Hi Judy. I
admit to being disappointed that you appear to not have wrestled with my
post. I put a lot of work into that post to help you move from a
non-biblical viewpoint to one supported by scripture. Ah well, two
points to me for trying!
You are correct in
that I do not think that ALL the image of God consists of is being human with
a positive orientation of life toward God. If I was to give a definition
of what it means to be human it would include the image of God in it along
with a sentence about being in relation as well as a point made that humans
are the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God.
Jonathan
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
jt:
Jonathan,
Please tell
me you don't think that all the "image of God" consists of is
being human with a positive
orientation of life toward
God.
Is this remaking God
in our own image - or is it humanism? David Miller would probably be
more qualified to discern. judyt
The basis for this is
the �loss� of the
imago Dei as
a positive orientation of life
toward God through the Fall,
and the renewal of the imago
Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and
thus the original imago.
�He is the image of the invisible God,� says Paul, �the firstborn of all
creation��
Col.
1:15. �Who is the image
of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature..."
When we talk about
the image of God we
are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as
human, that separates us
from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown
away, even through sin. It
is who we are.
To remove the image of God from us is to
remove our humanness which, of course, is
impossible. I
believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT)
are sufficient evidence for
us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a
result of the Fall. I
hope you will concur. Jonathan
