Historically, the Church has affirmed the belief that man is created in the image of God (Gen 126); while at the same time debating vigorously the meaning of this belief. Debates centered on questions such as do we consist of material and immaterial parts, when does the soul (or spirit) enter the human being, or do we even have a separate soul/spirit? This last question has come about with the advent of modern scientific technology.
The early church was deeply influenced their Jewish roots regarding God having created human beings in his image (Gen 126-31). The Apostle Paul picked up on this idea in describing the entire process of Christian growth as being progressively conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Rom 829; 2 Cor 318) This insistence on renewal of the divine image can only mean that the image, prior to salvation and sanctification , is tragically marred and corrupted by sin. This understanding by the early Christians affirmed both the dignity of humanity, having been created in God's image, and the depravity of humanity, because the image of God was deeply perverted by sin. Jesus, himself, affirmed the human constitution consisted of both body and soul (Matt 1028; Mark 1230), material and immaterial aspects. Paul acknowledged the complexity of this nature – spirit, soul, and body – in his prayer for the Thessalonians (1 Thess 523).
Following the apostolic period, the church continued its belief in human dignity and the complexity of human nature. Much discussion centered on the immortality of the soul. Plato[1] had argued that the soul is eternal, i.e., it has neither beginning nor end. The early church disagreed with this, citing Adam's creation as the beginning of the human soul: "We have already decided one point in our controversy with Hermogenes, as we said at the beginning of this treatise, when we claimed the soul to be formed by the breathing of God, and not out of matter. We relied even there on the clear direction of the inspired statement which informs us how that 'the Lord God breathed on man's face the breath of life, so that man became a living soul'"[2]. Clement of Alexandria contended that while the human soul had its beginning in Adam, it would exist forever in the future, because of God's design: "It appears that the soul is not naturally immortal, but is made immortal by the grace of God, through faith and righteousness, and by knowledge."[3] Tertullian also argued that the soul was not only immortal, but the nature of the soul included "rationality, sensibility, intelligence, and freedom of the will."[4]
Four theologians of the early church contributed significantly to the development of the doctrine of humanity. They each addressed issues related to the image of God in human beings, human nature, and the origin of the soul.
1. Irenaeus argued that “man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh [body]. Who was formed after the likeness of God and molded by His hands—that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom He also said, ‘Let Us make man’ [Gen 126].”[5] His basic understanding was that carnal man was created with a twofold nature: a body and a soul. Believers, however, possess a threefold nature: a body, soul, and spirit. Irenaeus observed, “if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect.”[6] For Irenaeus, it seems, the soul consists of human reason and freedom of will. However, upon conversion, a third element—the spirit—is added: “for the perfect [emphasis added] man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded[sic] after the image of God.”[7] Irenaeus appeals to scripture (1 Thess. 523) in support of this threefold composite nature of Christians.[8] He is credited with originating the trichotomist[9] view—that human nature may be distinguished in the three elements of body, soul, and spirit.
