THE IMAGE OF GOD

This treatise examines the debate over whether the image of God is reflected in every human, unbeliever as well as believer.  Popular consensus holds that the image of God is indeed reflected in every human being, and this is not often questioned.  In fact, many of our forefathers, and most modern theologians, seem to agree with this concept.  Unless you go into Scripture and diligently seek the answer, it appears to be a given.  However, when we look at man's depravity from the fall, and the particular way that God deals with the elect as well as the reprobate, we begin to see that it is folly to believe such a statement.

Throughout this treatise I will quote a dear friend with whom I have had an ongoing debate concerning this subject.  He has some valid reasons why he believes that the image of God must be in every human being, and he gives some interesting examples.  I will use his quotes as a springboard for my responses and explain why I believe the opposite.  I will begin with his statements which will all be in italics.

WHAT IS THE IMAGE OF GOD?

 "The topic of the image of God in man is an interesting one.  Certainly God's image in our moral nature became radically and completely corrupted at the fall as Paul so soberly teaches in the opening chapters of Romans.  However, our rational thought processes along with our creative, communicative, introspective and interpersonal activities all continue to reflect the image of God.  Even the vilest sinner still reflects God's image if for example he expresses love to someone and has a relationship."

The above opening paragraph is what prompted  a response from my own understanding of what the image of God means.  The topic of the image of God has been interesting me for years, along with the currently held view of common grace.  I found both of these views affect some very foundational tenets of Christian doctrine.  As it concerns God, it therefore belongs to the foundation of truth.  But, unless our concept of God is totally based upon what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, the word "God" doesn't even have a fixed content, and communicates no objective meaning, much less the "image" of God.

What is this image of God?  When researching the meaning of the word "image", I found, "to be like, resemble, that which resembles an object, or which represents it, hence, image, likeness."¹  Another source was even more precise, saying, "an image of the things (the heavenly things); used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God;  the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is of God, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses."²  Yet a third definition explains, "not merely the image but also the pattern, the original, not just a shadow"³;  meaning that the image reflects the original, or God Himself in Jesus Christ, and that we are being conformed  to that pattern. Finally, there is the "express image" found only in Christ, who is the 'brightness of his (God's) glory, and the 'express' image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power..."⁴

In studying these definitions I could see three distinct uses of "image".  The first definition includes things other than the image of God.  The image and inscription of Caesar on the coin in Matthew 22:20, Mark 12:16, and Luke 20:24;  the image made like unto creeping things from Romans 1:23; and the image of the beast in many Revelation passages, all teach the physical likeness of something or someone.  The Greek word is "eikon" and is where we get our word "icon".  Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins says, "The etymological idea underlying 'icon' is of 'similarity.'  It comes via Latin 'icon' from the Greek 'eikon' from a primitive base meaning 'be like.'  From 'likeness, similarity,' 'eikon' progressed semantically via 'image' to 'portrait, picture."  In other words, something artificial can "image, or reflect the real thing."

Bullinger⁵ also gives an example of this type of image, or analogy, from Scripture which helps us understand the reality, or truth.  James 1:6 and 23 are given as examples:  "For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."  Also, "For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:  For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." This type of image is where we get our word 'simile'.  Similes, analogies, and metaphors all follow this idea.  What I conclude from this word is that a comparison is being made of unlike things.  A man is very different than the wave of the sea, but they are alike in the way they are tossed to and fro with the wind, one physically, the other spiritually.

In conjunction with that, men are also able to have this same "eikon."  In 1 Corinthians 11:7 Paul exhorts the 'brethren' not to cover their heads because they are the "image" and glory of God.  The context of this chapter of Scripture is rules for divine worship.  Women were told to cover their heads symbolizing the headship of their husband.  Men, by not covering their head, symbolize Jesus Christ as their head, and that (act of not covering) represents the image and glory of God--the head of Christ.  Also within this description we find in 1 Corinthians 15:47, 49, "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.  And as we have borne the "image" of the earthy, we shall also bear the "image" of the heavenly."  This says that "since the 'animal nature', which we have first of all, is the image of Adam (we resemble Adam in our nature), (it is like, or similar to the way) we will conform to Christ in His heavenly nature; and when that happens our restoration will be complete.  For we now begin to bear the image (see second definition below) of Christ, and we are daily being transformed into it more and more; but that image depends upon spiritual regeneration."⁶   This latter image of Christ does not belong to the ungodly because, as it is written, they reflect the image of their father the devil who has 'blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."⁷

