You searched for Imago - Reasons to Believe

Imago Dei and the Connection to the Fall and Destiny of Satan

Guest Writer — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 13:00:00 +0000

Explaining the origin of evil remains one of Christianity’s chief challenges. As defenders of the faith, Christians often cite biblical accounts about the fall of Satan (Luke 10:18) that appear to trace the origin of evil to one of God’s creatures. Is there more going on? Is it possible that the devil envied the eventual role that humanity’s creation—specifically Eve’s as the “mother of all living”—in God’s image would play?

While Scripture must finally and conclusively inform a Christian view, we might look to extrabiblical writings to help think through a doctrine. In this case, C. S. Lewis’s literature and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha,¹ insofar as they are consistent with Scripture, can help inform our view.

The Unique Imago Dei

What does it mean to be created in God’s image (imago Dei)? Theologians define the imago Dei differently, as theologian Kenneth Samples points out.² Science scholars Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross have also written about the unique functionality of the imago Dei.³ While biblical studies scholar Michael Heiser sees that the imago Dei was about the status of humans, he seems to miss the point about its uniqueness when he states that angels also bear the same imago Dei.⁴All Christian traditions affirm that being created in God’s image makes human beings exceptional. But relatively little consideration has been offered about why it was only after the creation of the woman that the imago Dei was declared in Genesis 1:27 but is not said of Adam after the description of his creation in Genesis 2.

Declaration of the Imago Dei in Genesis 1-3

In Hebrew narrative style, Genesis 1 gives “the executive summary” of creation⁵ while Genesis 2 gives specific details about the day six creation of mankind, meaning that a strict chronology is not intended. When harmonizing these two accounts we observe two things about the imago Dei. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” This declaration of bearing the imago Dei was curiously not given in the more detailed account of Genesis 2. However, presumably in Genesis 2 when God created the man (Hebrew, ’Adām), he was the imago Dei as Ross notes.⁶ Yet based on the sequence in Genesis 1, the imago Dei was not yet fully expressed until God had created the woman (Hebrew, Ish’shah—note: she was not named “Eve” until after the fall, Genesis 3:20).

Before Ish’shah was created, ’Adām was tasked with examining and naming the animals of Mesopotamic Eden.⁷ Ross, perhaps being overly conservative, has calculated the time required to complete this task as “a year or two.”⁸ (We might as easily have estimated this time frame to have been considerably longer.) But why was it that the devil only appeared after Ish’shah was created? After all, the tempter had at least a year (presumably) to carry out his wicked scheme against God’s initial image bearer, Adam.

Explaining the Origin of Satan

The origin of Satan is popularly depicted as occurring when one of the chief angels rebelled against Yahweh and took one-third of heaven’s angels—who then became “demons”—with him. However, Heiser notes that Revelation 12:3–4a does not adequately support this theory because it describes events after Christ’s incarnation and ascension.⁹ Thus it cannot account for Satan’s origin.

Poet and critic Jane Scharl provides insight by referring to the traditions within the Pseudepigrapha, which state that it was only when Yahweh created the woman that a chief angel became envious because there was now a creature “more powerful than him” who was uniquely like God since she possessed an attribute that no other creature—including Adam or any angel—possessed: the ability to create an immortal soul ex nihilo (from being sexually wedded to a human man).¹⁰ Texts such as Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 and Life of Adam and Eve 12–14 describe Satan’s fall as being prompted by such envy.

C. S. Lewis’s book Perelandra is set on Venus to depict a reenactment of the creation of the first man and woman. There “Maleldil” (Yahweh) creates the pair who enjoy innocence and intimacy with their creator in a pristine world.¹¹ But their serenity was interrupted by a stranger who personified evil. His one sinister intent was to deceive and sever the relationship between the woman and Maleldil. Echoes of the Edenic serpent drama are obvious. Why is the woman the target?

Even if we only took the biblical data that mankind was declared to be the imago Dei after the woman was created, we recognize that it is only then that Satan appears. Scharl references the Rabbinic traditions that say Satan held deep animus for the woman.

Indeed, the Bible gives accounts of the devil’s assaults against women (mistreatment by means of human instruments) and how Yahweh has redeemed them. Five such redeemed women played a role in the lineage of Christ as evidenced by their honor roll in Matthew 1, but especially by Yahweh choosing a woman to bear the ultimate imago Dei (2 Corinthians 4:4; Hebrews 1:3). Indeed, Christ’s incarnation was a revelation of the fullness of the imago Dei and while the origin of Satan was linked to the creation of humanity as the imago Dei, his destiny and doom, as prophesied in Genesis 3:15, have been made certain by the appearing and victory of the true imago Dei, Jesus Christ (1 John 3:8; Revelation 20:10).

Endnotes

The Pseudepigrapha originated in the intertestamental period and informed early Jewish Christian thought, including some writers of the New Testament. See “New Testament Allusions to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Biblicalia, accessed February 14, 2022.
Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed The World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 168.
Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?(Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 332.
Michael S. Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God’s Heavenly Host (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 31; See also Samples, 7 Truths, 163–187.
Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 55.
Ross, Genesis Question, 59.
Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Guide to Genesis 1–11 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), 99, figure 10.2.
Ross, Navigating Genesis, 105.
Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says about the Powers of Darkness (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 244.
Jane Scharl, “Embodied Sainthood: Gender and Dragon-Slaying,” Upstream with Shane Morris, Colson Center, September 28, 2021.
C. S. Lewis, Perelandra: Vogage to Venus (London: HarperCollins, 2005 [1943]), 61.

The post Imago Dei and the Connection to the Fall and Destiny of Satan appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Imago Dei and the Ethics of Gene Modification

Guest Writer — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:12:00 +0000

To boldly go where no one has gone before—or not? That is the question when considering whether we should dabble in genetic engineering.

I have been a Trekkie since the early ’70s when I watched Star Trek alone in my parents’ bedroom—since no one else in my family was interested. (My dad believed watching a show filled with bizarre alien characters and space travel was a waste of time.) Years later, The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence Krauss fueled my wonder over how many of the technologies and gadgets in Star Trek were possible and how many were just the imaginings of writers who neglected the laws of physics. Since then, I have been periodically amazed at how Star Trek’s writers projected future realities that were once thought implausible.

Genetic Engineering Creates an Unnatural Selection

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Unnatural Selection,” Captain Picard, Dr. Pulaski, and the Enterprise crew discover a supply ship (USS Lantree) that had recently visited the Darwin Genetic Research Station on Gagarin IV, and the entire Lantree crew was dead and extremely aged.¹ In response to their disconcerting discovery, Captain Picard utters with trepidation and awe, “My God.”

Upon initial assessment, Dr. Pulaski anxiously informs the bridge crew, “They died of natural causes.” Picard’s response foreshadows the outcome: “Natural causes? What in nature could cause that?” Shortly after this, Picard confesses that the thought of a link between the Lantree crew’s deaths and the research station fills him with “profound apprehension.”

As the story unfolds, we learn that children have been genetically designed to have superior physiologies and mental capacities, including advanced immune systems designed to resist disease and aggressively attack potential pathogens from a distance by releasing antibodies into the atmosphere. (It is interesting to note that this episode aired 20 years before the CRISPR/Cas9 system was even discovered.) Unfortunately, the children’s genetic enhancement had an unforeseen, tragic outcome, resulting in a type of humanoid-autoimmunity. Their antibodies—generated to protect them from a relatively harmless flu virus—attacked humanoid DNA in otherwise healthy, unmodified humans, accelerating their aging process. The antibody became a dangerous, infectious pathogen passing easily from one person to another. The children’s superior immunity resulted in Dr. Pulaski’s summary that the genetic design of human beings had led to a new species of humans that is lethal to its predecessors.

Maybe my dad was right—this all sounds pretty far-fetched!

But not anymore—at least not on one level. In December 2015, an international panel of scientists met to discuss the future of gene-editing of human cells, including somatic cells, germ (reproductive) cells, and stem cells.

Since 2012, a bacterial antiviral system called CRISPR/Cas9 has been revolutionizing gene-editing (changing the DNA sequence of targeted genes to correct or introduce new DNA sequences), making it more easily accessible, affordable, and widespread than previous techniques. Most CRISPR/Cas9 editing is being done in nonhuman organisms, but the potential of modifying human somatic cells to treat human diseases is the goal of many experiments.