2. Tertullian is the second major theologian of the early church to contribute to the development of its anthropology.
a. He did not follow Irenaeus’s trichotomist view. His view was that man’s nature consisted of only two elements; body and soul. He championed the dichotomist[10] view. His argument was based on the impossibility of separating the activity of the soul and the activity of the spirit.[11]
b. Tertullian also denied that God creates a human soul and then joins it to a human body. The creationist[12]view is that “the soul is not conceived in the womb, nor is formed or produced at the time that the body is molded, but is impressed from outside on the infant before his complete vitality but after the process of childbirth.”[13] Instead, Tertullian offered an original idea called traducianism[14]—both the soul and the body come into existence by the procreative act of the parents.[15] ”The two are no doubt produced by human parents of two substances, but not at two different periods; rather they are so entirely one, that neither is before the other in point of time.”[16] Both the soul and the body are created simultaneously at the moment of conception: “Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.”[17] In support of this he argued from the definition of death: “As death is defined to be nothing else than the separation of body and soul, [1680] life, which is the opposite of death, is susceptible of no other definition than the conjunction of body and soul. If the severance happens at one and the same time to both substances by means of death, so the law of their combination ought to assure us that it occurs simultaneously to the two substances by means of life.”[18]
c. The creationist view of the origin of the soul was articulated and defended against the traducianist view. Methodius argued that anyone who teaches, "that the immortal being of the soul also is sown along with the mortal body, he will not be believed; for the Almighty alone breathes into man the undying and undecaying part, as also it is He alone who is Creator of the invisible and indestructible."[19] Lactanius supported this idea: "For a body may be produced from a body, since something is contributed from both; but a soul cannot be produced from souls, because nothing can depart from a slight and incomprehensible subject. Therefore the manner of the production of souls belongs entirely to God alone."[20]
3. Origen was the third major contributor to the early church's doctrine of humanity. While his discussion of the human nature was trichotomist and fairly standard[21], his view of the origin of the soul was particularly unusual. He claimed that because God was omnipotent, he must always have had a creation over which he could exercise his authority and power. Therefore, Origen proposed that God had an invisible world of rational creatures. These creatures were created with a basic nature of goodness, but also had freewill. They could only remain in a state of God's blessing as long as they chose to. Abuse of this freedom became their downfall: "But if they neglect and despise such participation, then is each one, by fault of his own slothfulness, made, one more rapidly, another more slowly, one in a greater, another in a less degree, the cause of his own downfall." [22] So, the visible world became the home of these fallen beings. Origen ordered them by virtue of the degree they had fallen. Those who fell the least became embodied as angels. Those who had fallen the most became embodied as demons, with Satan as their head. Those who fell more than the angels, but less than the demons, became embodied as human beings. "But since those rational creatures themselves, as we have frequently shown, and will yet show in the proper place, were endowed with the power of free-will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress by imitation of God, or reduced him to failure through negligence. And this, as we have already stated, is the cause of the diversity among rational creatures…. Now God, who deemed it just to arrange His creatures according to their merit, brought down these different understandings into the harmony of one world…. And this, it appears to me, will be seen more clearly at last, if each one, whether of celestial or terrestrial or infernal beings, be said to have the causes of his diversity in himself, and antecedent to his bodily birth."[23] Origen’s view, however, never caught on in the early church.
4. The fourth major contribution of the early church was made by Augustine and it was made as a denouncement of the anthropology of Pelagius (c.350 – c.415 )[24].
a. Augustine strongly asserted the goodness of man as created by God. “Rightly then did we declare that the good of marriage is no more impeachable because of the original sin which is derived therefrom, than the evil of adultery and fornication can be excused, because of the natural good which is born of them: since the human nature which is born, whether of wedlock or of adultery, is the work of God. Now if this nature were an evil, it ought not to have been born; if it had not evil, it would not have to be regenerated: and (that I may combine the two cases in one and the same predicate) if human nature were an evil thing, it would not have to be saved; if it had not in it any evil, it would not have to be saved.”[25]
b. He described the image of God in human beings as be reflective of the Trinity,[26] and it was a pristine image:“Before they had thus violated their obedience they were pleasing to God, and God was pleasing to them; and though they carried about an animal body, they yet felt in it no disobedience moving against themselves. This was the righteous appointment, that inasmuch as their soul had received from the Lord the body for its servant, as it itself obeyed the Lord, even so its body should obey Him, and should exhibit a service suitable to the life given it without resistance.”[27] This was before the fall. After the fall, Augustine claims, there was a tragic change, each human being is completely depraved and corrupted by sin.
c. Regarding the issue of the complexity of the human nature, Augustine fluctuated back and forth between trichotomy and dichotomy: “And inasmuch as there are three things of which man consists—namely, spirit, soul, and body—which again are spoken of as two, because frequently the soul is named along with the spirit; for a certain rational portion of the same, of which beasts are devoid, is called spirit: the principal part in us is the spirit; next, the life whereby we are united with the body is called the soul; finally, the body itself, as it is visible, is the last part in us.”[28] As for the origin of the soul, Augustine pleaded ignorance of the two major theories, traducianism and creationism. He did, however, postulate that the origin of the soul is a topic not revealed by God.[29] Because of his influence, his view because the position of the church.
