When I saw Chris P. was going to post his argument(s) against a universal application of the Imago Dei I was intrigued… this is such an assumed doctrine in Christianity that I was stunned the first time I read someone write that only those who are born-again have the Imago Dei. After reading part one I was disappointed and not a little bit confused at the non-sequitur logic.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and/or rebuttals.

There is a lot of teaching that all men currently exist as God’s image and likeness., i.e. that “divine spark” is found in all men. There are those who teach God exists in all creation. Everything, and everyone, is essentially good. Everything is beautiful in its own way……….What exactly does that mean? – CP

Here we find the first flaws in the argument. It is sort of a straw-man. That some teach that there is a divine spark in all humans, that others teach that God exists in all creation, that still others teach that everything and everyone is essentially good is true. It is also moot to the question. The misapplication of a doctrine, the misinterpretation of a passage bears no weight on the doctrine or the passage itself. The Dispensational claim that Covenant Theology may lead to anti-Semitism neither argues for Dispensationalism nor against Covenant Theology. It is moot, and not a good start.

God made man in His image and “likeness” by creating him as male and female, and then giving “them” dominion over creation. So man is like God in being male and female, and in asserting dominion, or rule, over creation. CP

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” – but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means. These may be descriptive; they may just be the order in which things happened. Therefore any argument built on this interpretation is only as strong as the interpretation itself.

God does not exist in the created things around us. He does not exist within fallen man. That is what Romans 1 is all about. God only exists in the new creation, i.e. Jesus Christ the head (chief authority), and in His Body, the ekklesia, and ultimately in the new heavens and new earth. – CP

The teaching that God exists in all creation, or that all creation is part of God is called panentheism (god in all) and pantheism (all is god), respectively. And it is false. But does God only exist within the new creation? Of course not. God exists separate from all creation – current or new. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he will be the ultimate authority of the new heaven and new earth, but this is not another way (cf. the i.e.) of saying God only exists in the new creation. God is separate from creation, now and forever.

So death is the state of all mankind who are outside of Christ. Therefore Christ’s atoning death on the cross not only satisfies the requirement of the Mosaic covenant regarding sins, forgiveness, and deliverance,, i.e. the Passover, it also fulfills God’s (His Law) judgment on man, based on Adam’s transgression of the covenant, which is death. -CP

What death are we referring to in Adam’s transgression – physical, spiritual, both? It cannot be physical, i.e. that only those born again will be physically resurrected since all will be resurrection, those in Christ and those not… some to everlasting joy others to everlasting punishment. To say otherwise, to say only those in Christ are physically resurrected would be to embrace annihilationism.

The resurrection then is essential, which is why Paul defends it as fact so aggressively in 1 Cor 15. It is through the death and resurrection that we exit the old creation, and enter the new. Jesus said, in answer to the Sadducees trick question, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so he is the God of the living not the dead. That would mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are participants in the resurrection and thus the new creation. (1 Peter 4:1-6)They are “the living”. So are we who are now called the Sons of God because of the second Adam.- CP

OK – no problem there… but I need to include it because of…

This would the mean that “imago dei” is found only in Christ, the new creation, and in His body the church. We, who are “born again” are imago dei. Imago dei is not found in unregenerate mankind. Unregenerate man is dead (literally) in the sins of Adam. (Romans 6: 4-13) He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is only found in His Son, who is alive forevermore, Amen.

What’s that noise I hear? Oh, it’s your transmission fallen apart as you grind the gears shifting too fast from one thought to a supposed conclusion. Where is the connection between the need for the resurrection and the Imago Dei only being found in believers, in the new creation, in the church? That God is the God of the living proves that He is the God of the living. That the resurrection is necessary proves that the resurrection is necessary – no connection was made to the Imago Dei. I suspect no connection was made because there is no connection to these truths and the residence of the Imago Dei.