Which brings us to the second, deeper meaning of "image"; we see Christians being transformed into the very likeness of Christ who is the very "image" of God. Even patterning themselves after Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Romans 8:29 begins by saying, "Moreover whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the "image" of his Son,  that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."  Also, " we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same "image" from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." ⁸

I will continue to bring out other passages of Scripture concerning the "image of God" as the debate goes on. The first place Scripture itself defines God's image is in Genesis 1.  There we find that 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..." (v.26,27).  But what does it mean to be like God?  It would mean that God's character  could be reflected in a creature.  Man would be able to understand perfectly, because he would have knowledge of God;⁹ he would be holy because God is holy;  and having been created like God, would have perfect righteousness¹⁰, and so on.

There is even an underlying sense that God made man and woman in a unity much like the triunity between Himself, the Son, and Holy Spirit--for He did say let 'us' make man in 'our' image.  This unity is expressed in the Covenant of God.  As God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, so man and wife are one, and so the family becomes one in the Covenant also.  Man as head and father over his family, woman as co-equal, yet a different person, mother over the godly seed which would fill the earth.¹¹  Here, then, is a perfect example of the reflection of that image of God in man.   And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. ¹²

Then, the unthinkable happened and all was ruined, or was it? For the time being it was, but God had a preordained plan (the Covenant) that would restore what was lost by Adam's deadly sin.  Now totally gone was God' image so graciously bestowed upon innocent man.  No longer could he reflect God, because he was in sin.  No longer could he know God fully, because his knowledge was tainted by sin.  Of course, no longer was he holy, or righteous; he was sinful through and through.  In fact, he tried to hide himself from God.  The mind that had once been God-centered had now become sinfully self-centered.  Men would now blame any but himself for the sin that so easily beset him.  They now would always err in their hearts, and they would not know God's ways.¹³  Was this fallen creature like God?  The debate continues.

Adam was then taken from Eden to begin his journey toward death.  He begat children in sin.  They came into the world sinners.¹⁴  Why did God even let them live a little while?  Why did he not destroy everything then?  "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"¹⁵  The answer, again, is in His Covenant--the promise of something better.  God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."  This was the promise of the Son yet to come in the flesh.  The third distinction and perfect definitive of God's image as it was meant to be reflected in Adam-- the "Express Image" Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, it doesn't take long for us to see what God thinks about sinful man.  All his rational thought processes, all his creative, communicative, introspective and interpersonal activities are but filthy rags needing to be discarded.  (Why?)  "God looked around and saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil!  It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.  The Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." ¹⁶

But in keeping with the plan based upon His Covenant, God ordained a remnant of the seed of the woman to carry the line to the promised Seed.  Abel, Seth, Enoch, on up to Noah, had found grace in the eyes of the Lord.  Noah had been warned of God's wrath to come and had obeyed God in building the ark of safety. This ark was a shadow of the promise of another Ark of safety that would be actualized by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and afterward reflected in  baptism.¹⁷ Another beautiful simile.

A short time later we come to see that sin didn't die with the flood, only sinners.   All through Scripture God shows us his sovereign power and the glory of His justice by what He does to wicked man.  He also makes it very clear what He thinks of the wickedness of man.  It's not easy to read all lumped together, but it is very important for us face:

"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE that doeth good; they are altogether become filthy, there is NONE that doeth good, no not one¹⁸;   every man at his BEST state is altogether vanity¹⁹;  we are shapen in iniquity; and in sin do our mothers conceive us²⁰;  God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.  Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy²¹;  the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies²²;  The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity²³;  there is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good, and sinneth not²⁴;  the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;  From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores²⁵;   the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;²⁶ But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away;²⁷   The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?²⁸  And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;²⁹  The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge;³⁰  Behold they are all vanity; their works are nothing."³¹

These are just some of the verses I have highlighted in my Bible to remind me where I stand without Christ.  In this list I find no part of man that has been left out.  No part that could possibly reflect God, none.  It is a grave mistake to assume something within wicked man reflects God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has this to say:  "Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner-- according to the word; nor to a right end--the glory of God; they are therefore sinful...(c.16:7).  This teaches that man cannot reflect God in his actions, no matter what they are, because when done by faithless men the WORKS themselves become sinful!  Sinful thoughts cannot reflect God, sinful creativity cannot reflect God, sinful love to someone in a relationship cannot reflect God.

