The Image & Likeness of God. Genesis 2

April 2026.

I have heard a few explanations of what this passage actually means. How about you? One theologian said that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, but we are created in the image and likeness of Adam the sinner. The implication is that the image and likeness of God is essentially eliminated. Let us dig into it.

I asked ChatGPT to put the full study together in this format, with the KJV passages, Jewish background, the early Fathers, Augustine, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Calvinist, and Arminian interpretations, and especially the question of what happened, if anything, to the image of God after Adam’s Fall and how that relates to free will and human responsibility.

• Continue detailing the Calvinist view on the image of God after the Fall
• Expand on Eastern Orthodox perspective about image of God and free will
• Summarize Jewish background on the image of God and its post-Fall status

ChatGPT writes, ‘What follows is the fuller study. I have especially emphasized the point we discussed: what does Scripture actually say happened to the image and likeness of God after the Fall? That question has major implications for the later debates over original sin, free will, moral responsibility, and salvation.

The Image and Likeness of God in Genesis 1–2

We will consider the following. The Jewish Understanding, the Early Church Fathers, Augustine, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Calvinism, and Arminianism.

I. The foundational biblical passages

Genesis 1:26-28 in the KJV

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion…

Several things here deserve emphasis.

1.  God creates mankind in His image before the Fall.
2. The image is connected immediately with dominion. Humanity is God’s representative ruler over the created order. Is that a delegated sovereignty?
3. Both male and female are included in the image.
4. The passage does not say that mankind possesses an image as though it were an object attached to us. Rather, God created mankind in His image.

How do we describe the image of God, and what terms do we use to describe His likeness?

II. Genesis 2:7. What happened when God made Adam?

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7, KJV

Genesis 1 gives us the theological description: man is created in God’s image.

Genesis 2 gives us the more intimate description of how God formed Adam from the dust and gave him life.

This is important because Scripture does not say: God made Adam in His image, and then Adam became God’s image when he received the breath of life. Rather, the image belongs to God’s creative act itself.

The Hebrew words traditionally translated “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demuth) appear paired in Genesis 1:26. There is no strong linguistic basis for treating them as two completely separate substances or “parts” of humanity. They overlap substantially.

III. What does “image of God” mean?

No single verse gives a complete dictionary definition. But the biblical evidence points toward several related dimensions.

1. Humanity represents God

The immediate context is dominion: “and let them have dominion…”. Again, how is this any different from God delegating sovereignty to man on a limited basis?

In the ancient Near Eastern world, an image or statue of a king (the sovereign) could represent the king’s authority in a place where the king himself was not physically present. Genesis applies this concept extraordinarily broadly: not merely kings, but all human beings are God’s representatives within creation.

2. Humanity possesses rational and moral capacities

Human beings can reason, communicate, choose, understand, create, exercise moral judgment, and consciously relate to God. This is why many Christian theologians have associated the image with reason, will, moral awareness, relational capacity, and dominion.

3. Humanity possesses extraordinary dignity

Genesis 9:6 is especially important: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Notice when God says this.

• After the Fall.
• After Cain.
• After the Flood.

Human beings are still regarded as bearing God’s image. This becomes extremely important because some theologians claim that Jesus was incarnated with Adam’s nature before the Fall, not after the Fall like all the rest of us. At the same time, the bible says that Jesus took on our nature, but how can that be true when they insist that we are born with a sinful nature and Jesus was not?

IV. Genesis 5 gives us another remarkable clue

“1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth”. Genesis 5:1-3. KJV

Here’s something fascinating, says ChatGPT.

Genesis 1: God created Adam in the image and likeness of God

Genesis 5: Adam and Eve birthed Seth in the image/likeness of Adam

The terminology is deliberately similar. And Genesis 5 occurs after the Fall. That doesn’t mean Seth was morally perfect. He wasn’t, says ChatGPT. But where in the Bible does it say that? It doesn’t, but almost all Christians assume it because of Augustine’s belief in Original Sin and Guilt.

It does mean that the biblical author continues to speak about humanity in terms of image and likeness after Adam’s sin. But it doesn’t say that this image and likeness is cursed and fallen, does it?

Does God in Genesis 4 indicate that the consequence of the fall of Adam would bring on all humanity an inclination to sin, a sinful nature totally depraved, or inherited guilt? It doesn’t. Yet Augustine and many others today still believe that. They believe that from Adam we inherit a sinful nature that is incapable of doing good. A little leaven leavens the entire lump.