The Complications of Editing the Human Genome

Three recent studies in Science demonstrate the potential for treating diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in a mouse model using CRISPR/Cas9 systems.² Such modifications are not so straightforward. Gene-editing has proven inefficient, and delivery of the gene-editing mechanism may not hit enough cells to achieve the desired outcome or cure. Unmodified CRISPR/Cas9s also have a high off-target hit rate, which means the target genome is mutated in more places than intended. Many scientists are finding clever solutions to reduce these problems, but these are serious technical hurdles to clear before attempting any kind of gene-editing treatment in humans suffering from genetic diseases like DMD.

As beings made in the image of God, we have been given rational minds, imaginations, curiosity, a desire to create, and a mandate to care for creation. We are even given dominion over creation, which allows us to approach nature through scientific experimentation. As a scientist who studies the vast resources of God’s creation, I am amazed by the wonders and rich complexity of the microbial world. CRISPR/Cas9 and other microbial systems providentially provide us with tools to mitigate human disease and suffering and may even herald the cure for many genetic diseases.

However, the way we exercise dominion makes a great difference in how we care for creation and for one another. (For example, we can use nuclear fission for destructive warheads or clean energy.) CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing opens the door to gene-editing in human germ cells. If modified germ cells or embryos were used to establish a pregnancy, the result would be the birth of a genetically modified human being. Any modifications would then be passed on to subsequent generations, affecting the human gene pool and eventually, possibly all of future humanity.

Is It Ever Ethical to “Modify” Humans Made in God’s Image?

It’s important to remember that we are given dominion over creation, not over other human beings. Only God has dominion over us. Problems arise when we glorify our dominion over creation rather than giving glory to the Creator. In other words, we falter for lack of humility.

The Judeo-Christian perspective espouses human dignity because humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). It is difficult to establish the grounds for human dignity or uniqueness apart from a Creator who imparts his image and gives us purpose. The Judeo-Christian voice thus must be strong in public dialogue, helping to restrain and shape the future of gene-editing to preserve the dignity of humanity.

Significant technical challenges remain before CRISPR/Cas9 can be used to treat diseases in humans. The oversight committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing released their summary statement on gene-editing in research and clinical applications. In light of how little is still known or well-understood of the human genome (see my previous article), greater caution than called for in this summary statement can be argued, echoing others’ calls for a moratorium on human germ cell manipulation due to safety and ethical issues.

Returning to Star Trek, Dr. Pulaski suggests that, despite the risks, the crew should start experimenting. Picard replies that he wants proof of safety before he exposes his crew.

Unfortunately, if we don’t know the risks hidden in unexplored places in the complexity of the human genome, we can’t have positive proof of safety.

It may sound far-fetched, but Star Trek’s episode “Unnatural Selection” is not so far off from scientific possibility. In the midst of this, we should be praying for godly wisdom rather than relying solely on the cry to go boldly where no one has gone before.

Endnotes

John Mason and Mike Gray, “Unnatural Selection,” Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 2, episode 7, directed by Paul Lynch, aired January 30, 1989 (Hollywood: Paramount, 2002), DVD.
Chengzu Long et al., “Postnatal Genome Editing Partially Restores Dystrophin Expression in a Mouse Model of Muscular Dystrophy,” Science 351 (January 2016): 400–3, doi:10.1126/science.aad5725; Christopher E. Nelson et al., “In Vivo Genome Editing Improves Muscle Function in a Mouse Model of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy,” Science 351 (January 2016): 403–7, doi:10.1126/science.aad5143; Mohammadsharif Tabebordbar et al., “In Vivo Gene Editing in Dystrophic Mouse Muscle and Muscle Stem Cells,” Science 351 (January 2016): 407–11, doi:10.1126/science.aad5177.

The post Imago Dei and the Ethics of Gene Modification appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Imago Dei: What Does It Mean?

Kenneth Samples — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:00:00 +0000

The Bible reveals that of all God’s creatures, only man (humankind) was created in the expressed image of God. While Scripture mentions the imago Dei (Latin for the “image of God”) several times (Genesis 5:1, 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; James 3:9), Genesis 1:26–27 is the most important text.

Hebrew references to “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (d^emût) convey the idea of an object similar to or representative of something else, but not identical to it.¹ Further, the words “image” and “likeness” should not be understood as referring to two different things, but rather as interchangeable terms that reflect a Hebrew form of synonymous parallelism.² The New Testament Greek word for image (eikōn) conveys virtually the same meaning as the Hebrew. Both languages indicate that God created humans to be similar to himself, but not identical to himself. Therefore from a biblical perspective, human beings are in some sense both like and unlike the God who made them.

What exactly does it mean for man to be like God? Three qualifications must be made before examining this question further. First, Scripture contains an implicit rather than explicit explanation of the image of God. A definition for imago Dei must come from drawing proper inferences from the biblical text, buttressed by careful reflection about the state of the human condition.

Second, a complete understanding of the imago Dei’s meaning simply isn’t possible because it would require an exhaustive understanding of God’s nature (in addition to that of man).³ Finite creatures by definition cannot comprehend or fully fathom the infinite nature of God; therefore, by necessity people are faced with mystery and limited knowledge.

Third, throughout church history different theological traditions have taken a variety of positions on the exact meaning of the divine image. For example, the three branches of Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) have each emphasized different aspects of the image.⁴

Representative View

This position asserts that humankind possesses a formal nature that serves to represent God. This nature then possesses certain qualities, characteristics, or endowments (spiritual, rational, volitional, etc.) that make humankind like God.

Relational View

This perspective, while allowing for the idea of formal traits, nevertheless insists that humans are most like God when it comes to their unique relational qualities. Thus it is man’s ability to engage in complex interpersonal relationships that best reflects the divine.

Functional View

This viewpoint insists that being made in the image of God is more about what a person does than what a person is. Thus when human beings perform certain functions (take dominion over nature or appropriately represent God on Earth) then the divine image is most deeply reflected.

All three views have their biblical strengths and weaknesses. However, rightly formulated and integrated, all three positions could reflect the different ways that human beings reflect the image of their Creator.⁵

Endnotes

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 442–50.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), s.v. “Image of God,” 2:803.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 443.
Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), s.v. “imago Dei.”
See Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2007), 172–85.

The post Imago Dei: What Does It Mean? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

What Does “Made in the Image of God” Mean?

Reasons to Believe — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:43:43 +0000

The image of God (imago Dei in Latin) is a core belief in the Christian faith that represents the spiritual nature of humanity in relation to the God of the Bible. This belief is also part of the Jewish faith.

Imago Dei is first introduced in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make mankind in our image . . .” and further described in Genesis 1:27, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

This is the only time in Scripture, and during creation, that God creates in his own image.

What Does “Made in God’s Image” Mean?

Let’s look at Genesis 1:26–27 (emphasis added):

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

This passage reflects the only time in Scripture where part of God’s creation is mentioned as being made in his image. On this basis we conclude that human beings are uniquely created in the likeness of God, our Creator.

This means that each human being, whom God has made in his own image (both male and female), is graciously bestowed with intrinsic dignity from the moment they’re created.

So, how can humans, as a composite of body and spirit, be made similar to someone we can’t see?

Historically, theologically orthodox Christians have held to the belief that humans uniquely bear God’s image. Yet there are different perspectives on the exact meaning of imago Dei.

Understandably, it’s confusing! But it’s incredibly important to dive into this topic, especially because it informs our view of morality. Throughout history, this belief that humans are created in the image of God has shaped societies around the world.

A complete understanding of imago Dei just isn’t possible since we as humans have a limited understanding of God’s nature. But we can get closer to a biblically faithful description of the image of God through careful study of Scripture and God’s creation.

A basic understanding of the doctrine holds that the imago Dei represents how all human beings reflect Godlike qualities. These include our desire to be in relationship and in fellowship with others, our spiritual nature, our ability to think critically, and more.

The Christian and the non-Christian are created in the image of God. Yet, his image has been marred by sin in all of us. By making us in his image, God displays his goodness to all humans.

In What Ways Are Humans Like God?

Humans are like God in our knowledge, awareness, and pursuit of morality

People can display some of God’s attributes, such as knowledge, wisdom, goodness, love, holiness, justice, truthfulness, and more. This is what theologians call the communicable attributes of God, as opposed to God’s incommunicable attributes such as omniscience. However, these attributes in humans differ in degree from those found in God. We’re finite, imperfect, and affected by sin, but in him the same characteristics (and more) are unlimited and perfect.