IS THE HUMAN CONSCIENCE A REMNANT OF GOD'S IMAGE?

"As to the moral and spiritual aspects of God's image, Heb. 9.14 and 10.22 both speak of the cleansing of our consciences through Christ's shed atoning blood.  This implies the existence of the conscience (although evil) after the fall and before regeneration.  In fact, if the image of God, as reflected in our conscience, didn't still exist, then even the reprobate would no longer be held accountable as a responsible moral agent because he wouldn't be willfully 'suppressing' (Ro. 1.18) the truth but acting totally apart from the remnants of God's image still resident within."

Ro. 2: 2.14 reads, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, 'do by nature' the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a 'law unto themselves'."  Does nature teach that if you jump off a high cliff you will die?  The 'law' of gravity most certainly does teach this.  These 'natural' laws are essentially the same as 'moral' laws.  All of God's creation is ruled by both natural and moral laws.  If broken, natural consequences occur in both cases, whether broken by the believer or by the unbeliever.  The natural ability to understand this is also a 'law' or 'conscience' given to all creation.  This is the same 'conscience' experienced when approaching the edge of the cliff, and the one I believe the unregenerate have written in their hearts.³²

The Westminster Larger Catechism helps us to understand this also.  Q. 2. asks, "How doth it appear that there is a God?  The answer is, "The very 'light of nature' in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God;  but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation."  This 'light of nature' is a created thing just like all the other works of creation.  Our created conscience and ability to think are very much a proof of God's power in creation,  and proves God's existence as all of God's creation does, however, it does not claim anymore than that.  The image of God is not a created thing, it is a reflection of God in man through His Spirit in us.

Bullinger³³, and others³⁴, agree with this definition of conscience:  'a knowing with one's self, being conscious, the being one's own witness.'  This is effected by the knowledge of the consequences of lawless activities.  For example, any person on earth would acknowledge that he does not want anyone to steal from him, or to hurt him in any way, or his wife to commit adultery.  Therefore, being a witness unto himself, he realizes without the slightest care towards God, that these things are wrong.  Because we know what makes us happy or unhappy, we act accordingly.  All of my sources (see footnotes) make a distinction between the unbeliever's conscience and the believer's, the believers being " the conscience that man has of himself in relation to God (not in relation to himself),  and is the effect and result of faith.

The Westminster Confession and Scripture both speak of a 'light of nature' as an explanation of why rational man has any conscience of truth.  He is enabled to acknowledge that all of creation reveals a power that is beyond his capacity to fully understand. But only through faith is man able to "understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."³⁵  Again, this 'light of nature' is the expression that should be used instead of 'image of God', because it is a natural creation.  It turns the basis for man's conscience to nature, or natural causes. Notice that the more unregenerate man knows of creation, the less he believes in God--it ought to be the other way around!  This is exactly in keeping with the Scripture which proclaims, "that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it unto them." (How?) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, (even his eternal power and Godhead); being understood by the things that are made (nature), so that they are without excuse." ³⁶ So then what happens?  In Scripture's words, "they hold the truth in unrighteousness".  Some translations read this verse as "willfully suppressing the truth," I don't believe this interpretation adequately teaches the correct intensity of the verse because it denotes a knowledge of truth that the ungodly is just willfully ignoring, at this point it is only 'suppressed'. (Example:  "I know what the truth is, but I want to do it my way anyway.")  This is very different from believing the truth unrighteously, or turning truth into a lie, and embracing (holding onto, and living out) that unrighteousness. (An example of this unrighteousness would be:  "God has said in His Word that He hates divorce,  that means He doesn't desire a person to put away their happiness by continuing in a dead-end marriage.")  So then, apart from His 'image' God has provided a way wherewith the ungodly are without excuse for their actions--not because the truth that they see is not understandable, but because they hold that truth in unrighteousness, even denying God had anything to do with the truth that they see.  The key is whether God is 'glorified as God,' or whether they are 'thankful' for what they see.  The image of God in man would reflect both of these.  Romans 1:17 reveals, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed (I believe this to be another phrase for the image of God in man) from faith to faith: as it is written,  The just shall live by faith."

