Made in the image of God

I recently heard a Baptist preacher exclaim, “I’m not made in the image of God.” I almost believed him!😁Perhaps he identifies with the rest of God’s creatures rather than with man. Yes, man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Imago Dei is both Latin and theological terminology for “Image of God,” often used to express this biblical truth.[i]

Imago Dei is an expression of the connection between God and humanity. Man was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This does not mean that God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) was then in human form, but rather that mankind is made in God’s image in moral, spiritual, and intellectual essence, a creation of body, soul, and spirit that can commune with God in a way no other creature can. “Made in the image of God,” Imago Dei, makes man different than all other creatures in God’s creation.

The preacher’s argument was not that he was an animal rather than a man, but that after the fall man is no longer made in God’s image, but rather Adam’s image. “We lost that image,” he says. However, man did not “lose” the image of God, but that image was “marred” by sin in the fall of Adam. Consider the following Scriptures.

Man was made/created in the image of God.

• Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man was made in the likeness (image) of God.

• Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Seth was begat in Adam’s likeness (v. 3) who was made in God’s likeness (v. 1)

• Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Over 1600 years after creation, God describes man as made in his image (and this as a feature governing his actions toward his fellow man).

• Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Over 4000 years after creation, the Bible describes man as being in God’s image (and this as a feature related to his actions and accountability toward God).

• 1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Over 4000 years after creation, the Bible again describes man as made in God’s similitude (image, likeness), and this as a feature related to his actions toward his fellow man.

• James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

There is a consistent thread that runs from creation into the New Testament, that man is made in the image of God. It is the basis of what sets man apart from the animals (Genesis 1:26-27) and even angels (Psalm 8:4-8), and a basis for instructing man how he ought to act and treat his fellow man (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). Yes, man has been marred by the fall, and only God through Christ can recover that ... but he still intrinsically has the image of God in which he was made. Failing to recognize this will lead to failure in correctly interacting before God with our fellow man.

---

[i] We rural folk will usually just simply say “image of God,” but you need to know Imago Dei if you read much about this in theological writings or even just on the internet.

The Vincentian Canon

The so-called Vincentian Canon was formulated by Vincent of the monastery of Lérins in his Commonitorium (written circa AD 434, under the pseudonym Peregrinus) to “put down in writing the things which I have truthfully received from the holy Fathers.”[i] The Vincentian Canon, stated simplistically, asserts that proper Christian belief is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.[ii]

Taken literally, there are obviously no Christian beliefs that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. If so, can the Vincentian Canon be of any use whatsoever? I want to give three examples of how we might apply the Vincentian Canon.

1. Salvation by grace through faith is believed everywhere, always, and by all. Some may add other ideas to or with it, but they nevertheless hold salvation by grace through faith as basic. Should we not hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?

2. Believers’ baptism is believed everywhere, always, and by all. Some may accept infant baptism as well, but they nevertheless hold that believers’ baptism is true. Should we not hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?

3. Baptism by immersion is believed everywhere, always, and by all. Some also allow for sprinkling and pouring, but they nevertheless hold immersion as a true form of baptism. Should we not hold that which is universally agreed upon and discard the rest?

I am not a proponent of the Vincentian Canon, but wonder what it might look like if we apply it to some of our beliefs.[iii] In the end we default to Sola Scriptura – what the Scriptures agree upon – rather than the Vincentian Canon – what everybody everywhere always agrees upon. Were I earnestly trying to prove believers’ baptism, for example, I would make my argument from Scripture rather than what everyone is agreed upon.

---

[i] Commonitory: calling to mind, admonition

[ii] In Latin, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Chapter 2.[6.] “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.” Look also HERE. This seems to be somewhat of a theory of the lowest common denominator for church practice.

[iii] What would the results of the Vincentian Canon look like if applied to historical dissenting anti-paedobaptist churches?

Should women wear dresses to worship?

Should women wear dresses or skirts to worship (as opposed to pants)? This may not interest many of you, but it was discussed on a blog I read. I thought I'd bring the question to my blog and see if any reader would comment.

Should women wear dresses to church? Is it wrong for women to wear pants to church? How much of this is tradition and how much is scripture?

• Is women wearing pants a "wearing what pertains to a man" issue? (Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.) Are pants designed for women man's clothing? Are pants inherently man's clothing? If this is a "cross-dressing" issue, isn't it wrong all the time and not just at church services? (Are Scotsmen who wear kilts violating Deuteronomy 22:5? Thought I'd throw that in for good measure.)
• Is women wearing pants possibly a modesty issue? (i.e., are dresses inherently more modest than pants?)
• Is women wearing pants possibly an issue of casual versus formal dress (i.e., are dresses inherently more formal than pants)? If so, is wearing "casual" clothes to worship a scriptural issue?

What scriptures guide us in this matter? Most agree that there is a scriptural principle for dressing modestly, while often disagreeing on the exact application of how to obtain that. If pants "drawing attention to the crotch" is a modesty issue (as some say), is it also so for men? Do dresses draw attention in other ways? Are pants for either men or women mentioned as attire in the Bible?

Does the law being done away have any effect on its use in discussing this issue? Is Deuteronomy 22:5 a ceremonial law or moral law or possibly both?

What does the Bible say about specific clothing? What is the first mention? With many things we find an important principle when first mentioned in the Bible. The first mention of clothing or attire is in Genesis chapter 3. Obviously the fig leaves were not acceptable, but what about what God clothed them with? Genesis 3:21: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." One thing I notice is that the same word is used for that with which God clothed both Adam and Eve. Did He violate His own principle? Have we created new rules that He did not?

What are your thoughts? Thanks.

More wisdom from Bart "Barebones" Barber

Many pastors face the temptation to keep a "Friends List" and an "Enemies List." These are the two sides. The first list is populated by saints; the second list is populated by the spawn of Satan sent from Hell to ensure, by thwarting my personal plans, that the world slides off into perdition. Every person on the "Friends List" is in peril of being moved to the "Enemies List" simply by opposing (or perhaps even by not supporting vigorously enough) something that I want to do. No person on the "Enemies List" can have the hope of being moved to the "Friends List," because once an enemy, always an enemy. The pastor who operates this way stays at a church for three years or so until the "Friends List" cupboard is bare, at which time he moves somewhere else and starts over. -- Bart Barber