Checking for sound theology

[keltoi]

It is, but why use 50 words when a dozen or so will make the same point!

Because what you said ignored God's character and could be seen that God may have the ability to break his own laws when in actual fact he can't because he cannot go against his character which his laws reflect.

 

[Foghorn]

Hi Anastasia, this is certainly an interesting thread isn't it It touches at the heart of much of that which separates East from West, and to a lessor degree in this case, Protestant from Roman Catholic. The best part is it has truly been a discussion, instead of a debate, for the most part anyway

There are a number of additional things to discuss, but I did want to mention a couple of things here first.

1) All of the West believes in "total depravity", we just see it differently. This is seen as the reason and need for baptism by the RCC, and for Protestants, we believe that God does the same kind of quickening work in the hearts of elect alone (Calvinism) or in the hearts of all (Arminianism). In any case, the results of the Fall are remedied, God turning our fallen/dead heart of stone into a heart of flesh which is capable of responding to Him in faith (i.e. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3). This is not true of the Orthodox however, because from what I understand, you do not believe there is a need for God to quicken the heart of man like the West does.

2) As for Protestants and the death of children (incl all pre-born babies), I believe that what has been historically held by the Reformed (specifically by John Calvin, in fact) is pretty much true for us all now. Here's a copy of something that I wrote in one of the "abortion" threads that addresses this (granted, it is written from the "Western" POV, IOW, from the POV of Original .. not Ancestral .. Sin).

Babies are conceived with a fallen nature (Psalms 51:5) thanks to the disobedience of our progenitors, but God doesn't judge our "nature", He judges our thoughts and our actions based upon our personal knowledge and understanding of the Law .. which can be, if nothing else, simply the "Law" that God writes upon the heart of every man and woman (see Romans 2:12-16).

Babies have no personal knowledge or understanding of the Law, so they cannot be judged. Those who die at such an early age are always Heaven-bound as a result ​

Yours in Christ,
David

Nice!

 

[Foghorn]

It is a heresy (Pelagic) to believe that we can get to heaven through our own actions).

But, yes, I believe that we are able to accept or reject God's free gift of faith and salvation.

Do you believe we are born good or just born with the ability to have saving faith?

 

[mark46]

Do you believe we are born good or just born with the ability to have saving faith?

We are born with the ability to respond to the free gift of saving faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regarding whether we are born good or evil, and the image of God, and several other related points, I really like the way it was described in a podcast I was listening to today.

Now, I will say that many theologies won't agree with what I'm about to describe. This is the Orthodox point of view, which may be unique but goes back to the early Church.

They described a beautiful painting, to represent how humans were first created in the image of God. The marring of that image by sin was described as throwing a handful of mud at the painting, obscuring the image and making the while thing appear filthy. We can no longer see the beauty of the image as it was created. It is disfigured, and the image is marred.

Now, the thing is, the image CAN BE cleaned. In our case, it requires the grace of God to accomplish this. But we can be restored to both the image and likeness of God. This is contrasted with theologies that would say the image is now MADE OF mud, which we don't believe it is (in thus particular analogy). Our nature is not now fundamentally of a different kind than we were before.

With all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters, this is why we have no need of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and reject it. For us, Mary must be of the same kind of nature as the rest of mankind, so that Christ can assume that very flesh, and in so doing, redeem us all. In our understanding, as St. Athanasius said, "what is not assumed is not healed", so we require our very own nature to be assumed by Christ. This is not a blasphemy for us, because we don't see human nature as completely depraved or fundamentally changed from how God created us. We consider the world to be completely sin-infected, and indeed man may be easily bent to sin, and all do sin, but we don't believe it is for the same reason as I believe Catholics teach?

I just found it a very interesting analogy. (And in other analogies, we DO call humans "mud" - usually to distinguish mankind from the Divine.)

 

[St_Worm2]

We are born with the ability to respond to the free gift of saving faith.

Hi Mark, what happens when one is baptized according to the RCC? Baptism is considered to be far more than symbolic by the RCC, yes?

Thanks!

--David

 

[mark46]

Hi Mark, what happens when one is baptized according to the RCC? Baptism is considered to be far more than symbolic by the RCC, yes?

