Philosophy and Christian Theology (My title)

Book | 1992 | Gordan Spykman

[lockeliberty]

Good question and probably deserves a thread of it's own.

As I said earlier, I think you can compare how the Imago Dei was corrupted to how a physical body is corrupted when it is blind and deaf. Jesus used this analogy all the time.

My guess is that you picture the Imago Dei as a God-given libertarian free-will. I would be interested to see what Scripture you would use to back this claim.

[RnMomof7]

Only in the sense of original sin/inherited sin nature. This will suffice. We've discussed the culpability of infants many times before and I don't intend to go into it again. Babies go to heaven.

So then we agree that All does not always mean all without exception .

[Dr. Eckleburg]

~"...divine spark..."~


You seem to be having trouble with this concept. I'll try to be more precise than the balloon analogy (an obvious steal from Augustine's remarks that "a glass cannot fill itself.") But please read the links I offer, so we don't have to keep going in circles.


Reformed Christianity has always seen man as clay; God as Potter. Since Adam, man has been separated from God by his fallen, corrupted nature. "There is none righteous; no, not one." Romans 3:10


Enter the Gnostics, who preferred following man to God, and who thus created a philosophy which mirrored the Platonics, stipulating that man actually IS God. Thus, man's purpose in life was to rediscover this "spark of divinity" within him (which the temporal world tries to corrupt) and enlarge it to the point where man BECOMES God in a mystical fusing of the two.


From the following website:


http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/Gnosis.html


"The essential prerequisite for Gnosis, its fundamental postulate, is the recognition of "divine spark" with, ie, an individual "immortal entity" that is not of "this world," nor a part of empirical psyche. This "spark" has many names: the inner man, the best and oldest self, the deepest self, the true "I," divine spirit within, angel, the ancient being, the immortal self, daemon...in sum, it is the "authentic self," while the empirical, existential, temporal psyche is a "false I."


Scrapes of this heresy have filtered throughout time. It is the greatest heresy and the oldest, and leads to an occultic embrace of evolution.


I've linked the following interesting essay, "The Evangelical Attraction to Mysticism," which states "there are many professing evangelicals today who fail to understand the difference between religious mysticism and Biblical spirituality."


http://www.bereanbeacon.org/EvangelicalAttraction.html


And ultimately I believe it results in tremendous error. Unfortunately, this error seems to be illustrated in Alamo-Girl's post # 193 -- "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit."

[Jean Chauvin]

Great post!

Jean

[xzins]

Actually, it's more complicated that just "free will." I see the image of God being twofold: the natural image and the moral image. The natural image includes the characteristics of spirituality, knowledge, and immortality and these "powers" can be summed in the word "personality." The moral image of God has to do with holiness, i.e., how we use the natural image....whether rightly or wrongly.

[Frumanchu]

It is NOT a contradiction for me SINCE I do NOT hold to a "total inability" view. The total inability view from which many operate reconciles the verses by going totally in the direction of absolutely no residual image of God within a fallen human being. This makes it impossible for them ever, at any time, to recognize the existence and the truth of the law of God.

It is not, nor has it ever been, a matter of the mental or intellectual capacity to recognize the existence and truth of the Law of God. Satan himself would score perfect on any theology exam and knows full well the truth of God's Law...and he flatly rejects it.

It is a matter of acceptance. It is a matter of giving the glory, honor and gratitude due to the Creator. THAT is the issue, and THAT is what unregenerate men fully and completely and WILLFULLY fail to do.

I probably come in at about a 2 or 3. I think mothers generally know to care for their babies with love, I think artists and politicians can understand the difference between order and chaos, I think individuals understand the difference between my property and their property, I think people sense the existence of God through His imprint on His creation, and I think the conscience God has put within us does exalt more positive than more negative behavior, and I certainly don't believe that each individual human being achieves ultimate depravity.

I tend to agree that utter depravity (being as depraved as one can possibly be) is not something we are likely to see...but it is not because men are incapable of reaching that point, but rather because God does not allow them to do so. To be sure, the creation around them and the internal witness of the conscience bear witness to the truth of God's existence. Some seek to explain away these things by means of science and psychology, while others who accept it never go so far as to embrace the conclusions it leads to. The things which you described do indeed show forth that we are the image-bearers of the Creator, but that image has been distorted and corrupted.

My view is not that anyone is righteous under the law; my view is that there is more ability admitted to by the Bible than the "total inabilitist/ultimate depravitists" accept.

To what end, xzins? Are you attempting to argue that men can (and more importantly, do), without any aid from God save the outward presentation of the Gospel (or perhaps even without that), come to possess a saving faith in Christ?

Man's depravity is total in that it effects every aspect and facet of his being. Though able to perform acts of civic righteousness, he is incapable of doing anything truly good.

[xzins]

I haven't read the websites yet, but I will. I've got to get a prayer list done for the printer by 3 PM (est) so I've got to cut out for a while.

You said, "in sum it is the 'authentic self.'

