I am not speaking for God. I am speaking for myself when I say that our purpose is a function of our identity (because I think it is), but as for our identity being sovereignly defined by God, that is a matter of Scripture. “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness,” God said (Gen. 1:26-30; cf. Ps. 8:4-9). Our identity as imago Dei (link to BioLogos article) is sovereignly defined by the one who created us—and “sovereignly” insofar as it was something God did independently of us, without our consultation or assent. Ergo, this was not my idea. It was his, as found in the Bible which I had nothing to do with.
Can it be said that God is forcing his idea of purpose and identity upon us? That’s a debatable question, not to mention dubious language. The only point I wish to underscore is that it was neither my idea nor am I the one forcing it on others.
Is it a violation of human ethics for God to sovereignly define our identity? Not if God exists and is who he says he is.
Does God, by sovereignly defining our identity as imago Dei, somehow change people into inanimate tools? I don’t see how.
Does it treat people as a means to an end God has chosen? I don’t think so. Our redemption in Christ for the glory of God is the end, the cross of Christ is the means—all of which God has indeed chosen. So, no, we are not a means or inanimate tools on this view. (We might be, though, on your straw man caricature of this view—but that’s on you, not me.)
Again, you are just making stuff up—and it’s not only a blatant and gross straw man caricature of my position but it’s also couched in really mean-spirited and highly insulting language which I don’t believe I deserve.
If you read my previous response with due care, you ought to notice I had already acknowledged that lots of people disregard this God-given identity and purpose and make up their own. So it sounds like you are trying to correct me on something here but you’re actually just reiterating what I had already acknowledged.
As for this “theocratic domination of the world,” do you deny Christ’s rule over all things, that all authority in heaven and on earth have been given to him? Surely as a Christian you do not deny this. I also don’t deny this. I would not call it a fantasy, however; it is more of a hope, one that I believe is shared by all God’s children.
For the reader: According to Wikipedia, a theocracy is “a form of government in which a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day-to-day affairs of the government.” With respect to Christianity, the deity with supreme ruling authority is God, manifest in Jesus Christ to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. And Christ gives divine guidance through the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to human intermediaries, the church, for the day-to-day management of his government. However, “At present we do not yet see all things under his control” (Heb. 2:8); the last enemy to be eliminated is death. When that finally happens, “then comes the end, when [the Son] hands over the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24-26). As a Christian, I eagerly anticipate this complete theocratic domination of the world. Sinners, as one might imagine, have nothing but contempt for it.
Okay, so you believe this. But on what basis? For example, see above where I direct people’s attention to the biblical evidence for what I believe. Do you share the same basis? If so, then where in the scriptures does it say that he intends for us to choose our own purpose of existence? I have never encountered that. Also, where does it say that God’s children were created to be an end in themselves? I have never seen that, either.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
27
I may not totally understand your point, but God has always been intimately involved with His creation, all of it. The fact that He created all things demands that He receives the glory for them. Rev 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
Matt 6:9 Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It is God’s will that is important and it is God’s will that He will establish. Though Pharaoh was a stubborn ruler, it was God who raised Him up for His own purpose. Was it Pharaoh who raised himself up for his own purpose of becoming an oppressive ruler of Israel and to allow his own nation go through the judgments that God poured out on them? NOPE! Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, (and why did God do this?) that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So God had the purpose of His name being proclaimed in all the earth and it is His purpose that will be fulfilled.
Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” Was it man’s purpose to be born in a certain place and time to find their own purpose in this life? NOPE! It was God’s purpose the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. Why? So that men would seek him and find him.
It is not about us. It always has been and always will be about God. His glory, honor, power, majesty, splendor, awesomeness, wisdom, understanding, mercy, love, righteousness, holiness, purity ect……… Why, because He is a high minded, power seeking, self centered control freak? NO, IT’S BECAUSE HE IS GOD.
It is the Father’s will that we submit to Jesus, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” As Jesus said, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” Our purpose is found by being in Christ. It is found in absolute submission to the Father’s will. Our purpose is to love, glorify and honor God.
I don’t agree with the meaning you are attaching to this and thus inserting into the Bible.
