Catholics-Muslims spiritually united?

[Christos Anesti]

Where the clear intent is to establish that Adam is in the image of God, but that Adams seed is in the image of Adam.

I agree. But it doesn't explicitly say anything to the effect that Adam's creation in the image of God was revoked so that those in Adams image didn't have it either. I don't see that as clear at all. I can see how one could come to that conclusion but it's certainly not demanded by the text.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Human nature may have become ill but it's still there none the less. St Cyril of Alexandria explains this:

"Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam's curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God's commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a mortal source . . . So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam's transgression" (Doctrinal questions and answers, 6).

"Human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin . . . Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man's very passions" (On Romans 5.18).

St Athanasius also lays out the result of the ancestoral sin:

Our forefathers "did not die and did not decay, escaped death and corruption. The presence of the Word with them shielded them from natural corruption, as also the Book of Wisdom says, God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world (Wis. 2:23f.) When this happened, men began to die, and corruption spread unchecked among them and held sway over men to more than a natural degree, because it was the penalty concerning which God had forewarned would be the reward of transgressing the commandment" (On the Incarnation of the Word).

 

[Christos Anesti]

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)


Thats not just the single person Adam but man in general.

Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’

Why is that? Because man is in the image of God. Our failure to see the image of God in our fellow man is a failure to see God Himself.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Muslims also believe that we (Christians and Jews alike) worship Allah, but we haven't realized it yet.
There's also the fact that of the world religions only 3 are monotheistic: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In that way then yes we're spiritually similar

Many Muslims claim Christianity is polythestic because they think we are adding partners to God(shirk).

Mohammed grew up in a highly pagan area with some christians and jews. However the christians in the arab lands were more Arian than trinitarian due to monophysitism being so prevalent among the oriental orthodox/coptic.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

What is in us, is that which He has made. Is something that God made worth saving?

Basically your stating that we have a different nature then Adam and Eve.
Which is wrong

And we are their sons and daughters. We have what God put in them and we have to live with the consequence(s) of their sin.

No that is a logical fallacy of appeal to belief, because, you belief that the moment the image of God is marred it ceases to be the image of God.

The above is a marred image of the Mona Lisa. The image is still the Mona-Lisa. It does not stop being the Mona-Lisa underneath the beard. Like wise when we are born we are born as God made us. In His image but we are a marred image. When the image is cleaned it becomes the perfect image of God. Likewise when the Mona-Lisa is cleaned she becomes the Mona-Lisa as she was created.(yes I know it's not the original)


It does not say that they were dead by nature. Rather it says that they were dead in their trespasses and sins. He's talking about their personal sins as a whole not about original sin. When a person sins they are dead in their sins.

Not dead as in having a dead nature. There is no such thing as a dead nature.

By nature they are children of wrath. Which means that by nature they had a disposition to sin. Which is the effect(or affect?) of original sin.

Also
1 Peter 2:24


24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.




was just using what you said in an analogy to make a point.

You your self said that Adam, Eve and Jesus were the only one's that were the perfect image of Christ. I was just using that as an analogy to point out that we will like them in the fact that we will be the perfect image of God before the fall. Nothing more.

I did, read my explanation of it.

I stand corrected. What I meant is He also has a human nature and we also have a human nature. He is also a man. We do not stop having a human nature, because of original sin.

Yeah they do. They are actually more inline with the verses from eph. IMHO.

What is in us, is that which He has made. Is something that God made worth saving?

this is the concept that is prevalent in much of the church today. I really detest it, no offense to you it is the concept that i dislike.

The reason is this: It does not incorporate a robust and biblical view of sin. God does not save us because of some inherent worth within us . . . He saves us because of HIS GREAT WORTH AND VALUE and OUR ABILITY

AFTER WE ARE SAVED

to reflect HIS WORTH AND VALUE. Which happens to be for our greatest good. God does EVERYTHING He does for His own GLORY . . . it is EVERYWHERE (for MY own namesake I do this, for my own glory I do that . . . EVERYWHERE).

We have NO inherent worth which is what makes the cross SO AMAZING and Gods grace and mercy SO GREAT! If we all had some inherent worth as "in the image of God" He would redeem EVERYONE. He does not . . . so does He then burn in hell His own image? NO! He burns in hell those who are evil . . . there is no vestige of image within them because SIN has destroyed it. I cannot see Him burning His own image brother . . . sorry.

Basically your stating that we have a different nature then Adam and Eve.
Which is wrong

That is not at all what I am stating. I am stating that Adam and Eve had a nature that was one thing prior to the fall (defined by their relationship to God) which CHANGED after the fall . . . we bear THIS NATURE . . . not the prefall nature. And my contention is that this image is NOT the image of God in man, but the fallen image of Adam WHO USED TO BE THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN.

And we are their sons and daughters. We have what God put in them and we have to live with the consequence(s) of their sin.

