorification.
But fundamentally,
I want this to be
expositional.
Pastor Craig wanted
our Bibles to be open,
so we're going to be
looking at Psalm 8
as well as
Genesis 1 and 2.
Now,
let me just explain
the context
of Psalm 8
a little bit
before we move
into it.
this is a creation
psalm.
And it's
sandwiched between
two psalms
that speak of
God's righteous
judgment of the
wicked.
And I don't think
that that's incidental.
I think it's organized
very intentionally
because they want
to talk about
the nature of
humanity and why
we would be morally
responsible
for being held
to account for
our wicked actions.
in fact,
note the
heading of this
psalm.
It's for the
choir director,
right?
That's the
liturgical director,
meaning that
this is kind of
a didactic tool.
It's a
theological
instruction
through praise
in a temple.
And that's
apparent,
isn't it,
in the question
that we're going
to be discussing
today in verse 4,
which this psalm
kind of revolves
around.
In fact,
it's a sort of
theological riddle
concerning humanity's
place in
creation.
With the point,
of course,
being God's
sovereign majesty,
and you see that
in verses 1 and 9
it's bracketed
with this
refrain,
O Lord,
our Lord,
how majestic
is your name
in all the earth.
So,
let me just read
this and then
we'll unpack it
a little bit more.
Psalm 8,
for the choir
director,
on the
getteth,
on the
David.
O Lord,
our Lord,
how majestic
is your name
in all the earth.
You have displayed
your splendor
above the heavens.
From the mouth
of infants
and nursing babes
you have established
strength,
because of
your adversaries,
to make the
enemy
and the
revengeful
cease.
When I consider
your heavens,
the work
of your fingers,
the moon
and the stars
which you
have ordained,
what is man
that you take
thought of him,
and the son
of man
that you
care for him?
You have made
him a little
lower than God,
and you crown
him with glory
and majesty.
You make him
to rule
over the works
of your hands.
You have put
all things
under his feet,
all sheep
and oxen,
and also the
beasts of the
field,
the birds of the
heavens,
and the fish
of the sea.
whatever passes
through the
paths of the
sea.
O Lord,
our God,
how majestic
is your name
in all the
earth.
The question
that we're
dealing with
here in
verse 4,
it contains
a certain
paradox to
it,
doesn't it?
In fact,
the words
in the
language used
here for
man,
it's this
word,
enosh,
which has to
do with
a weakness
or a
frailty.
It could
even connote
sickness.
And of
course,
that phrase
the son
of man
is literally
the son
of Adam.
It's singular,
which recalls
Adam and
even the
sinfulness
that we
would incur
from being
descended
from him.
Now,
note that
the text
in verse
5 then
goes on
to describe
how we're
a little
lower than
God.
Now,
however,
I think
we're already
speaking to
God in
this text,
so there's
an interpretive
issue.
The Greek
version of
this text,
the King
James version,
in fact,
as well as
how the
New Testament
also will
render the
Greek version
translates this
angels,
and the word
is Elohim,
which could
be translated
angels,
so I think
that's
preferable.
Either way,
the idea
is that
we're
finite,
we're not
the same
as God
and we
have a
particular
place
in the
order.
Yet,
at the
same time,
we're
higher than
every variety
of living
thing in
creation.
And just
look at
those
descriptions
in the
following
verses.
We're higher
than sheep,
oxen,
beasts,
birds,
fish,
that's
everything
under which
it's put
under our
feet.
Now,
that's a
unique
station,
according to
verse 5,
and this
is actually
kind of a
complementary
concept.
It says,
yet you
have made
him a
little lower
than God,
and you
crown him
with glory
and majesty.
These two
things aren't
mutually exclusive
for me,
but there's
an inherent
connection here.
Because God
made us
this way,
we're crowned
with glory
and majesty.
Summarily,
according to
the psalmist,
it is the
unique station
of humanity,
lower than
celestial angels,
yet ruling
among terrestrial
beasts,
that is the
answer to
the riddle
of what
makes us
the special
recipients of
God's
paternal care.