Humans reflect God in our relationships

The Bible also tells us that the imago Dei gives humans the unique opportunity to be in relationship and to be reconciled—despite our sinful nature—with our holy God. God is a relational being who exists eternally in a joyful relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Trinity). God also created us to live in relationship with one another and with him.

Humans image God in our actions

God uniquely gave humanity authority over creation, which we can learn about in Genesis 1:26 (emphasis added):

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

And because we are image bearers, humans have the important role of ruling over and caring for all that God has created.

The imago Dei is what sets humankind apart from everything else in creation! Bearing his image is what makes humanity God’s crown jewel in his creation. Nowhere else in Scripture are God’s other created works referenced as being made in God’s image.

Now, with this basic framework, let’s dive into the original Hebrew to gain a deeper understanding.

What Does Scripture Say About the Imago Dei?

“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26a).

There are only six verses in Scripture that directly refer to human beings as image bearers.

Genesis 1:26–27
Genesis 5:1
Genesis 9:6
1 Corinthians 11:7
Colossians 3:10
James 3:9

In these verses the Hebrew words for “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut) convey the idea of an object similar to or representative of something else, but not identical to it.

The words “image” and “likeness” shouldn’t be understood as referring to two different things, but rather as interchangeable terms. The New Testament Greek word for “image” conveys virtually the same meaning as the Hebrew.

Both languages indicate that humans are created in the likeness of God, but are not identical to God. Therefore, from a biblical perspective, human beings, who bear God’s image, are both alike and distinct from the God who made us.

To be clear, our Creator God is distinctly different from that which he created. As the Creator, he is not limited like we are as humans. He is infinite, eternal, perfect, and so much more. Finite creatures like us are unable to embody these characteristics.

Some of the best features of humankind (such as the ability to love, pursue justice, and be creative) are characteristics that reflect God’s relational, just, and creative qualities.

What a gift it is for humans to reflect the God who made us! What an honor it is to carry the likeness of the Creator of the universe!

Do Men and Women Bear God’s Image Equally?

Yes! Men and women, male and female, are equally made in God’s image.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27; emphasis added).

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created (Genesis 5:1–2).

From these passages we learn that God made man and woman (male and female) in his image. Thus, both men and women equally, yet distinctly, bear God’s image.

One perspective holds that the distinction between males and females is purposeful, as male and female relationships (within marriage) point toward Christ and his relationship with his people, the church. That is, Christ is the bridegroom and the church is his bride.

When a man and woman enter into a marriage covenant (or promise), they represent the covenant between Christ and the church (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31).

This relationship leads us to believe that God’s intention for marriage was for the union of male and female to mirror the commitment between Christ and the church.

Are marriages between Christian men and women perfect? Far from it. Due to humanity’s sinful state, human relationships are not perfect portrayals of God’s great love for his people (Romans 3:23–24).

But what this means for us—as our relationships imperfectly resemble God’s love for his people—is that we have perfection to look forward to in Christ’s second coming to Earth.

Did Sin Change the Image of God?

Here’s one way to view the fall of mankind in relation to the imago Dei: When sin entered the Garden of Eden, humans were scarred by their sin but not destroyed. Sin marred, but didn’t efface, God’s image in humans. In God’s grace, he chose to redeem his creation rather than wipe it out.

However, sin did change human beings’ relationship with God and one another. In our fallen state, humans are now at enmity with God and with one another. Nevertheless, sin didn’t change the fact that humans are created in the image of God.

Because every human continues to bear the imago Dei, God sees even our marred images as redeemable and restorable. It’s because of the imago Dei that God saw humankind as worthy of redemption. In the triune God’s great act of selfless love (John 3:16), Jesus took our place of punishment for sin on the cross. He also gave us his righteousness, by which we can stand blameless before our holy Creator.

Did our sin change God? No. God remains unchanging (Matthew 24:35; Hebrews 13:8). Sin and evil have no power over God and he is able to use humans, even in our sinful disposition, for his glory and good purposes.

With this in mind, we can be confident that even after Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden, all humans (Christian and non-Christian) continue to bear God’s image.

But, sadly, because of our sin all humans are often an incomplete, and even a poor, reflection of his image.

In his letter to the Colossian church, the apostle Paul explains that as believers in Christ they are also alive with Christ. He urges them to turn away from their sinful ways and to turn toward God, and to “put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:9–10).

Paul was reminding the church in Colossae that even though they were sinners, they are made in God’s image and have been raised to life with Christ. The image of God in redeemed sinners is to undergo renewal of the knowledge of God. Paul’s letter to the Colossians at the time of the early church is still relevant to us today.

Furthermore, in James 3:9, author James warns the Jewish Christians about the temptation for us to praise God while also cursing our fellow image bearers.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth comes praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be (James 3:9).

James is making the point that since human beings are created in God’s likeness, when we speak evil to another image bearer, we’re also speaking evil toward God.

We learn in these postfall Scripture passages that despite humanity’s sinful state, humans continue to reflect God’s image. However, because we still live in a fallen world as sinful human beings, we also look forward to Jesus’s second coming when God will renew and restore the earth.

Are Animals Made in the Image of God?

It’s undeniable that animals share some characteristics with humans. Animals are even capable of having emotions and thoughts.

So, are animals also created in God’s image?

Genesis 1 emphasizes the unique creation of “soulish” animals (Hebrew nephesh). These soulish animals (including birds, mammals, and some reptiles) are able to form emotional bonds, especially with their parents and their young.

Think of a parent animal caring for its offspring, or even sacrificing its own life to save the life of its young. We’ve all seen images of these moments and they can be both heartwarming and heart-wrenching.

Let’s look to the biblical creation account to help us learn more about the relation between humans and animals.

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word bara is translated as “create” and used only three times.

When God brings the universe into existence (Genesis 1:1)
When God creates the nephesh (soulish animals, Genesis 1:21)
When God creates humans (Genesis 1:27)

In the context of Genesis 1, bara is reserved for God bringing something brand new into existence.

While humanity shares physical qualities with animals, people stand alone in terms of their spiritual nature. Bara, used in Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 5:1–2 with reference to humanity’s creation, suggests God’s origination of something brand new.

If humans had a likeness to animals, we would assume that the writer of Genesis would not have used bara to describe how God made humans. Instead, in Genesis 1:27 bara is used three times to explain how God created mankind in his image.

Thus, the Genesis creation account solidifies how human beings alone are made in God’s image. And while humanity is directed to care for the animals, we must be careful not to characterize animals with mankind’s unique image and likeness of God.

How Do We Reflect God’s Image Today?

Christians can rejoice in the fact that we’re made in God’s image. Even though we’re imperfect at reflecting his image to the world, it’s all the more reason why we look to Jesus Christ, God’s Son, as the perfect image of God the Father.

It’s our charge as God’s image bearers to tell other image bearers how they can be reconciled to their Creator. God promises to restore his image in all repentant sinners through the lifelong process of sanctification (transformation into Christlikeness).

And how can each of us as imperfect humans be sanctified? By the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can be born again (renewed) to a God-honoring life, restored in God’s image of righteousness and holiness.

The post What Does “Made in the Image of God” Mean? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

Reasons to Believe — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 21:23:10 +0000

What does it mean to be human? This question has echoed through the ages and touches on philosophy, science, and theology. Whether you’re a follower of Christ, a skeptic, or an atheist, this discussion carries profound implications for our lives. RTB believes that understanding our humanity begins with understanding who created us and why.

The Bible says God made human beings in his image (Genesis 1:26–27).

Think about that—you bear the image of the Creator of the universe!

This foundational truth sets humans apart from every other creature. We are not just physical beings but spiritual ones, too. Even people who don’t have a high regard for the Bible agree there is something more to us than what meets the eye. Altogether, this means our lives have intrinsic value and purpose.

But what does being made in God’s image truly mean? And how do we live out this identity in a world filled with competing views on humanity?

We’ll explore these questions together.

Definition of Being Human

To Be Human Is to Reflect God’s Image

To be human means more than having certain physical traits or biological markers. For Christians, it starts with the value-rich idea that we are created in the image of God—unique among all physical life-forms.

Still, defining what it means to be human isn’t straightforward and it’s a topic of scientific and theological debate.

