Calvinism Defended:
The Image of God
By
This is the seventh section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected against Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
In this part of the exchange, Bill attempts to answer my request that I posed to him in my first e-mail response to him. I have provided the portion of my first e-mail response to Bill that contains my request. Bill's reply follows in red font, and then my reply to that is in blue font.
The reader will note that Bill doesn't come anywhere near doing what I asked him to do. Merely saying that the Bible maintains that man is created in the image of God hardly qualifies as a well reasoned, exegetical response that would suffice to deal with the many Scriptures involved in the topic, not to mention the complexities of the matter. And, as he did throughout his response, Bill conveyed a rather surprising unfamiliarity with the position he supposedly was objecting to. If one is going to object to a position, fine. At least know what that position teaches before you start objecting to it.
From My First E-mail:
...First, I take this mean that you do not agree with what I have written concerning God’s sovereignty, etc. (That’s okay, I just want to make sure that I am following you here). If you do disagree, then I would respectfully ask that you point out some specifics about what you disagree with, and provide a biblical response (instead of a purely philosophical one) that:
a. Establishes and proves your understanding of the nature of God and the nature man (i.e., his “freewill”),
Bill's Response: My
Biblical response: “Man was created in the image of God.”
Unlike the traducian theory, I
believe in the special creation of every human being so that even an unborn baby
can be filled with the Holy Ghost. Children are the Kingdom of God.
God is the Father of all spirits. The Father of your spirit was God not
Adam. You may claim linear decent from Adam’s DNA, but your spirit was created
by God. You were created in the
image of God, not totally depraved.
My Response:
First, your response does not do what I asked,
namely, establish your understanding of the nature of God and the nature of
man’s “freewill.” To say that
man is created in the image of God is great.
But, what does that mean in terms of his “freewill” as well as
God’s attributes (such as omniscience, for example), and how does one account
for the massive of volume of texts that speak of how the fall of Adam of Eve has
radically impacted that image? For
example, what we read about human nature after the fall is that we are “dead
in our trespasses and sin.” As a result, there is none righteous, no not one,
there is none that does good, no not one, there is none that seeks
God, no not one. But,
if I am following your logic here, if we are created in the image of God, then
that means we have the inherent ability to do good, to be righteous, to seek
God, to not be dead in our trespasses and sin, to not be slaves of sin, to not
possess a nature that is deceitful above things and desperately wicked.
What we find in Scripture is the exact opposite, as I have already
stated. Yes, we are created in the
image of God, but that image has become marred (not obliterated, as some in
their haste to overthrow Calvinism wrongly and unfairly say).
Second, the view you are describing is the view of creationism (as
opposed to traducianism and preexistence).
I know I probably do not need to mention this to you, but, since you
brought this up, I’m sure you realize that the view you hold to is the same
view held by Calvin and others. Here
is a blurb from an article on anthropology drawn from http://www.leaderu.com/isot/anthropology/lecture2.html
that may be of interest:
Creationism. Each soul is created by a special act of God (at conception or
birth).
Arguments for:
1.
Creationism reserves greater honor for God (humans are not viewed as
‘co-creators’).
2.
Christ did not inherit a sin nature (therefore the immaterial must be created
separately for each person).
3.
Traducianism might make procreation seem unholy. (So to preserve the Protestant
view of the sanctity of sex in marriage, we favor the Creationist view).
4.
This was the dominant view of the Eastern church, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, John
Calvin, and most Calvinists including Berkhof.
BERKHOF ARGUES FOR CREATIONISM
Note:
Louis Berkhof was a Reformed theologian who lived in early to mid
1900’s. His “Systematic
Theology” is still the standard for many seminarians (especially in the
Reformed camp).
Arguments in favor of Creationism. The following are the more important considerations in favor of this theory.
(1) It is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than
Traducianism. The original account of creation points to a marked distinction
between the creation of the body and that of the soul. The one is taken from the
earth, while the other comes directly from God. This distinction is kept up
throughout the Bible, where body and soul are not only represented as different
substances, but also as having different origins, Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 42:5; Zech.
12:1; Heb. 12:9. Cf. Num. 16:22. Of the passage in Hebrews even Delitzsch,
though a Traducianist, says, “There can hardly be a more classical proof text
for creationism.”
