What does it mean to be made in the image of God?

[Maria Billingsley]

I want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Seeing as how below you say the Holy Spirit indwells those who believe, by the above "The Holy Spirit departed after the fall only to come upon some rather than live in them." you are not saying that the Holy Spirit does not indwell, but that it did not indwell but to as he willed, to 'come upon' those who were not Elect?

Let me rephrase. You are saying that subsequent to the fall, the Holy Spirit at best came upon some unbelievers; you are not saying that the Holy Spirit does not indwell any humans.

In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit led the Prophets, Holy men and women and Kings but He did not permanently dwell in them as He does now. The Messiah came to restore the Holy Spirit to the beliver once lost through Adam.

 

[Marilyn C]

So, would you say dogs and other animals are made in the image of God? Do they not have that?

What about Angels? does the Bible say they are made in the image of God?

Hi Mark.

Yes we need to address those - animals & angels.

I would say animals have instincts which may look like their `will,` but it is not.

Angels have a will, mind and emotions. However an important point which I will try to explain. The Son is the image of the Father, being His exact likeness, (though not created or lesser). Humans give their offspring their likeness also, though through birth.

Angels were made individually, they do not produce offspring, and thus do not have likeness to a `Father.` God is our Father, but is not Father to the angels.

regards, Marilyn.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit led the Prophets, Holy men and women and Kings but He did not permanently dwell in them as He does now. The Messiah came to restore the Holy Spirit to the beliver once lost through Adam.

To those reading this, I say, I hope you don't take Marie's and my conversation hre to be off-topic. I think it has everything to do with the topic. However, for the aake of avoiding the long debates common to this particular subject as it developed into, in other threads, I will just say this to Marie: I can see you don't believe in total depravity. Do you believe the OT saints were saved by a different Gospel than ours?

 

[ewq1938]

Yet, the image is marred, no?

No. The only thing marred is one's spirit and that would be after sinning. That is when a new man must be created within, also called being born again.

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

You seem to propose a practical capacity, not a spiritual capacity. For example the loving care of a mother for her child reflects God's love for us, but the change from being born again does not?

The example of the love a mother has for her child is absolutely a reflection of God, and our capacity to understand what it means to receive love from God, and then to reflect that love to others is an example of the image of God. God originally created us to be a merger of the spiritual and the material. Due to the fall, Christ has now become the new perfect representative of the image of God, and when we are born again, the relationship is restored, and our physical/practical actions, through faith, can now be used by God in a way that reveals the spiritual.

Or are you saying the capacity, whether and material or spiritual, whether of a lost human or a product of regeneration, all are related to that capacity to show what God is like?

The material and the spiritual are meant to be unified. For a lost human, though they are created to image God, they present a distorted image of God, because even if they strive for moral purity, they do not acknowledge the source. Lost or regenerated, by nature we act in similar ways because we are created to dance to the same tune, metaphorically speaking. For the lost, however, they are dancing, but they are covering their ears, suppressing the truth, causing a half realized display of action.

If the fallen can naturally display God's attributes to some degree or in some way, is this part of "what has been seen" referred to in Romans 1, that leaves man without excuse?

That is part of it because Romans 1 is referring to the whole of Gods' revelation to man through the creation. Ultimately, if humans are the pinnacle of Gods' revelation, we then have no excuse for rejecting God. If we can see aspects of God in nature, how can we not acknowledge ourselves as a profound revelation of God in the world?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

To those reading this, I say, I hope you don't take Marie's and my conversation hre to be off-topic. I think it has everything to do with the topic. However, for the aake of avoiding the long debates common to this particular subject as it developed into, in other threads, I will just say this to Marie: I can see you don't believe in total depravity. Do you believe the OT saints were saved by a different Gospel than ours?

Correct. I am not a Calvanist. Be blessed.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

To those reading this, I say, I hope you don't take Marie's and my conversation hre to be off-topic. I think it has everything to do with the topic. However, for the aake of avoiding the long debates common to this particular subject as it developed into, in other threads, I will just say this to Marie: I can see you don't believe in total depravity. Do you believe the OT saints were saved by a different Gospel than ours?

Cont.. "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness."

 

[Kettriken]

I've often considered the conscious creative impulse to be foremost of our ingrained image of God. Thinking further, free will and empathy would apply, as I don't see any way to prove this in the animal kingdom. While right and wrong would be an attribute (image) of God, it is not one we can claim inheritance to, as it was taken rather than given. From there the discussion gets a bit more difficult, as we have trouble differentiating our (and God's) true selves from what happened as a result of the fall.

Nor are we able to do 'new', in the way God only is able to do. We are 'creative', but we don't create.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Procreation aside, we create new ideas and technologies all the time. More pertinently, the miracles of scripture would be evidence of new creation, outside the bounds of normal physics. These are small scale examples of the creation God did in the beginning of the world. Jesus said this power is open to us, and I would bet there are people on this forum who would bear witness to such biology-defying healings.