Let us not forget that God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door, but he must master it. Sounds like God did not endorse Augustine’s interpretative claim of inability, depravity, and inevitable sinfulness.

V. Genesis 9:6 is perhaps even more decisive, writes ChatGPT

After the Flood, many years later, God says: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

The human being who may be murdered is still called God’s image. This is not Adam before the Fall. This is post-Fall humanity. Therefore, at the very least, Scripture does not teach that the Fall completely erased or even partially erased the image of God from mankind, contrary to the Augustinian Calvinist and evangelical view.

VI. James 3:9. An explicit New Testament confirmation

James says: “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”

Notice the tense and the context. James is speaking about ordinary human beings in his own time. These are not sinless Christians. Yet James says they are: “made after the similitude of God.”

The same basic concept from Genesis remains applicable to human beings after the Fall. Commentators have long recognized Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 as important evidence that Adam’s sin did not simply abolish the image. That is an important distinction from saying that fallen man still possesses Adam’s original righteousness and holiness. But what does that mean?

This issue is that many Christians believe we are all born with a sinful and totally depraved nature or a strong inclination to sin. But none of these passages state or even imply that.

VII. The Jewish understanding

Jewish interpretation has not been completely uniform, but several themes are prominent. The image of God establishes humanity’s unique dignity. It distinguishes human beings from the animals. It provides a foundation for human responsibility and dominion. And it gives an important theological reason why human life is sacred.

The Hebrew tselem ordinarily refers to an image, representation, statue, or likeness, while demuth conveys resemblance or likeness. The two words appear together in Genesis 1:26 and again in Genesis 5:3. Jewish scholarship has consequently debated whether the image is primarily physical, intellectual, moral, representative, or some combination.

But the important point is this: Judaism generally does not begin with the Augustinian proposition that Adam’s descendants inherited Adam’s guilt and therefore lost the essential human capacity to respond to God.

That distinction becomes very important when we move into Augustine.

VIII. The earliest Christians

ChatGPT continues, ‘This is where I think your research becomes particularly interesting. The earliest Christian writers do not all explain the image in exactly the same way. But a recurring theme emerges: humanity was created for fellowship and relationship with God and given genuine capacities that distinguish it from the irrational creation.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus is particularly important. He explicitly connects Genesis 1:26 with the activity of the Word and says: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.”

Irenaeus teaches that humanity was created according to the divine pattern and that Christ—the Word—ultimately restores humanity to what it was intended to be.

One of his key ideas is that the image and likeness relate to humanity’s development toward God, rather than simply a legal status. Irenaeus therefore provides an important early framework: Creation, then the Fall, and then restoration in Christ.

He does not begin with the later Augustinian formulation of inherited guilt and total inability. Why? He did not believe it or think that the Bible taught it.

IX. Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory gives us an especially beautiful treatment. In On the Making of Man, he argues that God’s image does not mean God has a physical human shape. Instead, he associates the divine likeness with things such as:

• purity,
• freedom from evil,
• blessedness,
• freedom from passion,
• and the virtues.

He compares God forming humanity to a painter creating a likeness, except that God’s “colors” are virtues. This is an important distinction:

Image

Humanity’s creation according to God’s pattern.

Likeness

Humanity’s increasing conformity to God’s goodness.

That distinction became particularly influential in Eastern Christian theology.

X. John Chrysostom

Chrysostom provides another interesting perspective. He connects Genesis 1:26 to dominion and says God gave humanity rule over creation. He also associates humanity’s honor with rationality and the soul. But elsewhere Chrysostom emphasizes something extremely relevant to your larger question. He says that man’s likeness to God is manifested particularly in virtue—being good, merciful, forgiving, humane, and so forth.

So, we have something like:

Humanity is God’s image by creation.

But:

Humanity becomes increasingly like God through virtue and obedience.

That distinction is very important.

XI. The Shepherd of Hermas

ChatGPT writes, ‘And I would not leave Hermas out, especially given your interest in the less frequently cited early witnesses. (I am writing a future article on the early church fathers) Hermas matters because early Christian thought often describes humanity as having a created capacity for obedience while also emphasizing the need to live faithfully.

That fits naturally with the broader early-Christian emphasis on what humanity was created to become, rather than simply asking whether Adam’s guilt was legally transferred to every descendant.