So, part one fails to prove that only the regenerate possesses the image of God. It fails because it is built on a spurious interpretation of the meaning of the Imago Dei. It fails because it relies on the buttresses of the false and straw-man doctrines of pantheism and panentheism both of which are moot to the argument. It fails because it claims God exists only in the new creation – which is not only false, but is itself panentheism in the future. And it fails because it never makes the connection between God being the God of the living, the need for the resurrection and the limited Imago Dei.

Maybe part two will be more convincing.

*** UPDATE *** June 30

Chris P. has posted part 2 of why the Imago Dei resides only in the regerate.  It consist with a list of Scriptures interspersed with commentary and “The conclusion is that Imago Dei is seen only in the new creation. Those who are born again from above, i.e. the Body of Jesus Christ.”  It was rather an odd process to read the Scriptures Chris P. posted, agree with a lot of his commentary on them, then reach the summation that it all proved his conslusion… maybe if I try a little harder I’ll see the link.  Usually I can follow an argument even if I disagree with it.

Bottom line, I am still unconvinced (but now confused at the flow of logic or lack thereof), and dissappointed that he never dealt with Genesis 9.

I think Chris P. confuses good works that reflect the Father and/or Christ with the Imago Dei… I’ll have to think about that.

 

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm and is filed under Chris Pajak, Original Articles, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

61 Comments(+Add)

1   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Neil,

“non sequitor” is actually spelled: non sequitur

2   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Well he forgot this little tidbit that throws a wrench in to his engine…:-)

“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

If we’re going to use Scripture, let’s use the whole of it, huh?

So…He’s the God of the living…and the ‘living’ are the ‘regenerate’ in his argument…right? So all are regenerated? Is he a universalist?

Teehee…

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

That entire argument is openly motivated by two major issues.

1. To demean and devalue sinners.

2. To allow the believer to “think more highly of Himself than he ought”.

Both of which are foundational to a certain theology. Neil, when you think about it, of what other purpose does it serve to be dogmatic about something like that?

How many angels can dance upon the head of a pin? (same type of category) :)

4   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” – but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means.

Interesting to note, though, that in the original conception of the Godhead, there was indeed a male and a female, as well as a son and daughter.

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

When we take a book like Genesis and distill the verses in the same way we dissect Romans, we run into trouble because of the generality of those narratives.

So if man is all dead, some dead, half dead, twice dead, or just a little dead, what does it matter? He still needs the gosple to be saved. There, theology 101 without the frills!

6   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Rick, you basically hit the nail on the head – if you can classify unbelievers and those who you disagree with theologically as not being made in Imago Dei, you can objectify and treat them however you like without fear of demeaning one, no matter how sinful, made in God’s image.

7   Chris P.    
June 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

“That entire argument is openly motivated by two major issues.
1. To demean and devalue sinners.
2. To allow the believer to “think more highly of Himself than he ought”.”

Really?? And how would you know that?
My motivations are always for the glory of God and the proclaiming of His sovereignty and the Word’s authority which is obviously lacking here.

Joe C.
Matthew 22:
31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

Mark 12:
26And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”

Luke 20:
37But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.”

Real all of the scriptures please. Only Luke
adds the phrase “all live to Him”. Who are the “all”? Since Jesus just mentioned the patriarchs , they are the all, and this passage then harmonizes with the other writers. Context, bubba. He is the God OF THE LIVING.

As for Neil, where do I begin?

I promote no form of future panentheism.
God exists in the new creation, and by that I do not mean within the things itself. He exists there as He does now, via His omnipresence.
There are those who think that Paul is suggesting that we can be born again simply by looking at the mountains, and suddenly coming to belief in Christ.

You are hung up on the resurrection of the physical body. The resurrection which is in essence, life eternal, exists for all the regenrate right now. The regenerate are alive and walking in resurrection life. The unregenerate are dead in their sins. They are currently the walking dead. If they exist in God’s image and likeness, God is a sinner and rebellious. At the judgment, eternal punsihment is an eternity as unregenrate.

God is Spirit according to Jesus. Therefore imago dei cannot be merely the body of flesh. God made man in His image and likeness qwhen he made them male and female and gave them dominion. There is a reason why things are put in a specific order in scripture.