Can I use that as a simple operating definition?....divine spark = authentic self?

Are you a dichotomist or trichotomist in terms of human nature? Body & Soul/Spirit OR Body, Soul, Spirit?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

PLEASE READ THE LINKS. Nowhere did I say the "divine spark" is the authentic self."

[lockeliberty]

Xzins:

I see the image of God being twofold: the natural image and the moral image. The natural image includes the characteristics of spirituality, knowledge, and immortality and these "powers" can be summed in the word "personality." The moral image of God has to do with holiness, i.e., how we use the natural image....whether rightly or wrongly.

The quote from Dr.E's source

"The essential prerequisite for Gnosis, its fundamental postulate, is the recognition of "divine spark" with, ie, an individual "immortal entity" that is not of "this world," nor a part of empirical psyche. This "spark" has many names: the inner man, the best and oldest self, the deepest self, the true "I," divine spirit within, angel, the ancient being, the immortal self, daemon...in sum, it is the "authentic self," while the empirical, existential, temporal psyche is a "false I."

I'm not trying to "getya", but can you see how when I compare the quote from Dr. E's source and your quote I see a distinct similarity in how the gnostics view man and the dualism you present?

[xzins]

I've really gotta go, but briefly: you'll find discussion of these two aspects of the image of God (natural & moral) in just about any book on Christian doctrine no matter which side the author: arminian, calvinist, calminian.

[Vernon]

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-124.stm

[Alamo-Girl]

For the third and final time, I do not judge you CCWoody! Believe what you will, do what you will. I will not judge you.

My choice to not follow any mortal doctrine covers Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Mormonism, Calvinism, Arminianism et al. But of all the posters here who represent all of these faiths, you alone have protested. I wonder if the other posters of your faith and other faiths also are offended but not verbalizing.

Even so, I will continue to post Scriptures as explanation for my beliefs. And I will continue to use the phrase “Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?” - and also, as I did at post 163, will post 1 Corinthians 3 – which must be read in its entirety - to explain why I personally decline to embrace mortal doctrine.

Again, I do not judge anyone who wishes to follow such doctrines whether they be Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Mormonism, Calvinism, Arminianism or whatever.

To each his own…

[Alamo-Girl]

You are quite welcome! Indeed, as you say - whether Jew or Gentile

"All are found to be lawbreakers and in need of mercy."

[CCWoody]

***I wonder if the other posters of your faith and other faiths also are offended but not verbalizing.***

Oh, I have gotten plenty of feedback privately that they agree with me that you have twice accused me of crimes. The only Christian thing to do is explain why you have chosen to do so.

***Even so, I will continue to post Scriptures as explanation for my beliefs. And I will continue to use the phrase “Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?” - and also, as I did at post 163, will post 1 Corinthians 3 – which must be read in its entirety - to explain why I personally decline to embrace mortal doctrine.***

No problem!

No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2 Peter 1:20 GB)

Woody.

[Alamo-Girl]

I truly hope y'all make a new thread in the Religion Forum to discuss the Imago Dei. betty boop, unspun and I were all over this subject on a thread in the general forum long ago - but it would be illuminating to read the different perspectives of soul and spirit among the posters here!

[Vernon]

Keep up the good work. My prayers are with you.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the encouragement and especially the prayers! May God always bless and protect you, my brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the ping to your post on gnostics!

The first link indicated that a definition of the term has been more or less determined, but the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the target keeps moving. It is a great read, BTW, because it gives a good historical overview of the subject.

And ultimately I believe it results in tremendous error. Unfortunately, this error seems to be illustrated in Alamo-Girl's post # 193 -- "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit."

My deduction at post 193 is based on logic. Christ is perfect. If an imperfect man is fully abiding in Christ, then Christ would be imperfect. Ergo, I said "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit.”

But, I don’t expect you or anyone to believe my words on their own merit. However, I do hope everyone pays close attention to what the Scriptures say about whether a man can be perfect:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:43-48

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. – Matthew 19:21

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen. – Hebrews 13:20-21

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. – 1 John 4:18

To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. – Col 1:27-29

The bottom line to me is that “perfect” is not something a man can do but it is something he can be in Christ.

[drstevej]

Alamo-Girl.

Forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood you. But I recall a few days (weeks maybe) you stated that you did not need the teaching of men because the Holy Spirit "tells" you what Scripture means. I think I have you right and correct me if I am wrong.

If that is the case, then it appears that anyone who interprets a passage differently than you understand it is out of step with the Holy Spirit. Unless perhaps the Scripture can have multiple meanings given by the Holy Spirit to different spiritually attuned people.

Am I catching your drift?

drstevej

[drstevej]

***The bottom line to me is that “perfect” is not something a man can do but it is something he can be in Christ.***

An interesting distinction, but would not our "being" direct our "doing?"

Hence being results necessarily in doing.
And failure at doing indicates our being isn't perfect.

Jesus was perfect in being and doing. Is it possible He could be perfect in being and not perfect in doing?