Thanks!

--David

Yes, baptism is much more than symbolic in the RCC. By baptism, the stain of original sin is removed. See below for much more detail.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[Heber Book List]

Regarding whether we are born good or evil, and the image of God, and several other related points, I really like the way it was described in a podcast I was listening to today.

Now, I will say that many theologies won't agree with what I'm about to describe. This is the Orthodox point of view, which may be unique but goes back to the early Church.

They described a beautiful painting, to represent how humans were first created in the image of God. The marring of that image by sin was described as throwing a handful of mud at the painting, obscuring the image and making the while thing appear filthy. We can no longer see the beauty of the image as it was created. It is disfigured, and the image is marred.

Now, the thing is, the image CAN BE cleaned. In our case, it requires the grace of God to accomplish this. But we can be restored to both the image and likeness of God. This is contrasted with theologies that would say the image is now MADE OF mud, which we don't believe it is (in thus particular analogy). Our nature is not now fundamentally of a different kind than we were before.

With all due respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters, this is why we have no need of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and reject it. For us, Mary must be of the same kind of nature as the rest of mankind, so that Christ can assume that very flesh, and in so doing, redeem us all. In our understanding, as St. Athanasius said, "what is not assumed is not healed", so we require our very own nature to be assumed by Christ. This is not a blasphemy for us, because we don't see human nature as completely depraved or fundamentally changed from how God created us. We consider the world to be completely sin-infected, and indeed man may be easily bent to sin, and all do sin, but we don't believe it is for the same reason as I believe Catholics teach?

I just found it a very interesting analogy. (And in other analogies, we DO call humans "mud" - usually to distinguish mankind from the Divine.)

Thank you - that is an interesting analogy. My question was, using your analogy as a base line, if I may,

a] how did the artist know what God looks like? I know analogies, when pushed too far, all come apart, but this was the essence of what I was saying. Do we know what God looked like before creation, or even now, that we can compare ourselves to him in any realistic way, and with any confidence? The clear answer is a simple 'no', which is why the Bible contains references to God that we can understand: he has arms, legs, eyes, mouth, arms and so on. We have had to make him conform to our own man, so that we can 'see' him.
b] The comment in question arises long before the 'fall of man' and so it is quite feasible that the 'let us make man in our own image' may well apply only to man prior to the 'fall', when he was truly at one with God in every way (we read of God and Adam chatting in the perfectness of the Garden), and so may not be valid for us who are post the 'fall' because that 'knowing of each other' ie fully experiencing each other as in a marriage (no sexual connotation implied here) is broken by sin. This understanding is why we have the clear analogy of the groom who will return to seek the bride, and the Temple will be the house with many rooms for the family - us - and many other marriage analogies.
c] If we take the phrase as being applicable today, we have problems with the term, across a number of areas, not least that we have to decide whether it is an anthropomorphic resemblance to God, or a spiritual resemblance to God - here is the crunch, which of the two was God speaking of? A painting analogy supports the former.

I believe the phrase in question is mis-applied and relates to the pre-'fall' time in creation only, and that after the fall, we ceased to be in the image of God because, as your analogy says, we have by our lifestyle hidden who God really is from ourselves and from the world, which is why Jesus came to walk the earth and bring us back to seeing God as he really is. In this way he is bringing us back to that perfect relationship with him so that, no longer, will we see him only through the collectives eyes of the world, but through the purity our own lives if take Jesus' life 100% into ourselves. As Jesus said, 'you have seen me, you have seen the Father'. The whole of Scripture is about bringing us back to being in that 'in the image of God' - we are not even near that today!

 

[ViaCrucis]

We are created in the image of God... yet God is not like us. A simple contradiction, but what does 'the image of God' actually mean?

I think too frequently we attempt to define the Imago Dei in terms of how we are "like" God. I don't know that this is what the writers of Genesis were trying to communicate by the idea of man being made in God's image and likeness.

