AUTONOMOUS MAN?: Part Two
Posted: October 31, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Anthropology Leave a commentMan As Image
As was mentioned above, the doctrine of man is critical to understanding the doctrine of God, and in fact they must complement each other. For example, one cannot hold to the autonomy of man and still have a sovereign God, but I am getting ahead of myself. So the doctrine of man is crucial to understanding God. Where then do we begin to develop a doctrine of man? Again, the starting point for discovering the nature of man will be in unison with the starting point for discovering the nature God, namely the Holy Word of God. Cornelius VanTil writes:
The doctrine of Scripture as self-attesting presupposes that whatsoever comes to pass in history materializes by virtue of the plan and counsel of the living God. If everything happens by virtue of the plan of God, then all created reality, every aspect of it, is inherently revelational of God and of his plan. All facts of history are what they are ultimately because of what God intends and makes them to be. Even that which is accomplished in human history through the instrumentality of men still happens by virtue of the plan of God. God tells the stars by their names. He identifies by complete description. He knows exhaustively. He knows exhaustively because he controls completely.[1]
Thus, the only way to understand man is to understand him in relation to his place in the plan of God. For brevity sake, we will then begin with the presupposition that everything necessary for man to know about himself and God can be found in the revelation of God. Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that man was the hallmark of God’s creation.[2] In the last act of creation, God being in perfect Triune counsel with Himself created man in His likeness and image. Historically, many have split hairs over the distinction between image and likeness[3] First, we know that repetitions were common among the Hebrews, in which they express one thing twice; then in the things itself there is no ambiguity, simply man is called God’s image because he is like God. Accordingly, those who thus philosophize more subtly over these terms appear to be ridiculous.”[4] but Calvin helps to shed on this matter when he writes, “there is no slight quarrel over ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ when interpreters seek a nonexistent difference between these two words, except that ‘likeness’ has been added by way of explanation.
The question we then need to ask ourselves is not what is the distinction between image and likeness, but rather what does it mean to be created in the image of God? In answering this question we in turn will be laying the foundation for developing our entire theology. As such, the answer to this question is the logical antecedent to every one which follows. I cannot over emphasize this point enough. Your doctrine of man will determine your doctrine of the Fall and sin, the current state of man, man’s abilities to use his capacities, and most importantly it will determine the way one sees the person and work of Christ and the weight placed on the atonement.
As with many theological issues the Bible doesn’t explicitly state all of the attributes of man which represent God’s image. As such, several differing opinions have emerged as to what the image of God in man is. Not surprisingly, it would appear that these would fall on denominational lines. Although it is important to understand the different positions[5] it is more important to understand that there are really only two: Reformed and not Reformed. Cornelius VanTil helps to shed light on this mater when he writes, “We refer now to those Protestants who are usually spoken of as evangelicals as distinct from those who embrace the Reformed Faith. Under the term evangelicals we include all those who hold to the Remonstrant or Arminian view of man in his relation to God. We include also Lutherans. To be sure, Lutherans are not by any means to be identified as Arminian in every respect. But on the point at issue their view is basically the same as that of the Arminians. The point is that both Arminians and Lutherans maintain that man has a measure of ultimacy or autonomy. In this respect they resemble the Roman Catholics.”[6]
The Reformed view of the image of God in man is separate and distinct from these other views in that it approaches the Bible holistically, and as such is able to reap a fuller picture of God’s divine revelation. Where the Lutherans would claim that image is completely lost and would point to such passages as 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:24, and Colossians 3:10 the Roman Catholics and Pelagians would point to passages such as Genesis 5:1, 9:6, Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9 indicating that image was retained. The Reformed however, sees both the image of God in man both retained and lost. Herman Bavinck writes:
As a rule, however, Reformed theologians continued to speak of the image of God in broader and narrower sense. In Holy Scripture they read that man, on the one hand, is still called the image of God after the fall and should be respected as such (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9); and that, on the other hand, he had nevertheless lost the primary content of the image of God (i.e., knowledge, righteousness, holiness) and only regains these qualities in Christ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). By observing this distinction in Scripture and incorporating it in their theology, Reformed theologians have maintained the bond between the physical and ethical nature of man, and thereby also at this point (the relation between nature and grace) kept themselves from falling into various errors. Soon an additional distinction arose that was especially worked out in the doctrine of the covenant of works. This distinction answered the question what Adam had to become, not what Adam was. It is only in these three areas, the image of God in broad sense, the image of God in the narrow sense, and the development or distinction of the image of God – that is, in the doctrine of the covenant of works – that the locus of the image of God can be treated to the full extent.[7]
Only in understanding the image of God in man in the broader and narrower sense through the working of the covenant of works can we properly understand the effects of the Fall and the nature of the atonement. In order to fully understand this point we must then turn our attention to Adam’s sin.