While individual and communal monasticism originated during the early church period, it was Augustine who brought it to the forefront. After his conversion in Italy and return to North Africa, Augustine established a monastic community in association with a parish church, providing a model for centuries to come. In the medieval period, monastic orders like the Cluniacs, the Cistercians, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Augustinians, and the Carmelites exerted a profound influence on both church and society.[30]
The issue of the conflict between the flesh and soul as seen by Pluto and argued in the early church had a major influence during the medieval period.
1. Because all flesh was seen as evil and spirit was good, the monastic communities took on an ascetic lifestyle and gave up eating tasteful and expensive food, drinking soothing wine, and enjoying a comfortable night’s sleep.
2. The evil flesh also brought disgust for marriage, even among lawfully married persons, because of sexual intercourse. This caused a problem with the monks and the imposition of celibacy led many of them into an unnatural lifestyle, leading to rampant sexual immorality.
3. Christology suffered because the physical form of Jesus clashed with the disparagement of the human body.
The doctrine of humanity suffered as well. John of Damascus[31] saw human beings as a kind of middle ground between the angels and the created order of the earth.
God created angels, the kind of being that is of His own nature (for the nature that has to do with reason is related to God, and apprehensible by mind alone). He also created the material world, the kind which, inasmuch as it clearly falls under the province of the senses, is separated from Him by the greatest interval. And it was also fit that there should be a mixture of both kinds of being, as a token of still greater wisdom and of the opulence of the Divine expenditure as regards natures…. Humanity is to be a sort of connecting link between the visible and invisible natures.[32]
These two natures, according to John, correspond to the body and the soul of man.[33] They are both the dignity and the depravity of man. The body is what relates man to the physical world, consisting of animals, plants, and inanimate things. The soul connects man to the angelic realm and allows man to relate to God and pursue Godlike behavior. [34]
Thomas Aquinas, like most topics of his day, had plenty to say regarding the doctrine of humanity. He used Genesis 1:26 as the base text for his distinction between the image and likeness of God. He associated the immaterial and highest aspect of human beings—the spirit, mind, or intellect—with the divine image and relegated other human dimensions—emotions, desires, and even the body—to the likeness of God. [35] More specifically, Aquinas spoke of “a threefold image of creation, of re-creation, and of likeness. The first is found in all men, the second only in the just [Christians], the third only in the blessed [in heaven].”[36] In other words, all humanity is created in the image of God and they have a natural capacity for knowing God. This is true even for fallen humanity in whom God’s image has been severally impaired and damaged due to sin. Aquinas described God’s image as “’obscured and defaced’ . . . in sinners.”[37] This image is improved in Christians who truly know God through His grace. And it is especially strong in those who have been glorified for they know God perfectly in heaven.[38]
1. Aquinas saw only man as having the image of God, not animals or other irrational creatures. He equated the image with rationality. Drawing from the writings of Paul (Eph 423-24; Col 310), Aquinas asserted that “to be in the image of God belongs to the mind only.”[39] This leads to the logical conclusion, “[The] image chiefly consists . . . in the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect.”[40]
2. Now, regarding the constitution (or physical) aspect of human beings, Aquinas differed from both Plato and the traducianists. Aquinas argued that since the soul is not material it could not be pre-made, and since it is not spiritual it could not pre-exist: “the rational soul is a subsistent form . . . . Wherefore it is competent to be and to be made. And since it cannot be made of pre-existing matter—whether corporeal, which would render it a corporeal being—or spiritual, which would involve the transmutation of one spiritual substance into another, we must conclude that it cannot exist except by creation.”[41] He went on to say “there is no comparison between the rational soul and other forms.”[42]
3. As to the nature of the soul, Aquinas closely followed the philosophy of Aristotle who defined the soul as the form of the body:
For the nature of each thing is shown by its operation. Now the proper operation of man as man is to understand; because he thereby surpasses all other animals. Whence Aristotle concludes (Ethic. x, 7) that the ultimate happiness of man must consist in this operation as properly belonging to him. Man must therefore derive his species from that which is the principle of this operation. But the species of anything is derived from its form. It follows therefore that the intellectual principle is the proper form of man.[43]
4. Aquinas emphasized the importance of the soul exercising rational control over the body. He contended the state human beings before the fall as (1) reason being subject to God, (2) the lower powers of the soul—the emotions and desires—being subject to reason; and (3) the body being subject to the soul. He reasoned that this was not the natural state of human beings, but by grace: “Now it is clear that such a subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin . . . . Hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace;”[44]
Aquinas contributed to the ongoing disparagement of the human body and the elevation of the human soul in the church in the middle ages.