If we look at the creation narrative of Genesis ch. 1 as describing the work of God to build His dwelling place, that is, that the heavens and the earth are to be understood as God's Temple, then the concept of human beings being the image of God might make more sense. To bear the Imago Dei is not in what way are we "like" God or, worse, wondering in what way(s) God is like us; but instead to see what our place is within the creation of God. Our created purpose is to bear the Divine likeness.

In the ancient world when a temple was being constructed, the last act was to place the image of the god, and in this way the god's presence was understood as being in that temple through the image. But the Hebrews understood that the true God was not like the false gods of the nations, He could not be contained in a temple made of stone and by human hands ("The heavens, not even the heavens of heavens can contain You, how much less this house which I have built?!"), that even the heavens themselves were God's throne, and the earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1).

So while God could not be depicted, God Himself could still invest His Divine purpose for the whole of creation in fashioning an image, human beings. Who are given the grand task to take dominion over creation, not as tyrants, but as the image-bearing creatures--and servants--of God.

It is this that is tarnished by the Fall, and which in Christ is restored, and that our hope in Him--for the final day and the world to come--is in the reality of creation made whole. That the created purpose is not lost, but renewed, and made even better by the union of the Divine and the human in Jesus Christ "by whom and for whom all things were made".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Heber Book List]

Because what you said ignored God's character and could be seen that God may have the ability to break his own laws when in actual fact he can't because he cannot go against his character which his laws reflect.

The OP was looking for concise statements - not a theological treatise

 

[keltoi]

The OP was looking for concise statements - not a theological treatise

The OP is checking for sound theology not something that picks and chooses what parts of truth it is willing to accept as truth.

 

[Heber Book List]

I think too frequently we attempt to define the Imago Dei in terms of how we are "like" God. I don't know that this is what the writers of Genesis were trying to communicate by the idea of man being made in God's image and likeness.

If we look at the creation narrative of Genesis ch. 1 as describing the work of God to build His dwelling place, that is, that the heavens and the earth are to be understood as God's Temple, then the concept of human beings being the image of God might make more sense. To bear the Imago Dei is not in what way are we "like" God or, worse, wondering in what way(s) God is like us; but instead to see what our place is within the creation of God. Our created purpose is to bear the Divine likeness.

In the ancient world when a temple was being constructed, the last act was to place the image of the god, and in this way the god's presence was understood as being in that temple through the image. But the Hebrews understood that the true God was not like the false gods of the nations, He could not be contained in a temple made of stone and by human hands ("The heavens, not even the heavens of heavens can contain You, how much less this house which I have built?!"), that even the heavens themselves were God's throne, and the earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1).

So while God could not be depicted, God Himself could still invest His Divine purpose for the whole of creation in fashioning an image, human beings. Who are given the grand task to take dominion over creation, not as tyrants, but as the image-bearing creatures--and servants--of God.

It is this that is tarnished by the Fall, and which in Christ is restored, and that our hope in Him--for the final day and the world to come--is in the reality of creation made whole. That the created purpose is not lost, but renewed, and made even better by the union of the Divine and the human in Jesus Christ "by whom and for whom all things were made".

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you, I can rest easy with much of that, but we still differ on what was intended by Jesus having written into Scripture the words 'made in the image of'. The nearest he got to explaining it was to tell his disciples that when they see him, they see their Father in heaven - he obviously was not speaking about his physical, human body as Philippians 2 attests but. rather, who he is in creation - the Creator, as John says. So we need to study him more, to be come like him, more, and to build our relationship with our heavenly Father, more, so that we return to being 'in the image of God' and less of being 'in the image of man' (generic).

This is what being a believer in Christ, and therefore a Christian, is all about, is it not? Christians often sing, and pray, and say that we want to be more like Jesus - this is precisely the longing to be 'in the image of God'; all the many wonderful things on this thread are, dare one say 'simply' without offending anyone, a part of that return journey to the Garden. As God, himself said: if only you would call me 'abba' as he reaches down to his children to bring them back into that special relationship, also seen in the parable of the errant son who wanders off and ends up feeding the vilest animal on earth as a 'am ha'eretz' - a poor peasant living off the land, instead of being a full, honoured member of that Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood, a chosen people etc.