This would
have provoked
in the minds
of the
Israelites
reading this
psalm and
singing it
in the
temple,
the entire
Genesis
creation
context,
what is
called
antecedent
theology.
And they
would have
realized that
David is
invoking the
language of
creation of
God's image
in man.
So let's
go ahead and
turn to
Genesis 1.
looking at
verse 26
here.
Of course,
this is the
creation narrative,
and this is the
sixth and final
day of creation.
God has just
created all of
the animals and
the beasts of the
earth.
Now he
turns to
humanity.
And he
distinguishes
humanity from
the rest of
creation with
this kind of
divine soliloquy.
Some people
think this is
an inter-
trinitarian
dialogue going
on here.
But when he
does that, he
distinguishes how
he's going to go
about making
mankind from
all of the rest
of creation.
So let's
read verses
26 to 27
real quick.
Then God
said,
Let us make
man in our
image, according
to our likeness,
and let them
rule over the
fish of the
sea, and over
the birds of
the sky, and
over the cattle,
and over all
the earth, and
over every
creeping thing
that creeps on
the earth.
God created
man in his
own image, and
the image of
God created
he him, male
and female.
He created
them.
Now, those
are the same
elements as in
Psalm 8, right?
However, what
is assumed in
Psalm 8 is
that humanity
is made in
God's image, and
according to his
likeness.
And by the
way, those two
terms are
synonymous in
the original.
They're kind
of seen used
interchangeably
later in
chapter 5 of
Genesis.
And this is
just a way of
making the
point emphatic.
There's been a
historical
debate over
whether image
and likeness
are two
different things,
and they've
drawn strange
conclusions from
that.
But that's not
what's going on
here.
This is just an
emphatic making
of the point
that mankind
is in some
way to
reflect God.
And that
manifests itself
in humanity's
rulership over
all creation,
what is often
referred to as
a cultural
mandate,
made clearer
here in verse
28.
We're to
fill,
subdue,
and rule.
Also, note
that in a
text it says
we're both
made male and
female, an
added element
of the mandate
to multiply
and fill the
earth.
This is a
corporate mandate
within creation.
Now, of course,
this would imply
a bodily element
to humanity
in God's
image,
wouldn't it?
However,
there's a
great historical
discussion
concerning the
nature of the
image of God
that we have
to touch on
briefly.
On the one
hand, you have
those who hold
to a purely
spiritual and
intellectual view
of the image
of God,
that it consists
only in our
reasoning faculties
or in our
morality.
And on the
other hand,
there are those
that hold to a
more holistic
view, that it
concerns the
whole person and
the whole human
nature.
Now, in the
former camp,
the body is
viewed as kind
of carnal or
unnecessary.
Often, people
who argue for
that position
will use
Platonic language
of the body
as this prison
for the soul.
It's simply a
way that we
kind of relate
to God
through the
mind and the
mind alone.
And in fact,
very prominent
theologians,
like Jonathan
Edwards and
Thomas Aquinas
held to this
view of the
image of God
residing in
the intellect.
Now, this is
a view that
will view the
image of God
as a part of
humanity.
And it's led
to some other
kind of strange
ideas like the
image of God
also consists
in the angels.
And it's that
reasoning from
lesser to greater
that you would
see in that
kind of mindset,
right?
If we have
reasoning faculties,
well, angels have
even greater
reasoning faculties.
They're greater
spiritual beings,
so of course
they're going to
be the image
of God as
well.
However, in
verse 26, we
see a particular
attention to the
language here, that
man, or literally
Adam, singular, is
made in the
image singular.
That is Adam
here being viewed
as kind of the
head of the
human race,
what's called
patronymy.
He's that
patriarchal kind
of head of
all of his
descendants after
him, and he's
thus representative
of the human
race.
This is speaking
of humanity
itself, not a
part of the
image, but the
actual image
itself in
mankind.
