Human Agents Made in the Image of God

Author(s):  
William J. Abraham

Theological anthropology addresses two central issues: what it is to be made in the image of God and what it is to be fallen creatures. Human agents are extraordinarily complex creatures; being made in the image of God means that they mirror the agency of God in exercising certain powers in the service of creation. An account of the human being in the image of God requires that we think of the human being as an agent. With that account in place, we can identify the relevant features of the human being as bearer of the divine image. There are deep consequences to this vision of human beings and the loss of this vision tends to lead to unwelcome ontological and moral mistakes.

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Lucas F. MATEO-SECO

Gregory of Nisa was one of the most cultivated men of the fourth century. He reflects the advances that had been made concerning the concept of the person and his/her relatioship with nature. In Gregory’s view, the dignity of the human person is grounded on the fact that the person is the image and likeness of God. This is equivalent to stating that the human being has attributes which no one may deprive him/her of; prominent among these is freedom, which is the crowning glory of his/her personal being, as he/she was made in the image of God, who is a-déspotos, that is, has no master. Rejection of slavery, together with firm defense of parrhesia (freedom of speech), is one of the most suitable perspectives for evaluating Gregory’s concept of human nature and the dignity of the person. Gregory discusses this subject in several places. Here we shall confine our survey to the most important ones: Homily IV On Ecclesiastes, the treatise On the origin of man, and the Great catechetical discourse. According to Gregory, freedom was given to human beings so that they could participate in the divine good. Gregory supported his arguments on the thinking insipired by Plato in which virtue is essentially free and voluntary, and so freedom is an attribute of the dignity of the person that cannot be relinquished.


Perichoresis ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-96
Author(s):  
Gijsbert van den Brink ◽  
Aza Goudriaan

Abstract One of the less well-researched areas in the recent renaissance of the study of Reformed orthodoxy is anthropology. In this contribution, we investigate a core topic of Reformed orthodox theological anthropology, viz. its treatment of the human being as created in the image of God. First, we analyze the locus of the imago Dei in the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625). Second, we highlight some shifts of emphasis in Reformed orthodox treatments of this topic in response to the budding Cartesianism. In particular, the close proximity of the unfallen human being and God was carefully delineated as a result of Descartes’s positing of a univocal correspondence between God and man; and the Cartesian suggestion that original righteousness functioned as a barrier for certain natural impulses, was rejected. Third, we show how, in response to the denial of this connection, the image of God was explicitly related to the concept of natural law. Tying in with similar findings on other loci, we conclude that Reformed orthodox thought on the imago Dei exhibits a variegated pattern of extensions, qualifications, and adjustments of earlier accounts within a clearly discernable overall continuity.


2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Riaan Rheeder

God did not create once and then put an end to it. Testimony from Scripture shows that God continuously establishes or creates new things. Humans can therefore expect to always see and experience new things in creation. With this pattern of reasoning, one can anticipate that the human being as image of God will continuously establish new things in history. Although nature has value, it does not have absolute value and therefore it can be synthesised responsibly. The thought that humans are stewards of God is no longer adequate to, theologically put into words, the relationship human beings have with nature. New biotechnological developments ask for different answers from Scripture. Several ethicists are of the opinion that the theological construction of humans and created co-creators can help found the relationship of the human being to nature. Humans developed as God’s image evolutionary. On the one hand, this means humans themselves are a product of nature. On the other hand, the fact that humans are the image of God is also an ethical call that humans, like God, have to develop and create new things throughout history. Synthetic biology can be evaluated as technology that is possible, because humans are the image of God. However, it should, without a doubt, be executed responsibly.Sintetiese biologie eties geëvalueer: Die skeppende God en medeskeppende mens. God het nie net eenmaal geskep en daar gestop nie. Uit Skrifgetuienisse kan afgelei word dat God voortdurend nuwe dinge tot stand bring of skep. Daarom kan die mens verwag om gedurig nuwe dinge in die skepping te sien en te beleef. Hiermee saam kan verwag word dat die mens as beeld van God voortdurend nuwe dinge in die geskiedenis tot stand sal bring. Alhoewel die natuur waarde het, het dit nie absolute waarde nie en kan dus verantwoordelik gesintetiseer word. Die gedagte dat die mens rentmeester van God is, is nie meer voldoende om die mens se verhouding tot die natuur teologies te verwoord nie. Nuwe biotegnologiese ontwikkelinge vra na ander antwoorde vanuit die Skrif. Verskeie etici is van mening dat die teologiese konstruksie van die mens as geskepte medeskepper kan help om die mens se verhouding tot die natuur te begrond. Die mens het deur ’n evolusionêre proses tot God se beeld ontwikkel. Aan die een kant beteken dit dat die mens self ’n produk van die natuur is. Aan die ander kant is beeldskap ook ’n etiese oproep dat die mens, soos God, nuwe dinge in die geskiedenis moet ontwikkel en skep. Sintetiese biologie kan gesien word as tegnologie wat moontlik is omdat die mens na die beeld van God geskape is. Sonder twyfel moet sintetiese biologie egter verantwoordelik beoefen word.