I would say animals have instincts which may look like their `will,` but it is not.

Angels have a will, mind and emotions. However an important point which I will try to explain. The Son is the image of the Father, being His exact likeness, (though not created or lesser). Humans give their offspring their likeness also, though through birth.

Angels were made individually, they do not produce offspring, and thus do not have likeness to a `Father.` God is our Father, but is not Father to the angels.

These are important points to parse. While much of what may pass as "free will" in humans is substantively similar to animal instinct, there is at least a small, generative portion of will that would count as free in humans that is given to us in our God-image.

As for the angels, I disagree that God is not their father, but perhaps for the point of discussion it could be rendered a lower-case honorific, since as far as we know they can't reproduce or create in their own right as we can.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know if this is entirely true. Procreation aside, we create new ideas and technologies all the time. More pertinently, the miracles of scripture would be evidence of new creation, outside the bounds of normal physics. These are small scale examples of the creation God did in the beginning of the world. Jesus said this power is open to us, and I would bet there are people on this forum who would bear witness to such biology-defying healings.

Yet these all answer to causation, beginning with First Cause, whether by direct action of God, or by however many links of the chain of causation, both the motivation of the agent(s) and the means employed are caused by God. In fact, true miracle of God, is OF GOD, not man, though man be even desperately employed in the action. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

These are important points to parse. While much of what may pass as "free will" in humans is substantively similar to animal instinct, there is at least a small, generative portion of will that would count as free in humans that is given to us in our God-image.

This needs some definition. What is meant by "small generative portion of will"? True Autonomy? Or merely will, along lines animals and robots do not have? Choice with forethought, intelligence? Certainly all this answers to causation, and does not deny it.

As for the angels, I disagree that God is not their father, but perhaps for the point of discussion it could be rendered a lower-case honorific, since as far as we know they can't reproduce or create in their own right as we can.

I mean angels no disrespect --certainly their love is untainted, their motives pure, their intelligence and abilities/ strength far beyond ours-- but they are not children of God in the same sense we are. In a sense they are not more than extremely amazing animals as far as I can tell, though not material like animals are.

But there are indeed references in Scripture that I can't deny where they are called sons of God. (Though, I don't think that when it references when the 'sons of God are revealed' in Heaven that it is talking about Angels. It is talking about us, the Church, the Elect.)

 

[Kettriken]

Yet these all answer to causation, beginning with First Cause, whether by direct action of God, or by however many links of the chain of causation, both the motivation of the agent(s) and the means employed are caused by God. In fact, true miracle of God, is OF GOD, not man, though man be even desperately employed in the action. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

Yes, indeed! It all springs from God, the creator and life-giver. We repeat the pattern like a fractal, but it all goes back to the glorious source of creation. That is why we are an image of God, not truly gods in ourselves.

This needs some definition. What is meant by "small generative portion of will"? True Autonomy? Or merely will, along lines animals and robots do not have? Choice with forethought, intelligence? Certainly all this answers to causation, and does not deny it.

This was what I am most unsure of. By "generative will" I mean the portion of ourselves that is driven by and accountable to our God-given creative force. It is sculpted by our lives, our "animal instincts" but is separate from it as it is a portion of the God-likeness inherent in our beings. Is it true autonomy? Probably not, since we are so captivated by not only our instinctual nature, but our fallen and corrupt ideation of good and evil.

I mean angels no disrespect --certainly their love is untainted, their motives pure, their intelligence and abilities/ strength far beyond ours-- but they are not children of God in the same sense we are. In a sense they are not more than extremely amazing animals as far as I can tell, though not material like animals are.

Angels are able to converse with both God and humans, ostensibly in the normal ways. If only for this reason I would say we must put them in a different category than animals.

 

[Marilyn C]

These are important points to parse. While much of what may pass as "free will" in humans is substantively similar to animal instinct, there is at least a small, generative portion of will that would count as free in humans that is given to us in our God-image.

As for the angels, I disagree that God is not their father, but perhaps for the point of discussion it could be rendered a lower-case honorific, since as far as we know they can't reproduce or create in their own right as we can.

Hi Kettriken,

Remember what God the Father said to His Son -

`For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you?" And again: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son." (Heb. 1: 5)

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

I would like to add that only believers are `sons of the Father.` Mankind in general are rather `sons of their Father the devil.` God is their creator, but until they come out of the kingdom of darkness, they cannot call God their Father.

The world `sons` in Hebrew can refer to a son of a father, but it can also refer to a group, `sons of God,` angels, in a group context, also `sons of the prophets,` `sons of Belial,` etc.