In and
life.
Now, of course,
mankind isn't the
exact image of
God, is it?
Only Jesus Christ
is the exact
image of God.
What we're
talking about
here is
analogy, but
we're going to
get into how
Jesus Christ
relates to the
image of God
in the next
session, so
stay tuned on
that.
All of this
is to say,
the image of
God in
humanity is
everything that
constituted us
in our original
created state,
including
spiritual
uprightness, as
well as our
body and
corporate natures.
Now, this is a
view that's held
by prominent
theologians, like
John Calvin and
Herman Boving.
And the point
here in the text,
however, is made
even more emphatic
in the next
chapter, which
kind of provides
the how to the
what of chapter
one.
Sometimes you'll
try and see
people pit chapter
two against chapter
one in Genesis,
by the way, as
though they're two
different creation
accounts.
but these
aren't at odds
with each
other at all.
In fact, chapter
two, some
commentators believe,
is just kind of a
commentary on
chapter one.
So let's read
verse seven,
chapter two, and
then we'll provide
a final element
to this puzzle.
Then the Lord God
formed man of dust
from the ground
and breathed into
his nostrils the
breath of life,
and man became a
living being.
Now what's
especially important
here is this
language of man
being made from
first from the
dust of the
ground.
This is a play
on words, with
man being Adam
and the Hebrew
word for ground
being Adamah.
Yet, very
importantly, it's
not until God's
breath of life
does he become a
living being,
which is singular.
The theological
term we'll use for
this is psychosomatic
unity.
That is to say,
both body and
soul are essential
elements in what
constitutes humanity,
and thus what the
image of God is.
Now, how do both
body and soul
reflect the image
of God?
Well, God is
holy, and so we're
supposed to be
holy.
That's an easier
one, right?
But also, God is a
relational being.
He's Trinitarian.
He's pure love, and
pure disposed to
want to love.
Therefore, we are to
be relational as
well.
He's designed us to
be fundamentally
relational and loving
creatures.
God is also the
sovereign and divine
creator, and we're to
emulate that in our
stewardship mandate by
subjecting creation and
governing it as
representatives.
Now, the great
question is, how does
this extend to the
body?
But I think it does
extend to the body,
which enables us to
act as our natures, and
within our natures, just
as God does.
So, we communicate with
each other, with our
voices.
We see our environment
in order to act.
We hear things around
us.
But unlike beasts, we
attempt to make sense of
these things.
We harmonize them with
our sense perceptions, and
we understand the
creation God has made.
Of course, God doesn't
have a body, but God is
able to do all these
things without a body
because of his infinite
love, infinite wisdom,
the immensity of his
nature, his omnipresence,
and the absoluteness of
his essence.
There's really something
very special, unique, and
set apart to the human
form and the human body
as it bears reference to
our composition.
And that's why Paul will
later say in 1 Corinthians
15, 39, all flesh is not
the same flesh, but there
is one flesh of men, and
another flesh of beasts, and
another flesh of birds.
And in that context, he's
talking about the
uniqueness of the
resurrection in relation
to Jesus.
So, this raises a
classic question.
Is the image of God lost
with sin and the fall?
We've talked about
holiness.
We've talked about our
standing at original
creation.
But what about the fall?
I think, however, if we
take this view that the
image of God is the whole
person, then the answer is
clearly no.
There are still human
beings around, yes?
And that means that the
image of God is still in
some way, shape, or form
extent.
Regardless, Genesis 5, 1-3,
Genesis 9, 6, James 3, 9, all
speak of the image of God
as continually present in
humanity.
Instead, the language that
theologians will use is that
it has been defaced but not
erased, which is just a little
helpful way of remembering how
that works.
So there are certain aspects
of the image that is right
reasoning, spiritual standing
before God, also known as
original righteousness, even
bodily harmony with the soul.
In Genesis 3, 7, that you can
see kind of starting to function
improperly, where they've sinned
initially in the garden, right?