Jesus is the express image of the father. Therefore all who are in Him show the image and likeness. First Adam, last Adam Paul uses these expressions for a reason.

To you the scriptures are merely “inspired”. So was Mein Kempf.
They are the literal word of God.

BTW Rick, 32 angels can dance on the head of pin. Twice as many of they are sitting.

8   Chris P.    
June 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

“Rick, you basically hit the nail on the head – if you can classify unbelievers and those who you disagree with theologically as not being made in Imago Dei, you can objectify and treat them however you like without fear of demeaning one, no matter how sinful, made in God’s image.”

Wow you guys are mind readers.

9   Chris P.    
June 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Since I am serving in a church on the Navajo Nation and we are most likely outside the 4 walls more than any of you, your accusations are spurious, and untrue.
I demean no one and you both know it.
Salvation and election are God’s sovereign domain so that no man may boast. ( I see no lack of pomposity at this site.)
Therefore I boast in the one who soveregnly saves.

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Chris P. just so you know, I may disagree with some of your theology and sometimes your tone, but I admire your ministry among the Navajo Nation and pray God will use you to reach many.

You will have to love us poor Arminians, even a thorn like me! :)

11   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

You said

There is a reason why things are put in a specific order in scripture.

God said:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

It’s a good thing He didn’t say this after the fall.

Oh wait! He did. There is a reason why things are put in a specific order in scripture!

Oh snap!

Since you tend to sympathize toward what Calvin teaches, you might listen to both John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll, who both agree that all of mankind (not just regenerate man) is made in God’s image.

You’re hanging out with the Aryan crowd on this one, Chris, and it’s not good company to keep… While you may not see debasing of God’s image in man as a way to lead to objectification of lesser men, that is exactly where this strain of heresy runs.

12   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Chris P. just so you know, I may disagree with some of your theology and sometimes your tone, but I admire your ministry among the Navajo Nation and pray God will use you to reach many.

Agreed here, as well, Chris.

13   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Ken,

No matter how many times I proof something I always seem to leave a typo… like “suit” vs. “suite” in my last one.

Typo fixed – thanks.

Neil

14   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I promote no form of future panentheism.
God exists in the new creation, and by that I do not mean within the things itself. He exists there as He does now, via His omnipresence.
There are those who think that Paul is suggesting that we can be born again simply by looking at the mountains, and suddenly coming to belief in Christ. – CP

I understand.

15   Frank    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

After reading this so called post two times I have been reinforced as to the shallowness of the writers here. Please stick with subjects you all know, like brands of cigarettes and movies with strong sexual content.

16   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

You are hung up on the resurrection of the physical body. The resurrection which is in essence, life eternal, exists for all the regenerate right now. The regenerate are alive and walking in resurrection life. The unregenerate are dead in their sins. They are currently the walking dead. If they exist in God’s image and likeness, God is a sinner and rebellious. At the judgment, eternal punishment is an eternity as unregenerate. -CP

I guess I’m hung up on the physical resurrection because that’s how we’ll send eternity – in physically resurrected bodies.

I agree with what you say that the unregenerate are dead in their sins, they are walking dead. But your conclusion that this means “If they exist in God’s image and likeness, God is a sinner and rebellious” does not follow. You offer no argument, proof, or Scripture to show why someone cannot be a spiritually dead sinner who was created in the image if God.

Neil

17   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“Rick, you basically hit the nail on the head – if you can classify unbelievers and those who you disagree with theologically as not being made in Imago Dei, you can objectify and treat them however you like without fear of demeaning one, no matter how sinful, made in God’s image.”

Wow you guys are mind readers. – CP

Chris, what Rick said is definitely a danger of the “only the regenerate are created in the image of God” but like your use of pantheism – that doesn’t reflect on whether or not its true. And of course, no one can accuse you of such without direct knowledge/evidence.

Neil

18   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

God is Spirit according to Jesus. Therefore imago dei cannot be merely the body of flesh. Cp

I certainly agree with this.