In conclusion, the 'conscience' is not the image of God because it is a created thing, but it should reflect God's image, which it cannot do apart from faith.  Nor because man is 'conscious' has he the image of God--for he is either conscious of God or consciously denying He exists.

WAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INSTITUTED BECAUSE OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN EVERY MAN?

"God gave Noah the command concerning capital punishment after the fall which demonstrates that we still exist in the image of God but in rebellion and therefore spiritually dead.  Thus 1 Cor.15.45-49 differentiates between the present corrupted and future perfected image of God within us.  Similarly, Rom.8.29 speaks of the sanctifying process resulting in a restored perfected image which will be ours ultimately in our glorified state."

1 Cor. 15:45-49 is speaking of the future resurrection.  It certainly speaks of the difference in our natural bodies and the spiritual ones to come.  But it is not speaking of the 'image of God' now and then.  It differentiates the image of the earthy and natural from that of the heavenly.  The image of the earthy cannot be restated to say the image of God of the earthy --but in fact says we are all natural and earthy right now, and as Scripture explains, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."  Nowhere does this text teach that the corrupt carry the image of the heavenly!

"Being conformed to the image of His Son" is a sanctifying process resulting in a restored perfected state in glory.  Where does this process begin?  Does it begin in every human being, lying dormant until God causes it to begin growing? No, not in every human being but, "whom He did foreknow (the loved of God from eternity), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."  This tells me there is an appointed time that this process begins and only those who are God's elect can begin to be conformed to God's image.  They have a beginning point at regeneration (regeneration being God generating the dead spirit to life again which was lost in Adam, and restoring His image by the Holy Spirit within-- which was gained in Christ).  To the rest, their spirits are dead in Adam forever.

Noah, the only survivor of God's wrath against evil, was given direct laws concerning the new world.  Murder must have been commonly committed in the pre-deluvian world--an inference I make based upon the very first 'law' given afterwards.  In order to insure that it would not get to that level of intensity again God told Noah that: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed..." ³⁷ It seemed that now God was handing over to man the awesome responsibility of executing justice for those who would break the law.  And Scripture goes on to say, "...for in the image of God made he man".  Notice that this phrase is said in the past-tense.  He had made Adam with His image, also with freedom to destroy it, which Adam did.   Now only God could restore that image, which He did in Christ.  All who are included under the Covenant would be a part of that restoration. Noah was a part of that restoration and he would be reflecting God's image in the keeping of God's law, and as God's executioner. It is reasonable to believe this since the statement about the image is connected to the law to execute.  According to God's new law, murderers would need to be destroyed. .  This statement doesn't mean that execution must be done for the sake of justice, or for the sake of the image bearers, or for society in general--though it does benefit these areas.  The executioner is called to occupy that position for God's sake and in obedience to Him.  The fact that man has fallen and that apart from the grace of God in Christ Jesus it has become utterly impossible to obey God's law does not change the obligation to the law of God one iota.  It is a divine ordinance given by our sovereign God.  This is another reason why the ungodly are without excuse.  These things are clearly revealed in Scripture, and unbelief does not make the truth of Scripture of no effect.³⁸  This is also why, in our day and age, capital punishment is not considered the right thing to do, because God's law no longer determines man-made law.³⁹ With this progressive new thought on law we are to believe the inherent good in man (or that remnant of God's image) should not be put to death, but reformed.  Because (as man has always thought) the blame is not with man, but his environment and society. This erroneous way of thinking is the reason we see murder and other similar violence so rampant  And this is one of the reasons I take the unpopular view of the image of God in man.

In conclusion, God gave Noah the command concerning capital punishment after the flood--because of the sin of murder, and since only God's elect would carry his image, since they would have to live among those who didn't--God established a judgment that murderers would need to be put to death. And this law was established first of all to the glory of God's justice, secondly, for the sake of God's Covenant with His elect  who alone reflect His image.

DOES MAN'S INTELLECT REFLECT THE IMAGE OF GOD?

"Eph. 4.17-24 speaks very well to this corrupted nature in a moral and spiritual sense.  Clearly the ignorance referred to is spiritual and not intellectual.  The fallen mind is still capable of putting a man on the moon and is therefore not ignorant in the general sense.  Col. 3.10 talks of a new self and a new mind which is the same idea of renewal spoken of in Ro. 12.2.  This new mind does not result in one suddenly being able to figure out the theory of relativity, but in being able to correctly interpret and respond to moral and spiritual input."

