At times YECs in the past have agreed with them. There was a large internal debate about what to make of Neanderthals. This largely resolved on concluding everything in Homo genus is human, and the rest is not. They will even be comfortable saying that Neanderthals are a different species of human than Sapiens.
This just pushes the problem back though. There is intense debate to this day within YEC about what is Homo or not. Had an interesting conversation with John Sanford about this. YECs usually hold that Homo erectus is human, but they canât agree on what to do with, for example, the Dmanisi skull (Dmanisi - Wikipedia). Human or ape? YECs canât say for sure in a univocal way.
I think that is mostly incorrect. We hold to a broader range of image of God that would entail functional, relational, and substantive views of the Image of God. Various RTB scholars would likely emphasize some of these over others. However it gets classified, the image of God is unique to Adam and Eve and their descendants and includes the fact that humans are not merely physical and soulish (which the animals are too) but spiritual beings as well. The spirit is unique to humanityâs image bearing and is innate in all human beings regardless of their physical or mental capacities.
Huh? Not tracking this. Can you please elaborate as it seems to be very circular. Can you align your theology with the present understandings from science? For example, is Homo Erectus human? What is soulish?
whatâs the basis for this trichotomous view? And how does RTB define âsoulâ and âspiritâ? Does RTB realize this is a new/modern way of conceiving things?
Iâd encourage a read of the series beginning here.
Not sure either. The notion that the image of God could have evolved is foreign to me. Not sure I buy it, but hereâs my thoughtsâŠ
I see a tension between Genesis 5:1-5:3 (quoted below) and the idea that the image of God was maintained in humanity 100% of what it was pre-Fall. Adam was created spiritually alive, but Seth was born spiritually dead. How would Nicodemus look at these verses?
I see a symmetry between pre-Fall Adam regressing to worldliness at the Fall then the ability to have the 100% image only after the spiritual separation at the Fall was Atoned. Now we each march from complete worldliness at birth, being spiritually dead in our sins, back towards the 100% image of God only through Glorification. I think all humans are body and soul whereas if unbelievers are dead in their sins only Believers have a trichotomous body, soul AND spirit existence.
This allows for extra-Edenic populations to have had the worldly aspects of the image of God independent of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are the source of the Messianic line and the source of spiritual birth through Christ for all humanity.
Genesis 5:1-3 (ESV with links to BibleHub) 1This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Mana when they were created. 3When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
Ok, thatâs a more narrowly constrained use of âstructuralistâ. I think the paper I messaged you about balancing selection of psychiatric traits bears on this. Waiting for when I have more time to engage in a discussion of it. Or, maybe I should just post it and run for the hills?
I really donât see the logic here. You seem to be assuming that imageness is tied to spirituality. The reason I maintain 100% image status is purely biblical (e.g., Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9).
WTF? You mean the literalist who heard of being born again and thought about re-entering his motherâs womb? Sorry, but I donât get your reasoning.
Overall, you donât seem to have addressed the terminology of image-bearing itself. You seem to assume itâs tied to spirituality somehow, but havenât made any biblical or theological arguments for this.
How do you distinguish soul and spirit here? Do you have biblical-theological grounds for such a distinction?
It is not a modernist view and it is not a tripartite view anymore than say, a trinitarian view is tripartite. The one-ness of the human being and the soulishness of animals are ancient concepts. Humans are whole beings that have physical, soulish, and spiritual capacities. Ne-phesh is the OT Hebrew transliteration for soulish. It is used to describe the creation of animals and is understood to refer to those that have emotional and intellectual capacities.
I am not going to attempt to offer a biological explanation for a theological concept for which âimage of Godâ and âspiritâ most certainly are. To reduce the image of God to a structural comparison or similarity of human biology and any attribute of God who is spirit⊠apart from the incarnate Christ⊠is nonsensical or anemic or foolish in my opinion. We are like God because we are spiritual beings. God is spirit. We are like God in vice-regency and creative capacities - these are functional. We are relational beings with a capacity to love like the trinitarian God.
Without intending to be rude or dismissive to anyone, might I suggest if you donât know what substantive, functional and relational views of the image of God refer to, you could look them up. Thatâs what I do when I donât understand some concept you all introduce here.
It is directed to all who have commented to my former post and neglected the substantive part of it. Which is at RTB we have a range of views of the image of God and they are not mostly and certainly not wholly structuralist.
Anyone who doesnât believe in the de novo creation of Adam with the Image of God. I take that he was made and created, not as repetitive, but in one aspect he was made from the dust and in another aspect he was created de novo. Was he not made and created in the image of God?
Both Gen 9:6, which uses the verb âasahâ, and James 3:9, which basically means âborn withâ, cannot be used to make a case that our present image of God is 100% what Adam had pre-Fall having been both made and created. Given these two verses itâs simply question begging. Other verses you appeal to?
Thatâs a rather myopic view of Nicodemus and misses a rather important point regarding being learned and understanding spiritual things as this article discusses:
If image bearing is not tied to Spirituality then Christianity is false.
Unbelievers are dead in their sins and guided by an external spirit. Believers have been âborn againâ spiritually having been created in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:1-9 (ESV) 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedienceâ 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the bodya and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.b4Butc God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christâby grace you have been savedâ 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.â
If you go back and read my explanation of the functional/vocational sense of Image, it will go a long way to explain why I think you are off base. You simply assume image is tied to spirituality, yet you have not provided any explanation for it. You also seem to assume certain meanings to Hebrew and Greek words that are inaccurate (e.g., why would the use of 'asah in Gen 9:6 be a counterargument to my claim that the text supports 100% image status to post-fall humans?).
My stanceâconsistent with most in my fieldâis that the status of image is conferred on human beings as an act of divine election. I believe this happened at a specific point. Therefore it is irrelevant how Adam (or anyone else) was formed (from literal dust or through an evolutionary process).
I agree with you that humanity âlostâ something at the Fall, but the status of imago Dei is not it. What we lost was the ability to faithfully fulfill the role of imago Dei.
Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps this is just a repeat of a prior problem. Ross and Rana do not represent all of RTB.
It seems that Rana and Ross do take a very strong structuralist view, of course without denying other components of it. This is why, it seems, Rana connects evidence about human exceptionality to be confirming the Image of God. If the Image of God is primarily a vocation, then there this reasoning does not make sense.
I remember talking Ross directly about this in January. Without getting into the details, he appeared to explain a very strongly structuralist view of the Image of God, and used this to explain why he though the de novo creation of Adam and Eve was so important.
It probably is true there are more views presented in RTB. How can outsiders get view of what the range of views is within RTB? @AJRoberts
@AJRoberts Perhaps you can give us an overview of the RTB organization. How big it is, itâs mission, funders, and whether you have to sign a statement of faith to work there. This will help enormously in interacting here as we will understand the groundrules which you are required to work under. It clears the air a lot for everyone.
And since God, in Gen 9, says all Noahâs descendants are âimage bearersâ⊠and so from now on murder is taboo ⊠i think being the image of Adam helps bridge any so-called Gap!