XII. Augustine

Here we encounter a major shift in emphasis. Most Christians automatically think that if the great theologian Augustine gave us this shift, it must be biblical. But is that the case? Might Augustine have been incorrect? Augustine develops the image of God primarily in relation to the human mind. He famously searches within the human person for a reflection of the Trinity—particularly memory, understanding, and will. For Augustine, therefore, the image is not primarily the physical body. It is especially associated with the rational, spiritual mind.

But Augustine also teaches that sin damaged and defaced the image. In On the Trinity, he describes the image as having been “defaced,” or tarnished, by Adam’s sin and then renewed by God’s grace. This gives us an important qualification: Augustine does not simply say, “The image disappeared.”

Rather, he writes that the image remains, but it has been seriously damaged and corrupted. And that this image became totally depraved and totally unable to obey God. He also began to teach that all Christians sin daily, and that was contrary to most, if not all, earlier Christian teachers. For the most part, all of this was new to Christianity. This is not just a harmless new development, as ChatGPT claims. Some of us think this shift was heretical.

That is a more nuanced position than popular presentations of Augustinian theology sometimes suggest, writes ChatGPT.

XIII. Augustine’s distinction is crucial

Augustine can therefore be summarized approximately like this:

Creation: Image of God plus righteousness plus holiness.

Fall: Image remains, but righteousness and holiness are lost completely or seriously damaged. We sinned in Adam, which is not Biblical.

Redemption: God renews the image.

This differs from saying, “Man ceased to be God’s image.” Augustine himself speaks about the image being renewed. It also differs from saying that man can obey God and should do so, as earlier church fathers taught. They believed mankind could obey God, and nothing stopped them from doing so, but they own sins. And Augustine taught the opposite. He believed mankind would sin daily in direct opposition to early church fathers.

XIV. Eastern Orthodox understanding

Eastern Christianity develops the distinction between image and likeness in a particularly important way.

Very roughly:

Image (eikōn)

What humanity is by creation.

Likeness (homoiosis)

What humanity is called to become through communion with God in faithful obedience. The distinction is not always rigidly maintained by every Father, and we should not pretend that all Eastern Fathers use the terminology identically. But the general Eastern framework is: The image remains; the likeness is damaged and must be restored. This connects to theosis—humanity’s participation in God’s life through grace.

That is why Eastern Orthodoxy generally speaks of the Fall more in terms of:

• mortality,
• corruption,
• alienation,
• disordered desire,
• and loss of communion,

rather than primarily inherited legal guilt as did Augustine.

XV. Roman Catholic theology

Roman Catholic theology develops a related distinction. Humanity was created in God’s image and originally possessed original holiness and justice. The Fall resulted in the loss of that original holiness. But human nature itself was not destroyed. The Catholic Catechism therefore distinguishes between:

the image of God remaining in man

and

the loss of original holiness through sin.

 This is actually considerably more nuanced than the popular statement: “The Fall destroyed God’s image.” It did not. Rather, humanity lost its original righteousness, while fundamental human nature and image remain.

XVI. Calvin and the Reformed tradition

Here the consequences of the Fall become much more severe. Calvin explicitly describes Adam as originally possessing God’s image in righteousness, wisdom, and holiness. He then says that the Fall resulted in the “obliteration of the image of God” and describes fallen humanity as profoundly corrupted. However, Calvin also recognizes that Scripture continues to speak about humans as God’s image. Calvin considered Augustine a critical guide to his own theology. The Reformed position therefore has to distinguish between:

the image as originally possessed in its fullness

and

residual aspects of the image remaining after the Fall.

The result is a much stronger doctrine of human corruption than we generally find in the earlier Greek Fathers. And this is all built on Augustine’s foundation. This connects directly to Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity and total inability to obey God, which closely reflects what Augustine taught later in his life. This is theological leaven at work.

Calvin goes on to argue that fallen humanity’s will is enslaved to sin and that human beings cannot, by their natural powers, turn themselves toward God. This is all part of the TULIP in Calvinism. Each tenet builds on the other. It is logical but not Biblical.

XVII. Arminian/Wesleyan understanding

Arminian theology generally retains the seriousness of the Fall while resisting the conclusion that fallen humanity has become utterly incapable of responding to God. A common Arminian formulation is: The image has been seriously marred, but God’s prevenient grace restores sufficient ability for sinners to respond to God’s call. Thus:

Calvinism:

Fall begets radical inability, and sovereign, regenerating, irresistible grace enables faith.