(2) It is clearly far more consistent with the nature of the human soul than
Traducianism. The immaterial and spiritual, and therefore indivisible nature of
the soul of man, generally admitted by all Christians, is clearly recognized by
Creationism. The traducian theory on the other hand, posits a derivation of
essence, which, as is generally admitted, necessarily implies separation or
division of essence.
(3) It avoids the pitfalls of Traducianism in Christology and does greater
justice to the Scriptural representation of the person of Christ. He was very
man, possessing a true human nature, a real body and a rational soul, was born
of woman, was made in all points like as we are—and yet, without sin. He did
not, like all other men, share in the guilt and pollution of Adam’s
transgression. This was possible, because he did not share the same numerical
essence which sinned in Adam. L.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 199.
Thus, your appeal, Bill, to
this as an argument against the Calvinistic view on the nature of man is a non
sequitur. Ironically, it could even be that you might actually find something
stated here that might be of use to you as you interact with others to prove the
creationist theory.
As
for the image of God, again, Reformed theology certainly teaches that man is
created in the image of God. As a
matter of fact, Louis Berkhof notes in his Systematic Theology that the “Reformed churches, following in the footsteps of Calvin, have a far
more comprehensive conception of the image of God than either the Lutherans or
the Roman Catholics.” (p. 206).
Berkhof describes the views held by church leaders in the first few
centuries of church history, and demonstrates that while there were distinctions
and differences among them on various aspects, there was an essential agreement
that the image of God “consisted
primarily in man’s rational and moral characteristics, and in his capacity for
holiness.” (p. 202).
Included on the list of those who held this view are Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and John
of Damascus. Please note, both
Latin and Greek fathers are on the list. The individual who dissented from this view was the man (a
Westerner no less) whom you seem to be staking an awful lot of clout on:
Pelagius. He held that the
image consisted merely in that man was endowed with reason and freewill and as
such was able to choose and do good. I
can accept what Pelagius said in terms of man being endowed with reason and free
will, however, I would add that our reason has been darkened, and our will is
enslaved to sin. We still choose
what we choose freely, however, the only thing we can freely choose is that
which is opposed to the ultimate spiritual good.
We cannot, as Pelagius maintained, and which Scripture repeatedly denies,
choose the ultimate spiritual good.
Here is a quote that Calvin
makes that both affirms this image, and kind of makes one wonder how Calvin
could ever be likened to a Gnostic:
“Man is both the image of
God and our flesh. Wherefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must
hold the person of man sacred—if we would not divest ourselves of humanity we
must cherish our own flesh. The practical inference to be drawn from the
redemption and gift of Christ will be elsewhere considered. The Lord has been
pleased to direct our attention to these two natural considerations as
inducements to watch over our neighbor’s preservation—viz. to revere the
divine image impressed upon him, and embrace our own flesh.” (Volume
2. Chapter 8: Exposition of the Moral Law).
Here is a link that has what Calvin taught concerning this, and his
refutation of, among other things, Manichaeism.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/cvin1-13.htm
Third, as for the power
of free will and the image of God, here is a direct quote from the Eastern
Orthodox Church (which you seem to be an advocate of, given the comments you
make later on in your response): “The
Orthodox Church believes that the corruption of the God-like image of man was
not complete, that man’s will became blurred, but did not disappear. Man’s
desire for salvation implies that man feels his inner emptiness and turns to God
for forgiveness and redemption.” http://paul.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp.
The statement here is in direct contradiction of the testimony of
Scripture. Whereas they say that
the corruption of the God-like image of man was not complete, Scripture
maintains otherwise, as I pointed out in the many texts I quoted earlier (and
there are many, many more that can be ushered in to demonstrate the point).
I would also add that in order for man to turn to God, he
must first be turned to God. And,
instead of his will being “blurred,” (where is that found in the Bible?),
the Bible describes man’s will (or, metaphorically, his vision) as blind. This
is always the problem with synergistic theologies; they still have man alive
in his trespasses and sin, where the Bible says he is dead.
They still have man hearing, while the
Bible’s picture is that he is deaf.
They give man a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone, and eyes that
are still providing vision (albeit blurred), while the Biblical picture is that
he is blind. In synergistic theologies, man is the determinative cause of
everything, to include salvation, and as such it is man, and not God, who is
ultimately glorified, and in essence deified.