A Novel Soteriological Explanation in the Calvinism vs Arminianism Debate

[Derf B]

You said it didn't matter, meaning the words are synonymous. They are not. You have offered nothing beyond your own assertion, except a modern internet dictionary that suggests--in English--image and likeness are synonyms. I stated they are different words in Hebrew. Your response was more of a "nuh uh" response. You still have offered nothing beyond you own knowledge. In an argument, the onus is on you to prove your point first, then I would counter it. Since you are unwilling to do the former, I have not done the latter. Therefore, the discussion is not worth my time.

The Archangel

So this is an interesting thing about language. I said it didn't matter, not because they are synonymous, but because BOTH are used. So if you have a problem with our being created in God's image, but not in His likeness, it is moot, because we are created both in His likeness (ok with you) AND in His image (not ok with you).

And I proved that point already by quoting Gen 1:26, twice now, if I haven't lost count. I'll do it again:
[Gen 1:26 KJV] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[The Archangel]

So this is an interesting thing about language. I said it didn't matter, not because they are synonymous, but because BOTH are used. So if you have a problem with our being created in God's image, but not in His likeness, it is moot, because we are created both in His likeness (ok with you) AND in His image (not ok with you).

And I proved that point already by quoting Gen 1:26, twice now, if I haven't lost count. I'll do it again:
[Gen 1:26 KJV] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This is, again, a red herring. The original discussion was about the characteristics communicated to us by God in His creation of us. I do not deny that we are in His image and His likeness--and I never have. What you seem not to grasp is that our being in His image means that we are His representatives. Our being in His likeness means that we share (or exhibit) certain characteristics similar to (but not exactly the same as) his.

You haven't proven anything because you're chasing a rabbit of your own invention.

The Archangel

 

[Derf B]

The Archangel[/QUOTE]

This is, again, a red herring. The original discussion was about the characteristics communicated to us by God in His creation of us. I do not deny that we are in His image and His likeness--and I never have. What you seem not to grasp is that our being in His image means that we are His representatives. Our being in His likeness means that we share (or exhibit) certain characteristics similar to (but not exactly the same as) his.

You haven't proven anything because you're chasing a rabbit of your own invention.

The Archangel

Well, let's try to get back on track shall we? It's a bit roundabout, but stay with me.

You mean above that I haven't proven what you said I was trying to prove. My point is that I wasn't trying to prove what you thought I was trying to prove.

Shall we revisit?

I’m just saying, “image” means something in us is like something in or [of] God. Emotions are something we have and God has. If we both have emotions, why do you get to say that ours and His are not alike in any way (fundamentally different)?

No, it doesn't. What you're describing is more akin to "Likeness."

Our emotions are not alike because of who He is and who we are--He is the Creator, we are the creature. In making us in His likeness, He did not make us as copies of Himself. We do not exhibit omnipresence or omniscience. But, we do bear some resemblance to our Creator. He is creative (obviously); we are creative. But we are not creative in the same way. He has emotions and we have emotions. But, God's emotions do not express themselves like ours do, and they cannot. We are fallen, He is not. He does not experience misguided love that would lead into folly or lust, but we do.

The Archangel

Here’s one entry from a Bing search on synonyms for “image”:
semblance or likeness.
"we are made in the image of God"

Again... Image and likeness are two different words, and they are not interchangeable or synonymous. צֶלֶם and דְּמוּת are of different roots. Since I've already explained it to you and it has bounced off, I have no need to explain it again. Suffice it to say, just because you want them to mean the same does not make it so.

The Archangel

You'll notice that I pointed out (with secular reference) that I'm not the only one that thinks "likeness" and "image" are synonyms. And I hope you realize that "synonym" doesn't mean the words have to have the same root, but just the opposite, they are usually words that don't share the same root.