I just noticed that the link is Biologos and Peter Ens, so that deserves a more careful consideration which I will post later. But a quick look shows me that the words “identity” and “purpose” are not used.
You saying that your idea comes from God doesn’t change the fact that it is your idea. And saying that it comes from God is a tool of rhetoric for forcing your idea on others.
Making people a means to an end is a violation of human ethics regardless of whether you attribute it to God or not. I have demonstrated that it certainly doesn’t follow from MY believing God exists.
If it means what you say it does then yes. But I don’t think it means any such thing. I don’t think it is about our identity or purpose but about our potentiality and particularly our potential for an eternal relationship with God – an opportunity not an identity. Now if you were a universalist like some around here, believing that we have no choice but to fulfill some role assigned to us then your identity/purpose rhetoric would make more sense and shows one of the reasons why I am not a universalist.
I insist that our identity comes from what we choose not from some nature we are born with. Someone walking into a room may be female, hispanic, and tall. But these are not her identity. They are only circumstances. I would say the same thing of God. Sure God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But these are not God’s identity any more than was the case for the woman in the example. Our identity is found in what we choose for ourselves. That goes for both the woman and God. For the woman that is found in what she chooses to do with her life. What God chooses is love (and the freedom which comes with it) over power and control as is manifest in all the things God has done. Thus God’s identity is love not power – though of course it is love on His terms as He defines it and not the way child might insist it means getting whatever the child wants.
One can believe in the authority of Christ over all things without believing Christ exerts authority over all things as a theocratic dictator. As a Christian I do not deny this but a scientist I have to acknowledge that there is no objective evidence that this is anything more than a fantasy of mine.
On the basis of the nature of life which we can observe and on the basis of what I read in the Bible which I frankly admit is something I read and make sense of in the context of what science has shown us. For me, not being raised Christian, reading the Bible was always in the context of seeing whether anything there made any sense or was of any value in the context of the scientific facts. Only the fact that I did find sense and value in that context is why I am a Christian. Otherwise I would have tossed it in the garbage can.
Not against the limits of rationality which has these three components.
Logical coherence which is the requirement for something to be meaningful.
Compatibility with the objective (scientific) evidence which it the requirement for something to be reasonable.
Compatibility with the ideals of a free society which is the requirement for something to be moral in the only world I want to live in – the only basis on which anything religious can be acceptable. I would not, for example, accept any endorsement of such things as slavery, human sacrifice, or misogyny from the Bible. Though a lot of the harder things to accept are understandable in the context of the harsh realities of evolution and life in historical circumstances.
But yes, I accept the Bible as having authority over the religion of Christianity. I would even say it is the word of God in that context, which is not to support any notions that it is inerrant, infallible, or self interpreting – let alone any nonsensical claim that it contains all truth. So what does it mean to say it is the word of God on Christianity? Well, it does not mean it is only true if correctly interpreted – that would be an alteration of text. That it is the word of God means this is God’s intellectual property and nobody should be altering it as they see fit.
Touche!
On the other hand… you haven’t really changed my take on what you are saying at all. I guess we can say simply that you don’t see some of the negative implications in your words that I do.
I am not trying to be mean, but get to the heart of why some people will find what you say both objectionable and insulting as well.
Now for a consideration of the discussion of Imago Dei by Peter Enns. It is an excellent discussion, but I doubt that Peter Enns would claim that this is all which can be said on the topic.
He shoots down the idea that “image of God” represents some quality of human beings which makes us different than the animals and instead proceeds to argue that this is rather a calling to a position of authority over the Earth. It is not a bad argument and I would very much agree with the idea that this has more to do with a relationship with God than a difference from the animals. I can particularly understand the motivation coming from the difficulty in drawing such a sharp line biologically between man and the animals. On the other hand, it very clearly is a difference from the animals and I think we can understand why many are left unsatisfied with no explanation as to why we qualified for such a calling. Furthermore, the wording in Genesis 1:26-27 very much does seem to be about what God is creating rather than a role He is giving to His creation.
I want to point out an excellent site which explains why “angels” is the correct translation in Psalms 8:5. And I think this connects a little to something else in Peter Enns analysis which disturbs me. It is this focus on power and authority, which I see as a wrong turn made in many parts of the Bible by a lot of traditional theology. To some degree this is fixed by the focus he later gives to Jesus as the realization of the image of God in the flesh. But frankly, I think that only underlines the same dissatisfaction I have over the focus on power and authority in the orginal passage.