In one of my letters I had explained what I believed Scripture further interpreted concerning the image of God.  The above was the response.  Eph. 4:17-24 says, "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:  Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.  But ye have not so learned Christ;  If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;  And  be renewed in the spirit of your mind;  And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."  The question is not whether man is so ignorant that he cannot put a man on the moon, or whether he is ignorant of spiritual things, but whether he has the image of God in either one of these.  It is clear that man's intellect can put men in space, and certainly true that God gave them this intellect.  But again "knowledge, or any other thing proceeding not from an heart purified by faith; nor done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end--the glory of God; are therefore sinful."⁴⁰

In this day and age, it is tremendously offensive to suggest that someone who does something wonderful, with the best intentions, cannot please God merely because that person is not one of His own.⁴¹   Such was the case in God's past providential dealings with many people.  Cain is a good example.  He was a good farmer.  His wheat and fruit were good, so good, that he thought to offer them to God as a sacrifice of his hard labor.  "But unto Cain and to his offering, He (God) had not respect."⁴²  Why?  Because Cain had no faith.  "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts."⁴³  A  New Testament example further explains, "Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."⁴⁴

Col.3:10, "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him."  This verse  teaches without a doubt that in order to have the image of the One that created you, you must become a new man renewed in knowledge.  This knowledge is the intimate knowledge of God.  It does not teach, nor do any others, that man is not capable of figuring out the theory of relativity without the image of God in him.  Both believer and unbeliever may very well be able to do exactly the same intelligent things, however, one reflects God in his doing, the other does not.  One acts soberly, according as God hath dealt to him a measure of faith.⁴⁵ The other has left off to be wise, and to do good.⁴⁶ It is the ability to correctly interpret and respond to moral and spiritual input that reflects God, not putting man on the moon or figuring out the theory of relativity.  The latter is a created mind able to think things out in a natural way,  the former is 'the mind of Christ'.⁴⁷

Again, let me quote the Westminster Confession:  "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls (these set us apart from the animals, j.t.), endued with knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, after his own image..."⁴⁸ (These set believers apart from unbelievers).  One may be quick to point out that reasonable and immortal souls are the part that remained after the fall and are the remnant of the image of God, though sinful.  But I believe it is these parts 'endued' with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness that make up the image of God,⁴⁹ and are the very parts that lose the image of God after the fall.  We are made special in the sense that we are the very vessels which God endues His characteristics.  However, without His image we are just 'empty' vessels--good for only dishonorable use.⁵⁰

IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN AND CHRIST JESUS WHO 'IS' THE IMAGE OF GOD?

In regard to II Cor. 4:3-6, the context is such that Christ is being referred to as the image of God in the same way as Col.1.15, 19 where we're told that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ.  A distinction is made therefore between the image of God as 'reflected' in man and Christ Jesus who 'is' the image of God.  That's the whole thrust of Paul's argument in II Cor. 4.6 where we have the "knowledge of God in the face of Jesus."

The statement above could have been written by me, except for the distinction being made.  I see no distinction.  If Jesus 'is' the image of God, then, I understand it to mean that only those 'in' Jesus can have that image.  And it is that 'express image' to which we are being conformed.

 IS THE IMAGE OF GOD WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THE COMMON  BEAST?

Let me quote Calvin, "...the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals.  Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker.  And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine.  It is certain that in every part of the world some lineaments of divine glory are beheld; and hence we may infer, that when His image is placed in man, there is every kind of tacit antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and exalting him above all other creatures."  And further on, "It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God.  Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and therefore, our deliverance begins with the renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity." (Institutes, 1.164).

I take from this, that Calvin extends to the image of God in man, in its general sense, all things which differentiate man from a beast.  And that in the fall, although this image was radically corrupted, some dreadful remnant of it remains.  This remnant is utterly void of any moral integrity (true righteousness and holiness) and is therefore the focus of our deliverance in that it is renovated by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and in conformity to the will of the Father.  Calvin uses the word, 'renovation', which brings to my mind the picture of a derelict house.  There the house stands, but it is condemned, uninhabitable, boarded-up, ruined, totally unable to be a home and destined for destruction from the wrecking ball.  And yet in this hopelessly ruined state, one could still view it and recognize that it was once a house and, in that sense, see something of its former glory.  Now along comes the renovator, who for his purposes and by his will alone, determines to restore the home and, through the process of renovation, brings it back to its former glory.

