RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Illuminati Image of God
The dogmatician's attitude to the term will vary according to his conception of the call as a mere offering of salvation, or as the effectual appropriation of it. If the Biblical conception of vocation as an effectual divine influence through the Word is retained, it is difficult to vindicate a special place for illumination. But this conception is to be preferred for the obvious reason that, by the other theory, the call could not at all be reckoned among the proper acts of grace meant for the individual, but would amount to a mere presupposition for this work of grace. Thus considered, vocation denotes the effectual influence of the revelation of salvation upon the personal life; illumination the transference of the person into the sphere of God. In this connection there is just as little need, so far as Scriptural usage is concerned, of restricting illumination to the intellect as there is of supplementing the conception of vocation in any such way as that. Illumination is to be regarded as a synonym of vocation, without having any special locus in systematic theology. Both terms denote the influences of God in the Word, the effects of which are seen in regeneration and conversion. These influences address themselves to the whole man; they move the will as well as the intellect. That is as true of the calling as of the illumination. It would be well if the practical discussions based upon Luther's Catechism should likewise put the two terms together; not, therefore, as if the call outwardly offered the Word and the illumination inwardly appropriated its content, but in such a way that with the call and through it the illumination of man takes place. R. Seebeeg.
Bibliography: Besides the works mentioned in the text, consult the text-books on Dogmatics in the department of Soteriology, and J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 324, London, 1870; A. A. Benton, Church Cyclopcedia, p. 374, Philadelphia, 1884.
ILLUMINATION, THE. See Enlightenment, The.
ILLUSTRATED BIBLES. See Bibles, Illustrated.
IMAGE OF GOD: The conception that man was created in the image of God is stated as a fact in Gen. i. 26, 27, v. 1 (cf. Eph. iv. 24; Col. hi. 10; I John iii. 2) . It comes from God and is reproduced in the race (Gen. v. 3), a principle followed in the genealogy by which Jesus is made Son of God through Adam (Luke iii. 23-38). It is so unmistakable that Paul appealed even to ethnic testimony in favor of it (Acts xvii. 28). Obviously without this conception the thought of adoption as children would be impossible. It is the race made in the image of God which is destined for such adoption, and likeness to God is the blessing, the law, and the hope of adoption (I John iii. 1, 2). How much this thought of likeness to God is contained in that of adoption is suggested by the injunction to be holy and perfect, as God is holy and perfect, " that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven " (Matt. v. 45, 48; cf. Eph. v. 1, " be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children," R.V " imitators of God ")• To be like God is the gift, the task, and the purpose of the Christian (I John iii. 1-3) . In the Church the conception was from the begin-
ning that the image of God consisted in the reason and freedom and free will with which man was endowed, and that this endowment rested on the activity of the Spirit in him. Some referred the image of God to the body also, in connection with the Christian hope of resurrection from the dead and with the doctrine of immortality. But these are unessential notions. The anima rationalis was the essential one, which was always emphasized. The differences in opinion which still exist arise from the mistake which makes the doctrine of the divine image of man the doctrine of the original state.
From the very beginning the view of the image of God in man has been that it was a good wholly or partially lost. Justin seems to be an exception. That man is endowed with reason and freedom, is to him a sign of likeness to God. But this endowment he regards neither as lost nor impaired by Adam's sin. Humanity indeed suffers under the predominance of the passions over reason. But this predominance is caused only indirectly by the sin of the first man and depends not on a degeneration of human nature brought about by him and continued in the race. By the influence of sin existing in the world since Adam's fall, every one repeats the fall, becomes like Adam in this respect, and falls into judgment and condemnation instead of receiving immortality in a God-like existence. Only the revelation of the whole Logos in Christ and the remission of sin connected herewith enable man successfully to apply to the realizing of his destiny his inherent ability, which does not differ from Adam's endowment.
A difference has been made between the expressions in Gen. i. " in the image " and " in the likeness," referring the former to the intellectual powers of reason and freedom, and the latter to moral righteousness, which was lost through the fall. This distinction was preserved by the scholastics, with whom the question became one of justitia originalis. In the Roman Catholic Church the distinction was maintained, but the justitia originalis, " man's original righteousness," was declared to have been a superadded gift. The Protestant Church, ignoring this distinction, located the image of God in the religious and moral nature, and defined it as the original righteousness in which man was created. Socinianism and Arminianism defined it as man's dominion over the animal creation. Modern dogmatics distinguishes distinctly between the divine image in man and the original state, and Christianity favors such a distinction in harmony with Scripture and without contradiction to Col. iii. 10 and Eph. iv. 24. A difference of opinion, however, exists as to how far the present condition differs from that at the beginning, or how far the original state is still the present. The difference between Schleiermacher, Biedermann, Pfleiderer, Lipsius, Ritschl, on the one hand, and that of Nitzsch, Dorner, Kahler, Hofmann, Kahnis, Frank, on the other, is practically over the use of a historical anthropology. Some (Schleiermacher, Biedermann) refuse this, and require a dogmatic treatment (Ritschl, Wendt); others regard mans original condition as a state of innocence of which
Images and Image-Worship