The Reformation and post-Reformation period see little change from early positions regarding the doctrine of humanity. As we have seen, Luther[45] and Calvin[46] were the two most significant persons to define this period.
1. Martin Luther, like Aristotle and Aquinas before him, underscored the fact that reason is “the essential difference by which man is distinguished from the animals and other things.”[47] But he preferred to define man in theological terms, saying that a man is a creature of God and that he consists of both body and soul, and having been created in the image of God in the beginning he was without sin.[48] The idea that man was created in the image of God, placed the highest dignity on all men, without regard to their socioeconomic status or societal standing.[49]
a. Luther was a trichotomist and believed that human nature consisted of three elements: spirit, soul, and body. He did, however, often refer to human qualities in terms of two aspects. Using 1 Thess 523, he explained, “The first part, the spirit, is the highest deepest and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal. It is, in brief, the dwelling-place of faith and the Word of God.” He acknowledged that there was some overlap between this aspect and the soul. He saw reason in the soul and unless the spirit controlled reason it would be in error. Finally, “The third part is the body with its members. Its work is but to carry out and apply that which the soul knows and the spirit believes.”[50]
b. Luther saw man in almost an intermediate position between the animals and the angels. “He [God] had created him for physical life and bodily activity; He nevertheless added intellectual power, which is also in the angels, with the result that man is a living being compounded of the natures of the brute [animal] and of the angels.”[51] This led to a strong dichotomy between the material and immaterial aspects of human nature. Yet, Luther refused to raise any significant dichotomy between the two. As to the origin of the soul, Luther held to the traducianist view that the soul is the product of the union of the sperm and egg, as is the body. He explains it thus: “When a child is born today, the soul is created together with the body, contrary to Plato. Although all others disagree, it’s my opinion that the soul isn’t added [to the body] from the outside but is created out of the matter of the semen. This is my reason: If the soul came from somewhere else, it would be made bad by contact with the body, but the soul isn’t bad by chance but by nature. Consequently the soul must be born out of corrupt matter and seed and must be created by God out of the matter of a man and a woman.” Table Talk Recorded by John Mathesius, LW, 54:401
c. This then led to Luther’s view that Adam’s fall into sin, caused the image of God in humanity o suffer deeply. Since it is the image which gives humanity its dignity—it is so corrupted in respect to a relationship with God that it is nearly completely obliterated.
2. John Calvin placed a tremendous importance on the doctrine of humanity.
a. The opening lines in his Institutes of the Christian Religion read: "Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves."[52] Concerning ourselves, Calvin alleged that we must understand what we were like when we were first created and then what we became after the fall of Adam.[53] He saw in man the need to be restored to God's image and cited two texts that affirm this (Eph 424; Col 310). From these passages he reasoned that "we are so restored that with true piety, righteousness, purity, and intelligence we bear God's image."[54]
b. Developing this idea further, Calvin proposed a two-fold notion of the image of God: Before the fall and after. Before the fall humanity bore the full image of God which consisted of both natural gifts—sound understanding and integrity of heart—and supernatural gifts—faith, love, holiness, and righteousness. But the fall and sin caused humanity to lose its supernatural gifts, and its natural gifts were thoroughly devastated.[55] However, the Holy Spirit brings renewal in salvation and the image of God in all its aspects is gradually restored. The fullness of restoration awaits a future existence. "God's image is the perfect excellence of human nature which shone in Adam before his defection, but was subsequently so vitiated [to impair the quality of; to corrupt morally; debase] and almost blotted out that nothing remains after the ruin except what is confused, mutilated, and disease-ridden. Therefore, in some part it is now manifest in the elect, in so far as they have been reborn in the spirit; but it will attain its full splendor in heaven." [56]
c. Calvin also saw a very practical side of the image of God, in that it helps Christians to love people as the Scriptures command: "Scripture helps in the best way when it teaches that we are not to consider that man merit of themselves, but we are to look upon the image of God in all men, to which we owe all honor and love."[57]
3. Post-Reformers continued to express and defend the positions of both Luther and Calvin on human nature and the image of God in humanity. Both Lutheran and Reformed theologians embraced dichotomy and rejected trichotomy, underscoring the lack of any essential difference between soul and spirit. Lutheran and Reformed theologians differed in their view of the origin of the soul. Lutherans embraced Traducianism;[58] Reformed theologians took the Creationist position.[59]