19   Frank    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Neil – can you read this?

20   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

To you the scriptures are merely “inspired”. So was Mein Kempf.
They are the literal word of God. – CP

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Not sure how you devalued my bibliology so as to compare it to Mein Kampf, but be assured, I too believe they are the very words of God (the Scriptures that is not Mein Kampf).

21   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

You are hung up on the resurrection of the physical body. The resurrection which is in essence, life eternal, exists for all the regenerate right now. The regenerate are alive and walking in resurrection life. The unregenerate are dead in their sins. They are currently the walking dead. If they exist in God’s image and likeness, God is a sinner and rebellious. At the judgment, eternal punishment is an eternity as unregenerate.

Well I guess Paul was hung up on the resurrection of the body then, too. So were the writers of the Gospels. Without a physical resurrection, there is no Gospel.

The Hebrew Scriptures make no real allowance for a separation of the soul and the body. They are one entity now, and they will be in eternity, as well. Flesh, as in our actual, physical bodies, isn’t evil. It’s just corruptible because of the Fall. Yes, we do partake in the resurrection life now, but at the resurrection our bodies will be renewed.

22   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Hello.

23   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Chris P.,

I stumped as to why you think to me the Scriptures are merely inspired like Mein Kampf?

Neil

24   Frank Helgar    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

I have read this post two times only to conclude the same thing. The writers here are incredibly shallow and have only a basic undertsanding of Biblical theology.

Please stick to what you probably know much better, types of wine and R-rated movies.

25   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Any argument that says only the regenerate are created in the image of God must deal with Genesis 9:6… unless of course murder is only punishable if committed against a believer.

Neil

26   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
June 27th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

I stumped as to why you think to me the Scriptures are merely inspired like Mein Kampf?

circuitous way to weakly try to win an argument by playing the Nazi card?

*shrug*

27   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

circuitous way to weakly try to win an argument by playing the Nazi card?

*shrug*

I think there’s more to it than just Godwin’s law… something I said made him think I devalue the Scriptures, but what is beyond me… so I figured I’d ask.

Neil

28   Frank Helgar    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

The image of God.

http://asware.net/gallery/d/4267-2/ugly_men.jpg

(I wish I knew how to paste the picture)

29   Jonathan Frueh    
June 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

“Without a physical resurrection, there is no Gospel.”

There isn’t anything more true on this post than this statement. The resurrection is the main pillar in which the gospel stands on.

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

What do you mean by “image”? Like those two guys in one of Chris L.’s posts?

31   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
June 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Neil,

Not a problem. I just thought you’d want to know. We all end up with typos from time to time that’s for sure. :-)

32   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

After reading this so called post two times I have been reinforced as to the shallowness of the writers here. Please stick with subjects you all know, like brands of cigarettes and movies with strong sexual content.

Thanks Frank Rick…

33   Neil    
June 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I have read this post two times only to conclude the same thing. The writers here are incredibly shallow and have only a basic undertsanding of Biblical theology.

I must be shallow since I don’t follow your point Rick.

Neil

34   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I think he’s trying the whole alternate personality thing (like Iggy/I Todyaso)

35   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

I demean no one and you both know it.
Salvation and election are God’s sovereign domain so that no man may boast. ( I see no lack of pomposity at this site.)
Therefore I boast in the one who soveregnly saves.

You have demeaned many people and you know it… you have demeaned me on your blog! While I have only quoted you as a warrior in the truth war which your own words demean yourself.

Also for all your boasting your actions and words here seem to deny your very boast.

Like stop telling people to practice sodomy by telling them to stick things where the sun doesn’t shine! LOL!

iggy

36   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 5:20 am

After a half an hour I finally was able to change my name but for some reason it doesn’t post right away. I haven’t figured out how to create another account so if you click on the name it doesn’t go to FJL.

It felt kinda naughty though, and you guys needed to hear the truth! :)

37   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am

I think he’s trying the whole alternate personality thing (like Iggy/I Todyaso)

At least you didn’t say multiple personality thing! LOL!

iggy

38   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 8:18 am

I love this!