Of course where I am ultimately going with all this is to push forward my own understanding of the passage which sees “created in the image of God” meaning our infinite potentiality reflects God infinite actuality – as well as the idea that “creating in ones own image” means the creation of a child, which when put together means made for an eternal parent-child relationship. Like Peter Enns’ suggestion, this is also essentially relational, while also pointing out the important quality needed and distinguishing us from the animals, as well as shifting the focus from power and authority to a much greater spectrum of being according to which we can be like God as well as conformed to the image of His Son. In answer to the difficulty of making such a sharp line biologically between man and the animals, I would say it is not our biology which gives us such potentiality but language and the human mind which is derived from this.
There is not a lot here for me to deal with. The main portion of your response appears to be little more than, “I disagree with your view. Here’s my view.” It hardly needs to be said that autobiographical information like this does not amount to a critical engagement of my position. So, again, there really isn’t much here for me to deal with.
And, even when you disagree, you don’t really provide any argument for me to interact with. For example, I said that “our purpose is a function of our identity which is sovereignly defined by God,” and you said this is tantamount to “changing people into inanimate tools, treating them as a means to an end.”
So, I said, if God sovereignly defines our identity as imago Dei, that somehow changes people into inanimate tools? I don’t see how.
To this you replied, “If it means what you say it does, then yes.”
And that’s it. That was your response. No critical analysis, no counter-argument, literally nothing for me to engage.
Here is another example: “I don’t think [the imago Dei] means any such thing,” you said. “I don’t think it is about our identity or purpose but about our potentiality and particularly our potential for an eternal relationship with God—an opportunity, not an identity.” Again, no argument. Your response amounted to saying, “I don’t think you’re right. Here is how I see it.”
See, a big chunk of something important is missing there. After telling someone that you think they’re wrong, you could explain why through a critical analysis of his view. But you chose not to provide any argument, leaving nothing for me to engage. So what else can I do?
Here is something interesting I noticed: I presented evidence-based arguments (drawn from biblical texts), with which you disagreed after mischaracterizing them with straw man caricatures, and you didn’t present any relevant counter-arguments. (Note: Autobiographical information is not an argument.) And yet you accused me of using tools of rhetoric? That is interesting.
At any rate, there are a couple of things I would like to address.
So you hadn’t even read the article being referenced, but you confidently disagreed with the meaning I employed? That’s a bit embarrassing. I don’t understand why you wrote that and hit “Reply,” instead of taking some time to read the cited material and then respond, but here we are.
Listen, here is a more charitable and useful approach: You could deal with it as a conclusion that either does or does not follow from the premises. That would demand an argument of you, however, whereas the invective you chose does not. The latter is certainly easier, I will admit.
First of all, as I’m sure you would agree if the roles were reversed, pressing an assertion doesn’t turn it into an argument with a conclusion.
Second, your claim here merely begs the question against my argument, which is fallacious move; it is therefore not compelling and leaves my argument unchallenged.
First, I agree that God’s identity is love, not power (although his power is absolute and sovereign, and manifest throughout the Bible).
Second, as any parent knows, for children it is likewise on their terms as they define it. So you ascribed a kind of childishness to God in your effort to avoid doing so.
Third, God happens to insist on getting whatever he wants:
Psa 135:6 “He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the ocean depths.”
Prov. 19:21 “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.”
Isa. 46:9-11 “Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire,’ who summons an eagle from the east, from a distant land, one who carries out my plan. Yes, I have decreed, yes, I will bring it to pass; I have formulated a plan, yes, I will carry it out.”
Eph 1:11 “… we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will.”
And so many more biblical references.
Sure, but one would have to ignore the language of the Bible in order to do so.
And “theocratic dictator”? Really? You can’t deal with my position without spewing invective?
Okay, great. Now, where in the Bible do you find this stated?
(For example, I believe God sovereignly defined our identity as imago Dei and I pointed to a biblical text which shows God doing precisely that: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” God said, and then did so—without the consultation or assent of any humans.)
