Furthermore, both male and female equally bare the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2a). Although male and female individually share in the fullness of the image, they are also the image of God together. This suggests that within the sphere of the image there exists a social dimension (Gen. 1:26; 2:18). The first man was created as a "son of God" (Lk. 3:38) and so is capable, to Eve's surprise, of passing on the image (Gen. 4:1; 5:3). Similarly, to be reborn of God is to restore the image and share, once again, in the nature of God (2 Pt. 1:4).

The imago Dei carries with it the privilege of ruling over the rest of creation (Gen. 1:26, 28; Ps. 8:6-8). The first indication of human speech is in connection with his dominion-having authority over animal life (Gen. 2:19). Rather than the ruling over all of creation being a condition for having the image, more than likely it is a consequence of it. Whenever the theme of the image or likeness is present after Gen. 1, dominion over other life forms is never mentioned again (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; et al.). However, redeemed humanity will someday sit in judgment over the world and angels (1 Cor. 6:3).

Metaphysically, humanity is a complex unity consisting of material and immaterial substance. The body was created out of pre-existent material, but life was breathed into him from God who is immaterial (Gen. 2:7; Ecc. 3:19-21). Rather than a trichotomy of substances, it seems the biblical data suggests a dichotomy of substances. The words for soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the Old Testament. The word for "soul" (nephesh) is used of the principle of life (Lev. 17:11) and "spirit" (ruach) is also used this way (Gen. 2:7; cf., also, Job 7:11; Is. 26:9).

In the New Testament both "soul" and "spirit" are virtually synonymous. In referring to the whole person Jesus used dichotomous categories (Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5). Jesus and Stephen referred to their immaterial selves as "spirit" (Lk. 26:46; Acts 7:59; also, cf., Lk. 1:46-47; 16:19-31; and comp. Jn. 12:27 with 13:21). Against a strict monistic view, Paul understood existentially that a disembodied existence is possible (1 Cor. 12:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:8). This strongly suggest a duality of substances (cf., also Phil. 1:21-24; Acts 17:16; and Acts 23:6-8 where Paul's pre-Christian anthropology was carried over from his orthodox Judaism).

Scripture seems to favor the position that the soul/spirit (= enduring self) was originally created by God, then subsequently passed on from Adam. God rested on the seventh day of creation indicating his creative activity is complete. Adam and Eve gave birth to children after "his own likeness, [after] his own image" (Gen. 5:3). Also, David claims his sinful nature is derived from his human parentage which could not be true if God created each human soul/spirit (Ps. 51:5). Moreover, if the animal and plant life give rise to offspring "according to their kinds" (Gen. 1:24), so too can humans bear children according to their kind. Levi, as a united duality of body and soul, is said to have been in the "loins of his ancestor" (Heb. 7:10; also, Jm. 2:26).

As a duality of substances that are united into one integrated person, humans exist as social, spiritual, intellectual, emotional, volitional, and moral beings. Relationally, humans function in a temporal/spatial connection to the physical universe, God, self and others. Though the human body is mortal (Rom 6:12; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:11), personal existence and identity continues after death (1 Sam. 28:12; Mt. 17:3; Jn. 20:28). The believer's goal is to be entirely sanctified (1 Thess. 5:23). Paul's prayer in this passage is for the sanctification process to be complete. He does not intend to promote a trichotomous view of humanity. In addition, the dualistic Greek mind (matter and spirit) would have understood both a material and immaterial aspect to the individual person. First Thessalonians 5:23 no more teaches three distinct substances, than does the Shema teach that there are four substances (viz., heart, soul, mind, and strength, cf., Mk. 12:30).

Humanity in Rebellion
Humans were originally created good, but due to the Fall sin now defaces the image of God at conception (Ps. 51:5; 58:3; Rom. 5:12-21; Eph. 2:3c). Nevertheless, humans are not so ruined as to be incapable of restoration. Through faith in Jesus the image of God is renewed and gradually conformed to His Son’s image (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10). The first sin occurred in Eden by Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1-19) and has been transferred from them to all throughout the generations.

As the NT indicates, the Genesis account is an historically trustworthy record of the origin of sin (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 1:11, 14). Though sin is inherited by Adam, this is not to say that humans are as sinful as they could be. By the restraining providence of God in civil government, family, and conscience (Ps. 145:9; Lk. 6:33; Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15; Heb. 12:7-11) the common grace bestowed upon all limits the effects of sin in the human heart. Though fallen humanity is not totally depraved, all are totally undeserving of experiencing God's mercy and grace (Rom. 3:10; Eph. 2:4).

Some may object that original sin is taught in Scripture. It could be that all the Bible speaks of is actual sin rather than original sin. However, sin, like beauty, is more than skin deep. It is true all have sinned actually (Rom. 3:23), but it is equally true that all have sinned originally in Adam (Rom. 5:12). Paul declares that "death came to all men" where "all" stands first in the clause indicating emphasis as well as the repetitive word "men" which would have been understood. Moreover, Paul indicates "all sinned" (aorist indicative) because of Adam's sin in the past. Hence, the context is not referring to individual activity (though this is implicit), but to corporate responsibility. There is a solidarity to the human race in that the original humans stand as the moral, physical, intellectual, psychological, and spiritual representatives of all people everywhere and at all times (Acts 17:26). Just as our biological nature is derived from our parentage, so too is our spiritual nature.

It should be noted that the situation of responsible adults is Paul’s primary focus in Rom. 1:8-5:21 and any application from this pericope to the fate of infants who die prematurely would be an argument from silence. Scripture simply does not explicitly say when humans are morally accountable. And, with Augustine, where the Scriptures are silent so must we be.

Scripture speaks of a sinful heart (Ps. 66:18; Pr. 21:4; Jer. 17:9; Mt. 15:17-19), a sinful mind (Rom. 1:26; Eph. 4:17-19; Tit. 1:15), and sinful speech (Pr. 8:13; Rom. 3:13-14; Jm. 3:9; 2 Pt. 2:18). Jesus taught that the spiritual condition of the heart is what determines a person's behavior and speech (Mt. 6:21; 12:35; Lk. 6:45). Though unbelievers are capable of doing some good, it is impossible, despite the amount of righteous human activity, to close the gap between God and fallen humanity (Is. 64:6).

Consequently, God judges all on the basis of one man's sin (viz., Adam; cf., Rom. 5:12, 16, 18; 1 Cor. 15:21-22) because all are conceived with the desire only to do what is contrary to God (Rom. 8:5-9; Gal. 5:16-17). And, the result in living out the natural desires and inclinations is enslavement to sin's power (Rom. 6:6, 16-17, 19; 7:14). Though it may not appear fair that God would judge all on the basis of one man's sin, it is the disposition of Adam's guilt rather than his sin per se that is inherited – just as Christ assumed our guilty status instead of our particular sinful acts (Is. 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:14, 21; 1 Pt. 2:24; 3:18).

The Pelagian view that all are born without a disposition to sinful activity does not fit the biblical data nor human experience. The rise of sin coming from nurture rather than nature does nothing to explain how sin came to be in the first place. If the universe was free from sin and Adam and Eve were the only individuals around, from whence comes the negative example? The perfect moral standard (i.e., God's Law) was weakened not by social or environmental problems, but by the sinful nature (Rom. 8:3). And the principle of sin is found, not in the examples from others, but in the essential self (Rom. 7:18). In the biblical schema of reality persons are held morally responsible, not circumstances nor surroundings.

God's Calling and Election of Believers
God is sovereign over salvation; believers are responsible in salvation. How these assertions coincide without contradiction or confusion is the business of election - the outworking of God's redemptive plan for believers. Does God call some to eternal life and not others? If so, how could that be fair? Does God arbitrarily choose some to eternal life or is there some reason(s) for his choosing one over the other? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in election? These issues are central to the theme of election.

The doctrine of election is grounded in the existence and character of God. The Scriptures are clear that God chose (selected from among many) some that would be adopted as his children prior to the creation of the world (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pt. 1:20). Election is theologically grounded in God's existence which is logically and chronologically prior to the existence of the elect. Election, therefore, is not contingent upon the response of the elect. This is the heart of predestination. That is, God destined, intended, resolved or purposed that, prior to the existence of the world and the existence of time itself, some would receive eternal life (see also, Rom. 8:29-30; 9:11-13; Eph. 1:5, 11; Tit. 1:2).

Behind God's choice of the elect is his gracious and merciful character. Election is by God's grace (favor bestowed upon those who are undeserving) because those whom he calls are unworthy to receive eternal life (Rom. 3:23-24; Eph. 1:7; 2:4-5, 8). In addition, election is an act of divine mercy. Because of their faith in the cross, God averts the believer's punishment and accepts the offering of his Son in their stead (Rom. 3:25; 9:16; 11:30-32; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:3-4; 1 Tim. 1:16; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pt. 1:3; 2:10). In sum, God has graciously pardoned the elect.

That God knows in advance who will respond to his call is clear (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pt. 1:1-2-2). However, God's choosing is not based upon his foreknowledge (knowing in advance) of how some will respond (contra Arminian, Wesleyan theology). Rather, God's choosing of the elect is in accordance with his cognizance of who will respond (taking foreknowledge as the rational in addition to behavioral activity of God; see 1 Pt. 1:2). That God calls the elect is solely on the basis of his love and integrity (Deut. 7:7-9). While foreknowledge in Scripture does carry the idea of intimately, actively, and affirmatively choosing, it necessarily bears the idea of prescience (knowing in advance), since God’s choices are cognitive and never made in the dark (Jn. 10:3). God specifically calls those whom he has chosen (Jn. 10:3; Acts 2:39; Rom. 8:28-30; 16:13; Eph. 1:188; 1 Thess. 1:4; 1 Pt. 2:9; 2 Pt. 1:3). The idea that all have the latent ability to respond to God's universal call for salvation (prevenient grace) is implicitly denied by Scripture (Rom. 3:9-11). Only those whom the Spirit of God enables can and will become the elect of God (Jn. 6:44, 65; 15:16; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pt. 1:2).

Some would assert that election is an unjust doctrine; viz., God chooses some and not others. However, given the fact that all people everywhere and at every time deserve only condemnation (Rom. 3:7; 5:16, 18), God is not obligated to dismiss anyone's guilt. Extending grace and mercy to some in election is of God's own choosing (Rom. 9:18). Not to pardon others because of self-incurred guilt (unbelief) is an act of justice. Election would be unfair if God is required to be both just and merciful to all. Yet, the Scriptures, and an honest assessment of the human heart, are among the reasons why God is just. But only God's mercy, pleasure, and will are the reasons for there even existing an elect of God (Rom. 9:16, 22-23; Eph. 1:5). God's justice and mercy are impartial as he does not look to any qualities of the elect or condemned in determining between them (Rom. 2:11). His choices are purely of grace and mercy!

A logical order (not chronological; God sees things as sequence but not in sequence) of God's redemptive plan unfolding would be: (1) creation – God decides to create; (2) election – God, in allowing the Fall, chooses some and not others unto eternal life; (3) general call to all for salvation (Tit. 2:11; Mt. 13:3-9; 18-23; 22:14); (4) specific call to the elect (2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pt. 2:9); (5) conversion of the elect – believe, receive, repent, trust, submit, etc.; (6) regeneration – transformation of one's nature from sinner in rebellion against God to saint at peace with God (Jn. 3:3; Rom. 6:6; 5:1); (7) justification and reconciliation – a right moral standing before God and a new relationship with God as loving Father (the latter would include reconciliation, adoption, and union with Christ); (8) sanctification – empowerment to live a life pleasing to God (2 Pt. 1:3); (9) continuation – a steadfast life pleasing to God (Phil. 1:6); (10) glorification – actualized immortal state with God in heaven (1 Jn. 3:2; Rev. 21:7).

It is important to note that some tension must remain in the issue of election. For example, on the one side of election are those who see a strict determinism. God determines salvation and man's response has no part in the equation. Various texts in John are used in support of this (Jn. 1:13; 5:21; 6:44, 65, 70; 8:47; 13:18; 15:16, 19; 17:2, 6, 9). On the other side are those who maintain that salvation depends upon man's decision to follow, believe, or receive Jesus. Passages in favor of this view are many (e.g., Jn. 1:11-12; 3:11-12, 16, 18, 36; 5:40; 6:27, 29, 40; 7:17, 37-38; 8:31, 51; 12:36). In other words, God is the one solely responsible for saving those who believe yet, at the same time, he demands those whom he saves to believe!

There appears to be a paradox involved with election (two truths that co-exist and appear to claim the opposite of the other). First, those who refuse to believe cannot because they will not. Second, they will not believe because they cannot (see esp., Jn. 12:37-40). Scripture makes no apology that both notions are true. This is not to say there is contradiction involved, only difficulty. The tensions are ultimately resolved in the mind of God. A picture of election, however, is not complete without: (1) the certainty of God's redemptive purposes coming to pass within a historical framework and (2) the condition being met that people must respond in faith to that which God has graciously revealed in the gospel.

 The Incarnation, Virgin Birth, and Uniqueness of the Lord Jesus