Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

From: Keith Miller <>
Date: Thu Oct 08 2009 - 14:27:52 EDT

Bernie wrote:

Also- since we know that God made humans biologically through evolution, and
> there is no literal Adam, that means to give 'man and woman' an 'image of
> God' it would likely have been given to all people everywhere at that point.
> This solves the problem of man one man being picked as a representative,
> then trying to figure out how some humans have the image and some don't, and
> how the image descends to children. So giving the 'image' all at one to all
> humans at one time means there was no single guy picked-out, contrary to
> Dick Fischer's thesis. So _with_biological_evolution_, we have these
> choices for theology:
> 1. "Image" given at one time to all humans, and their descendents. Who
> teaches this view SPECIFICALLY (I don't know)? This way, there's no mystery
> as to how descendents get it... they just get it by birth. (I think George
> Murphy would likely accept this, amongst many other possible theories too.)
> 2. "Image" given to one representative person, with mystery as to how
> descendents and peers get it (Dick Fisher, and Roman Catholic church?).
> 3. "Image" is figurative like the firmament. It just describes our
> God-like attributes (love, compassion, intelligence, etc.). (This is MY
> extension of Lamoureux's work, although I'm not a believer, it would have
> been my theory if I remained). This is consistent with saying 'there is no
> literal Adam like there is no literal firmament.' In this sense, the image
> is from EMERGENCE. Humans are accountable to sin to the degree that they
> are able to perceive it (Luke 12). It is a figurative term for a
> capability/structure that humans have, as it is a part of their
> structure/make-up (MADE in the image of God).

The image is not "given" in the sense you seem to be thinking. You seem not
to grasp the meaning of the "image" as relational. This understanding of
"image" requires the pre-existence of self-awareness and empathy among other
capabilites, but is dependent on God placing us in relationship. It is
God's reaching toward humanity to place us in relationship (both corporate
and individual). It is not anything that I can do, or undue.

I do not think that the image is "given" in the sense you seem to be
thinking. Perhaps an analogy would be that I am the son of my father. That
relationship is a consequence of my being brought into existence. My father
did not decide at some point during my childhood that he would make me his
son. I was his son from the moment that I existed. All humans are in the
'image of God" because that is God's relationship to us. Just as I can
reject my relationship with God, I can live ignoring or rejecting my
relationship with my father. In either case, that does not change the fact
that I am still in God's image and still my father's son.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 8 14:29:50 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 08 2009 - 14:29:50 EDT