No we do not have what God put in them . . . because what He put in them NO LONGER EXISTS . . . they are in a state of spiritual DEATH in relation to God where they USED TO BE IN A STATE OF LIFE IN RELATION TO GOD.

AND image and likenes is not something that God PUT IN THEM, it is the cast in which they were molded, not an inherent composition of the material. That mold, as per a'von, is not the same image anymore.

No that is a logical fallacy of appeal to belief, because, you belief that the moment the image of God is marred it ceases to be the image of God.

The above is a marred image of the Mona Lisa. The image is still the Mona-Lisa. It does not stop being the Mona-Lisa underneath the beard.

This was pretty clever . . . with the pic and all

But, drive deeper, think more critically. Does this painting of the Mona Lisa retain its same worth and value when it is marred? NO IT DOES NOT. AND you are forgetting the concept that the IMAGE AND LIKENESS ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL. The original is God himself. Man is a COPY. It is not the Mona Lisa that is marred, but a copy of the Mona Lisa . . . so even more so, the copy, marred, does not retain its value either. And when one points to the copy, does one say "that is the mona lisa" . . . no, one says it is a COPY in the IMAGE AND LIKENESS of the Mona Lisa . . . and once that copy is marred, it is NO LONGER A COPY and every copy that is in the marred image IS NOT IN THE IMAGE OF THE MONA LISA EVER AGAIN it bears the image of the marred copy.

You cannot add to God . . . once sin is introduced the image is no longer able, ontologically, to be considered the same image, even the same image fallen . . . because there is no sin in God. THINK brother . . . think through all the things that must be in order for the posit to be true . . . light refracted is still light nonetheless . . . true, but we are not talking about photons measurable in the scientific realm . . . we are talking about a moral STATE and a spiritual truth that does not follow these same lines of reasoning. Once something is added to or taken from something, the final state of that thing IS NO LONGER WHAT IT WAS. The image of God in man is no longer the image of God but the reflection of Fallen Adam who USED to be in the image of God.

When the image is cleaned it becomes the perfect image of God. Likewise when the Mona-Lisa is cleaned she becomes the Mona-Lisa as she was created.(yes I know it's not the original)

But you are missing what redemption is . . . it is not a return to the image of God as Adam held . . . it is more . . . it is an entirely new painting.

It does not say that they were dead by nature. Rather it says that they were dead in their trespasses and sins. He's talking about their personal sins as a whole not about original sin. When a person sins they are dead in their sins.

Again, the parallelism is that those who are children of wrath by nature is categorized as those who are dead in sin. That is the nature of man, spiritually dead.

Not dead as in having a dead nature. There is no such thing as a dead nature.

Sure there is. It is not death as in cessation of consciousness . . . it is death in relation to God. Proofed in the passage. Cessation of being cannot be construed as it is a metaphor proofed by the fact that the person is still living but considered dead.

By nature they are children of wrath. Which means that by nature they had a disposition to sin. .

No it does not . . . it means that in relation to God they are those who are going to be crushed by judgement . .. disposition is not even in the picture.

Which is the effect(or affect?) of original sin.

No the effect of original sin is death hence

Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men,
NASU

Also
1 Peter 2:24


24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

There is no problem here . . . I am not sure what the point was

You your self said that Adam, Eve and Jesus were the only one's that were the perfect image of Christ. I was just using that as an analogy to point out that we will like them in the fact that we will be the perfect image of God before the fall.

NO WE WILL NOT BE . . . WE WILL BE MORE THAN ADAM AND EVE EVER WERE BECAUSE WE WILL BE DEEPER UNITED WITH JESUS THAN ADAM EVER WAS. I am not sure what is not getting across here . . . even logic sees the difference in the New Jerusalem with no sun or moons or ocean and the creation of Eden in Genesis . . .

What I meant is He also has a human nature and we also have a human nature. He is also a man. We do not stop having a human nature, because of original sin.

I agree . . . the question is "what is that human nature that Adam has after the fall?" Is it the same image that he had prior to the fall? NO. Our image bears that of Fallen Adam, which is NO LONGER THE IMAGE OF GOD. It is ra'ah, sin which is contrary to the nature of God, it is a'von sin which twists what Adam did look like to the point that the image is no longer the image at all (for one cannot add or detract to God), it is ra'sha, sin which is morally wrong, it is ch'at ta'ah sin which is worthy of punishment, it is pe'sha, that which is rebellion to God, it is ash'awm, that which is guilt for the action, culpable, it is ta'ah, sin which is that which has swayed from one place to another , it is pa'sha that which has broken away and revolted against God, it is sha'gah, that which has deviated from the path and strayed, this is what the picture of sin is in the OT, and it looks nothing like a mere moustache on the Mona Lisa . . . but a grotesque malformed demonic monster . . . this is the image that fallen man bears . . . I am sorry . . . I do not see the image of God in here at all. I see Adams consequence imputed to us.