Scientific Ambiguity and Definitions of “Human”

In science, the definition of being human depends on the context. Sometimes, it refers to all hominin (humanlike) species in the fossil record, like the genera Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. Other times, it is narrowed to the Homo genus, such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthals. At its most refined, it refers to anatomically and behaviorally modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens (us).

The Evolutionary View of Humanity

The ambiguity continues when we look at the evolutionary view, where humans are the result of natural selection operating over millions of years. This view, however, has no means of explaining consciousness and morality—inarguable truths known to poke holes in evolutionary, atheistic worldviews.

People who support this idea think the different early human species were like stepping stones that eventually led to modern humans.

But this view raises an important question: What makes us unique from other creatures? Is it just biology? Or is there something more?

A Biblical View on Being Human

The Bible provides clarity to this question. Being human means:

In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

(Genesis 1:27).

Evangelical and conservative Christians widely agree that humans are image-bearers. However, debates begin over which ancient humanlike beings, if any, also carried this image.

At Reasons to Believe, we hold that modern humans, both anatomically and behaviorally, are the true image-bearers of God.

Unlike other hominins, our ancestors Adam and Eve were true image-bearers.

RTB’s View on Hominins and the Image of God

Hominins were fascinating creatures that showed intelligence and culture but didn’t share the spiritual qualities that come with being made in God’s image. They were designed by God with behavioral qualities similar to the great apes—remarkably complex—but not like ours.

Some Christians believe certain hominins such as Neanderthals may have also been made in God’s image. However, because of their cognitive limitations and biological differences, particularly their brains, RTB firmly rejects this view. We uphold the position that only modern humans are specially created by God to bear his image..

Why This Question Matters

What does it mean to be a human? This question brings us face-to-face with a profound truth that stretches beyond mere biology. This question invites us to consider not just how, but why we are made.

The answer rests in the meaning of our role as God’s image-bearers.

God’s Good Design: Made in His Image

The divine imprint of being made in God’s image is what sets us apart and shapes our consciousness, morality, creativity, and free will. It’s a gift that defines who we are and why we exist.

Theological Debate on the Image of God

The Bible says humankind was made “in the image of God.” But what does that mean?

For centuries, scholars have wrestled with this question. The traditional way of understanding the image of God, called the resemblance view, suggests our spiritual and moral traits reflect God’s, though in a finite way.

Recently, two other ideas have emerged:

The relational view sees God’s image as our ability to have a relationship with him.

The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.

While theologians may debate its meaning, RTB scholars believe the image of God includes all of the above. Because we resemble God in part, we’re able to enjoy a relationship with him and fulfill our role as stewards of his creation.

Characteristics of God’s Image

When we include the characteristics of the three viewpoints, we find that human beings have four characteristics that reflect God’s image:

Characteristic	Reflection of God’s Image
Moral component	Humans innately understand concepts of right and wrong, paired with a deep sense of justice and desire for fairness.
Spirituality	Humans long to connect with something beyond the physical world, often expressed through worship, prayer, and seeking that which is beyond us.
Relational nature	Humans thrive on connection with others, the world, and God, reflecting the Trinity and our role as Earth’s caretakers.
Mental capacity	Human intellect allows logical reasoning, creativity, and communication of complex ideas through language, art, and music.*

*/adam-eve/first-humans/ancient-cave-art-strengthens-evidence-for-the-image-of-god

Your True Purpose as a Human

Being made in God’s image gives our lives ultimate meaning and purpose. Our true purpose is to form a relationship with God, reflect his nature, and glorify him through our actions. Jesus explained this beautifully when he said we must love God with all our heart and love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39).

The Role of Humans in Life on Earth

Our purpose goes beyond love as a feeling: true love is active. We’re called to care for the earth and each other and to thrive as human beings. Genesis 1:28 tells us to multiply, rule over creation, and subdue it.

This calling reflects responsible care, not exploitation. Protecting the planet advances human well-being, as caring for creation and human flourishing go hand in hand.

How Science Affirms What Being Human Means

Science offers compelling clues on the age-old question of what it means to be a human. When considering the concept of imago Dei, or being created in God’s image, modern science highlights how exceptional human beings truly are, in part, based on the design of our brains. The evidence sets us apart from other creatures, including our closest hominin relatives the Neanderthals.

The Complexity of Human DNA

Human DNA reveals an amazing design that speaks of plan and purpose. DNA in all living things is complex. Some of our genes (found in DNA) contain information that uniquely directs our cognitive development. The information in human DNA forms our biology and is responsible for our unique creativity, morals, and cognitive skills. It’s as if DNA was designed to reflect a higher purpose—a fingerprint of a higher power.

Unique Brain Structure of Humans vs. Neanderthals

Scientists have noted key differences between modern human and Neanderthal brains. Modern humans have a globular skull with enlarged thinking areas, while Neanderthals had longer skulls, impacting advanced cognition. The cerebellum in modern humans is larger and more symmetrical, enhancing skills like language, memory, and social abilities. Additionally, the modern human parietal lobe is more developed, supporting self-awareness, planning, coordination, and symbolic thought.

A Scientific Case for Human Exceptionalism

Advances in artificial intelligence and bioengineering highlight humanity’s uniqueness. AI may be powerful but it can’t replicate our morality, creativity, or relational depth, showing that being human means more than biology. Far from contradicting the idea of the imago Dei, science supports it—our DNA, brains, and behaviors align with how the Bible explains humanity. Modern science, far from lessening our place in creation, reinforces that we truly are fearfully and wonderfully made.

What Defines You as a Human Being?

What defines us as human beings? We are more than our actions, achievements, or circumstances. The Bible says we are created in God’s image with special worth and purpose. But as Adam’s descendants, we also bear the consequences of humanity’s fall. This sinful state means humans are a mix of greatness and brokenness—able to love and create, yet prone to sin and rebellion against God’s will. Sin infiltrates our nature, and we are unable to overcome it without God’s grace.

Nonbiblical Views on Humanity

In some evolutionary views, humans are seen as material beings shaped by natural selection, with concepts like good and evil viewed as societal constructs. Human actions stem from instincts, not divine purpose, making sin natural behavior rather than moral failure.

Others argue that humans are inherently good and do wrong only out of desperation or lack of resources. However, this view struggles to explain the deep cruelty and selfishness seen throughout history, even among the privileged.

Humanity’s Problem—and God’s Solution

The Bible paints a different picture. It tells us humans are sinners, separated from God, from others, and from creation itself. This reality is echoed in Romans 3:10–12, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” and “there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Our separation from God is stark. Though we were created to have a relationship with him, our sin creates a sinkhole we cannot escape on our own.

Yet, in our hopelessness, God provided a way out. Romans 6:23 reminds us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Through the cross, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and made reconciliation with God possible.

The True Definition of Humanity

The meaning of being human lies not in our brain structures, what we accomplish, or even how society defines us. Our identity is rooted in God’s image, dependent on Jesus for forgiveness and restoration, and maintained with all creation through the Holy Spirit. By God’s design, we are given a purpose far greater than anything we could reach on our own.

You are fearfully and wonderfully made, redeemed by God’s love, and meant to live for his glory. This is what being truly human means.

Jesus: The Perfect Human

Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, perfectly reflects God’s image and reveals humanity’s true purpose. Colossians 1:15 calls him “the image of the invisible God,” exemplifying holiness, righteousness, and love. Through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus made a way to restore the image of God that had been tarnished by sin. That restoration comes by the power of the Holy Spirit (called sanctification), who transforms us to become more like Christ and live out our purpose as God’s children.

To Live Is Christ

The ultimate goal of humanity is realized in Christ. To be a human is not about moral perfection or worldly accomplishments, it’s about finding our identity in Jesus—the perfect human who invites us into a relationship with God. Through him, we embody everything we were created to be.

The post What Does It Mean to Be Human? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

When Does Human Life Begin?

Reasons to Believe — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 20:11:35 +0000

When does human life actually begin? This question stirs deep debates within modern society and across the realms of science and religion. We at Reasons to Believe firmly believe human life begins at conception. That’s when a new human being emerges—one that’s genetically unique and, therefore, a distinct person.

But does science affirm that life begins at conception? Or is this a matter of personal belief? How do we connect scientific views with what the Bible says about when a new life starts?

