Humanity and God

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,

Psalms 8:4

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.