I think that if we make the Biblical connections we will find the Bible come alive in our hands - in just the same way as happened in the origins of the Evangelical Revival, in a small Church in Scotland, and we will see things that we never knew existed, but we have to make the connections in our regular study of the Word, as I am sure a number of us do, but we need to go ever deeper, in my opinion.

 

[Heber Book List]

The OP is checking for sound theology not something that picks and chooses what parts of truth it is willing to accept as truth.

The OP clearly lists concise statements for a specific purpose, which have to reflect sound theology. If you are not happy with the view I take that is your prerogative.

If you are looking for an argument, or a flame in return, it will not happen, so I suggest you leave the matter at this point, as far as I am concerned.

 

[keltoi]

The OP clearly lists concise statements for a specific purpose, which have to reflect sound theology.

When you say

Thank you, I knew that - I was taking the question at a much deeper level.

it indicates your not interested in short concise statements instead it indicates you want to delve deeply into it.

If you are not happy with the view I take that is your prerogative.

My happiness is neither here nor there what is important is that you stick to what you said and not switch from wanting to be deep to then wanting short and concise.

If you are looking for an argument, or a flame in return, it will not happen, so I suggest you leave the matter at this point, as far as I am concerned.

I'm not looking for an argument. I stupidly thought I'd answer your initial question, you said you knew the answer already but wanted to take the question to a much deeper level. If you don't want a deep discussion don't say you do. In other words say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

[Heber Book List]

When you say
it indicates your not interested in short concise statements instead it indicates you want to delve deeply into it.
My happiness is neither here nor there what is important is that you stick to what you said and not switch from wanting to be deep to then wanting short and concise.
I'm not looking for an argument. I stupidly thought I'd answer your initial question, you said you knew the answer already but wanted to take the question to a much deeper level. If you don't want a deep discussion don't say you do. In other words say what you mean and mean what you say.

I only responded to your query about sin as an aside, commenting that I wanted to look more deeply - ie at the main subject matter, of 'being made in the image of God', that I had introduced, of which the origin of sin is a part. The thread then moved on, as did I, to look more closely at what we mean by being 'created in the image of God'. I do not think in any case that it warranted a flame - I shall ignore your posts so that we do not repeat this style of communication.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you - that is an interesting analogy. My question was, using your analogy as a base line, if I may,

a] how did the artist know what God looks like? I know analogies, when pushed too far, all come apart, but this was the essence of what I was saying. Do we know what God looked like before creation, or even now, that we can compare ourselves to him in any realistic way, and with any confidence? The clear answer is a simple 'no', which is why the Bible contains references to God that we can understand: he has arms, legs, eyes, mouth, arms and so on. We have had to make him conform to our own man, so that we can 'see' him.
b] The comment in question arises long before the 'fall of man' and so it is quite feasible that the 'let us make man in our own image' may well apply only to man prior to the 'fall', when he was truly at one with God in every way (we read of God and Adam chatting in the perfectness of the Garden), and so may not be valid for us who are post the 'fall' because that 'knowing of each other' ie fully experiencing each other as in a marriage (no sexual connotation implied here) is broken by sin. This understanding is why we have the clear analogy of the groom who will return to seek the bride, and the Temple will be the house with many rooms for the family - us - and many other marriage analogies.
c] If we take the phrase as being applicable today, we have problems with the term, across a number of areas, not least that we have to decide whether it is an anthropomorphic resemblance to God, or a spiritual resemblance to God - here is the crunch, which of the two was God speaking of? A painting analogy supports the former.

I believe the phrase in question is mis-applied and relates to the pre-'fall' time in creation only, and that after the fall, we ceased to be in the image of God because, as your analogy says, we have by our lifestyle hidden who God really is from ourselves and from the world, which is why Jesus came to walk the earth and bring us back to seeing God as he really is. In this way he is bringing us back to that perfect relationship with him so that, no longer, will we see him only through the collectives eyes of the world, but through the purity our own lives if take Jesus' life 100% into ourselves. As Jesus said, 'you have seen me, you have seen the Father'. The whole of Scripture is about bringing us back to being in that 'in the image of God' - we are not even near that today!