Let’s explore these questions with an open mind, seeking to understand when life begins and what it means for people in our world today. We’ll examine scientific definitions, biological facts, and biblical insights into the time when a new human being begins and what these views mean for both faith and science.

When Does Life Begin According to Science?

Science confirms that human life begins at conception—the moment when sperm and egg fuse to form a zygote. From that instant, a genetically unique human being comes into existence, complete with distinct DNA.

This process, called fertilization, is widely recognized as the starting point of human life. In fact, 96% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization, making it the prevailing scientific perspective.

This shared view among scientists is echoed by many OB/GYN physicians who advocate for recognizing the zygote as a new human life from conception. They affirm that the fertilized human egg has all the necessary genetic parts that define a new individual human life. Let’s track that journey from fertilization to birth.

Human Development Journey

From the point of conception, the zygote goes through the development journey to become a fully formed human. Here are some of the major milestones:

Watch the following video to see the journey every human takes from fertilization to birth:

When Does Life Begin Medically?

Dual Patient Approach

The medical field considers both science and ethical responsibility when addressing the question of when life begins. Many medical professionals recognize the pregnant mother and her unborn baby as two distinct patients, highlighting the view of the unborn as a unique individual. This is known as the dual patient approach.

If a concern arises, medical staff are ethically required to consider the health and life of both human beings, both collectively and independently. This dual patient approach by the medical field supports the understanding that all human life begins at conception and each life is important.

What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?

According to the Bible, the question of when life begins is answered by considering teachings and principles found in Scripture. Psalm 139:13–16 artfully suggests that life begins in the womb, likely at conception. There, God is intimately involved in creating a person. The Bible affirms that he:

[. . .] knit me together in my mother’s womb

and

[. . .] saw my unformed body.

This Psalm not only stresses the sanctity of life from its earliest stages but also demonstrates remarkable scientific accuracy that matches well with what science tells us about human development.

Scientific and Scriptural Insights

Further support for the biblical viewpoint stems from studies about the placenta showing the extraordinary design and function needed to support new life. This research showcases what many see as the work of a Creator to protect and nourish an early, distinct life. Consequently, the placenta’s design argues against the idea that a fetus is “just a parasite.”

Instead, it shows the important relationship needed for growth and health. Plus, new findings in neuroscience reveal changes in a woman’s brain during pregnancy, spotlighting the profound biological and emotional changes that happen while caring for new life.

Some people use Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam, to say life begins with the first breath. But this idea doesn’t align with the full scriptural context.

Instead consider the similarity between Adam’s creation and yours when you were in the womb—God intricately created both up to the point of their first breath. In Luke 1, we read phrases like “the baby leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb,” and “the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” These expressions make it clear that what’s in the womb is a human life and there’s no indication that life doesn’t begin until that first breath is drawn.

Addressing Common Objections

When addressing common arguments against the pro-life view, such as why spontaneous abortions occur and the idea that Christians are only pro-birth and not pro-life, it’s important to think about these concerns carefully.

Understanding these sensitive topics will help us to have compassionate and informed conversations, based on both faith and facts.

Especially when we want to make a biblical case against abortion.

This approach honors the Bible’s view of when life begins and invites a deeper appreciation for the amazing scientific process that happens from conception to birth.

When Does “Personhood” Begin?

The debate over when “personhood” begins is a pivotal, often heated topic in discussions about human life. Many pro-choice supporters acknowledge that a human embryo or fetus is a human being, but they argue it is not the same as a human person.

This issue brings up two essential questions: What exactly defines a “person”? and Who decides the criteria for personhood? These questions show how unclear and arbitrary it can be to separate being a person from just being a human.

The Christian View of Personhood

From a Christian point of view, personhood starts at conception. At this point, a human being is, by definition, endowed with the image of God. This concept is known as the imago Dei. It affirms that every human, from the moment their history is set in motion, is a person because they bear this divine image which gives them inherent dignity and worth.

Challenges with Sentience and Self-Awareness

Critics often argue that attributes such as sentience (the ability to experience feelings and sensations) or self-awareness (consciousness) should define personhood. But these ideas often cause more problems.

The capacity to feel or perceive is difficult to measure and varies widely among individuals.

Likewise, self-awareness is a trait that develops over time and is not present at birth.

The lack of measurable standards for sentience or self-awareness leads to the question: Why should these characteristics serve as the benchmarks for personhood?

Such traits are not only arbitrary but can leave out individuals who are in certain developmental stages, such as infants or those with cognitive impairments.

Developmental Milestones and Personhood

Developmental milestones like a heartbeat, brain activity, or the ability to live outside the womb are sometimes used as markers of personhood. However, these are just stages of growth and don’t fully encase what it means to be a person. From a Christian viewpoint, personhood is linked to identity as image bearers of God, not on mere capacity for bodily function.

The Importance of Language in Human Value Discussions

The importance of using clear, precise language when talking about human value can’t be overstated. How we define “human” and “person” shapes our ethical and moral views about life and how we protect it. In the biblical worldview, every life is sacred from conception—a position that supports arguments against abortion by highlighting the value inherent to all human beings.

We encourage everyone to think about the language they use when discussing early human life. Important meanings and moral responsibilities arise from words and definitions.

Takeaway

The question of when human life begins according to science and the Bible is often deeply debated but should be likewise deeply researched and considered. Our minds should be open to facts and our hearts willing to reflect on something more than just ourselves and on what it means to be human.

People from all worldviews and backgrounds have thought about when a new human being begins. The majority agree that life starts at conception—not at 8 weeks or 24 weeks, and not at birth, but when the new human DNA is created.

There’s great support for the belief that life begins at fertilization, which in turn has important ethical and moral implications. It makes us think about the value of life from the very start and the need to care for and protect it, even before that life takes its first breath.

When we consider the evidence for when human life begins, we step into a profound truth—life is not an accident, it’s a purposeful gift. Science and Scripture together affirm that every human being is wonderfully made, intentionally created, and endowed with purpose from the very beginning.

The post When Does Human Life Begin? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Respuesta a objeciones sobre el pecado original

Kenneth Samples — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:00:00 +0000

Todas las personas son moralmente defectuosas. La vida diaria confirma que hay algo roto en el centro de cada ser humano.

La antropología bíblica (el estudio de la humanidad en su relación con Dios) explica la condición de rotura moral revelando que todos los seres humanos están cautivos de la fuerza debilitadora del pecado original. The Handbook of Basic Bible Texts define el ‘pecado original’ como «la pecaminosidad, culpa y susceptibilidad a la muerte heredadas de Adán por todos los seres humanos [excepto Cristo]»¹(Salmos 51:5; 58:3; Proverbios 20:9; Romanos 5:10-12).

Si bien esta calamidad moral afecta universalmente a todas las personas, la doctrina del pecado original sigue siendo controvertida. Algunas personas la rechazan por diversas razones. Veamos algunas objeciones que he recibido recientemente en las redes sociales y mi respuesta a ellas.

Una objeción de un musulmán

Recientemente tuve una breve discusión con un musulmán en Twitter que discrepaba con un artículo que escribí anteriormente, «Does Original Sin Explain the Human Condition?» (¿Explica el pecado original la condición humana?). El islam niega la doctrina del pecado original y en su lugar afirma que las personas nacen moralmente buenas. Por lo tanto, los musulmanes rechazan la doctrina cristiana de la caída. El musulmán con el que interactué dijo que el pecado original era una falsa doctrina introducida por el apóstol Pablo.

En mi respuesta, le pregunté al comentarista musulmán por qué, si las personas nacen buenas como afirma el islam, él no dejaba simplemente el egoísmo, la envidia y la lujuria. Me pareció una respuesta justa dada la negación categórica del islam de la naturaleza pecaminosa de la humanidad. Desafortunadamente, el musulmán no respondió a mi reto moral.

Una objeción de un cristiano ortodoxo oriental

Como señalé en mi anterior artículo, la cristiandad no está totalmente de acuerdo con la doctrina del pecado original. Por ejemplo, los ortodoxos orientales afirman que, si bien todas las personas nacen con una propensión al pecado (el pecado ancestral), rechazan la idea de que las personas cargan con la culpa de Adán.²La cristiandad oriental tiende a considerar el pecado original como una doctrina de la iglesia occidental con estrechos vínculos con San Agustín.