Author(s):  
Alan L. Mittleman

Using the motif of the image of God as an organizing principle, this chapter shows how Jewish sources address such issues as mind/body dualism, body and soul, the relation of human nature to animal nature, sexuality, birth and death, vulnerability and dependence, and violence and evil as well as selfhood and the relations among rationality, emotion, desire, and imagination. Classical Jewish thought assumes and propagates dichotomies: human beings are bodies and souls, male and female; a little lower than the angels, but not much higher than the animals; descended from a common father and mother, yet divided into nations and races; biologically the same, though unique in their individuality; and a part of nature, yet possessing a power to remake both nature and themselves. Underlying the dichotomies is a basic Jewish commitment. Human beings are made in the image of God, and therefore possess intrinsic and undeniable worth. The idea of an image of God has an ethical function. It integrates human nature into personhood and gives persons an ethical orientation.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-261
Author(s):  
ALBERT S. CALLIE

To the Editor.— Singer, in his article "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?" (Pediatrics 1983;72:128-129) has rejected the "sanctity-of-life view"—as he defines it. He calls it "the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life." He states that "the philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder." He adds "We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God."


2003 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-125
Author(s):  
Anja Stokholm

Om forholdet mellem skabelse og syndefald hos Grundtvig og Luther[Grundtvig and Luther: on the Relationship Between Creation and Fall]By Anja StokholmTheologically speaking, two circumstances determine human life: on the one side, Creation and the creativity of God, on the other the Fall of Man and human sinfulness. Because God’s good creation is continuous, a positive understanding of the status and existence of natural Man is possible; but because Man is fallen and sin destroys creation, a negative perception of human life must also be acknowledged. Useful comparison may be made between the ideas of Grundtvig and Luther on this ambiguous relationship. One may ask of each: was the image of God in Man destroyed at the Fall or does the likeness of God remain a reality even in the fallen human being? Is it possible for natural Man to understand the Gospel and the Christian life? Can the understanding of the Gospels only have a negative character because it is reached from out of consciousness of sin; or can this understanding have a positive character because, sin notwithstanding, momentary experiencing of the truth of the Gospels may be granted? Are the views of Grundtvig and Luther too divergent to be reconciled?Regin Prenter maintained that their two positions closely corresponded, arguing that Grundtvig consistently developed Luther’s reformatory principles rejecting the possibility of human beings gaining justice or salvation by their own merit, and thereby also accepted that only in consciousness of the fallen condition of the world, the subverted nature of humanity, and sin, could the Gospel’s promises be received. Prenter’s harmonisation of Grundtvig and Luther, however, gives insufficient weight to the differences. Luther contends that the image of God in Man is lost, that Man is wholly sinful and unjustified; that just as inward spirit and outward flesh are discrete and cannot mix so are the justified and the unjustified states; and it follows that the unjustified human being is to be perceived a flesh alone. In so far as continuous creation, and manifestations of the positive such as the human capacity to recognise and comply with the demands of the law, are to be found in the world, these arise not from the inner resources of human beings but from the unmerited gift of God.Grundtvig too emphasises the seriousness and destructive nature of sin; but he insists that a remnant of the image of God persists in humanity - for instance in Man’s capacity to live in faith, hope and love, and to nurture the Word (that is, speech); and that its manifestation is a token of God’s continuing, and good, creation. Crucially important is Grundtvig’s conception that the image of God is located in the human heart, for this implies that goodness and the positive phenomena of creation express human life and nature in their true and proper form, and thus Grundtvig is able to identify natural human life, governed by the heart, as a positive context within which the word of the Gospel is indeed comprehensible. In differentiation, then, from Luther, Grundtvig maintains that natural Man also has a spirit and can be the agent of love and of goodness.Is this position incompatible with Luther’s doctrine on justification? Does the notion of goodness imply that Man can and must contribute to his own salvation? Grundtvig is careful to maintain that positive qualities such as love and goodness are a creation of God in Man, not an autonomous human achievement; and that the grace of God’s continuing creation in Man does not render salvation unnecessary. Man still needs the redeeming creation of Christ.Thus there are considerable differences between Grundtvig and Luther; but Grundtvig’s ideas are to be seen as a renewal and an independent continuation of Luther’s principal doctrine: that God alone can accomplish salvation. Yet acknowledgement and awareness of the differences, which arise in part through the different times and circumstances in which these independent thinkers worked, is conducive to a productive dialogue between the two.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich H.J. Körtner

