LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Humanity and the need for divine grace

Submitted to Jonathan Pruitt, Teaching Assistant in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

Theo 510 – D06
Survey of Theology

by

Barbara A Servello
May 8, 2015

Humanity and the need for divine grace in this day and age seems to be out of our grasps. The world and humankind seems to be in chaos. No one can see that it does not matter the color of skin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. that we are all made by God and for God. Pick up the newspaper and we see that our world is out of control. Many theologians have voiced their views on humanity and the need of grace over the years. Today I can see where we may question that humankind has been created in Imago dei, the image of God. “So God created humankind in his image.”[1] John Wesley stated that the image of God can be summed up in three dimensions; the natural image, the political image and the moral image. [2] I question John Wesley’s summation that the image of God can be summed up in the dimensions of natural, political, and moral image. I will explore through other theologians if this assessment is viable. I will also use those same theologians to assess the idea for humanity to need, want and receive grace from God. “The concept of the imago Dei has been widely recognized as central to a Christian understanding of human beings, yet the paucity of biblical references has left the way open for a wide variety of philosophical and theological interpretations of this notion. “[3] Natural image of God according to Wesley’s sermon, The New Birth, is simply stated as “reason,” “will,” and “freedom.” [4] Some say that the most obvious definition of imago Dei refers to the physical existence of humans. God made humans to look like God.[5] Jurgen Multmann claims that there are two different words being used to describe the imago Dei. Selem and Demuth in Greek and imago and similitude in Latin. He claims the first set of words refers to the concrete, the outward representation. The second is used as similarity, the reflexive inward relationship. He goes on to claim the Egyptian royal theology was where these terms derived from because Pharoah represents a copy of God on earth and was actually presented in the form of statues. He goes on to say that humans represent God on earth as his similitude in other words humans reflect God.[6] The creation of humankind, according to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was God’s last work, as the new work, as the image of God in God’s work.[7] In all the creation story God spoke and creation came into existence. With humankind God created free in the sense that one made be musical, intelligent or blind. Freedom is relation. Being free means “being-free-for-the-other” because we are bound to that other we are free. Karl Barth is perhaps the best-known for defining image of God as the unique interpersonal relationships that people enjoy. These relationships may be vertical (man to God) as well as horizontal (man to woman in marriage, or man to man in society). I got the idea that Barth felt that after the fall imago Dei was not really significant.[8] Gardoski asks these questions about theories; are any correct? Must we choose only one? How can we decide? John Wesley seemed to be in agreement with other theologians that imago Dei does have a natural image. Not a physical image but an image of reason, will, and freedom. Humankind was able to distinguish truth from falsehood. His understanding was just. His reasoning was perfect and therefore that meant that his will was perfect too.[9] “Humankind’s affections were rational, even and regular,” according to Wesley. “The affection that humankind had was what God is, Love.” [10] “Love filled the whole expanse and soul of humankind. Every movement was filled with the fervor of love.”[11] Wesley went on to say that the third part of this natural image was the perfect freedom God implanted. Humankind was made with an entire indifference so the Creator nor any creature other than humankind could tip the scale to one side or the other. Humankind was in control of their own actions.[12] Bonhoeffer conveys that humanity is different from all other creatures in that God is in humankind.[13] With all this in mind Wesley says that God crowned all this with happiness. St. Thomas Aquinas also says that there are three different ways that a human person is made in the image of God. He is in agreement with the first way is according to the order of nature. In other words the human person has the ability to know and love. This is as far as Wesley and St. Thomas are even close holding the same beliefs. Aquinas says that the first step is for everyone. However, way two and three are much different. Way two states that according to the order of grace humans are the imago Dei when they come to know and love God. Lastly, according to the glory the human is the imago Dei when they know and God in heaven as God knows and loves himself.[14] In layman’s terms he is saying that all are part of step one from birth. People now and love. Even the heathens and sinners. But then you fall in love with God and so you have become a Christian and you share your love of Christ with others. This step does not say you are perfect and you can back slide but you are on your way to perfection with which Wesley would agree. However, Aquinas deviates here by say that step three is when you reach perfection and that is not necessarily when you have reached glory. Aquinas believed we could reach saint status here on earth.[15] Wesley’s second dimension to humanity’s creation in the image of God is the political image. This image refers to humanity’s calling to care for the earth and all other creatures that inhabit it. Some theologians Bonhoeffer states that humanity’s freedom in the first dimension is supposed to mean being free for one another and free from the rest of the created world. That means humanity is its lord and has command over it. But he goes on to say that humanity is to rule as having been commissioned and empowered to rule by God.[16] Bonhoeffer reminds us though that being free does not mean we neglect nature. In reality we are bound to the creatures, ground and animals because they are part of the world and if they cease to exist the humanity ceases to be. Wesley and Bonhoeffer seem to believe that the political image is that second dimension but Moltmann says that, “the creation of God’s image on earth is followed by the commission to rule over the animals and by the charge to subdue the earth” “it is not identical with the likeness of man” but instead it is a “specific addition” to the likeness of God.[17] Moltmann goes on to say that, “to subdue the earth refers to the nourishment of human beings which according to verse 29 and 30 is evidently supposed to be exclusively vegetarian. The beast are also to eat only vegetarian food.”