En mi página de Facebook, un cristiano ortodoxo oriental respondió al artículo anterior. Pensaba que el pecado original era incoherente, y tenía dos objeciones específicas (parafraseadas aquí):

Todavía estoy tratando de entender el concepto de pecado original. La culpa heredada me parece un absurdo lógico.

1. El pecado original, tal como se describe en el artículo, parece más fuerte que una simple propensión universal al pecado como la que se transmite en Romanos 3:23 («Pues todos han pecado y están privados de la gloria de Dios»).

2. Si Dios realmente culpa o castiga a las personas por la culpa heredada, entonces parece reflejar un profundo defecto de carácter en Dios mismo.

En mi respuesta, señalé que los ortodoxos, católicos y protestantes teológicamente conservadores comparten muchos puntos en común, como se refleja en el Credo de Nicea. Con esto en mente, he aquí algunos puntos a considerar.

Primero, por supuesto, la cuestión central, al menos para mí, es si el pecado original es una enseñanza bíblica. La cristiandad occidental (católica y protestante) ha concluido en general que los datos bíblicos son muy sólidos. Así que invito a los creyentes de todos los trasfondos a estudiar los pasajes bíblicos individuales citados en mi artículo y en mi libro 7 Truths That Changed the World, (específicamente los capítulos 9 y 10).

Segundo, la idea de que una sola persona represente a un grupo de personas para bien o para mal tiene sentido para mí como estadounidense y como padre. Como ciudadanos y padres, a menudo llevamos la carga y a veces el castigo de las acciones realizadas por otros en nuestro país y en nuestra familia. Desde una perspectiva bíblica, se puede argumentar que los antiguos hebreos se veían a sí mismos como un grupo colectivo ante Dios con Adán como su representante federal. Dios trataría a todas las personas según las acciones de Adán como representante. Algunos estudiosos consideran que la individualidad exclusiva ante Dios es menos bíblica y más un concepto moderno.

Tercero, si la culpa heredada es una contradicción lógica, también lo es la justicia heredada. Sin embargo, la metáfora central del apóstol Pablo sobre la salvación gira en torno a una analogía contable (crédito y débito), donde Cristo toma nuestro pecado y nos da su justicia. De hecho, Dios castigó a Cristo por los pecados que él heredó de nosotros. Como proclama Pablo: «Al que no cometió pecado alguno, por nosotros Dios lo trató como pecador, para que en él recibiéramos la justicia de Dios» (2 Corintios 5:21).

Cuarto, una mera propensión (una tendencia a hacer algo regularmente; una inclinación o predisposición) a pecar no parece hacer justicia a los datos bíblicos. En las Escrituras, el pecado se llama ‘desobediencia’, ‘maldad’, ‘iniquidad’, ‘anarquía’, ‘transgresión’, ‘infracción’, ‘impiedad’, ‘injusticia’ y ‘maldad’. La ‘propensión’ tampoco parece coincidir con lo que Jesús llama ‘esclavitud al pecado’ (Juan 8:34). Además, la condición humana, incluso para el cristiano, muestra constantemente que nadie puede dejar de pecar totalmente (por ejemplo, envidia, orgullo, egoísmo, lujuria: 1 Juan 1:8).

Quinto, en la redención cristiana, Dios es a la vez la parte ofendida y la que paga por la ofensa (de forma análoga a los padres que intentan ayudar a sus hijos, aunque sufran pérdidas). Esta cualidad parece reflejar no un Dios de defectos sino de amor y gracia.

Así que, en conclusión, creo que el pecado original es una doctrina bíblica clara y una idea coherente que tiene un gran poder explicativo y alcance en lo que respecta a la condición humana. En mi libro 7 Truths That Changed the World, los capítulos 9 y 10 están dedicados al pecado y a la salvación.

Un pedido de aclaración sobre el pecado original

En respuesta a mi explicación, el cristiano ortodoxo oriental pidió entonces más aclaraciones (parafraseadas aquí): La información parece ser que nacemos pecadores y no podemos salvarnos, y la explicación parece ser que nacemos pecadores que no podemos salvarnos. Repetir la información no parece una buena explicación de la información. Debo estar perdiendo algo aquí.

En mi respuesta, dije que, para explicar el extraordinario poder explicativo del cristianismo y su alcance, tenemos que ampliar el tema para incluir la antropología cristiana más completa. Como estudioso de las religiones del mundo y de los sistemas filosóficos de creencias durante más de 30 años, estoy seguro de que solo la antropología del cristianismo histórico parece encajar con la enigmática condición humana.
Citando a Blaise Pascal en su libro Pensées, el ser humano es una extraña y peculiar mezcla de ‘grandeza y miseria’.³ La grandeza proviene de la imago Dei (Génesis 1:26-28). Las capacidades y logros filosóficos, científicos, estéticos y espirituales del ser humano lo sitúan en una categoría diferente. Incluso los principales científicos evolucionistas seculares señalan ahora que los seres humanos son diferentes en especie (excepcionalismo humano) y no solo en grado de todas las demás formas de vida.

La miseria proviene de la condición caída y se extiende mucho más allá de una mera propensión al pecado, que se evidencia en una corrupción interior universal profundamente arraigada. La realidad de que todas las personas están infectadas por el pecado y no pueden no pecar encaja bien con una naturaleza caída universal que opera algo así como una enfermedad hereditaria. El pecado original dice que todos los seres humanos han heredado una naturaleza caída y una culpa colectiva a través de su ancestro representativo, Adán. Peor aún, los seres humanos, en su condición moralmente depravada, a veces utilizan sus dones para cometer atrocidades como la esclavitud, el Holocausto, la trata de personas y el aborto (incluido el infanticidio). El islam no cree en una humanidad caída, ni tampoco el judaísmo moderno. Las religiones orientales no ofrecen una antropología que se corresponda bien con la condición humana. Y el ser humano parece tanto mejor como peor de lo que la teoría evolutiva secular predeciría.

De modo que creo que la antropología cristiana bíblica o histórica es la que mejor se ajusta a la condición humana real (explica el enigma) y, por tanto, hace que el cristianismo histórico sea plausiblemente verdadero. Además, la caída de la condición humana se demuestra cada día (lo que confirma la inferencia abductiva). Desarrollo este enfoque con más detalle en mis libros A World of Difference y 7 Truths That Changed the World.

Conclusiones
Si a usted también le parece que el pecado original es una afirmación doctrinal misteriosa, considere las palabras de Pascal tanto sobre su misterio como sobre su poder explicativo único.

«Es, sin embargo, algo sorprendente que el misterio más alejado de nuestro conocimiento, es decir, el de la transmisión del pecado, sea un hecho sin el cual no podemos tener conocimiento de nosotros mismos. Pues no cabe duda de que no hay nada que escandalice más a nuestra razón que decir que el pecado del primer hombre ha hecho culpables a quienes, estando tan alejados de esta fuente, parecen incapaces de participar en él. Esta transmisión no solo nos parece imposible, sino también muy injusta…. Ciertamente nada nos ofende más ásperamente que esta doctrina; y, sin embargo, sin este misterio, el más incomprensible de todos, somos incomprensibles para nosotros mismos. El nudo de nuestra condición da giros y vueltas en este abismo, de modo que es más difícil concebir al hombre sin este misterio que para el hombre concebir este misterio».⁴

Así que, aunque el pecado original es un misterio al que algunas personas, incluso algunos cristianos, se oponen, tiene un sólido apoyo bíblico y ayuda a explicar el gran enigma de la naturaleza humana.

Reflexiones: Su turno
¿Cómo ve el pecado original manifestado en su vida? Visite Reflections en WordPress para comentar tu respuesta.

Recursos

Para más información sobre el pecado original y la cura de Dios en el evangelio de Jesucristo, vea mi libro 7 Truths That Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), capítulos 9 y 10.
Vea mi artículo «Blaise Pascal on the Human Condition.»

Notas

John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 56.
Fr. John S. Romanides, «Original Sin According to St. Paul,» Orthodox Christian Information Center, consultado el 3 de diciembre de 2020, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, traducción de A. J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin, 1966), 117/409.
Pascal, 434.

The post Respuesta a objeciones sobre el pecado original appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Responding to Objections to Original Sin

Kenneth Samples — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:00:00 +0000

All people are morally flawed. Daily living confirms that brokenness sits at the center of each human being.