4. Regarding the original image of God, Lutheran and Reformed theologians both saw Adam and Eve as living in a state of innocence or integrity. It is referred to as a state of integrity since man in it was upright and uncorrupt (Eccl 7:19) in intellect, will, affections, etc. and was in all things perfect. According to William Bucan, Adam would have transmitted the divine image and gift of original righteousness intact if it had not been for the fall.[60]
5. The post-Reformation period was an opportunity for theologians to discuss widely the nature of humanity. With the Enlightenment came a rise in interest in human nature from a philosophical perspective. Enter Renev Descartes[61] and his Meditations on First Philosophy which provided a foundation for future discussion about human nature in general and dualism in particular. His view, called substance dualism, claimed two very different substances composing the human nature: the body, defined as extended substance and the mind defined as thinking substance. These two substances interacted with the body like a machine and the mind as the controller. This , of course, raised the question, how could two so different substances interact? Descartes explained that the pineal gland was the connecting point. Although this solution would come under sustained attack for centuries to come, substantive dualism became a key philosophical viewpoint with regard to human nature.
There were several factors that influenced modern thinkers to take pains with the earlier teachings of the church. For example, the rise of modern secular disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and (nontheological) anthropology gave ammunition to those who felt the church's doctrines were antiquated and even mythological. These arguments and teachings soon began to show influence in the church.
1. William Newton Clarke affirmed human nature as a consisting of body and spirit, not on a basis of biblical affirmations, but "the one that was most naturally and instinctively discerned in common life. It is the division that a man is aware of when he thinks of himself, and that he discerns in others; and it is the only division of human nature that men learn from self-knowledge."[62] Clarke also used anthropology and other cognate sciences for his doctrine of human origins. He stated, "The time has come when theology should remand the investigation of the time and manner of the origin of man to the science of anthropology with its kindred sciences, just as it now remands the time and manner of the origin of the earth to astronomy and geology, and should accept and use their discoveries on the subject, content with knowing that the origin of man, as of all else, is in God."[63] While this approach humanity to just another part of the evolutionary process, Clarke did not embrace the theory of evolution as others did, but presented his own modified view: He combined some kind of divine direction with evolutionary processes, thus championing theistic evolution as his theory of human origins."[64]
2. Among this new group of persons involved in philosophy, Karl Barth[65] and Emil Brunner[66] ushered in the concept of "existentialist philosophy". Neither man believed in the historical (biblical) account of Adam and Eve. Barth believed the account to be a "saga" rather than an historical event. He explained: "In additional to the 'historical' there has always been a legitimate 'non-historical' and pre-historical view of history, and its 'non-historical' and pre-historical depiction in the form of saga…. I am using saga in the sense of an intuitive and poetical picture of a pre-historical reality of history which is enacted once and for all within the confines of time and space."[67] Barth continued to distance saga from myth, and claimed the superiority of the biblical creation story to the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths. This was based partly on the fact that, unlike the creation myths, the biblical creation story speaks of a real Creator and a real creation.
3. Barth's understanding of man being created in the image of God differed from that of the early church. He moved away from the classical understanding that imago Dei is something man is or does.[68] "Rather than an attribute or an activity, the imago Dei is confrontational relationality, first and foremost between the members of the Trinity, then between God and human beings, and finally between people and other people."[69] Barth supported this from the idea that noting is mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27 about the intellectual and volitional aspects of human beings that figured so prominently in the church's historic discussion of the imago Dei.[70] Rather, Barth saw this as the plurality of gender—male and female—and in the relation of "man to woman and woman to man". This reflects the plurality of persons in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
4. As Old Testament studies continued, along with research into ancient Near Eastern literature, other new approaches to the issue of the image of God in man were presented. For example:
a. Gerhard on Rad suggested that just as kings in ancient civilizations erected images of themselves in providences in their kingdom where they did not personally appear, so man is placed on earth as God's sovereign emblem.[71] Thus, human beings are the image of God as his representatives or coregents who exercise dominion over the created order.
