.jpg)
In the context ofChristian theology,Christian anthropology is the study of the human (anthropos) as it relates toGod. It differs from thesocial science ofanthropology, which primarily deals with the comparative study of the physical and social characteristics of humanity across times and places.
One aspect of Christian anthropology studies is the innate nature or constitution of the human, known as thenature of humankind. It is concerned with the relationship between notions such asbody,soul andspirit which together form a person, based on their descriptions in theBible. There are three traditional views of the human constitution:trichotomism,dichotomism andmonism (in the sense of anthropology).[1]
The reference source forGregory's anthropology is his treatiseDe opificio hominis.[2][3][4] His concept of man is founded on the ontological distinction between thecreated and uncreated. Man is a material creation and is thus limited, but infinite in that hisimmortal soul has an indefinite capacity to grow closer to the divine.[5] Gregory believed that the soul is created simultaneous to the creation of the body (in opposition toOrigen, who speculated on the soul'spre-existence) and thatembryos were thus persons. To Gregory, the human being is exceptional being created in theimage of God.[6] Humanity istheomorphic both in having self-awareness andfree will, the latter which gives each individual existential power, because to Gregory, in disregarding God one negates one's own existence.[7] In hisSong of Songs, Gregory metaphorically describes human lives as paintings created by apprentices to a master: the apprentices (the human wills) imitate their master's work (the life of Christ) with beautiful colors (virtues), and thus man strives to be a reflection of Christ.[8] Gregory, in stark contrast to most thinkers of his age, saw great beauty inthe Fall: from Adam's sin from two perfect humans would eventually arise myriad.[8]
Augustine was one of the first Christianancient Latin authors with very clear anthropological vision. He saw the human being as a perfect unity of two substances: soul and body.[9] He was much closer in this anthropological view toAristotle than toPlato.[10][11] In his late treatiseOn Care to Be Had for the Dead sec. 5 (420 AD) he insists that the body pertains to the essence of the humanperson:
In no wise are the bodies themselves to be spurned. (...) For these pertain not to ornament or aid which is applied from without, but to the very nature of man.[12]
Augustine's favourite figure to describebody-soul unity ismarriage:caro tua, coniunx tua – your body is your wife.[13] Initially, the two elements were in perfect harmony. After thefall of humanity they are now experiencing dramatic combat between one another. Body and soul are two categorically different things. The body is a three-dimensional object composed of the four elements, whereas the soul has no spatial dimensions.[14] Soul is a kind of substance, participating in reason, fit for ruling the body.[15] Augustine was not preoccupied—as Plato andDescartes were—with going too much into details in efforts to explain themetaphysics of the soul-body union. It sufficed for him to admit that they were metaphysically distinct. To be a human is to be a composite of soul and body, and the soul is superior to the body. The latter statement is grounded in his hierarchical classification of things into those that merely exist, those that exist and live, and those that exist, live, and have intelligence or reason.[16][17]
According to N. Blasquez, Augustine's dualism of substances of the body and soul does not stop him from seeing the unity of body and soul as a substance itself.[11][18] Following ancient philosophers he defined man as arational mortal animal –animal rationale mortale.[19][20]
Thebody (Greekσῶμαsoma) is the corporeal or physical aspect of a human being. Christians have traditionally believed thatthe body will be resurrected at the end of the age.
Rudolf Bultmann states the following:[21]
The semantic domain of biblical soul is based on theHebrew wordnephesh, which presumably means "breath" or "breathing being".[23] This word never means an immortal soul[24] or an incorporeal part of the human being[25] that can survive death of the body as the spirit of dead.[26] This word usually designates the person as a whole[27] or its physical life. In theSeptuagintnephesh is mostly translated aspsyche (ψυχή) and, exceptionally, in theBook of Joshua asempneon (ἔνμπεον), that is "breathing being".[28] The Septuagint follows the terminology of theNew Testament which uses the wordpsyche in a manner performatively similar to that of the Hebrew semantic domain,[29] that is, as an invisible power (or ever more, for Platonists, immortal and immaterial) that gives life and motion to the body and is responsible for its attributes.
InPatristic thought, towards the end of the 2nd centurypsyche was understood in more a Greek than a Hebrew way, and it was contrasted with the body. In the 3rd century, with the influence of Origen, there was the establishing of the doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul and its divine nature.[30] Origen also taught thetransmigration of the souls and their preexistence, but these views were officially rejected in 553 in theFifth Ecumenical Council. Inherent immortality of the soul was accepted among western and eastern theologians throughout theMiddle Ages and after theReformation, as evidenced by theWestminster Confession.
On the other hand, some modernProtestant scholars have adopted views similar toconditional immortality, includingEdward Fudge andClark Pinnock. In the last six decades, conditional immortality—or better "immortality by grace" (κατὰχάριν ἀθανασία,kata charin athanasia)—of the soul has been widely accepted amongEastern Orthodox theologians by returning to the views of the late 2nd century, where immortality was still considered as a gift granted with the value ofJesus' death andresurrection.[31] TheSeventh-day Adventist Church has held to conditional immortality since the mid-19th century.
The spirit (Hebrewruach, Greekπνεῦμα,pneuma, which can also mean "breath") is likewise an immaterial component. It is often used interchangeably with "soul",psyche, although trichotomists believe that the spirit is distinct from the soul. Bultmann states:
Charles Taylor has argued inSources of the Self: Making of Modern Identity that the attempt to reduce spirit or soul to the "self" is an anachronistic project claiming historical precedence, when in reality it is a modern, Western, secular reading of the Scriptures.