The Bible’s anthropology (study of humanity as it relates to God) explains the moral breakdown by revealing that all human beings are captive to the debilitating force of original sin. The Handbook of Basic Bible Texts defines “original sin” as “the sinfulness, guilt, and susceptibility to death inherited by all human beings [Christ excepted] from Adam”¹(Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Proverbs 20:9; Romans 5:10–12).

While this moral calamity affects people universally, the doctrine of original sin remains controversial. Some people push back against it for various reasons. Let’s look at some objections that I have received recently on social media and my response to them.

An Objection from a Muslim

I recently had a brief discussion with a Muslim on Twitter who took issue with an earlier article I wrote, “Does Original Sin Explain the Human Condition?” Islam denies the doctrine of original sin and instead asserts that people are born morally good. So Muslims reject the Christian doctrine of the fall. The Muslim I interacted with said that original sin was a false doctrine introduced by the apostle Paul.

In my response, I asked the Muslim commenter why, if people are born good as Islam claims, he did not simply stop being selfish, envious, and lustful. This seemed to me to be a fair response given Islam’s categorical denial of humankind’s sinful nature. Unfortunately, the Muslim did not respond to my moral challenge.

An Objection from an Eastern Orthodox Christian

As I noted in my earlier article, Christendom is not in full agreement about the doctrine of original sin. For example, Eastern Orthodoxy affirms that while all people are born with a proclivity to sin (ancestral sin), they reject the idea that people bear Adam’s guilt.²Eastern Christendom tends to view original sin as a Western church doctrine with close ties to St. Augustine.

On my Facebook page, an Eastern Orthodox Christian responded to the earlier article. He thought original sin was incoherent and he had two specific objections (paraphrased here):

I’m still trying to get my mind around the concept of original sin. Inherited guilt seems to me to be a logical absurdity.

1. Original sin, as described in the article, seems stronger than simply a universal proclivity to sin such as is conveyed in Romans 3:23 (“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”).

2. If God actually blames or punishes people for inherited guilt, then it seems to reflect a profound character flaw in God himself.

In my response, I pointed out that theologically conservative Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism share much common ground, as is reflected in the Nicene Creed. With that in mind, here are a few points for consideration.

First, of course the central issue, at least for me, is whether original sin is a biblical teaching. Western Christendom (Catholic and Protestant) has generally concluded that the biblical data is very strong. So I invite believers of all backgrounds to study the individual biblical passages cited in my article and in my book 7 Truths That Changed the World (specifically chapters 9 and 10).

Second, the idea of a single person representing a group of people for good or bad makes sense to me as an American and as a parent. As citizens and parents we often bear the burden and sometimes the punishment of actions done by others in our country and in our family. From a biblical perspective, a case can be made that the ancient Hebrews saw themselves as a collective group before God with Adam as their federal representative. God would treat all people according to the actions of Adam as representative. Some scholars view exclusive individuality before God as less biblical and more of a modern concept.

Third, if inherited guilt is a logical contradiction, then so is inherited righteousness. Yet the apostle Paul’s central metaphor concerning salvation turns on the bookkeeping analogy (credit and debit) of Christ taking our sin and giving us his righteousness. In fact, God did punish Christ for sins he inherited from us. As Paul proclaims: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Fourth, a mere proclivity (a tendency to do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition) to sin doesn’t seem to do justice to the biblical data. In Scripture, sin is called “disobedience,” “evil,” “inequity,” “lawlessness,” “transgression,” “trespass,” “ungodliness,” “unholiness,” “unrighteousness,” and “wickedness.” Nor does “proclivity” seem to match what Jesus calls an “enslavement to sin” (John 8:34). Also, the human condition, even for the Christian, constantly shows that no one can totally stop sinning (e.g., envy, pride, selfishness, lust: 1 John 1:8).

Fifth, in Christian redemption, God is both the offended party and the one who pays for the offense (analogous to parents who attempt to help their children even while suffering loss). This quality seems to reflect not a God of flaws but of love and grace.

Thus in conclusion I think original sin is a clear biblical doctrine and a coherent idea that carries great explanatory power and scope when it comes to the human condition. In my book 7 Truths That Changed the World, chapters 9 and 10 are devoted to sin and salvation.

A Call for Clarification about Original Sin

In reply to my points, the Eastern Orthodox Christian then asked for further clarification (paraphrased here): The information seems to be that we are born sinners and cannot save ourselves, and the explanation seems to be that we are born sinners that cannot save ourselves. Restating the information does not seem like a good explanation of the information. I must be missing something here.

In my reply I said to explain Christianity’s extraordinary explanatory power and scope, we need to broaden the topic to include the fuller Christian anthropology. As a student of the world’s religions and philosophical systems of belief for more than 30 years, I’m confident in saying that only historic Christianity’s anthropology seems to fit with the enigmatic human condition.
To reference Blaise Pascal in the Pensées, human beings are a strange and freakish mixture of “greatness and wretchedness.”³ The greatness comes from the imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–28). Humankind’s philosophical, scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual abilities and accomplishments place human beings in a different category. Even leading secular evolutionary scientists now note that humans are different in kind (human exceptionalism), not just in degree from all other life-forms.

The wretchedness comes from the fallen condition and extends far beyond a mere proclivity to sin, evidencing itself in a universal deep-seated inward corruption. The reality that all people are infected with sin and cannot not sin fits well with a universal fallen nature that operates something like a hereditary disease. Original sin says all human beings have inherited a fallen nature and corporate guilt through their representative ancestor, Adam. Worse still, human beings in their morally depraved condition sometimes use their giftedness to commit atrocities like slavery, the Holocaust, human trafficking, and abortion (even infanticide). Islam doesn’t believe in a fallen humanity, nor does modern Judaism. The Eastern religions don’t offer an anthropology that corresponds well to the human condition. And human beings seem both better and worse than what secular evolutionary theory would predict.

Thus I think the biblical or historic Christian anthropology best fits with the actual human condition (explains the enigma) and thus makes historic Christianity plausibly true. Moreover, the fallenness of the human condition is proved every day (confirming the abductive inference). I develop this approach in more detail in my books A World of Difference and 7 Truths That Changed the World.

Takeaway
If you also find original sin a mysterious doctrinal claim then consider Pascal’s words on both its mystery and its unique explanatory power.

“It is, however, an astonishing thing that the mystery furthest removed from our knowledge, namely, that of the transmission of sin, should be a fact without which we can have no knowledge of ourselves. For it is beyond doubt that there is nothing which more shocks our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has rendered guilty those, who, being so removed from this source, seem incapable of participation in it. This transmission does not only seem to us impossible, it seems also very unjust…. Certainly nothing offends us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet, without this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible to ourselves. The knot of our condition takes its twists and turns in this abyss, so that man is more inconceivable without this mystery than this mystery is inconceivable to man.”⁴

So while original sin is a mystery that some people, even some Christians, object to, it has solid biblical support and it helps explain the great enigma of human nature.

Reflections: Your Turn
How do you see original sin manifested in your life? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

For more about original sin and God’s cure in the gospel of Jesus Christ, see my book, 7 Truths That Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), chapters 9 and 10.
See my article “Blaise Pascal on the Human Condition.”

Endnotes

John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 56.
Fr. John S. Romanides, “Original Sin According to St. Paul,” Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed December 3, 2020, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin, 1966), 117/409.
Pascal, 434.

The post Responding to Objections to Original Sin appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Los 3 trascendentales: verdad, bondad y belleza

Kenneth Samples — Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:00:10 +0000

¿Qué es real? ¿Qué está bien? ¿Qué es bello? Los seres humanos nos hacemos este tipo de preguntas porque anhelamos al menos tres cosas: verdad, bondad y belleza.

Destacados filósofos a lo largo de los siglos han llamado trascendentales a estos tres valores cósmicos. Un trascendental se refiere a algo que existe más allá del mundo del tiempo-espacio-materia. Es una realidad universal que se extiende más allá de nuestras experiencias sensoriales cotidianas y, por tanto, se considera no física, inmaterial, conceptual o incluso espiritual. En filosofía, lo trascendental se relaciona con la naturaleza de la realidad o del ser, y trata de describirla. Por lo tanto, podemos pensar en estos valores como universales atemporales y atributos del ser.

En este artículo introductorio describiré brevemente cómo eran considerados los tres trascendentales de la verdad, la bondad y la belleza en el mundo clásico. Luego mostraré cómo la civilización cristiana los adaptó como verdades de la revelación general y los fundamentó en la naturaleza del Dios trino.