I had quoted Calvin in one of my letters in which he commented on Eph.4:24, "Adam was at first created in the image of God, so that he might reflect, as in a mirror, the righteousness of God.  But that image, having been wiped out by sin, must now be restored in Christ.  The regeneration of the godly is indeed, as is said in II Cor.3:18, nothing else than the reformation of the image of God in them.  But there is a far more rich and powerful grace of God in this second creation than in the first.  Yet Scripture only considers that our highest perfection consists in our conformity and resemblance to God.  Adam lost the image which he had originally received, therefore it is necessary that the design in regeneration is to lead us back from error to that end for which we were created."⁵¹

All this bandying about really gets confusing, which is a good reason to stick to Scripture on these matters.  But I take the above to mean just what it says--The image of God was wiped out by sin, and is only restored in Christ.  Calvin said it is nothing short of the (reformation of the image of God in man.  It was formed there to begin with, disappeared with the Fall, was formed again in Christ.  Our highest perfection consists in our conformity and resemblance to God.  This I have conceded from the beginning.  Scripture does not back up the 'general sense' of the image of God being 'man is different from the beast.'  Man's 'position' in creation does not teach that he has the image of God.  God's declaration that man has dominion over beasts does not teach that man has the image of God.  When God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness--that statement taught us that the image of God consisted in being like God.  Not that we become God, but that we reflect his characteristics.  Scripture specifically mentions  holiness, righteousness,  and knowledge in connection with His image.⁵²  If we go further than that, we chance man's interpretation.⁵³

Outside of these characteristics I grant that both man and animals, and all of God's creation reflect rays of glory in God's creative abilities.  Man is not more glorious in substance than any other of God's creation.    If substance reflects God's image, then all of God's creation has the image of God reflected in it.  Everything about creation reflects^{54 55 56} the full scope of who God is, and in that respect images, or reflects His powerful Being.  But this is reversed from what we are discussing.  We are discussing how man distinctly, apart from God's other creation, is in His  image.  In opposition to this way of thinking, it seems God wanted to let us know that we--in sin--are no different than any of his other creation when He compares us with it. Recall a few  of those similes?  We are as/like grasshoppers, filthy rags, leaves and grass that fade, briers and thorn hedges, worms,⁵⁷ brute beasts,⁵⁸ sons of the Devil,⁵⁹ to name a few.

In the analogy of the derelict house, I find the age-old problem of the difference in viewing man from man's perspective, or from God's.  From man's perspective, we look at the derelict house and see that it is still a house, and we can imagine its former glory.  Nor can we know whether or not the renovator will come and restore it; he could if it is His will.  However, we are told in Scripture what God's perspective is.  For example, we are told, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."⁶⁰  The opposite of that statement would be--the house that is dissolved without being one of God's will leave nothing.  Another example is the Potter and the clay.  Out of the same lump He makes one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor.⁶¹  In Job, I found the truest analogy of God's perspective, "Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:  How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?  They are destroyed from morning to evening:  they perish for ever without any regarding it."⁶²  And in another place, "The Lord casteth away the substance of the wicked."⁶³ In God's judgment it is not the housing that matters, for we are all deteriorating because of sin, even after regeneration.  It is the foundation that we are built upon that is the key, "But the righteous have an everlasting foundation."⁶⁴  The Job portion of Scripture spoke of the derelict house being built upon the dust.  I Cor. 3:10 also speaks of the importance of the foundation, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."  If that derelict house is sitting on a solid foundation, though it be derelict for a time, the Master builder will be by to renovate it in His time.  But of the rest God says they have no foundation,⁶⁵ and they perish forever without any regarding it.

WHAT PART OF US IMAGES GOD?

