Basic HTML Version
192
of the soul. Bellarmin regarded “image” as a designation of the natural gifts of man, and
“likeness” as a description of that which was supernaturally added to man. Still others asserted
that “image” denoted the inborn, and “likeness,” the acquired conformity to God. It is far more
likely, however, as was pointed out in the preceding, that both words express the same idea,
and that “likeness” is merely an epexegetical addition to designate the image as most like or
very similar. The idea expressed by the two words is that of the very image of God. The doctrine
of the image of God in man is of the greatest importance in theology, for that image is the
expression of that which is most distinctive in man and in his relation to God. The fact that man
is the image of God distinguishes him from the animal and from every other creature. As far as
we can learn from Scripture even the angels do not share that honor with him, though it is
sometimes represented as if they do. Calvin goes so far as to say that “it cannot be denied that
the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Matt. 22:30), our
highest perfection will consist in being like them.”[Inst. I. 15.3.] But in this statement the great
Reformer does not have due regard for the point of comparison in the statement of Jesus. In
many cases the assumption that the angels were also created in the image of God results from
a conception of the image which limits it to our moral and intellectual qualities. But the image
also includes the body of man and his dominion over the lower creation. The angels are never
represented as lords of creation, but as ministering spirits sent out for the service of those that
inherit salvation. The following are the most important conceptions of the image of God in
man.
1. THE REFORMED CONCEPTION.
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. But even they do not all agree as to its exact contents. Dabney, for
instance, holds that it does not consist in anything absolutely essential to man’s nature, for
then the loss of it would have resulted in the destruction of man’s nature; but merely in some
accidens.[Syst. and Polem. Theol., p. 293.] McPherson, on the other hand, asserts that it
belongs to the essential nature of man, and says that “Protestant theology would have escaped
much confusion and many needless and unconvincing doctrinal refinements, if it had not
encumbered itself with the idea that it was bound to define sin as the loss of the image, or of
something belonging to the image. If the image were lost man would cease to be man.”[Chr.
Dogm., p. 203.] These two, then, would seem to be hopelessly at variance. Other differences
are also in evidence in Reformed theology. Some would limit the image to the moral qualities of
righteousness and holiness with which man was created, while others would include the whole
moral and rational nature of man, and still others would also add the body. Calvin says that the
proper seat of the image of God is in the soul, though some rays of its glory also shine in the
body. He finds that the image consisted especially in that original integrity of man’s nature, lost
by sin, which reveals itself in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. At the same time he