Nevertheless, you made the statement that the meaning I was trying to pour into "image" is more like what "likeness" means. Whether they are synonyms or not, your statement affirms my assertion that one of the things God did when He made Adam "in His image and after His likeness" must include emotions. You affirmed this as well, here:

Our emotions are not alike because of who He is and who we are--He is the Creator, we are the creature. In making us in His likeness, He did not make us as copies of Himself. We do not exhibit omnipresence or omniscience. But, we do bear some resemblance to our Creator. He is creative (obviously); we are creative. But we are not creative in the same way. He has emotions and we have emotions. But, God's emotions do not express themselves like ours do, and they cannot. We are fallen, He is not. He does not experience misguided love that would lead into folly or lust, but we do.

The Archangel

I think we're back on track now, and here's my response:

You affirmed what I said before, which was that God doesn't react the same way we do when we emote. So I'm having a hard time understanding how God's emotions (not the expression or reaction, but the emotions themselves) are different from ours.

 

[MB]

And... how did I “attack” first?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You attacked Derf for no reason You could of just simply answered the question but no your to high and mighty. Your the type that trips and breaks there own neck because you can't see where you are going, with your nose stuck up so high.
MB

 

[The Archangel]

The Archangel

Well, let's try to get back on track shall we? It's a bit roundabout, but stay with me.

You mean above that I haven't proven what you said I was trying to prove. My point is that I wasn't trying to prove what you thought I was trying to prove.

Shall we revisit?

​

You'll notice that I pointed out (with secular reference) that I'm not the only one that thinks "likeness" and "image" are synonyms. And I hope you realize that "synonym" doesn't mean the words have to have the same root, but just the opposite, they are usually words that don't share the same root.

Nevertheless, you made the statement that the meaning I was trying to pour into "image" is more like what "likeness" means. Whether they are synonyms or not, your statement affirms my assertion that one of the things God did when He made Adam "in His image and after His likeness" must include emotions. You affirmed this as well, here:

​

I think we're back on track now, and here's my response:

You affirmed what I said before, which was that God doesn't react the same way we do when we emote. So I'm having a hard time understanding how God's emotions (not the expression or reaction, but the emotions themselves) are different from ours.

You still do not get it. You cannot equate image and likeness as they are different and refer to different things. Modern secular dictionaries cannot and do not approach the meaning contained in the Hebrew. You assigned something to “image” that is part of “likeness.” The difference matters. We go no where until you demonstrate understanding of this.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derf B]

You still do not get it. You cannot equate image and likeness as they are different and refer to different things. Modern secular dictionaries cannot and do not approach the meaning contained in the Hebrew. You assigned something to “image” that is part of “likeness.” The difference matters. We go no where until you demonstrate understanding of this.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's try this again.

I will humbly concede that I have no idea what the difference between "image" and "likeness" is as used in Gen 1:26. I have a thread I started where I asked for help on this difference, where I tagged you, so that you can give me input on the difference. Personally, I don't think the difference matters for this conversation because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, both "image" and "likeness" are used in Gen 1:26.

Our conversation was about emotions, and we both acknowledge that both God and man have emotions. If you think that our emotions are "fundamentally different" than God's (you said as much in an earlier post), how are they fundamentally different? (please don't say "because we react to them differently, because that is not what "fundamentally" means in this case)

Can God hate?
Can God love?
Can God be disappointed?
Can God be frustrated?
Can God be angry?
If the answer to any of the foregoing is yes, then:
Can we hate, love, be disappointed, be frustrated, be angry?

If the answer to any of the second batch is yes, then aren't we agreeing that God can have emotions, the same ones as we have, yet without sin (His reaction is perfect, ours is corrupted)?

 

[Derf B]

You still do not get it. You cannot equate image and likeness as they are different and refer to different things. Modern secular dictionaries cannot and do not approach the meaning contained in the Hebrew. You assigned something to “image” that is part of “likeness.” The difference matters. We go no where until you demonstrate understanding of this.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a link to a thread I started to talk about this particular distinction, if it can be called that.
In God's image, or after His likeness?
I'm trying to demonstrate some understanding of this, at your suggestion.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 330 pm EDT / 1230 pm PDT

This thread is closed