Let's follow your statements to their logical conclusion and please correct me if I have wrongly interpreted anything you've said.  You state that from your understanding of Eph. 4:24 and Col.3:10 that absolutely nothing remains of the image of God in unregenerate man.  You also state a point of common ground between us which is that man is born with a natural disposition, an 'old man.'  Thus I am driven to the conclusion, from your assertions, that at regeneration, there is imputed or created within man a new nature which either replaces the old nature or coexists with it (you used the word 'amends', which I don't think is consistent with your argument, but if it is the word you want, then what is it amended to?) but since this newly created nature is from God, it must be perfect and therefore not in need of sanctification.  Since your 'old man' possesses no remnant of the image of God, then it is incapable of being sanctified and we're left with a kind of spiritual standoff  between the two natures.  One might argue (as the dispensationalist do) that it is the Holy Spirit who causes the new nature to win over the old nature.  I'm sure you'll agree that this line of reasoning provides the (incorrect) rationalization for the whole idea of the so-called carnal Christian who maintains that he's a Christian, but that his behavior is simply his old nature asserting itself and that he hasn't totally 'surrendered.'  This, of course, immediately opens the door to the heresy of antinomianism (people who sin that grace may abound-jt), which I know you don't support.  However, back to the old man; if on the other hand, it's destroyed, then the individual has a perfect nature, since it was imputed by God.  But that doesn't wash because we know that we're in a constant state of sanctification.

Using the example of the house, if there's nothing at all there to renovate, then the builder absolutely destroys and removes the wreckage (he needs the space) and builds a perfectly glorious new home which requires no further work.  If the brand new house is the regenerated Christian, then he's 'arrived' and is in need of no further sanctification, which we know is not so.

There were so many assertions being made in the above statement it was difficult for me to follow.  But taking it a step at a time I believe I can answer the questions, and counteract the assumptions.  The first part, where he follows my conclusions to their logical end, was a correct interpretation.  His conclusions to my assertions got off a bit, which normally happens in written conversations;  you just can't know exactly where a person is coming from without the benefit of further, and deeper, explanation.

I emulated the language of Scripture which says, "Wherefore if any man be in Christ, he is a 'new creature':  old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."⁶⁶  The Greek of the word 'creature' reads 'creation', therefore we are a new creation.  And again in Rom.6:6,  "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."  Also, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."⁶⁷  What is this new creature if not what it says?  It is not the natural flesh, mind, and heart we were born with, but the new disposition gained by being given the Holy Spirit, thereby being made capable of reflecting the image of God.

My words being commented on in the next step were these:  Eph.4:24 and Col.3:10 plainly state what that image consists of;  righteousness, true holiness, and renewed knowledge.  In those passages the gist is regaining these perfections through regeneration.  If we had God's image in our unregenerated, rational thought processes and creative, communicative, introspective, and interpersonal activities, then why are we told to lay these, and all parts of our old nature, aside, and put off the old man?⁶⁸  "The old man, as taught in the sixth chapter of Romans, and other passages, means the natural disposition which we bring from our mother's womb.  In two persons, Adam and Christ, Paul describes to us what may be called two natures.  As we are first born of Adam, the depravity of nature, which we derive from him, is called the old man; and as we are born again in Christ, the amendment of this sinful nature is called the new man.  In a word, he who wishes to put off the old man must renounce his old nature."⁶⁹

The use of the word 'amendment' seems to have caused confusion, but again, societal use of certain words weaken over time.  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines 'amendment' starting with the weaker, and most popular description:  A change for the better (in our case this wouldn't work, for if we are changing for the better, that could mean we started out with something--we didn't, only Adam did), improvement (has the same connotations, improving something denotes a possible good to begin with, it's just being made better--this of course is out).  Definitions #2, 3, and 4 fit better with what is being conveyed:  2.  A correction (which we definitely need because what we have has gone totally wrong), 3.  A  revision or change (which is exactly what I mean), 4.  A formal statement of such a change (which is exactly what I am making).  In going back to the root of the word 'amend' I found it means 'to free from faults', or, 'removal, out of defect, fault'.⁷⁰  The original etymology of this word fits clearly with what has been stated in the word 'amend'. So obviously words can mean many different things, especially passing through time in the American language.  In fact words--or the definition of the  image of God--are the very things under consideration between two people who have basically the same theological beliefs.  However, having said that, we may not use man's idea of word definitions if and when they do not line up with Scripture, which is God's definitive standard.

Let's go back to the question, 'What is our old nature amended to?'  Well, I have been saying that our old nature is amended (or changed, as we are born again in Christ) to the new man.  I've had an illustration of this written in my Bible for many years, I think it is from Augustine: