What Is Man?

By Larry Dixon [1] [2]

“What a chimera [an impossible and foolish fancy] is man! What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradictions, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, witless worm! Casket of truth, sewer of incertitude and error, glory and refuse of the universe.” (Pascal, The Pensées, frag. 246) 

“Man can count on no one but himself; he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.” (Jean-Paul Sartre) 

“Men are carried by horses, fed by cattle, clothed by sheep, defended by dogs, imitated by monkeys, and eaten by worms.” (Hungarian proverb) 

“Lord, what is man? Why should he cost Thee so dear? What had his ruin lost Thee? Lord, what is man, that Thou hast overbought so much a thing of naught?” (Richard Crashaw) 

Ecclesiastes 3:11— “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (NIV).

Alternative Anthropologies

“What is man?” asks the Psalmist (Psalm 8:4). Indeed, the very question of man’s [3] identity does not receive a uniform answer in today’s world. There are a variety of perspectives with which we must be familiar. [4]

Man as a Machine

First, man can be seen as a MACHINE. The human being is valued for what he or she can accomplish. Looked at as a means to an end, man has significance only as he can produce. His worth is based on his usefulness. Others who take this view argue that man is capable of great acts of good or evil. A variation of this perspective, the mechanistic view, suggests that the human being is reducible to chemical reactions. Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who helped decipher the DNA code that defines genes, declared in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis:

“You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. [5]

Man as an Animal

Second, man is viewed by some as merely an ANIMAL. Those who hold this position see no qualitative difference between man and the animal kingdom. Behavioristic psychology suggests that man is motivated only by biological drives. Given the appropriate amount of positive and negative reinforcement he or she may be steered into correct responses to stimuli. In the philosophy known as behaviorism, the human being is viewed as a programmable entity. Administered the correct stimuli, man responds in a predictable way. The behaviorist B.F. Skinner declared: “We have not yet seen what man can make of man.” [6]

Man as a Highly Evolved Biological Form

Third, many look at the human being as simply A HIGHLY EVOLVED BIOLOGICAL FORM. He or she can be analyzed, scrutinized, and categorized. I understand a fifth grade teacher in Seattle gave her students a lesson on the human body. All the youngsters came up with passing grades except for the young lady who wrote:

The human body is composed of three parts — the Brainium, the Borax and the Abominable Cavity. The Brainium contains the brain. The Borax contains the lungs, the liver and the living things. The Abominable Cavity contains the bowels, of which there are five: A, E, I, O, and U. [7]

The evolutionary view of the human being seems to be the unquestionable hypothesis in our society. Christian attempts to show the glaring errors and gaping holes in the theory continue to increase, [8] but one wonders if the wider world is paying attention. It is almost as if society is in the grip of a powerful myth which will not let go! One is reminded of Dr. D.M.S. Watson, professor of zoology in London University, who declared in his presidential address to the British Association way back in 1929: “Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, ‘special creation,’ is clearly impossible.” [9] Sir Julian Huxley did more than just about anyone in suggesting that the evolutionary viewpoint provides the only explanation for humanity:

Today, in twentieth-century man, the evolutionary process is at last becoming conscious of itself…. Human knowledge, worked over by human imagination, is seen as the basis to human understanding and belief, and the ultimate guide to human progress. [10]

The theory of evolution provides no basis for the dignity of the human person. Why should we place any value on man? How do we explain what the 17th century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal called man’s “glory”?

Man as Divine

Fourth, others believe that man is GOD, that the human being is divine. New Age theology vigorously teaches the importance of discovering one’s divinity. For example, Shirley MacLaine, an actress whose New Age books earn her more than $40 million annually, has stated (in her pursuit of UFO’s) that “The basic lesson the extraterrestrials were bringing was that each human being was a god, never separated from the God-force….” [11] In her book Dancing in the Light, she says, “know that you are God; know that you are the universe.” [12]

Another very popular New Age writer is Deepak Chopar, an Indian who combines Hinduism with ideas of one’s personal divinity. One of his earlier books, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, has sold over 1.3 million copies. His web page, www.howtoknowgod.com, defines God as “the infinite, unbounded, eternal intelligence that constantly projects itself as the Universe — through the creation of space, time, matter and infinite energy.” He further states:

I am very pleased to welcome you to our How to Know God website. Together we will explore the different faces of the God, which are, in essence, mirrors of our own divinity. As I hope you will soon agree, God is not a remote, inaccessible force but rather, the most intimate essence of our own nature, available to us through simple shifts in awareness. The treasures of this journey to knowing God are limitless. [13]

Mormon theology proclaims that we can become gods. Joseph Smith wrote:

I am going to tell you how God came to be God…. Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done. [14]

In fact, the Mormons teach the doctrine of “eternal progression,” by which they mean that each of us has the potential to become a God just like God the Father did. He was once a man capable of physical death, was resurrected and progressed to become a God. We can take a similar path and get all the power, glory, dominion, and knowledge the Father and Jesus Christ have. We then will be able to procreate spirit children who will worship us as we do God the Father. [15]

Man as a Sexual Being

Fifth, some see man simply as a SEXUAL BEING. Freud is best-known here in his insistence that sexuality provides the basic framework for the human being and his personality (including the elements of “id,” “ego,” and “superego.”). Popular culture seems to universally advocate this view. If one were to develop one’s anthropology strictly on the basis of country music lyrics, Shania Twain’s “You Win My Love!” would seem to be a suitable creed:

You win my love, You win my soul.
You win my heart, Yea, you get it all.

You win my love, You make my motor run!
You win my love, You’re number one!

I thought that God was to be “number one” in our lives, that He should “get it all,” that He, through Christ, has “won my soul.” What a poor, idolatrous substitution our society has made: sexual fulfillment on a human level instead of a relationship with the living and true God!

Man as an Economic Being

Sixth, man can be viewed as an ECONOMIC BEING. Here the emphasis is on the material dimension of life and its needs (food, clothing, housing). Dialectical materialism (communism) has done much to push this perspective in teaching that history’s goal is a classless society, where evil, especially as shown in the conflict between classes, passes away.

Man as a Pawn of the Universe

Seventh, man can be understood as a PAWN OF THE UNIVERSE. This viewpoint says that man is at the mercy of blind forces (chance). The skeptic Bertrand Russell expressed this kind of pessimism:

All the labor of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noon-day brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the fast death of the solar system. The whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruin. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation, henceforth, be safely built. [16]

This kind of existential pessimism is expressed most eloquently by Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Sartre, for example, describes man as “a useless passion,” [17] writing, “Every existent is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.” [18]

Man as a Free Being

Eighth, man can be viewed as a FREE BEING. This perspective suggests that human will is the essence of personality. We require minimal government so that our freedom can be expressed, including the idea of the freedom to fail. Man’s basic need is information so he can choose intelligently. We are to help one another accept the responsibility of self-determination. William Ernest Henley’s Invictus declares this insistence on freedom: “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.” [19]

Man as a Social Being

A ninth view of man is that he is A SOCIAL BEING. His value is determined by his membership in a group of people; this is what distinguishes man as human. The essence of humanness is not in some substance or fixed definable nature, but rather in his relationships with others. (Is the church [especially as emphasized in 1 John] the needed correction to Western individualism?).

The Dilemma of Dignity

With each of the above nine views, there may be some measure of truth. But none is able to account for both man’s fallenness and man’s glory. The evolutionary theory particularly misses the point of man’s dignity. In the poem “Cosmic Orphan,” Loren Eiseley illustrates the problem:

The thing that is you bears the still-aching wounds of evolution in body and brain. Your hands are made-over fins, your lungs come from a swamp, your femur has been twisted upright, your foot is a reworked climbing pad. You are a rag doll resewn from the skins of extinct animals…. Long ago, 2 million years perhaps, you were smaller; your brain was not so large. We are not confident that you could speak. 70 million years before that you were an even smaller climbing creature known as a Tupaiid. You were the size of a rat. You ate insects. Now you fly to the moon. [20]

In a Time article, one writer seeks to answer the question as to why human beings, instead of robots, should be sent on space explorations:

Why not robots? Because robots can fix, but they cannot dream. Upon rounding the earth, they are not moved to recite Genesis. It may be politically shrewd, but it is perilous to sell manned exploration on grounds of efficiency alone. In the end, man is clunky. But he sings. [21]

In our next section we will notice the biblical teaching of man being made in the image of God. Although he is sometimes “clunky,” he was designed by God to sing!