So, for you, science holds greater authority than the Bible. The Bible has “authority over the religion of Christianity,” but not over science. All right, then. It startles me that a self-professed Christian said that, but okay.
Yeah, I did, but you didn’t notice, apparently. You accused me of treating people as inanimate tools, as a means to an end that I have chosen. That is wrong on all counts, of course, so I properly denied this accusation and showed how it does not follow—for people are neither a means (the cross of Christ is) nor an end (the glory of God is). And you somehow think this doesn’t change your take on what I am saying—even though, according to the rules of logic and the English language, my response did precisely that.
It is little wonder, then, that you can blithely reassert the same accusation: “Making people a means to an end is a violation of human ethics,” you said, “regardless of whether you attribute it to God or not.” It’s as if you completely ignored what I had said. All right, then. There really isn’t anything more I can do with that.
Mitchell, they don’t follow. Here me on this: If Q doesn’t follow from P, then Q is not an implication of P. I’m sorry, but logic.
First, I accept that you don’t intend to be mean-spirited. However, what is your response to being informed that your tone is coming across that way? (It’s okay if you don’t care, but be frank about that.)
Second, you are thus far the only one who finds my beliefs objectionable and insulting—and, even then, it’s by a troubling non-sequitur route.
I hope you could extend to me the benefit of the same doubt, for I have not said (or even implied) that nothing more could be said on the topic. Ergo, this comment of yours was a strange one to make.
I wonder if you can discern the contradiction of claiming that our vocational calling is not a role we were given.
I have no interest in debating you and you apparently have no interest in discussion. So… yeah it is indeed pointless to continue. I certainly find very little in your post interesting enough for a response of any kind. I find your impassioned argument for a childish god hilarious.
Science is not about authority but about what can be demonstrated in written procedures anyone can follow to get the same result. This simply does not work with a great many things and therefore science cannot say anything about them. so… greater authority… huh? what?
Obviously! Science is defined by procedural ideals in which the Bible has no role whatsoever. You might as well claim that the Bible has authority over chess, football or computer repair. It is absurd!
That is because Christianity and creationism are two completely different things. Therefore despite the delusions of creationists, scientists can be Christians. I am a scientist who found value in Christianity despite all the abuses… because being Christian doesn’t require us to kow tow to the nonsense pushed by some weird little group somewhere that happens to call themselves Xtian also.
Christianity is about the good news that God, redemption from sin, and the resurrection to eternal life has been seen in the person of Jesus the Christ, and not about the work of science and our efforts to understand how nature works.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
33
The title is odd and coincidentally, unintendedly intriguing, fertile. The purposes we give ourselves, and any one will do, as Viktor Frankl discovered in Auschwitz, don’t bespeak transcendent purpose, are not ‘philosophical’ evidence for God in the slightest, as is nothing in evolution.
In rationality beyond the empirical, beyond science, i.e. philosophy, there is no primary need for God as nature is fully self explanatory. The only justification for getting philosophical, rational about God is Jesus. Once we posit the Incarnation, then God has to encapsulate the rational, the axiomatic, the parsimonious. Which has nothing but positive implications.
For a start nature is eternal. Which means that we are normal. Average. Typical. From forever. And therefore so is Incarnation.
First of all God is Trinity, and Trinity is Creator, Logos, Love. This is very important because I hear that there is a bug going around called Grudenism, which subordinates the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The resultant bad theology is OT oriented, ignores the central role of Jesus Christ, the Logos, and is legalistic.
Second, God’s power is not Absolute. If God’s power were Absolute, then there would be no sin. There would be no evil. There would be no injustice. Jesus would not have come to save us the world from sin and give His People Eternal Life.
Third, we are God’s Children ,but Jesus does not treat us like children, but like adults, regardless of who we are. God takes people seriously, and so must we. We have no license to lie to people, to talk down to them
@mitchellmckain is right. The Bible must speak to the real needs of people or it is no good. The problem for both of you is that the Bible does not govern us. It is the Logos, the Living Rational Word of God, Jesus Christ Who is our Guide. Jesus Christ is the Word of God John 1:1. If we ignore Him. we misunderstand Who God is.
.