Arminianism:

Fall begets radical corruption, but prevenient grace enables a genuine response.

That distinction is fundamental.

XVIII. Here is the central comparison

Tradition	What happened to God’s image?	Human moral capacity after Fall
Jewish	Humanity remains God’s image	Genuine responsibility remains
Early Greek Fathers	Image remains; likeness can be damaged	Human freedom and responsibility remain significant
Irenaeus	Humanity needs restoration and maturation	Humanity is capable of responding and developing
Gregory of Nyssa	Image remains; likeness involves virtue	Transformation toward God is possible
Chrysostom	Image remains; virtue expresses likeness	Strong emphasis on moral choice and obedience
Augustine	Image remains but is defaced	Much stronger doctrine of inherited corruption
Eastern Orthodox	Image remains; likeness is impaired and restored	Freedom remains, though wounded
Roman Catholic	Image remains; original holiness lost	Nature wounded but not destroyed
Calvinist/Reformed	Image profoundly corrupted/obliterated in its original righteousness	Natural ability to turn to God is denied
Arminian/Wesleyan	Image seriously marred	Prevenient grace restores ability to respond

XIX. Now comes the really important biblical question

Does Scripture ever say that Adam’s sin erased the image of God? ChatGPT writes, I don’t believe it does. Instead, we find:

Before the Fall

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Genesis 1:26

After the Fall

“in his own likeness, after his image.” Genesis 5:3

After the Flood

“for in the image of God made he man.” Genesis 9:6

In the New Testament

: “men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:9

And Paul says: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 11:7

Those are remarkably persistent statements.

XX. But there is another side to the biblical picture

ChatGPT writes, ‘We must not go too far in the other direction. The fact that God’s image remains does not mean that nothing changed in the Fall. Let me add this comment. But it also does not mean that we must go to the extremes of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Genesis 3 clearly introduces:

• death,
• alienation from God,
• shame,
• fear,
• toil,
• pain,
• corruption,
• expulsion from Eden,
• and ultimately physical death.

And Paul describes humanity as being under the power of sin and death. But why? Is it because we are born sinners like Adam? Or is it because we choose to sin as Adam did?

So, the biblical picture is not: Nothing changed. ChatGPT writes, ‘Something catastrophic changed, but God’s image was not erased. And part of that image is our continued sovereignty over our moral choices, which refutes the idea that we are totally depraved.

That distinction is crucial.

XXI. Image is not the same thing as original righteousness

This may be the single most useful distinction in the entire study. Imagine three categories:

A. Human nature

Reason, will, consciousness, relational capacity, moral awareness, etc.

B. Image of God

Humanity’s created status and vocation as God’s image-bearing representatives.

C. Original righteousness

Humanity’s original holiness, communion with God, and conformity to God’s will.

Conclusions

The Fall unquestionably damaged C, original righteousness in Adam. Adam became a sinner. But did that mean that his progeny would also involuntarily become sinners? Augustine believed so, but before him few, if any, believed it was inevitable, as did Augustine.

The question is how much it damaged A and B in Adam’s descendants. Here, Christian traditions diverge considerably. The biblical evidence strongly indicates that B remains. Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 are particularly difficult to reconcile with the claim that the image itself simply disappeared, according to ChatGPT.

XXII. This matters enormously for free will    

ChatGPT continues, ‘And here we reach the issue you have been investigating in your larger study. If God’s image remains in fallen humanity, does that automatically prove that mankind has completely free will? No, says ChatGPT. The image by itself doesn’t settle every question about human freedom. But it does establish something extremely important: fallen human beings remain genuinely human moral agents who possess God’s image and remain accountable to God.

My answer is yes, it does demonstrate that our will is completely free. I disagree with ChatGPT. How can a free will be almost free will? How can anyone make sense of that?

ChatGPT writes, ‘And Scripture continues to address fallen human beings with commands such as:

• “Repent ye therefore, and be converted…” Acts 3:19
• “Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die…”Ezekiel 33:11
• “Choose you this day whom ye will serve…”Joshua 24:15
• “If ye be willing and obedient…” Isaiah 1:19

The biblical authors continue to speak to human beings as responsible responders to God. My comment is that the biblical authors presume we still have completely free will and can do as we are commanded. If mankind’s will is not completely free to do as commanded, don’t you think the inspired authors would have qualified their statements?

XXIII. And this helps explain the difference between the Greek Fathers and Augustine

This is where I think your larger research question becomes particularly interesting. The early Greek tradition often approaches the Fall as:

• Humanity was created good
• Humanity fell (Adam fell, not all humanity)
• Humanity became mortal/corrupt/disordered. (I disagree that we all became corrupt and disordered as a result of Adam’s fall)
• Humanity needs God’s grace (Let me add this: we have always needed the grace of God, before and after the fall of Adam)
• Humanity must respond to God (I remind the reader that this has always been the case)
• Christ restores humanity.

Augustine increasingly frames the problem in terms of:

• Adam sinned
•  Humanity inherits Adam’s corrupted condition, and Christians sin daily
• The will is deeply impaired/enslaved
• Divine grace must liberate the will. (My question is this: does free will need liberation? Isn’t that a contradiction?)

ChatGPT writes, ‘And the Reformation eventually develops the latter trajectory into much more explicit formulations of total depravity and inability and the other element of TULIP. That is why the doctrine of the image of God is not merely an abstract theological subject.

It is directly related to the question: What kind of creature is fallen man?

XXIV. One especially significant observation

James 3:9 is striking. James writes to Christians and warns them about the tongue’s sinful use. He says people curse: “men, which are made after the similitude of God.”

• He doesn’t say: “men who once were made in God’s likeness.”
• He doesn’t say: “men who would have been made in God’s likeness had Adam not sinned.”

He speaks of human beings as presently possessing this God-related dignity. That doesn’t prove the entire Arminian system. But it does make the statement: “The Fall completely destroyed the image of God in man” very difficult to maintain without substantial qualification, according to ChatGPT.

XXV. Christ as the perfect Image

The New Testament then takes the doctrine somewhere even greater. Paul says Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and “Who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Christ is therefore the perfect Image.

God created humanity as his image-bearer. Christ is God’s perfect Image. And salvation involves being conformed to Christ: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son…” Romans 8:29.

So, the ultimate Christian goal isn’t merely: “Get forgiven.” It is: be restored and conformed to the image of Christ. That fits remarkably well with the Eastern Fathers’ emphasis on restoration and transformation. And it doesn’t fit well with current theological positions that restrict the goal to forgiveness rather than immediate transformation.

XXVI. A particularly important early-Christian insight

Irenaeus essentially sees Christ as the one who recapitulates humanity—Christ becomes what humanity was intended to be and restores humanity to God.

Gregory of Nyssa emphasizes restoring the divine likeness through virtue.

Chrysostom emphasizes that the image is connected with humanity’s dominion and that the likeness is manifested in virtuous living. This creates an interesting pattern:

• Creation
• Image
• Fall
• Restoration
• Increasing likeness
• Final conformity to Christ.

That differs from viewing salvation primarily as a legal transaction in which God declares a guilty person righteous while the underlying human problem of living in sin remains essentially unchanged. That is the leaven of Augustinian Calvinism.

XXVII. Where I think the strongest biblical synthesis lies, according to ChatGPT

If we restrict ourselves to the biblical evidence rather than beginning with a later theological system, I think the following distinctions are particularly important:

1. The image of God is given to humanity by creation.

2. The Fall does not erase the image.

Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 are powerful evidence.

3. The Fall profoundly damages humanity’s relationship with God.

Death, corruption, alienation, and sin enter the human experience.

4. Original righteousness is not identical to the image.

Losing holiness does not necessarily mean losing humanity’s created image.

5. Human beings remain morally accountable.

Scripture continues to command, warn, exhort, rebuke, and call sinners to repentance.

6. God’s grace is indispensable. (not irresistible)

None of this means man saves himself or that God does all that must be done for salvation.

7. Christ restores and perfects what humanity was created to be.

Romans 8:29 and the New Testament’s teaching about Christ as the Image make this especially clear.

XXVIII. And this brings us back to Genesis 2

Genesis 2:7 says: “And man became a living soul.” That is an extraordinary statement. Man is neither merely dust nor merely spirit. He is a living creature God formed from the dust and animated by God’s gift of life.

And Genesis 1 tells us that this creature is God’s image-bearer. So the biblical anthropology begins with an enormously high view of humanity: created by God, bearing God’s image, possessing dominion, capable of relationship with God, morally accountable to God, and created for communion with Him, according to ChatGPT.