Made in the Image of God

“Man now sees that the seeds of his ultimate dissolution are at the heart of his being. The end of the species is in the marrow of our bones.” (Teilhard de Chardin) 

“It is becoming more and more obvious, that it is not starvation, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is mankind’s greatest danger.” (Carl Jung) 

A Jewish proverb says: “A man should carry two stones in his pocket. On one should be inscribed, ‘I am but dust and ashes.’ On the other, ‘For my sake was the world created.’ And he should use each stone as he needs it.” 

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (NIV, Genesis 1:27)

What does it mean to be created in the “image of God”? [22] Only mankind has been made in the “image and likeness” of God. There is a qualitative difference between man and the highest subhuman creature. Of the beasts of the earth the Bible says, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:25). There may be a great amount of variation allowable here within each animal’s order or phylum (micro-evolution?), but there is a fixity of animals within their own order. Evidence of a transition from one kind of animal to another (for example, a reptile to a horse) is completely lacking in the geological/biological record. The “after their kind” expression is not used of God’s unique creation — man. [23] Although there may be similarity between, for example, the skeletal structure of the ape and that of the human being, it is important to remember that similarity does not equal derivation. The possibility that God may have used similar plans with regard to some of man’s makeup does not support the concept of an evolution of pre-homo-sapiens to homo-sapiens. The absolute uniqueness of man is shown in the creation account, especially regarding the ways in which he reflects the image of God.

Meanings of “Image of God” [24]

The Substantive View

Some theologians take the substantive view concerning the issue of the image of God. The meaning of this view is that there is some aspect of our bodily or physical makeup which reflects what God looks like. Mormons hold that God has a body of flesh and bones like us.

A variation of the substantive view is that man’s reason is the distinctive aspect of his makeup which separates him from the rest of the created world. The writer William Safire once responded to our contemporary world’s over-indulgence in “feelings,” and wrote:

If you want to “get in touch with your feelings,” fine, talk to yourself. We all do. But if you want to communicate with another thinking human being, get in touch with your thoughts. Put them in order, give them a purpose, use them to persuade, to instruct, to discover, to seduce. The secret way to do this is to write them down, and then cut out the confusing parts. [25]

I understand that when a New York publishing house sought to market a volume of blank pages called The Nothing Book, it was accused of plagiarism by a Belgian publisher who had already published a blank book called The Memoirs of an Amnesiac. The American firm rejected the accusation, contending that blankness was in the public domain and therefore not subject to copyright restrictions.

Blankness is in the public domain, and one of the things that Christians must do is to get people THINKING! The 17th century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal wrote the famous Pensées, (a collection of his theological thoughts), and is best known for his so-called “wager” (an argument that says that if you gamble your life on God, you’ve really not lost anything if it turns out God does not exist). [26] Pascal says in one place that “since men are unable to cure death, misery, ignorance, they imagine they can find happiness by not thinking about such things.” One student of Pascal’s Pensées comments: “Well, Pascal would set them thinking.” That’s a pretty good description of one aspect of the Christian’s task: to set people thinking!

This substantive view indicates that the image of God is a quality or capacity resident in man’s nature. Even those who have no interest in God or a relationship with Him are still in His image. They cannot escape that fact.

The Relational View

Others suggest that the concept of man being in the image of God should be understood not as something substantive, but as something relational. The theologians who hold this view emphasize that the “image of God” is not something man has, but is rather the experiencing of a relationship. Malcolm Forbes became a “theologian” when he stated, “Everybody has to be somebody to somebody to be anybody.”

We were created for fellowship — fellowship with God and fellowship with one another! Have you noticed in the Genesis account where God declares everything “good” and “very good,” that the one thing He declares as “not good” is Adam’s loneliness? Genesis 2:18 records the Creator declaring, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Notice that this was before the fall, before sin entered into God’s good creation. Adam was in a perfect relationship to His Creator, but was lonely! When some Christians imply that all we need is the Lord, they have obviously missed this important truth of Genesis. Rather than teaching that all Christians need to be married (1Corinthians 7 speaks of the gift of singleness), the thrust of Genesis 2 seems to be that man needs human relationships.

Although periods of solitude are healthy, we were created for relationship. Popular counselors Drs. Minirth and Meier say that during World War II, the enemy conducted experiments to find the most effective type of punishment for prisoners of war. They found that the most effective type of punishment was solitary confinement. After a few days of solitary confinement, most men would tell all that they knew. We were not made for spiritual solitary confinement.

Walter Burghardt’s excellent book, Preaching: The Art and the Craft, refers to a church service as a “Sunday-morning affair where the hearts that go up to heaven hardly go out across the pews.” [27] If we have been made in the image of God, and if the point of being in God’s image concerns the need for giving and receiving fellowship, then Burghardt’s comment is deeply saddening.

Karl Barth, the neo-orthodox theologian, said that the image of God consists of standing in relationship with God and others. In this sense, it is not something man is or possesses; it is something man experiences. It is dynamic, not static. Barth sees a parallel in the relationship of man to woman. He points out that in both Genesis 1:27 and 5:1–2 the statement that man was made in the image of God is connected with the words: “male and female he created them.” As Erickson summarizes Barth, he says that “man does not exist as a solitary individual, but as two persons confronting each other.” [28] Man has not been made as a statue which displays God’s creativity, but as a person to respond to a relationship.

By the way, Barth reminds us that we learn best about man by studying Christ, the Perfect Man. He states: “As the man Jesus is Himself the revealing Word of God, He is the source of our knowledge of the nature of man as created by God.” [29] If the human being is in a fallen state, a “sub-human” state, then Barth’s perspective would seem to be accurate. The only perfect human beings were Adam and Eve before the fall, and Christ, the Incarnate Son of God.

The Functional View

A third interpretation of the image of God is known as the functional view. In this understanding the image is not something present in the makeup of man or the experiencing of a relationship with God or with others, but something man does. The functional view most often emphasizes man’s responsibility to exercise dominion over the created world. So when we read in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” that statement is immediately followed by, “and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea” (RSV, see also verses 27–28). Psalm 8 may express the same concept:

Yet thou hast made [man] little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet (verses 5–6, RSV).

Psalm 115:16 says, “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man” (NIV). In some Reformed circles, the term “cultural mandate” is used to indicate the responsibility of God’s highest creature, man, to go out into creation and rule over it. Therefore, man is to learn all he can about creation so that he can exercise such dominion carefully.

An Evaluation of These Three Views

If the image of God is understood to refer primarily to relationship, then how do we “fit in” those who are in rebellion against God? In terms of the functional viewpoint, there is no explicit use of terms “image” or “likeness” in Psalm 8 (which is thought by those holding this view to be dependent on Genesis 1). Furthermore, even in Genesis 1 man is spoken of as being in the image of God before he is given dominion. There is a distinction, therefore, in Genesis 1 between being in God’s image and exercising dominion. “It appears,” says Erickson, “that the functional view may have taken a consequence of the image and equated it with the image itself.” [30] If the substantive view is evaluated, it appears that some have identified qualities of man (e.g. reason) as the primary expression of how man is in the image of God. But the Bible never identifies what qualities within man might be the image. What about those whose intellectual abilities are below or above average? Does the image of God vary with different human beings? [We’ve all met unbelievers who seem a lot more intelligent than some of us Bible-thumpers!]

A Summary of the Image of God Issue

We must emphasize the universality of man made in the image of God. All human beings are created in God’s image, as texts such as Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9–10 indicate. The image of God has not been lost in man because of sin or the fall. There are not greater or lesser degrees of the image of God in some human beings. No clear texts connect the image with any specific activity such as exercising dominion or establishing relationship. The image appears to be something primarily substantive or structural in the very nature of man. It is something man is, not something man does. Those who do not exercise dominion or who turn away from relationships are still in the image of God. Erickson provides a helpful summary statement:

The image refers to the elements in the makeup of man which enable the fulfillment of his destiny. The image is the powers of personality which make man, like God, a being capable of interacting with other persons, of thinking and reflecting, and of willing freely. [31]

In short, the image of God refers to those qualities which make worship, personal interaction, and work possible. Perhaps we should think of image as referring to those qualities of God (His “communicable” attributes) which find some counterpart in man, His highest creation. If our best picture of what it means to be fully human is derived from Jesus, God-become-man, then we will see that we were made for worship of, service for, and relationship with our Creator.