b. G. C. Berkouwer helped to champion the church's historical position, although with significant modification. He opposed the limited image of God in man as only intellect and free will. He was also critical of the approach that isolated man's activities to dominion over the created order. Berkouwer took a more holistic approach by suggesting that "the importance of the Biblical witness to Christ as the image of God and to the renewal, in communion with Christ, of man according to that image, spoken of in the New Testament."[72]
c. Anthony Hoekema
i. maintained that "the concept of man as the image or likeness of God tells us that man as he was created was to mirror God and represent God."[73] Like a mirror man should reflect God's love, kindness, and goodness. Man represents God like an ambassador represents his king, president, etc., in a foreign country.
ii. He used Christ as the supreme example, focusing on three particular relationships: being directed toward God, toward neighbor, and ruling over nature. So man is placed in this same threefold relationship: "God has placed man into a threefold relationship: between man and God, between man and his fellow men, and between man and nature."[74]
iii. He went on to outline four stages of this relationship: prior to the fall, the original image; after the fall, the perverted image; through redemption, the renewed or restored image; in the future, with glorification, the perfect image.[75]
The advancement of the natural sciences brought about a change of thinking regarding the doctrine of the nature of man. Before this man was considered to be a product of God because we are souls, immaterial and immortal clumps of Godstuff.
Allison warns, "With the advent of modern and scientific attacks, the doctrine of humanity has become once again an important topic for theology. Although the focus of discussion has largely moved away from such issues as dichotomy verses trichotomy, the origin of the soul, and the relationship of the divine image to the divine likeness, other issues like the existence of an immaterial human element and the identity of the image of God have risen to paramount theological importance today."[79]
[1] Plato (424/423 BC [a] – 348/347 BC)
[2] Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 3-4: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[3] Clement of Alexandria, Fragment of Comments on 1 Peter. 1:3: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html
[4] Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 38: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, preface, 3: http://carm.org/irenaeus-heresies4-1-20
[6] Ibid., 5.6.1: http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah5.html#chapter6
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Trichotomy comes from two Greek words: trica (tricha), meaning “threefold”, and tenmw (temnō), meaning “mark off, cut, or divide”; thus, human nature can be divided into three distinct aspects.
[10] Dichotomy comes from two Greek words: dich (dichē), meaning “twofold”, and tenmw (temnō), meaning “mark off, cut, or divide”; thus, human nature can be divided into two distinct aspects.
[11] Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 10:http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[12] This is not in the sense of the universe, but only as regards the human soul.
[13] Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 25:http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[14] Traducianism comes from the Latin word tradure, meaning “generation”. This is contrasted with Plato’s belief that the soul is eternal, created separately from the body and inhaled when the infant draws its fist breath,
[15] Ibid., 27: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[16] Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 45: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm
[17] Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 27:http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullc.htm
[18] Ibid.
[19] Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, 2.7: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txua/methodiu.htm
[20] Lactanius, On the Workmanship of God, 19: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0704.htm
[21] Origen, First Principles, 4.11: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
[22] Origen, First Principles, 1.6.2:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm
[23] Ibid., 2.9.6-7:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm
[24] Although Pelagianism promoted moral fervor, there was an inherent danger in it: self-reliance, not God-reliance, based upon an inadequate understanding of human nature. Pelagianism stressed complete human autonomy and freedom of the will before God. Pelagius posited three elements to any moral action: 1. that we must be able to do it, 2. that we must be willing to do it, and 3. that the action must be carried out. Or the three elements can be described as possibility, will, and action. Possibility is a natural gift from God alone, but the other two, since they arise from man's choice, are from man. http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/sfilippo_augustinepelag_jan08.asp
[25] Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 2.36[21]:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15072.htm
[26] Augustine, On the Trinity, 14.19.25:
[27] Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, 2.36: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm
[28] Augustine, On Faith and the Creed, 10:23: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1304.htm
[29] Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin, 4.5:http://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/soul/405.html
[30] Allison, p.328.