They've been tempted.
And then all of a sudden, they
are aware of their nakedness,
and they're ashamed of that,
right?
There's something that has
gone wrong in the physical
order.
Everything has become, in
fact, disordered with sin.
And that's why everything
needs the promise of
redemption, of the redemption
of humanity achieved in the
person and work of Christ, who
is the second Adam.
And again, we're going to hold
off on talking about that a
little bit more until next
week.
So, I thought I would just
give some points of
application.
Here's one just major point
of application that we can
draw from this view, this
very cosmological or
fundamental created view of
the image of God.
And the primary point here is
that of the dignity of
humanity, right?
I mean, this sheds new light on
the first and foremost
commandment, that we are to
love the Lord, your God, with
all your heart, with all your
soul, and with all your mind,
and that we should love our
neighbors as ourselves, right?
According to Christ, these two
are one commandment directly
related to one another.
That is to say, the way you
treat your neighbor who is in
God's image directly corresponds
to what you think about your
creator.
John Calvin, in talking about the
image of God, writes this,
verse 1.
We are not to consider that men
merit of themselves, but to
look upon the image of God in
all men, to which we owe all
honor.
Therefore, whatever man you meet
who needs your aid, you have no
reason to refuse to help him.
Say, he is a stranger, but the
Lord has given him a mark that
ought to be familiar to you, by
virtue of the fact that he forbids
you to despise your own flesh.
Say, he is contemptible and
worthless, but the Lord shows him
to be one to whom he has deigned to
give the beauty of his image.
Say, that you owe nothing for any
service of his, but God, as it were,
has put him in his own place in
order that you may recognize toward
him the many and great benefits with
which God has bound you to himself.
Say, that he does not deserve even
your least efforts for his sake.
But the image of God, which
recommends him to you, is worthy of
your giving yourself and all your
possessions.
We must remember not to consider men's
evil intentions, but to look upon the
image of God in them, which, with its
beauty, allures us to love and embrace
them. Now, that's breathtakingly
universal in scope. And it's
breathtakingly universal because it
reflects the very heart of our
creator, doesn't it? This should
profoundly shape how we think of every
man, woman, and child. That is,
everyone who's in Adam, without
exception. This is a dignity, in fact,
that extends not just to the soul, but
which extends to the body as well.
And that has some profound implications
for ethical issues today. I won't get
into that in particular. In fact, I
started to list out all of the ethical
issues that we face today that could be
affected and informed by this view of
the image of God. And I just gave up
because it encompasses really everything
that we deal with in terms of modern, the
modern conversation.
We are held to have a stewardship of our
minds and our bodies that's tied to the
integrity of both. And in doing so, that
means that God himself is honor.
So, I thought I'd close, we're closing a
bit early, but I thought I'd close by
asking, what is man that God is mindful
of him? Well, he is created in his very
image to personally reflect his goodness
in our creatureliness. And that is the
image of God in man. So, let's just close
with a quick word of prayer, and then
we'll have some questions and answers at
the end here.
Heavenly Father, it's humbling to realize
that of all the creatures, the creatures
that you've created, we alone are in your
image. And the fact that we don't deserve
to be in your image, that was your choice
to create us this way. And that we're held
to a higher accountability because of that.
Let us live lives that emulate that, that
respond to your presence in creation.
And help us as believers realize the
amazing reality that we bear not only the
image of God, but the image of your son,
Jesus Christ. And help us live up to that
responsibility by the work of your spirit.
Amen.
So, if there's any questions.
I know that's kind of a lightning round
image of God, right? That's like everything
that you could, it's kind of crammed into
30 minutes. And we're going to be getting
into a lot more of the other aspects of
the image of God in the following weeks
because there's a lot that we have to
talk about, about what it means to be in
Adam, right? And then in Christ. And then
also, what does it mean for our human
bodies when we're glorified into eternity?
So, Tyler, yeah.