The Fall does not reduce man to an animal. It does not erase the image. It does not make man cease to be God’s creature. But it does introduce a terrible disorder into the human condition from which only God’s grace and Christ’s redemption can deliver us, according to ChatGPT.

Let me add that while this is true, it doesn’t mean we don’t need to stop sinning and rebelling against our Creator. It also doesn’t mean God alone saves us and that there are no conditions we must meet to be right with God. See my article, Causa finalis and sine qua non,  “that for the sake of which” and “that not without which.”

ChatGPT’s overall conclusion from the evidence

If we put the biblical passages alongside the early Christian witnesses, I think the safest conclusion is:

The Fall damaged the image of God in humanity, especially humanity’s righteousness, holiness, communion with God, and proper ordering of the will, but Scripture does not teach that the image itself was erased.

And that distinction is significant for your continuing investigation of Augustine and the later doctrine of total depravity.

The early Greek Fathers generally picture humanity as a God-image-bearing creature, wounded by sin but still fully capable of responding to God’s commands and grace.

Augustine retains the image but offers a much stronger account of inherited corruption and the will’s impairment, according to ChatGPT. I do not believe it. Augustine may theoretically retain the image of God, but in my humble opinion it is an image of his own mind, not of the Word of God.

Calvinism takes that Augustinian trajectory considerably further, emphasizing the inability of fallen humanity apart from regenerating grace.

Arminianism accepts profound inherited corruption but argues that God’s prevenient grace enables a genuine response.

And Eastern Orthodoxy generally emphasizes that the image remains while humanity’s likeness to God must be restored through grace, repentance, communion with God, and ultimately participation in divine life.

ChatGPT writes, ‘That, I think, gives us a very useful framework for the larger question you have been asking: Does “fallen” mean “no longer God’s image,” or does it mean “God’s image-bearing creature who has become radically disordered and alienated from God”?

The biblical evidence—particularly Genesis 5:1–3, Genesis 9:6, James 3:9, and 1 Corinthians 11:7—strongly supports the second formulation. That distinction is worth preserving as we move on to the much more difficult question of whether fallen man can respond to God’s grace.

---

Sources

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

I have often heard that the phrase “image and likeness of God” means we are created with intellect, emotions, and will. See my article, The Administration of the Moral Universe, where I explain these terms and their importance in Christian theology.

ChatGPT writes, ‘When Genesis says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26), it describes something distinctive about human beings. We are not merely biological creatures. We possess an extraordinary capacity to:

• think and reason — intellect;
• love, hate, desire, delight, grieve, and experience compassion — emotions and affections;
• deliberate and choose — will; (God delegated to us limited sovereignty while God has full sovereignty)
• distinguish good from evil and understand moral obligation;
• know God and respond to Him;
• exercise dominion over creation.

Those characteristics fit very naturally with the biblical picture of humanity as God’s image-bearer.

2. ChatGPT writes: I particularly like your connection with moral choice

I would phrase your idea slightly differently than “sovereignty over our moral choices.” I would say “genuine moral agency and responsibility.” “Sovereignty” can suggest that the human will is completely independent or autonomous. Scripture doesn’t go that far. According to ChatGPT, God remains sovereign over His creation.

My response to ChatGPT is that I must disagree. We do have a will that is completely independent and autonomous over our choices. ChatGPT says Scripture doesn’t go that far, but I think it does because moral responsibility requires it. ChatGPT says God remains sovereign over His creation. That is true, but can’t God delegate some sovereignty to humanity? ChatGPT seems to imply God can’t and doesn’t delegate some sovereignty to humanity. To prove my point, keep reading what ChatGPT writes next.

ChatGPT writes, ‘But human beings plainly make meaningful choices for which they are held accountable. For example:

• “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life…” Deuteronomy 30:19
• And Joshua says: “choose you this day whom ye will serve” Joshua 24:15

Those commands make considerably more sense if human beings possess genuine agency, free will. Doesn’t that prove my point? What is genuine agency if it isn’t sovereignty over our choices?

3. The image isn’t merely “having a soul”

This is an important distinction. Animals also have life, desires, emotions, and forms of intelligence. So, if we say simply: “The image of God means that human beings have intellect, emotions, and a will,” we shouldn’t imply that those capacities alone exhaust the meaning.