In an effort to trap Him in His words, Israel’s religious leaders challenged Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar in Mark 12. If He had said, “No, you should not pay taxes to Caesar,” Jesus would have been in trouble with the Roman authorities. If He had said, “Yes, you should pay taxes to Caesar,” He would have lost favor with the common people. Asking for a Roman coin, Jesus made a point which seems much deeper than keeping oneself straight with the local IRS. “Whose image is on the coin?” Jesus asks. “Caesar’s,” they respond. “Then render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s — and to God the things that are God’s.” The implication is obvious: just as that coin had imprinted on it the image of the earthly ruler, so the human being possesses/has been made in the image of God. What’s far more important than making sure you have paid your taxes? Making sure you have given yourself to the God in whose image you have been created!

A Few Words About Immortality

Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible. Some who share Pinnock’s viewpoint quote 1 Timothy 6:16 that teaches that the Lord “alone is immortal.” Only those who have trusted in Christ, argue these theologians, become immortal (receive “eternal life”), citing 2 Timothy 1:10 (“Christ…has destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.”).

Pinnock charges that the unbiblical doctrine of man’s immortal soul really drives the traditional doctrine of hell more than exegesis does (if every person is going to exist forever, then they need somewhere to exist. Hence, an eternal place of punishment). He states:

I am convinced that the hellenistic [Greek] belief in the immortality of the soul has done more than anything else (specifically more than the Bible) to give credibility to the doctrine of the everlasting conscious punishment of the wicked. [32]

This position is hardly new. The Reformer John Calvin attacked the doctrine of “soul-sleep” in his work Psychopannychia. Soul-sleep teaches that the believer does not go immediately into the presence of the Lord at death, but that his soul “sleeps” in the grave until the Resurrection. Arguing from Jesus’ words to the repentant thief on the cross (“Today, you will be with me in paradise” —Luke 23:43), Calvin taught that the believer is ushered immediately into the presence of Christ at death. [33]

What about the unbeliever? It seems clear in Luke 16:19–31 (the story of the rich man and Lazarus) that the soul of the unbeliever goes to a place of torment immediately upon death. [We will examine that text more closely in our chapter on eschatology.]

The biblical doctrine of the soul’s immortality is derived from a number of texts. Revelation 20:6–14 teaches that the opposite of survival beyond death is not annihilation, but the “second death.” A number of passages indicate that the wicked person will be “excluded from God’s presence” (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:9) at the judgment. There is an outside to the Kingdom of God, which involves the continued — and everlasting — existence of the unbeliever, separated from the life of God and in a condition of unending punishment (Matt. 7:23; 8:12; 13:42, 50; 18:7ff; 22:13; etc.). The use of the term “eternal” in Matthew 25 (verses 34ff) indicates a continuing existence for both the righteous and the wicked.

The writer James Thurber once quipped: “If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very, very few persons.” Only those who know Jesus Christ will go to be with Him upon their death. And their soul or spirit will be reunited with their physical body (which will become glorified like Christ’s resurrection body, see 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 John 3:2). For all eternity the believer will enjoy the presence of his Savior. For those who reject the gospel, their fate will be like the rich man’s in Luke 16, and their everlasting condition will be exceedingly sad (Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:12–15 and 21:8).

The writer Dorothy Sayers once stated, “The sin of our times is the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” In our next article, we will examine the biblical doctrine of sin, including its origin, consequences, universality and remedy.

Notes

1. We saw in this series’ first article (“Developing a Distaste for Doctrine,” The Emmaus Journal 7 [Winter 1998]: 241-253) that there are reasons why Christians do not pursue a deeper knowledge of biblical doctrine. In our second article (“Learning to Listen: The Absolute Need for an Absolute Authority,” The Emmaus Journal 8 [Summer 1999]: 79-89), we looked at the four sources people employ for deriving their doctrinal beliefs, concluding that the Bible, the Word of God, must be our final authority. Our third article (“Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?” The Emmaus Journal 8 [Winter 1999]: 165-180), looked at a biblical doctrine of the person and work of Christ. In our fourth article (“What a Mighty God We Serve,” The Emmaus Journal 9 [Summer 2000]: 37-72), we examined atheism, agnosticism, and the arguments for biblical theism. We also discussed the doctrine of the Trinity, a number of the attributes of God, the works of God, and the thorny problem of evil. In this fifth article we examine some of the biblical material on the doctrine of the human being.
2. Larry Dixon is a graduate of Emmaus Bible College and is Professor of Church History and Theology at Columbia Biblical Seminary and School of Missions in Columbia, South Carolina. He attends Woodland Hills Community Church in Columbia. This is chapter five in a series of articles entitled Back to the Basics: A. Fairly Serious Survey of the Fundamentals of the Faith.
3. I use the term “man” generically, meaning mankind or humanity.
4. Seven of these views are from Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 455–470.
5. Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Scribner, 1994).
6. Quoted in Os Guinness’ book, The Dust of Death (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973). Dr. Francis Schaeffer responded to the behaviorist B. F. Skinner in his book: Back to Freedom and Dignity, writing, “We must see him as one who has torn himself away both from the infinite-personal God who created him as finite but in His image, and from God’s revelation to him. Made in God’s image, man was made to be great, he was made to be beautiful and he was made to be creative in life and art. But his rebellion has led him into making himself into nothing but a machine. (p. 48).
7. Walt Evans in the Seattle Times. No more specific source information available.
8. Some titles include: Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (1998). John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Creation vs. Evolution: What You Need to Know (1999); John Whitcomb, Early Earth (1987); Henry Madison Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian (1989); Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1998); Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (1998); and Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (1997).
9. London Times, August 3, 1929.
10. Quoted in The Dust of Death, 9.
11. MacLaine, It’s All in the Playing (New York: Bantam Books, 1987), 68–69.
12. MacLaine, Dancing in the Light (New York: Bantam Books, 1985).
13. http://www.howtoknowgod.com/about/
14. History of the Church, 6:304–306, see also, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, 345–347. Cf. http://netnow.micron.net/~edunn/ldsquotes2.html#mangod.
15. http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/term.html.
16. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (New York: Norton, 1929), 47–48. Somewhere Russell writes: “What else is there to make life tolerable; we stand on the shore of an ocean crying to the night, and in the emptiness sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is the voice of one drowning, and in a moment the silence returns and the world seems to be quite dreadful, the unhappiness of many people is very great, and I often wonder how they endure it.”
17. Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (London: Methuen, 1957), 566.
18. Jean Paul Sartre, Nausea (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965), 191.
19. For the complete poem, please see http://www.bartleby.com/101/842.html
20. http://www.islandnet.com/~pjhughes/man2.htm
21. Charles Krauthammer, “NASA: Space Concierge,” Time, December 20, 1993.
22. Some of the following material was inspired by J. Rodman Williams’ Renewal Theology, volume 1 “God, the World & Redemption,” (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988), 197ff.
23. We do have the statement in Genesis 5:3 that Adam “had a son in his own likeness, in his own image.” The NIV Study Bible notes: “As God created man in his own perfect image, so now sinful Adam has a son in his own imperfect image.” (p. 13). But Seth was still in the image of God.
24. Erickson’s discussion of the image of God is helpful here (p. 498ff).
25. On Language (New York: Times Books, 1980). [Not bad advice at all for your next paper, your next sermon, or my next installment in this series!]
26. I disagree with this line of reasoning, by the way. And I think the Apostle Paul does as well (see 1 Corinthians 15).
27. Walter J. Burghardt, S. J., Preaching: The Art and the Craft (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 44.
28. Erickson, Christian Theology, 505.
29. Erickson, Christian Theology, 506. Quoting from Barth’s Church Dogmatics, vol. 3, Part 2, p. 41.
30. Erickson, Christian Theology, 512.
31. Erickson, Christian Theology, 513.
32. Clark H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review, 4.2 (1990): 252.
33. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), Bk. 3, chap. 25, 6, cf. Bk. 1, chap. 15, 6.