You mentioned the debate between where does the
image of God entail with the rational
faculties versus the body. What's that
state in that question, depending on how you
answer it? Like, what are the implications
of saying it doesn't involve the body?
You know, like, it's only the mental and
rational faculties of a man or a woman.
What's that state in that question?
Yeah, so the human body in that sense tends
to be downplayed and there's less of a, less
of an understanding of the integrity of the
body, right? How we're going to treat that, how
we're going to view it as, you know, trying to
preserve it, trying to uphold it as something
that is, has a kind of inherent worth in it.
And you'll see this kind of, this kind of move
that some people have, um, classically in theology,
um, where the human body is seen as this, this
shackles for humanity. Um, whereas the Bible
doesn't depict it that way. It's seen as the
very vehicle by which we can interact with the
world around us. It's seen as something that's
very beneficial towards, um, having a, you
know, human flourishing, uh, uh, that we can
enjoy creation. Uh, creation is never pitted
against, um, our souls in that kind of way. Um,
it's seen as something that's very, very, uh,
beneficial. Um, so people who hold that view
tend to kind of use the body as, I think
sometimes we think that implicitly too, don't
we, that this body is just getting in the way
of, of us being able to reason properly or
think properly. Whereas you kind of think
through it and you realize there have been
some interesting studies about this as well. Um,
that in order for us to have a, uh, you know,
very whole psychological development, we need
to have kind of an embodiment to us. We need
to be able to interact with other people and
to see them and to read expressions. And, um,
some of the psychological studies have had to
do with infants as well. Um, where it's shown
that they kind of mirror people's expressions
and that's how they, they grow and develop
psychologically. Um, um, but so if you take
the somatic element, the, excuse me, the bodily
element, you know, out of it, then you start
to get this kind of, uh, dualism almost. Uh, this
is very, very classically kind of platonic. And
it leads to some odd theology. One of those is
the image of God and angels as well. Um, which
I don't think there's biblical proof for. Um, and
that goes all the way back to this, this kind
of pseudo Christian Greek thinker called
Dionysius, pseudo Dionysius. We know that
he's not really Dionysius anymore. Uh, but he, he
had this reasoning, uh, that led to, uh, influenced
Gregory, that influenced Thomas Aquinas, and it
started to get more built into how we thought
about the image of God as consisting in angels. And
then another weird theological implication, um, that
you see crop up in the 16th century. And
actually I just wrote this paper that
Jonathan Edwards, uh, on Jonathan Edwards, where
in his sermons he teaches this as well, which
is if you lose the intellectual faculty, right? It's
actually a part of man. If you lose that part
of man, that is the intellectual faculty being in
the image of God. Well, what, what do you have
to replace that? Well, it's the image of Satan. And
so you see Edwards teaching it in some of his
sermons. It's very weird. He doesn't teach it in
his published literature. Uh, so I, I don't, I'm not
sure you actually believe it. But, um, it was a huge
controversy because in a, in a sense that meant
that, uh, God was actually creating, continuing to
create people who are in Satan's image. It's very, a
strange idea. So you have to have the somatic
element, all that to say, or else you, your
theology starts to go, to go left a little bit.
How, so you seem to want the image of God to
kind of, the, the attributes, which go with the
image of God at least. Yeah. You want those to be
able to grade without the image of God itself
being able to grade. Right. So I have a few, I
have less of, I have less more rectitude. Right.