Since you tend to sympathize toward what Calvin teaches, you might listen to both John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll, who both agree that all of mankind (not just regenerate man) is made in God’s image.

Again, here is Chris P, who disagrees with JM and that crowd yet comes here to attack those he sees as heretical then teaches a form or heresy.

Funny the James 3: 9 states that ” With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.”

Yet, if hwat Chris P promotes as truth is right, then God was wrong to state, ” “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. (Genesis 9:6)

So, again, which “truth” am I supposed to leave “emerging” for? John MacArthur’s? Ken Silva’s? Chris P’s? Pastoboys?

I am finding more that I am to leave truth and follow heresy to believe what these guys teach.

iggy

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am

At least you didn’t say multiple personality thing! LOL!


I thought that was already established…

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am

That is one scary dude! Wow, thank God for grace! :)

41   Neil    
June 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am

I don’t think Chris P’s position that only the regenerate are Imago Dei is heresy. I just think it’s wrong.

Chris P., I do hope you respond to my questions and clarifications.

Neil

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am

Only the regenerate are Imago Dei.

All men are Imago Dei.

What does it matter except to differentiate between sinners? All false teaching is heresy. Who can explain what “image” means with New Testament Scripture?

43   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am

After seeing Chris L. playing a toy guitar in a child’s swimming pool, I’m beginning to rethink my belief that even believers are Imago Dei. :)

44   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

What I meant by ‘let’s use all of [Scripture]‘ is that Luke chose, by inspiration, to write MORE of what Jesus said compared to the other authors. You’ll see you don’t have a leg to stand on here because we use the same argument at the differing stories at the Cross. Some authors include more information, some less, of things said, and which are we to believe? Obviously, ALL happened, and we need to put all the information together, take the most detailed information and use that. It’s the harmony of the Gospels. This verse in Luke, is much the same kind of thing. There are plenty more examples of when we do this with the Gospels, and the rest of the Bible, where we take one statement found in the Bible and find other subjects that add on to that statement, and put it all together to get a full picture, so why won’t you?

God is the God of the living, because to him ALL are alive.

And then there’s Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9…

Think about it Chris P

R

Joe

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

You are correct, Joe. John says “Jesus wept” and Matthew says “Jesus wept for ten minutes.”

Both the same. :)

46   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Huh? Are you being serious…? I can’t tell on the internet sometimes LOL.

47   Neil    
June 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

What does it matter except to differentiate between sinners? – Rick

It matters because it relates to what is true about God’s highest creation.

It matters because of the ramifications: if “sinners” are not created in the image of God there’s no point feeding the homeless unless they accept Christ… there’s no point addressing injustice if not directed toward believers… genocide is fine as long as the objects are not regenerate (apply that to “the” or any holocaust)… there is no justification for a myriad of laws against others if “sinners are unregenerate.

Finally, if you feel the discussion is not worth having, if you think I am that shallow for arguing the point – I invite you to not participate.

Neil

48   Neil    
June 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

All false teaching is heresy. – Rick

I don’t buy this either. Heresy and the accompanying categories of Heretic and False Teacher are technical terms beyond just teaching something that is not true.

Under your rubric with Chris P or I, one of us is a Heretic based on having opposing positions.

In God’s economy there is room to be wrong and not a Heretic.

49   Neil    
June 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Joe C.,

If I held Chris P.’s position I’d say James 3:9 is talking to believers, therefore it cannot be used as an argument for the universality of the Imago Dei. Genesis 9:6, however has no such narrowness.

Neil

50   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

No Neil, I believe heretics can be saved. I am confident that in some things I am heretical.

51   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
June 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Symantics.

52   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

The Greek word indicates a “departing” from established teachings, especially those which church authorities have condemned.

That seems like a wide range, however in the strictest sense I probably use the word more loosely than is defined.

53   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

All this heretic talk… should we be gathering wood or stones?

iggy

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Iggy – that’s how much you know – it’s heretik.