[31] John of Damascus (c. 645 or 676 – 749) was born in Damascus and became a Syrian monk and priest. He is considered "the last of the Fathers" of the Eastern Orthodox church and is best known for his strong defense of icons. The Catholic Church regards him as a Doctor of the Church, often referred to as the Doctor of the Assumption due to his writings on the Assumption of Mary.
[32] John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.12: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm. Text made clearer.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt.1, q.93, art. 9: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q93_A9.html
[36] Ibid., pt.1, q.93, art. 4.
[37] Ibid., pt.1, q.93, art. 8.
[38] Relying on Augustine, Aquinas noted that the image is “’clear and beautiful’ . . . in the just.” Ibid.
[39] Ibid., pt.1, q.93, art. 6.
[40] Ibid., pt.1, q.93, art. 3.
[41] Ibid., pt. 1, q.90, art. 2.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid., pt. 1, q.76, art. 1.
[44] Ibid., pt. 1, q.95, art. 1.
[45] Martin Luther was born to peasant stock on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben in the Holy Roman Empire – in what is today eastern Germany.
[46] Born July 10, 1509 in Noyon, France, Jean Calvin was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic family.
[47] Martin Luther, Disputation Concerning Man, Luther’s Works, 34:137. (Not available online)
[48] Ibid., 34:138
[49] Martin Luther, What Luther Say’s, 2:877.
[50] Magnificat, LW, 21:303.
[51] Lectures on Genesis:Chapters 1-5, LW, 1:112.
[52] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.1.1:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.ii.html
[53] Ibid., 1.15.1
[54] Ibid., 1.15.3
[55] Ibid., 2.2.12
[56] Ibid., 1.15.4
[57] Ibid., 3.7.6
[58] John Andrew Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica sive Systema Theologicum (1715) 1.519. Quenstedt offered the Lutheran position: "The soul of the first man was immediately created by God; but the soul of Eve was produced by propagation, and the souls of the rest of men were created, not daily, nor begotten of their parents as the body or souls of brutes [animals], but by virtue of the divine blessing, are propagated, per traducem, by their parents."
[59] Riisen represented the Reformed view: "We lay ir down that all souls are created by God directly and are infused by being created, and so are produced ex nihilo apart from any preexistent matter." Leonard Riisen, Francisci Turretini Compendium Theologiae (Amsterdam, 1695), 7.52.2.
[60] William Bucan, Institutiones Theologicae seu Locorum Communium Christianae Religionis (Geneva, 1609), 10.7
[61] Renev Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, trnas. Laurence J Lafleur (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960), 73-74.
[62] William Newton Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1909), 182.
[63] Ibid., 223.
[64] Ibid., 224-26.
[65] Karl Barth (May 10, 1886 - Dec 10, 1968) pronounced "Bart", was a 20th century Swiss theologian in the Reformed tradition. A vigorous opponent of theological liberalism and modernism, he is sometimes called "the Father of Neo-Orthodoxy."
[66] Emil Brunner (1889-1966) was a highly influential Swiss theologian who, along with Karl Barth, is associated with Neo-Orthodoxy or the dialectical theology movement. Ordained in the Swiss Reformed Church, Brunner served as a pastor at Obstalden, Switzerland, from 1916 to 1924. In 1924 he became professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zürich, where he taught continuously, except for extensive lecture tours in the United States and in Asia.
[67] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bronley and T.F. Torrance, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), III/I, 184.
[68] Ibid., 184-187.
[69] Allison, Historical Theology, p.336.
[70] Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/I, p.185.
[71] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks et al., rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 60.
[72] G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 98
[73] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Exeter: Paternoster, 1986)
[74] Ibid., 75.
[75] Ibid., 82-95.
[76] Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994). In molecular biology, the term double helix[1] refers to the structure formed by double-stranded molecules of nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA. The double helical structure of a nucleic acid complex arises as a consequence of its secondary structure, and is a fundamental component in determining its tertiary structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-helix.
[77] Ibid., 3.
[78] William Hasker, Emergent Self, 232, 235.
[79] Allison, Historical Theology, 341.