If I understand your question correctly - that is too literal of a take on the analogy. Yes, the idea of a portrait was used, or "a painting" (less specifically) but that does NOT mean to imply that we are in our physical bodies a perfect, literal representation of God Himself, as though our bodies somehow define God. There are so many things wrong with such a thought that my mind just simply did not go there.

Actually, it is a very interesting question you ask - what exactly is meant by being made "in the image and likeness" of God? But when applied to our physical bodies, we must be careful not to take the analogy too far. When God appears as a man, yes He apparently appears to resemble us (and I am speaking of pre-incarnate appearances and visions of the prophets), but I'm inclined to think of this as a condescension on the part of God. God is spirit, and we were created to dwell in bodies of flesh, so in that way we are already unlike Him. To think then that the "image" refers to our bodies in a way meant to limit God can't be correct. That seems to make God in OUR image. Also considering the fact that He has ALSO appeared not as a man, but as fire, or possibly as a dove, etc. I think the idea of restricting God to bearing our physical image is too small. But since we are in bodies, we had to look like something.

Anyway, that is just not the way I understand that statement. Image does imply something to do with how we are made, and I'd like to explore that further, now that you've brought it up. But I don't think it's simply the stamp of our physical bodies. In the analogy I mentioned, btw, it is meant to explain the NATURE of mankind, not his physical attributes. And "likeness" would have more to do with ways we are like Christ in our actions, thoughts, feelings, words, motives, will, etc.

 

[JLB777]

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

Continuing in the faith that brought about your conversion, and not being "moved away from the hope of the Gospel", will result in the reconciliation to God and the salvation of our souls.

21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. Colossians 1:21-23


6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith,being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1:6-9


JLB

 

[Heber Book List]

If I understand your question correctly - that is too literal of a take on the analogy. Yes, the idea of a portrait was used, or "a painting" (less specifically) but that does NOT mean to imply that we are in our physical bodies a perfect, literal representation of God Himself, as though our bodies somehow define God. There are so many things wrong with such a thought that my mind just simply did not go there.

Actually, it is a very interesting question you ask - what exactly is meant by being made "in the image and likeness" of God? But when applied to our physical bodies, we must be careful not to take the analogy too far. When God appears as a man, yes He apparently appears to resemble us (and I am speaking of pre-incarnate appearances and visions of the prophets), but I'm inclined to think of this as a condescension on the part of God. God is spirit, and we were created to dwell in bodies of flesh, so in that way we are already unlike Him. To think then that the "image" refers to our bodies in a way meant to limit God can't be correct. That seems to make God in OUR image. Also considering the fact that He has ALSO appeared not as a man, but as fire, or possibly as a dove, etc. I think the idea of restricting God to bearing our physical image is too small. But since we are in bodies, we had to look like something.

Anyway, that is just not the way I understand that statement. Image does imply something to do with how we are made, and I'd like to explore that further, now that you've brought it up. But I don't think it's simply the stamp of our physical bodies. In the analogy I mentioned, btw, it is meant to explain the NATURE of mankind, not his physical attributes. And "likeness" would have more to do with ways we are like Christ in our actions, thoughts, feelings, words, motives, will, etc.

Hi, I was just using your analogy as a root idea to think about how our own sinfulness can also obscure God, just as the mud in your analogy covered the picture. I can see that a line is missing in my post. It should have said: if we turn it round so that God is on the canvass we might get somewhere, but: a] how could the artist know what God looks like?

To continue the thought process - I agree with much of your post. When God cleanses us from our sins, then and only then, can we see him, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi, I was just using your analogy as a root idea to think about how our own sinfulness can also obscure God, just as the mud in your analogy covered the picture. I can see that a line is missing in my post. It should have said: if we turn it round so that God is on the canvass we might get somewhere, but: a] how could the artist know what God looks like?

To continue the thought process - I agree with much of your post. When God cleanses us from our sins, then and only then, can we see him, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13.

You have a point as well, that our sin obscures God from our sight as well. At least to some degree (else how could a sinner ever be converted?) but that second part is another question.

I am agreeing with you though.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

Since you are (rightfully) afraid to make mistakes in what you are doing, may I ask why you are doing it in the first place? Why not leave teaching to those called to teach?