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

And FYI – it’s wood on the weekdays, stoned on the weekends. :)

56   Jonathan Frueh    
June 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

“It matters because of the ramifications: if “sinners” are not created in the image of God there’s no point feeding the homeless unless they accept Christ… there’s no point addressing injustice if not directed toward believers… genocide is fine as long as the objects are not regenerate (apply that to “the” or any holocaust)… there is no justification for a myriad of laws against others if “sinners are unregenerate.”

The pharisees asked Jesus what is the greatest law and the Lord answered, “Love the Lord thy God…..and love your neighbor as yourself.”
Neighbors are those who are believers and non-believers.

Every man has the Law of God written on their hearts and this biblical view shows the even plain that all are made in the image of God. The bible doesn’t say that only the regenerate have the Law written on their heart. The moral law and the moral law giver are both evident within the human race, yet it is not accepted by all humans…yet it is evident when looking at creation in the eyes of a seeker. “Seek and you shall find”

I also find it interesting how some show the bible in these terms. Concerning grace…it is only shown for some and these some are the only ones who benifit, yet the judgment found in scripture effects both the regenerate and unregenerate just in different ways. The regenerate is given a brow wiping, deep breathe of relief and the unregenerate is shown their doom without a way out…No matter how much he seeks or what is written on their hearts.

This is definitely not my view…”Jesus died once, for ALL”

57   Will Farel    http://willfarelvx.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2008 at 7:43 am

All this heretic talk… should we be gathering wood or stones?

:mrgreen:

58   Neil    
June 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Shoot – I’m disappointed. I was hoping to have a substantive dialogue on the matter…

59   Chris P.    
July 8th, 2008 at 7:55 am

1. Since my comments are being selectively edited everywhere on this blog, you can spin it however you want.

2. What in Genesis 9 did I not address?
The same point applies here as it did in reference to Cain. Man WAS made made in the image and likeness, therefore it is wrong to take human life, as only human life can be “born again” i.e. recreated into the imago dei.
This is why nothing is ever said about slaughtering animals, etc.
They were never made in imago dei.

3. Too bad you can’t follow an argument. The meaning is plain. Even the works we do prove who are regenerate and who are not.
The belief here as with most is that ANY good works will do. Eph 2:8-10 and James 2 are not talking about just any good thing.
Are all who work for the UN regenerate because they send food to the world?
The good works of the people of God glorify the Father, not themselves.

Jonathan Freuh

Matthew 5:
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Your argument re: sinners is moot.
Jesus told us what to do and we do it.
I am not arguing over who is my neighbor.
I am saying that whether one is calvinist or arminian, the only recourse we have is to preach the Word, as neither group knows who is being saved on any particular day.
Several here have deliberately chosen to
ignore my point and twist my words.

Jeremiah 31:
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

God writes the law on the hearts of those who He has CHOSEN to be Israel. Israel has and always will be God’s chosen, people both jew and gentile.

Of course I tried to define what and who Israel actually is on the current post,”you may not have a good purpose” but it was edited out.
Nevertheless, we who serve on the rez will continue to feed the hungry and cloth the naked regardless of what they believe.
Jesus died for ALL. I never said that He didn’t (more spin).
However, many are called but few choose to come…er…I mean, ARE CHOSEN.

BTW,I do not teach heresy.

60   Chris P.    
July 8th, 2008 at 7:59 am

iggy
no one is asking you to follow any man.
I obviously don’t.
If you had returned to read my replies to you, I covered your “objections”.
I also believe that very few here actually read my posts. They simply take the word of the spin doctors and argue based on that.

61   Chris P.    
July 8th, 2008 at 8:12 am

And for the final time:
I never said that man was not made in the image and likeness of God.
I am not condemning sinners.
This blogsite is one of the most carfeully edited and disingenuous blogs out there.

http://thetruefast.blogspot.com/

When it comes to blogging; all are fair game. Don’t blog unless you are prepared to defend yourself. So I will continue to comment on, and criticize those who claim to be teachers and/or leaders in the church, regardless of who they are.