Than I really should have. Mm-hmm. Full. Right. Image of
God. Yeah. So, so, so, so if you do view it as
pertaining to something that's a part of
humanity, right, instead of just everything that's
combined in humanity together as a quality, then
what happens is if, it creates this, this problem,
and we can, this would be a great time to
mention this, um, one problem with the
intellectual issue of the image of God is
that what happens with people with mental
disabilities. And that's a huge, huge debate. If
you read some of the literature on the image of
God, it's, you know, what are you going to do
with, with people who seem to have some sort
of cognitive inhibition here? Well, if you hold
the, the image of God has to do with everything
that's in man, it has to do, do with who the,
who people are, not necessarily what they do, um,
then that means you can have a decrease in how, how
those faculties are functioning and still realize
that person is still in God's image. Um, and you
don't have that, like what you're saying, that
kind of, um, entire absolute loss of the image of
God, um, if mankind bears it, as opposed to he
actually is it. So I guess what I'm trying to
say is mankind is the image of God, as opposed
to he just has a part of, of this, of this
image. Is that, is that helpful? Yeah. Yeah. I
guess I'm, I'm still kind of curious about how
you manage. Why, how does the image of God
manage to be binary when all the parts are not? Does
that make sense? How does the image of God
manage to be binary when all the parts are
not? Like, um, all the, so there's all these
different attributes which go into our being in
the image of God and they all come in
green. Yeah. Why, why isn't the image of God a
gradient, kind of like an average of where you
fall in all the other aspects? Yeah. I mean,
it's not necessarily, again, it's not
necessarily that it pertains to all the, each
individual moving part in the equation. It
seems like you're still, like you're, you're
still thinking of it in terms of like how, how
if all those parts are contained together, right? How
if you miss one part, then that doesn't affect
it systemically as a whole. Is that what
you're asking? Um, yeah. Something like
that? Okay. Yeah. Answer that question
probably in certain parts. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah. So, um, and again, I, I, you
know, don't want to sound like a broken
record, so I'm sorry if I'm not quite
answering your question, but it's all of
those elements in the unique union together
that forms the, the image of God, right? So,
okay. It, it isn't necessarily those
elements themselves, right? The body, the
soul, the reasoning faculties, the
original rectitude, or whatever. It's the
fact that all of those are taken together
in one person, right? It's like the fact
that we have this capacity. We have the
capacities. So I've heard it described as, is
the faculty versus function, right? We're, we're
not talking about what we, what we do
necessarily. Who we are leads to what we
do, right? But it, it has to do with
actually who we are on a more kind of
ontological level. Yeah.
So, um, I mean, part, in a sense, I guess
part of the challenge of this is, it
doesn't seem like, and one of the reasons
why you have so many different
theology, but we're all evangelicals, and
so we do want to kind of base it on the
way to, uh, we, uh, we can't quite decide
this thing decisively. Is it, we're not
really that simplistic on what actually
the image of God is supposed to be on. So
there is a measure of expectancy. Yeah. And I
really appreciate how the way we do it,
where there's certain things that it is
clear on, and certain things that we need
to sustain. But, and, and maybe this is
kind of the question you're getting at. If it
seems like there is going to be an
aspect where, um, you want to have an
absolute, but then there's also a sense
of being recognized relative. Because if
if, if, if, if fundamental the image of
God, human image of God is Christ. And I'm
sure you can get to this. Right. In one
sense, we are an image of the image of God. Um,
and there is a sense in which we will, uh,
we will reflect. Yeah. Yeah. We're
increasingly conformed to the image. So
there's a sense in which we need to
recognize that there's a relative. We, we
are increasingly, increasingly conformed
to Christ. That's going to, that's going
to, that's going to grow. It's in, in one
sense we've talked about it's attainment. Yeah. But
the reason why we don't, we worry about
that and we can't simply that is because,
by the way, I'll sit down and speak about it in
an absolute sense. Mm-hmm. Where, so we
might think there's a, there's a reflection
aspect, but then there's also a relation. We
as human beings have a special relation
to God that is an absolute. And that, and
that grounds our worth and value and
in this, but there is a sense of which the,
as you might put it, it's not, it's not
defaced, it's defaced. Mm-hmm. You can
progressively gain that back. But that
doesn't change that special relation. So
that's what undergirds our, our, our, our, our
value. That's an absolute. But there is this
relative sense. So I think that's, you need
to maintain those two distinguishable
things. That there's always a special
relation that we have. All humanity has
that's going to value. But there is an
other sense that we have, obviously, as
something that we can increasingly reflect
Christ, that's progressive. So I think you kind of
need to acknowledge both the, the relation
and the reflection aspect. Distinguish
those and affirm them both. It's, it's hard
because trying to get the aspect of, of the
study of the doctrine of sin as well is, is
going to be very essential to understanding
where we stand in relation to Christ. So
next week we're going to be getting a
little bit more into that. Talking about
what it means to be in Adam and having
fallen and what's being renewed in, in, in
Christ. So a lot of the, I think a lot of
the confusion actually comes to this, a
very, you could say classically reformed
emphasis on the spiritual image of God,
which some guys, so John Calvin loves to
talk about the spiritual image of God as
being completely and wholly obliterated and
then being renewed in Jesus Christ. But in
the context there, he's talking about what
we are presently attaining through
regeneration. And, and that is something
that's vouchsafed in the person of Jesus
Christ. And then he'll later say in some,
some other writings, you know, oh, well,
you know, we're going to be resurrected too. So
that's part of the image of God as well. But,
so I need to include that, but that is a
very important emphasis. So thank you.