[1] Cornelius VanTil, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Phillipsburg, (N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969), 28.
[2] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
[3] The early Church Fathers were quite agreed that the image of God in man consisted primarily in man’s rational and moral characteristics, and in his capacity for holiness; but some were inclined to include also bodily traits. Irenaeus and Tertullian drew a distinction between the image and the likeness of God, finding the former in bodily traits, and the latter in the spiritual nature of man. Clement of Alexandria and Origin, however, rejected the idea of any bodily analogy, and held the word “image” denoted the characteristics of man as man, and the word “likeness,” qualities which are not essential to man, but may be cultivated or lost. This view was also found in Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and John of Damascus. According to Pelagius and his followers the image consisted merely of this, that man was endowed with reason, so that he could know God; with free will, so that he was able to choose and do the good; and the necessary power to rule the lower creation. The distinction already made between image and likeness of God, was continued by the Scholastics, though it was not always expressed in the same way. Ibid., (Berhof), 202.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John McNeill. (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2006, vol. 1), 35, 187-188.
[5] There are three major positions that should be mentioned: Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Pelagian.
The Lutheran conception of the image of God differs materially from that of the Reformed. Luther himself sometimes spoke as if he had a broad conception of it, in reality he had a restricted view of it. While there were during the seventeenth century, and there are even now, some Lutheran theologians who have a broader conception of the image of God, the great majority of them restrict it to the spiritual qualities with which man was originally endowed, that is, what is called original righteousness. In doing this they do not sufficiently recognize the essential nature of man as distinct from that of the animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference between the two lay in the image of God, and this man has lost entirely. In view of this it is also natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man originates like that of the animal, that is, by procreation. It also accounts for the fact that the Lutherans hardly recognize the moral unity of the human race, but emphasize strongly its physical unity and the exclusively physical propagation of sin. Ibid., (Berkhof), 208.
Roman Catholics hold that God at creation endowed man with certain natural gifts, such as the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the immortality of the body. Spirituality, freedom, and immortality, are natural endowments, and as such constitute the natural image of God. Moreover, God “attempted” (adjusted) the natural powers of man to one another, placing the lower in due subordination to the higher. The harmony thus established is called justitia – natural righteousness. But even so there remained in man a natural tendency of the lower appetites and passions to rebel against the authority of the higher powers of reason and conscience. This tendency, called concupiscence, is not itself sin, but becomes sin when it is consented to by the will and passes into voluntary action. In order to enable man to hold his lower nature in check, God added to the dona naturalia certain dona supernaturalia. These included the donum superadditum of original righteousness (the supernatural likeness to God), which was added as a foreign gift to the original constitution of man, either immediately at the time of creation, or at some later point as a reward for the proper use of the natural powers. These supernatural gifts, including the donum superadditum of original righteousness, were lost by sin, but their loss did not disrupt the essential nature of man. Ibid., (Berkhof), 208.
The image of God, Pelagius taught, consists only in a neutral God-given possibility of perfection, which cannot be lost and is therefore still a part of every human being. God bestows the ability (posse), but the will (ville) is up to us. Later, this view found acceptance among the Socinians, who located the image of God solely in human dominion over nature; among the Anabaptists, who said that as a finite earthly creature man was not yet the image of God but could only realize that status by a rebirth; among the Remonstrants, the Rationalists, and the Supernaturalists, and numerous modern theologians, all of whom saw the state of integrity as a state of childlike innocence. As a rule these theologians still hold to the historical reality of such an original state. But in their view of the image of God in the first humans they materially agreee totally with those who, detaching the idea from the fact, deny the reality of integrity locate the image of God solely in man’s free personality, his rational or moral nature, in a religious-ethical bent, in man’s vocation to enter communion with God. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt. trans. John Vriend, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004, vol. 2), 534-35.
Gospel-Centered Musings 