Yeah they do. They are actually more inline with the verses from eph. IMHO

K, then exegete the passage . . . fit it into Paul's historical context, authorial intent, linguistic usage, the way it fits into the context of chapter 1 and build upon this foundation and how it serves as the foundation for his arguements of unity of Jew and Gentile in chapter 3. Please . . . by all means

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I agree. But it doesn't explicitly say anything to the effect that Adam's creation in the image of God was revoked so that those in Adams image didn't have it either. I don't see that as clear at all. I can see how one could come to that conclusion but it's certainly not demanded by the text.

In Hebraic parallelism you have three basic concepts:

Synonymous: in which the same thing is stated again. Cannot be here for the subjects are defined differenty

Synthetic: in which one concept is added to another concept to build a conclusion of the two. Which again cannot be because of the subjects again, as there is no point of agreement

Antithetic: in which you have opposites contrasted. Which is the only option because of the comceptual placement . . . Adam was made in the image of God, seth is born in the image and likeness of Adam. There is nothing to connect the image of seth to the image of God because they are set up as natural contrasting statements. Not to mention theologically we have the NT teaching of Paul who places us as IN ADAM as opposed to Christ who is INDEED THE IMAGE OF GOD ON EARTH.

So I cannot see it another way . . . the parallelism is clear and the basic types are known . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)


Thats not just the single person Adam but man in general.

Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’

Why is that? Because man is in the image of God. Our failure to see the image of God in our fellow man is a failure to see God Himself.

Thats not just the single person Adam but man in general.

You are right that it is not singular . . . but you are wrong in that it is man in general. It is not. It is Adam and Eve.

Gen 1:27
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASU

The plural applies to the pair as subsequent humans are created by SEX and not the "ba'rah" creative act of God.

Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’

Why is that? Because man is in the image of God.

Cant use that verse. The people present are: Sheep, goats and Jesus. The "least of these" are brothers and sisters in Christ as they are SHEEP (as opposed to goats who do not belong to the Lord), not humanity in general. So, you cannot use this verse Christos . . . sorry.

The ones in this verse are believers who bear the image of Christ already . . . this is not a verse, as so often mis applied, that refers to the masses of all of humanity.


So, seeing that the verse refers to the image of Christ re-born in the believer and not the general mass of humanity, I will say, sorry dear brother, please refer to another passage.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Hebraic parallelism you have three basic concepts:

Couldn't the image of God in Adam been distorted and that distorted image passed on to his descendents? The parallelism would still be there without implying that the image had been all together revoked or removed. If it was all together revoked Adam wouldn't just be a fallen man he would no longer be a man at all - a man be defintion is an image of God.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I started a thread on the image and likeness 'cause this one has become thoroughly side tracked onto that topic thanks in part to my self doh!http://www.christianforums.com/t7469003/

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Couldn't the image of God in Adam been distorted and that distorted image passed on to his descendents? The parallelism would still be there without implying that the image had been all together revoked or removed. If it was all together revoked Adam wouldn't just be a fallen man he would no longer be a man at all - a man be defintion is an image of God.

Indeed that is what has happened . . . but our thinking of distortion, as in a carnival mirror, is not the same as the biblical picture of sin. It is like the werewolf . . . human and then monster . . . and the monster does not look anything like the creator, and only in basics looks like the man it was (arms and a mouth and eyes etc), and cannot legitimately be said to represent the creator at all.

If it was all together revoked Adam wouldn't just be a fallen man he would no longer be a man at all - a man be defintion is an image of God

That is where my leanings on image and likeness are not found in the vision of man, or his abilities, but in what he was told to do as God's representative.

Notice Jesus' statements about the coin of ceasar . . . whose image is on the coin? A mans . . . but he dichotomizes between that image and Gods in render unto ceasar that which belongs to ceasar. His point is that the image of man is not the image of God . . . and whatever man being in the image of God means, it is not in what we "see," but in something else.

Some say the ability of man to think and reason? Well the angels have as much and they are not in the image of God . . . feel and relate? Same thing, angels have these as well. Man being a triune being (which I believe, but a strong case can also be made for the soul/spirit being synonymous)? Perhaps . . . but is that in the Genesis text? Maybe a glimmer in the plural pronoun of "us" . . . but that is a really hard case to make.

What IS in the text? The command to rule the earth . . . what is effected most by the fall? Does Adam's body become distorted? no . . . does his triune nature become fractured? no . . . what IS effected by the fall is the CURSE on mans abilities over the created order and man's relationship to God.

So that is where I stand.

 

[simonthezealot]

Is that not what I said?

Evagelism FOR THE LOST . . . but EVANGELISM is not the same thing as ECUMENISM within the divided church.

Evangelism is for those OUTSIDE the church . . . ecumenism should ONLY be for those who hold to the core doctrine of the Gospel of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4).

The problem is the ecumenical statement concerning ISLAM when they are not part of the church, and any statement concerning Islam should be one of conversion and evangelism not one of ecumenical spiritual unity.

Exactly.