Yeah.
How do you recognize the situation where, you
know, religion, we're trying to be more
focused, more absolute, but the society we
live in now is more, uh, whole different
areas, it's more, uh, there's a lot of other
things that comes into the place about, you
know, how we, uh, and how we conduct our
lives. Um, how, how do you, you know, do it?
Yeah, actually, I think this doctrine in
particular is, is a very helpful tool for
being able to, to talk to the world, actually.
Um, because in terms of how we, how we
treat people around us, um, this is a
wonderfully kind of profound statement that
everyone is in mankind's image. So you can
talk to your, your, you know, brother or
sister on the street, so to speak.
And you can treat them, uh, in a, in an
equal manner with equal dignity with
yourself. And you can actually, it's a
very helpful event, evangelism tool as
well, isn't it? Uh, because you can show
them, well, you have an inherent dignity
and worth with God as your creator, um, in a,
in a way that the vast confusion that we're
actually seeing, um, in the world at large
doesn't have there. You're right. There is, is
no definiteness at all in how the world is, is
viewing, uh, mankind. In fact, it's, it's
humorous. Al Mohler will talk about this
often, about the, the line of new
orthodoxy in, in contemporary thought
keeps getting moved more and more further
on what constitutes actual appropriate
behavior for humanity, for how we treat
people. Um, and there's this scrambling
game to, you know, you're not, you're not
far enough. You're not going far enough. Um,
because there's no definite, what is
humanity? What is human dignity? What is
morality? What does it mean to be, to be, uh,
human beings and why that's even good? We
don't even know why that's good anymore. So
I think this doctrine is a helpful
evangelism tool for people as well. Um, uh,
we're in God's image, but also at the
same time, you know, you see this
misfunction that we have in our
relationship with God and that renewal
can come through Jesus Christ. So you
could help someone understand that a
little bit more, you know, if they were
to ask you for you to talk to someone,
you know, you're so absolutely, you're so
definite about, about this. Well, yes,
because, you know, scripture tells us
that we can have this image, uh, that you
have right now renewed in its, in its
function. It's a relationship to God
through the, the personal work of Jesus.
Hey.
Yeah, just picking up on that, I was, um,
I was thinking that, I think sometimes
people think, well, if we do think so
strongly, then, you know, problems in this
world are caused by people who believe in
their absolute system too strongly, and
then as a result, they just cut off
everybody else who doesn't agree with
them, and sort of disregard them, and I
think, you know, sort of what you're
saying is like, actually having a really
strong and clear conviction about
all the men in the country, and that
is, I think, also is willing to everybody
who has, you know, and it's, it's, I think
maybe that's maybe starting to, and then
there's, you know, I think, I think the
whole point about, like, the, you know,
there's many other Christian beliefs
that, um, you know, we really understand
ourselves, you know, all humanity
sinfulness and need for God's grace,
well, that should give us, like, humility
in how we relate to each other, so I
think, sort of starting to show, like,
how these Christian beliefs help us
relate better to other people, uh, can,
can help people see, like, oh, it's not
just, uh, that there can be a, a, a
beneficial aspect to, you know.
