“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him”
Gen. 1:27
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man.”
Gen. 9:6
.
.
Subsections
Human Soul
When Soul is Joined to Body in the Womb
.
.
Order of Contents
Definition
Articles
Historical Theology
Hylemorphism
Internal Relations of Adam’s Soul in Integrity
God’s Image Remains in Fallen Man, though Greatly Marred
Do Angels bear the Image of God?
.
Definition of the Image of God
Francis Turretin
Institutes, vol. 1, p. 466
“The image consists antecedently in nature (as to the spirituality and immortality of the soul); formally in rectitude or original righteousness; consequently in the dominion and immortality of the whole man (which was the brightness of that shining image and the rays striking out in all directions which illumined the whole man).”
.
Articles
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 11, ‘Man’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson Pre Buy (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 220-51
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
.
1600’s
Thysius, Anthony – 13. ‘About Man Created in the Image of God’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 314-38
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 10, ‘Concerning Man, Particularly the Soul’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 307-31
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
.
1800’s
Bavinck, Herman
‘The Greatness & Miserableness of Man’ from Our Reasonable Faith (1956), pp. 22-23
‘The Origin, Essence & Purpose of Man’ no date or source info
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Origin & Constitution of Man, as Created in the Image of God’ HTML (1949), three sections in Systematic Theology, 18, 20, & 18 paragraphs respectively
Kennedy, John – ch. 1, Man, as Created, in Relation to God, p. 1 ff., 37 pp. in Man’s Relations to God
.
Historical Theology
On the 1600’s to 1700’s
Goudriaan, Aza – ch. 4, ‘The Human Being: His Soul & Body, Special Status & Conscience’ in Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht & Anthonius Driessen Buy (Brill, 2006)
.
On the 1800’s
Venema, Cornelius – ‘Human Nature: the Image of God, in the Thought of Herman Bavinck’ in The Outlook, vol. 62, no.1 (Jan/Feb, 2012)
.
On Hylemorphism
See also ‘On a Hylemorphist View of the Soul’ at ‘On the Human Soul’.
.
1600’s
Owen, John – pp. 228 (bot) – 229 in ch. 18, ‘The Nature of the Person of Christ…’ in Christologia in Works (NY: Robert Carter, 1850), vol. 1
.
On Aquinas
Feser, Edward – ‘Hylemorphic Dualism’ in ch. 4, ‘Psychology’ in Aquinas: a Beginner’s Guide (OneWorld, 2010), pp. 138-47
.
On the Internal Relations of the Soul in Adam in Original Righteousness
Francis Turretin
The Reformed View
Institutes (P&R)
vol. 1, 5th Topic, ‘Creation’, Q. 11, ‘Was Original Righteousness Natural or Supernatural? The Former we Affirm, the Latter we Deny Against the Romanists.’, p. 473
“XV. So far is the inferior part of the soul [the carnal desires] from contending of itself with the superior [that which is rational and spiritual] that on the contrary (according to the Philosopher [Aristotle]), it was born to obey (peitharchein pephyke) and is naturally subordinated to it (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 10.9.4 [Loeb, 628-29]).
The propensions of both can be diverse, but not contrary in themselves (rather only accidentally on account of sin). Man could be carried naturally towards both sensible and spiritual good, but in their own order and without a rebellion between the flesh and the spirit. Thus the soul would always hold dominion and the flesh obey and subject all its own motions and inclinations to it. The sensible good is contained in the intelligible good and the object of the sensitive appetite stands related to the object of the natural (as the means to the end).
Therefore, as long as man regarded the sensible good as the means, there was no vice in him. But when departing from God, he began to be drawn to the object of the sensitive appetite as his ultimate end and highest good (which was effected by sin). At length the disorder (ataxia) arose which disturbed the order constituted by God.
Therefore, we must accurately distinguish here the appetite (which was natural and ordinate) from that which was preternatural and inordinate [as in Romanism]. The latter is repugnant to reason, but not equally the former.”
.
vol. 2, 11th Topic, Q. 21, ‘The 10th Commandment… Are the Incipient Motions Sins? We Affirm’
p. 134
“I. God has planted two principles in the mind of man: the avoidance of evil and the desire of good; the irascible (to thymikon) and concupiscible appetite (to epithymetikon). Viewed in the genus of being and physically, these are neither good nor bad, but mean and indifferent, drawing all their moral goodness and evil from the quality of the objects about which they are exercised.”
.
p. 137
“XIV. The motions of concupiscence… If Adam had never sinned, he would never have felt such motions (which cannot be free from vitiosity).”
.
The Common View of Romanism, p. 471
“V. The Romanists hold original righteousness to be a supernatural gift, super-added to the native gifts and powers of the entire man. [Robert] Bellarmine explains the reason why they determine this to be so.
There was in man naturally a contest between the flesh and the spirit, the reason and the appetite [lower desirous part], from which flowed a certain disease and languor of nature, arising from the condition of the material. Therefore God added original righteousness as a ‘golden bridle,’ to repress that conflict and to cover like a precious garment their nakedness, and as a remedy to heal that weakness (‘De gratia primi hominis,’ 5, 6 in Opera [1858], 4:23-29)
This is the more common opinion among them, although the Jansenists and others exclaim loudly against it. Whence arose this expression of the [Medieval] Scholastics: ‘Naturals remained untouched, but the supernaturals only were lost.'”
.
Peter van Mastricht
section XVI in A Treatise on Regeneration… (New Haven, 1770), p. 27
.
The Image of God in Man Remains After the Fall, though Greatly Marred
Quote
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Pracgtical Theology (RHB), Bk. 3, ch. 9, section 39
“The image of God which we have spoken about neither completely perished through sin, nor completely survived from sin. Therefore it remains in some measure (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:7, where without doubt the topic is not the past state, but the current one). It remains, I say, to the extent that it consists: (1) in the very nature of man, of the body and soul. (2) In the natural faculties of the soul, in the intellect and will. (3) In certain gifts of the intellect and will, insofar as among the worst is still seen some use of reason, and also some propensity to good, even moral good (Rom. 1:19; 2:15; 1 Cor. 5:1). Furthermore, (4) in at least some remnants of original dominion (Gen. 7:2). God willed all these bits of his own image to survive in us from the fall, first so that they may be witnesses of his own most undeserved goodness toward us…”
.
Article
Wolfe, Stephen – ‘Correcting Theologians: a Response to Brian Mattson’ (2023)
Wolfe wrote the book, The Case for Christian Nationalism (2022), which was self-consciously grounded by him in the theology of reformed orthodoxy. Wolfe here responds to a neo-Calvinist critic, and very helpfully clarifies and elaborates on reformed orthodox anthropology regarding the image of God, and what remains after the Fall, especially in light of natural law, quoting many classic reformed theologians on these topics. Very helpful treatment.
.
Do Angels Bear the Image of God?
Quote
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 3, ch. 9, section 26
“…the angels, as God made man a little lower than them (Ps. 8:5), and they seem to be called sons of God (Job 38:7), and are instructed with wisdom in the intellect and holiness and righteousness in the will, the chief points of the divine image, as much or even more so than men, and thus bear the image of God at least no less than man…”
.
.
.
Related Pages