Emil Brunner argues that the notion of the “image of God” in man has to be considered in two ways, one formal and one material. Brunner believes that the material aspect is completely lost, after all humans can no longer be the physical image of God—“man is a sinner through and through and there is nothing in him which is not defiled by sin” —formally, humans are still carriers of the imago Dei. The image of God, according to Brunner, can furthermore be defined by two aspects: “the fact that man is a subject and his responsibility.” Humans are rational creatures, they have words and the capacity to speak, they understand speech so that God can speak to them, call them. Humans can answer or they can refuse. However, and this is the second aspect, this entails that humans are always responsible. This, in Brunner's words, means that humans are persons; they are “in a derived sense that which God is originally.” [18]

Wesley’s third image of God was the moral image. Wesley states that the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesian indicates the moral image of humanity is righteousness and true holiness. [19]

I believe that most of the theologians believed that man was created good or as was stated in Genesis 1:31 “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” [20]

I have come to the conclusion that Wesley theory that the image of God can be summed up in three dimensions; the natural image, the political image and the moral image [21] is a viable theory in conjunction with other theologians such as Barth, Moltmann, Aquinas and Bonhoeffer. Even though they really do not break their theories into three images like Wesley did they do believe for the most part that when God created humanity that they were created with “reason,” “will,” and “freedom”, they have the ability to have dominion over the animals, they have the ability to care for the earth and when created humanity was filled with justice, mercy and truth.

Humanity was created imago Dei and yet humanity was not made immutable. Wesley put it this way, “He was therefore created to stand, and yet liable to fall.” [22] Fall humanity did indeed. They (man and woman) ate of that tree which God instructed that they should not eat from. They willfully disobeyed, and declared that they would allow their own will and not the will of God control their lives.[23]

Docetists could not believe that Jesus was human but only appeared to be human. He could not be flesh and blood because the body was considered belonging to a lesser evil, the devil. While the soul was considered good or put another way the spirit is of God.[24]

Gnostic believed too in the dualism of spirit and flesh. They believe the body was a lesser dimension that we must get away from and escape to the spiritual realm.[25]

Wesley acknowledges that when humanity ate of the fruit of the tree that was forbidden to eat from that humanity died that day. Not a physical death but the life of God was extinguished in the human’s soul. [26] It is from this point on that grace is needed in the world. Most theologians agree that when humanity disobeyed God the Creator’s will that grace came into the world.

As in the days of creations humanity has willfully sinned against God and against each other.

-----------------------
[1] (Genesis 1:27 The Wesley Study Bible NRSV 2009)

[2] (The Wesley Study Bible NRSV 2009) 3.

[3] (Middleton 1994)

[4] (Outler and Heitzenrater 1987) 336.

[5] (Klassen 2004)

[6] (Moltman 1993) 218-218.

[7] (Bonhoeffer 2004) 61-62.

[8] (Gardoski 2007)

[9] (Outler and Heitzenrater 1987) 15.

[10] Ibid 15.

[11] Ibid 15.

[12] Ibid 16.

[13] (Bonhoeffer 2004) 63-64.

[14] (Austriaco 2015)

[15] ibid

[16] (Bonhoeffer 2004) 66.

[17] (Moltman 1993) 224.

[18] (Smedes 2014)

[19] (Outler and Heitzenrater 1987)

[20] (The Wesley Study Bible NRSV 2009)

[21] (The Wesley Study Bible NRSV 2009)

[22] (Outler and Heitzenrater 1987)

[23] (Outler and Heitzenrater 1987)

[24] (Robinson 2006) 85.

[25] Ibid.

[26] (The Wesley Study Bible NRSV 2009) 7.