Yeah, and if you don't have that, that,
you know, because the image of God is, is
a universal doctrine, right, and if you
don't have something like that, then
actually you find that the boundaries of
communication break down between people.
I, I, I'm, I'm not allowed to speak into
your life anymore, because you are your
own measure of authority, but if we
realize we're all in God's image, and that
creates a common denominator, where I
can say, you know, you have a dignity
and worth, and, uh, that can be, you
know, renewed to you in some sense in
Jesus, but.
Yeah, just off that, you often see, like,
the final solution in Germany, what
quickly happens is you stop referring to
a particular people group as humans,
or as something, you know, something
that means that means that language
changes, and how we refer to others,
you know, we have this universal sense of,
like, everyone's managing each other,
you know, that, that, that is, uh,
buttress to us dehumanizing certain
groups that aren't like us.
Yeah, we, we, we still do it today, it's
very troubling to see, uh, we, all this,
all these bills lately about, um, the idea
that you could have, uh, well, to know,
and the idea is abortion based on, uh, uh,
kind of prenatal, like, uh, attributes
or qualities based on race, gender, uh, you
can do, and Julia, Julia's pregnant, so
we just had, uh, some, you know, over,
overviews and some, some checks, and one
test that you could do is to determine
whether the baby has Down syndrome, and
we decided not to do it, because why would
you want to do that, um, unless you were
going to make some sort of decision on, on
life, the life or death of, of the child
based on the outcome of that result, and, um,
so we still see it today, but of course,
the roots of that whole modern debate do
lie in the life and worthy of life, uh,
concept in eugenics in Nazi Germany that
came over to America after World War II.
Yes?
So, if you were to present this argument
to the world, they would respond by
saying, okay, so you say animals are not
the image of God, the humans are, but
there's not such a binary difference
between animals and humans, and point
back to different types of hominids
throughout history, and say, well, we're
Neanderthals in the image of God, we're,
you know, I, I don't even know how many
different homo-whatevers there are, but,
like, they just found a new one, and
they're like, oh, we're going to rewrite
evolutionary history, and they'd say, well,
okay, where do you, where do you draw the
line? I mean, homo sapiens are today
quite distinct from the great apes, but
from a historical perspective, there hasn't
been such a, so how, so in some sense,
this argument about distinction exposes
that there are differences that are
harder to quantify, like, biologically?
Yeah, so you, you placed a nice can of
worms on the table, and then opened the
top when you brought up evolution, because,
you know, I, it's my belief, I know that
there's some people who've argued for a
theistic evolution, but it's my belief that
this text is not homogenous with a
scientific view of evolution in man,
because if we all do come from, from
monkeys, fundamentally, and then we've
evolved out of that, then that does have
the kind of grandfather's axe paradoxes,
where does the, you know, where does the
creature end and the man begin, and I
think that's, that's very problematic.
I think that's actually a great argument
against, against that, and for, well, the
Bible places a particular worth on us as
human beings. We were created, at least in
our souls, out of nothing by God, and, and
that's fundamentally more valuable. Now, if I
could actually emphasize that with someone
on, on the street, if I'm talking to
them, I might want to hedge away from a
more secondary conversation, let's talk
about, like, evolution, and, and make that
the fighting point, and instead what I
would want to do is say, well, the Bible
simply talks about humanity as we, as we
know it today, as, as dignified in God's
image, and that's something very different
from, from, you know, more historical or
scientific evolutionary debate.
All right, well, it's at 9.50, so I want
to make sure that you guys have enough
time to get up there, but thanks so much.
This is a great turnout. Thank you so much
for coming out today.
Thank you.