Christian theologians have historically differed over the issue of how many distinct components constitute the human being.
The most popular view is that the human being is formed of two components: material (body/flesh) and spiritual (soul/spirit). The soul or spirit departs from the body atdeath and will be reunited with the body at theresurrection.
Some theologians hold that human beings are made up of three distinct components: body (flesh), soul, and spirit. This is known technically as trichotomism. The biblical texts typically used to support this position are1 Thessalonians 5:23 andHebrews 4:12.[33]
This position holds that within the person of Jesus Christ existed three parts: a Body, a rational Soul, and the Holy Spirit (whom he received in the Baptism of Jesus).
Modern theologians increasingly hold to the view that the human being is an indissoluble unity.[33] This is known asholism or monism. The body and soul are not considered separate components of a person but rather as two facets of a united whole.[34] It is argued that this more accurately representsHebrew thought, whereas body-soul dualism is more characteristic ofclassical Greek Platonist andCartesian thought. Monism is the official position of theSeventh-day Adventist Church, which adheres to the doctrine of "soul sleep". Monism also appears to be more consistent with certainphysicalist interpretations of modernneuroscience, which has indicated that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are dependent upon or emergent from brain structure, not the independent workings of an immaterial soul as was previously thought.[35]
An influential exponent of this view wasliberal theologianRudolf Bultmann.[36]Oscar Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.[37]
The Bible teaches in thebook of Genesis the humans were created by God. Some Christians believe that this must have involved a miraculous creative act, while others are comfortable with the idea thatGod worked through the evolutionary process. Genesis also teaches that human beings, male and female, were created in theimage of God. The exact meaning of this has been the subject of theological debate throughout church history.
There are two opposing views about how the soul originates in each human being.Creationism teaches that God creates a "fresh" soul within each humanembryo at or some time shortly afterconception. This is not to be confused withcreationism as a view of the origins of life and the universe.Traducianism, by contrast, teaches that the soul isinherited from the individual's parents, along with his or her biological material.
Most Christian theology traditionally teaches that human nature originates holy but is corrupted by the Fall. Part of the development of church doctrine has historically been concerned with discerning what role the human plays in "redemption" from that fall.[38][39][40]
The debate about human nature between Augustine andPelagius had to do with the nature of sin and its relation to the state of the human. Pelagius believed that man's nature was inherently good and taught that all children are born "as a fresh creation of God and therefore good.[40]" For Pelagius freedom is a constitute part of human nature.[41] Humanity's capacity to choose is inherited and therefore is untainted. Human are capable of following divine laws (such as theTen Commandments) and live morally. The inherited ability to choose is itself a grace of creation.[41] Augustine believed that all humans are born into sin because each has inherited a sinful nature through Adam'soriginal sin.[42] Without grace from God, humanity is incapable of choosing good and therefore of pursuing God.[43] Salvation then becomes either a cooperation between human will and divine grace (synergism) or an act of divine will apart from human agency (monergism). Pelagius's position was condemned at theCouncil of Carthage (418), theCouncil of Ephesus, and theSecond Council of Orange. However the councils did soften Augustine's position onpredestination.[44]
During the Reformation, monergism had a resurgence throughJohn Calvin's devolvement of the doctrine oftotal depravity. Within Protestant circlesa debate happened between followers of John Calvin (Calvinists orReformed tradition) and followers ofJacobus Arminius (Arminians) on the nature of grace in the process of salvation. Calvinists and Arminians follow Augustine in the doctrine of total depravity. However, Arminians hold that God restores humanity's free will concerning the ability to choose salvation whereas classic Calvinism holds to a strict monergism.
Synergism and its affirmation of the participation of human will in salvation is the classic Patristic position as well as the position of theRoman Catholic,Eastern Orthodox Church, and many Arminian influencedProtestant Churches. Monergism has become the position of most churches that are a part of the Reformed tradition.
Christian anthropology has implications for beliefs about death and theafterlife. The Christian church has traditionally taught that the soul of each individual separates from the body at death, to be reunited at the resurrection. This is closely related to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. For example, theWestminster Confession of Faith (chapter XXXII) states:
The question then arises: where exactly does the disembodied soul "go" at death? Theologians refer to this subject as theintermediate state. TheOld Testament speaks of a place calledsheol where the spirits of the dead reside. In theNew Testament,hades, the classical Greek realm of the dead, takes the place ofsheol. In particular, Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19–31 (Lazarus and Dives) thathades consists of two separate "sections", one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. His teaching is consistent withintertestamental Jewish thought on the subject.[45]
Fully developed Christian theology goes a step further; on the basis of such texts as Luke 23:43 and Philippians 1:23, it has traditionally been taught that the souls of the dead are received immediately either into heaven or hell, where they will experience a foretaste of their eternal destiny prior to the resurrection. (Roman Catholicism teaches a third possible location,Purgatory, though this is denied by Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy.)
Some Christian groups that stress a monistic anthropology deny that the soul can exist consciously apart from the body. For example, the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that the intermediate state is anunconscious sleep; this teaching is informally known as "soul sleep".
In Christian belief, both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected at theLast Judgment. The righteous will receive incorruptible, immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15), while the unrighteous will be sent to the "Lake of Fire" or "Gehenna". Traditionally, Christians have believed that hell will be a place of eternal physical and psychological punishment. In the last two centuries,annihilationism anduniversalism have become more popular.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