All the medical and bioethical questions, ranging from stem cell research to converging technologies and synthetic biology, touch on the question regarding the image of human beings and their position in the cosmos, by which we are able to orient ourselves. This article argues that the biblical belief in creation and the discourse about humans as created beings by and in the image of God can still be proclaimed as a viable form of human self-interpretation in the present. The distinction between practical knowledge and knowledge of orientation may be of help here. Guidance for how to live and act is not best found in abstract principles, but rather in meaningful stories, in metaphors and symbols. On this level, too, is also where faith in creation and the certainty of our own creatureliness is located.Contribution: This article interprets the doctrine of creation by a hermeneutical theology. It analyses the interdependence between hermeneutics and criticism in the process of reinterpreting the classical propositions about the human being and the world as God’s creation and the relation of anthropology and ethics. The aim is to show what might be the contribution of Christian faith in creation to the approach of an ethics of responsibility in the field of bioethics and ecology. The specific contribution of this article to current debates on an ethics of creation is the thesis that the key to a well-balanced theological approach to all this is the Pauline doctrine of justification as interpreted by the protestant reformers.


Author(s):  
Timothy Larsen ◽  
Daniel J. King

This chapter argues that classic Christian theological anthropology has emphasized that all human beings are part of the one human family descending from Adam and Eve, created in the image of God, yet fallen and sinful. These beliefs have been traditionally expounded with reference to Genesis 1–3. Sociocultural anthropologists, in contrast, have often prided themselves on shedding Christian beliefs. The Genesis narrative, in particular, has been the object of attacks. Nevertheless, when some nineteenth-century freethinking anthropologists argued that belief in the monogenesis of the human race was just the result of the influence of an erroneous Judeo-Christian myth, the discipline weeded such thinking out of its midst. Thus, even as it sidelined Christianity, orthodox anthropology from the founding of the discipline to the present has affirmed the doctrine of the psychic unity of humankind. This essay argues that this foundational conviction of anthropology is informed by Christian thought.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Marais

In Princeton theologian Van Huyssteen’s (2006) major interdisciplinary work, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, human uniqueness is rhetorically coupled with human aloneness. A comparison with a contemporary theological anthropology, namely Yale theologian Kelsey’s (2009) Eccentric Existence: A Theological Anthropology, shows an alternative approach to the notion or concept of the imago Dei, namely a theological shift from viewing human beings as image(s) of God, to viewing human beings as images of Christ, or images of the image of God. This contribution responds to the invitation implied in Van Huyssteen’s book title – are we alone in the world? – by exploring some of the rhetorical implications of a Christological interpretation of the imago Dei. One such implication may imply a different answer to Van Huyssteen’s question – are we alone in the world?; not yes, but no. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of Christ’s promeity illustrates how the rhetorical dynamics behind such a move in response – from yes to no – may potentially look, and that a rearticulation of human uniqueness could have direct consequences for how we imagine our human aloneness in the world.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article contributes to a specifically intradisciplinary conversation in Systematic Theology, on reading and interpreting the notion or theological idea of human beings being created in the image of God. This article does this through a close reading and comparison of two interdisciplinary projects on what it means to be human, namely Van Huyssteen’s Alone in the World? and Kelsey’s Eccentric Existence.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Entwistle ◽  
Stephen K. Moroney

The field of psychology in general, and clinical psychology in particular, has historically focused on the things that go wrong in human behavior and functioning. Similarly, evangelical theology has traditionally highlighted the problem of sin and its wide-ranging consequences for human beings. Not surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to integrative efforts that concentrate on the darker side of human nature and tend to neglect what is admirable and noble in human nature. A case is made in this article that a more complete view is needed that celebrates humans’ positive features as creatures who bear the image of God, while simultaneously recognizing the pervasiveness of sin and its effects. After reviewing the one-sidedness of past integrative efforts, we suggest several possibilities for relating the image of God to findings within positive psychology, before concluding with some cautions for this new endeavor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document