La visión de la civilización clásica de la verdad, la bondad y la belleza
El mundo clásico (o la antigüedad clásica) consistía en gran parte en la sociedad grecorromana centrada en el mar Mediterráneo y que existió en su apogeo durante aproximadamente un milenio, desde 500 a.C. hasta 500 d.C. Las grandes culturas de Grecia y Roma florecieron e influyeron profundamente en Europa, África del Norte y Asia Occidental. Las grandes ciudades de este periodo fueron Atenas, Roma e incluso Jerusalén. Algunas de las filosofías dominantes de esta época fueron el platonismo, el aristotelismo y el estoicismo.

Para los famosos filósofos griegos Platón y Aristóteles, el mundo tenía un significado y propósito genuinos. Los valores cósmicos de la verdad (lo que define la realidad), la bondad (lo que cumple su propósito) y la belleza (lo que es bello) eran de naturaleza objetiva y conocibles por el buscador noble. Dado que los seres humanos tenían las capacidades internas del logos (la razón), el ethos (la moralidad) y el pathos (la emoción), estas capacidades internas correspondían a los valores cósmicos y producían la realización humana:

El logos corresponde a la verdad
El ethos corresponde a la bondad
El pathos corresponde a la belleza

El erudito Stephen R. Turley describe el punto de vista clásico de que las capacidades humanas se corresponden con estos valores cósmicos y se satisfacen con ellos:

La verdad, la bondad y la belleza son valores cósmicos que comunican el significado divino a las capacidades intelectuales, morales y estéticas del alma humana, lo que aporta un equilibrio en el alma que, a su vez, armoniza a la persona humana con el significado y el propósito divinos del cosmos, que se consideraba el requisito previo para el florecimiento humano.1

La visión de la civilización cristiana de la verdad, la bondad y la belleza

En el siglo V d.C., el paganismo se había convertido mayoritariamente al cristianismo. Así, la civilización cristiana dominaría el mundo occidental y partes de Oriente durante casi un milenio (entre el 500 y el 1500). Los filósofos y teólogos cristianos se apropiaron de la verdad de estos valores cósmicos como verdades de la revelación general, pero los fundamentaron en la naturaleza del Dios trino. Dios no tiene verdad, bondad y belleza; más bien, Dios es verdad, bondad y belleza. Podemos afirmarlo de esta manera:

Toda verdad es la verdad de Dios.
Toda bondad es la bondad de Dios.
Toda belleza es la belleza de Dios.

Cuando Dios creó, impregnó el cosmos de verdad, bondad y belleza. El filósofo Peter Kreeft dice: “Todo lo que existe es, de alguna manera, verdadero, bueno y bello”.²Y los seres humanos, a través de la imago Dei (imagen de Dios), son capaces de conocerla verdad, desear el bien y amar la belleza. La caída de la humanidad en el pecado desordenó las capacidades naturales del hombre, pero a través de la redención que se encuentra en la vida, muerte y resurrección de Jesucristo, los seres humanos son traídos de vuelta a una relación correcta con Dios y con estos valores revelados.

Según el cristianismo histórico, los seres humanos (como criaturas) han sido creados para conocer y adorar al Dios trino. Y nuestro actual anhelo de verdad, bondad y belleza existe porque estos valores reflejan la fuente última, que es el Dios máximamente perfecto. Cuando perseguimos la verdad, la bondad y la belleza en esta vida y en este mundo, estamos siguiendo la majestad del Señor.

En futuros artículos escribiré sobre las implicaciones teológicas, filosóficas y apologéticas de los trascendentales de la verdad, la bondad y la belleza.

Reflexiones: Tu turno

¿Cómo han impactado su vida los trascendentales de la verdad, la bondad y la belleza? Visite Reflections en WordPress para comentar su respuesta.

Recursos

Stephen R. Turley, Awakening Wonder: A Classical Guide to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty (Camp Hill, PA: Classical Academic Press, 2015).
Peter Kreeft, “Lewis’s Philosophy of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty,” in C. S. Lewis as Philosopher: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, edited by David J. Baggett, Gary R. Habermas, and Jerry L. Walls (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008).

Notas

Transcribí esta cita de la entrevista de Steve Turley con Janet Mefferd: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4001416/Blog%20Photos/steveturley_151020_Sample.mp3.
Peter Kreeft on Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Boredom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH2X-bQdgxQ.

The post Los 3 trascendentales: verdad, bondad y belleza appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The 3 Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, & Beauty

Kenneth Samples — Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:00:10 +0000

What is real? What is right? What is lovely? Human beings ask these kinds of questions because we long for at least three things: truth, goodness, and beauty.

Prominent philosophers through the centuries have called these three cosmic values transcendentals. A transcendental refers to something that exists beyond the time-space-matter world. It is a universal reality that extends beyond our everyday sensory experiences and is thus considered nonphysical, immaterial, conceptual, or even spiritual. In philosophy, the transcendental relates to and seeks to describe the nature of reality or being. Therefore, one may think of these values as timeless universals and attributes of being.

In this introductory article I’ll briefly describe how the three transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty were viewed in the classical world. Then I’ll show how Christian civilization accommodated them as truths of general revelation and grounded them in the nature of the triune God.

Classical Civilization’s View of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty
The classical world (or classical antiquity) consisted largely of the Greco-Roman society that was centered around the Mediterranean Sea and existed at its peak for roughly a millennium—from about 500 BC to 500 AD. The great cultures of Greece and Rome flourished and deeply influenced Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. The grand cities of this period included Athens, Rome, and even Jerusalem. Some of the dominant philosophies of this era included Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism.

For the famous Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, the world had genuine meaning and purpose. The cosmic values of truth (that which defines reality), goodness (that which fulfills its purpose), and beauty (that which is lovely) were objective in nature and knowable by the noble seeker. Since human beings had the internal capacities of logos (reason), ethos (morality), and pathos (emotion), these internal capacities corresponded to the cosmic values and brought forth human fulfillment:

Logos corresponds to truth
Ethos corresponds to goodness
Pathos corresponds to beauty

Scholar Stephen R. Turley describes the classical view that human capacities match with and are fulfilled by these cosmic values:

Truth, goodness, and beauty are cosmic values that communicate divine meaning to the intellectual, moral, and aesthetic capacities of the human soul, which brings a balance in the soul, which, in turn, harmonizes the human person with divine meaning and purpose of the cosmos, which was considered the prerequisite to human flourishing.1

Christian Civilization’s View of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty

By the fifth century AD paganism had been largely converted to Christianity. Thus Christian civilization would dominate the Western world and parts of the East for largely a millennium (about 500 to 1500). Christian philosophers and theologians appropriated the truth of these cosmic values as truths of general revelation but grounded them in the nature of the triune God. God doesn’t have truth, goodness, and beauty; rather, God is truth, goodness, and beauty. We can state it this way:

All truth is God’s truth.
All goodness is God’s goodness.
All beauty is God’s beauty.

When God created, he imbued the cosmos with truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosopher Peter Kreeft says: “Everything that exists is in some way true, good, and beautiful.”²And humans via the imago Dei (image of God) are able to know the truth, desire the good, and love the beautiful. The fall of humankind into sin disordered man’s natural capacities but through the redemption found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ humans are brought back into a right relationship with God and with these revealed values.

According to historic Christianity, humans (as creatures) have been made to know and worship the triune God. And our present longing for truth, goodness, and beauty exists because these values reflect the ultimate source, which is the maximally perfect God. When we pursue truth, goodness, and beauty in this life and in this world we are tracking the majesty of the Lord.

In future articles I will write about the theological, philosophical, and apologetics implications of the transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Reflections: Your Turn

How have the transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty impacted your life? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

Stephen R. Turley, Awakening Wonder: A Classical Guide to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty (Camp Hill, PA: Classical Academic Press, 2015).
Peter Kreeft, “Lewis’s Philosophy of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty,” in C. S. Lewis as Philosopher: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, edited by David J. Baggett, Gary R. Habermas, and Jerry L. Walls (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008).

Endnotes

I transcribed this quote from Steve Turley’s interview with Janet Mefferd: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4001416/Blog%20Photos/steveturley_151020_Sample.mp3.
Peter Kreeft on Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Boredom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH2X-bQdgxQ.

The post The 3 Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, & Beauty appeared first on Reasons to Believe.