The biblical context adds something very important: “and let them have dominion…” Genesis 1:26. Humanity is God’s representative within creation. So, I would put the pieces together this way:

The image of God is humanity’s unique capacity and calling to represent God in creation, expressed through rationality, moral agency, relational capacity, and dominion, according to ChatGPT.

But how is that different from limited sovereignty and dominion?

4. And this makes Genesis 9:6 extremely important

Remember what God says after the Fall: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” That is post-Fall humanity. So, whatever happened to mankind through Adam’s sin, human beings still possess the image sufficiently for God to ground the sanctity of human life in it.

And James says essentially the same thing: “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:9. That is particularly significant for your understanding.

The Fall did not turn human beings into something fundamentally other than what God created them to be.

5. But there is an even deeper connection with morality

I think your idea becomes particularly strong when we consider that God Himself is morally good. If human beings are God’s image-bearers, then our capacity to recognize:

• justice,
• mercy,
• truth,
• goodness,
• righteousness,
• love,

has a natural place in the doctrine of the image. Consider Micah 6:8: “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee…”. Or Romans 2:14-15, where Paul speaks about Gentiles who “shew the work of the law written in their hearts“ and whose consciences bear witness.

That doesn’t mean fallen people always make good moral choices. Obviously, they don’t. It means they remain moral creatures capable of understanding and complying with moral obligation. It also means they are entirely responsible for their choices.

6. This also helps explain the distinction between image and likeness

Here I think your formulation can be developed even further. We might describe it this way—not as an absolute biblical definition, but as a useful theological distinction:

Image is what we are created as. We are rational, relational, moral, volitional beings created to represent God.

Likeness is what we are called to become. We are to become increasingly like God in character—holy, loving, merciful, truthful, righteous.

That gives enormous significance to Jesus’ command: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48. And, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.”  Luke 6:36.

The Christian life is therefore not merely about being forgiven. It is about becoming like the God whose image we bear.

7. And this brings us directly into your disagreement with “total inability”, writes ChatGPT

ChatGPT continues, ‘I think this is where your observation becomes particularly important. If intellect, moral awareness, affections, and will are genuinely part of what it means to be God’s image-bearer, then we have to be careful about saying:

• “The Fall left mankind with absolutely no genuine ability to respond to God.”

That statement requires considerably more argument than simply saying: “Man fell.” The Bible certainly teaches that fallen humanity is profoundly affected by sin.

But it also continues to portray people as thinking, choosing, reasoning, resisting, seeking, rejecting, repenting, hardening their hearts, believing, disbelieving, obeying, and disobeying. God repeatedly addresses fallen people as morally responsible agents.

And that is exactly what we would expect if the image of God, although seriously damaged, was not destroyed, according to ChatGPT.

My ongoing disagreement with ChatGPT is this. What does it mean that our will is wounded, hurt, damaged, corrupted, and so on? See my many other articles on a wounded will and partial depravity.

ChatGPT writes, ‘One qualification I would add to your formulation

I would not say: “The image of God is our free will.”

Nor would I say: “The image of God is our intellect, emotions, and will.”

Those are probably dimensions or manifestations of the image rather than a complete definition of it. I’d formulate your thought this way:

Humanity is created in the image and likeness of God in that human beings uniquely reflect God’s character and rule within creation through rationality, moral awareness, relational capacity, affections, and genuine personal agency. The Fall corrupted these capacities and our relationship with God, but did not erase God’s image from humanity.

According to ChatGPT, I think that’s a very strong formulation.

I would change this about ChatGPT’s statement. I would remove the word “corrupted.” What does that even mean? How is our will corrupted? Is it 100% corrupted? That is total depravity. Or is it 30% corrupted? When does partial corruption become essentially 100% corruption? At what percentage do we lose more agency and moral responsibility? I would simply say that the fall adversely impacted these capacities.

ChatGPT continues, ‘And it has an important implication for your broader study: if the image remains after the Fall, then the question is not whether fallen man is still a moral agent—Scripture clearly treats him as one—but how severely sin has impaired that moral agency and what God’s grace does to restore it.

That, I think, is the precise place where Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, Eastern Orthodoxy, Calvinism, and Arminianism begin to diverge—and it would be worthwhile to examine their actual statements side by side rather than simply accepting later summaries of their positions, as ChatGPT did.

I asked ChatGPT to:

• Explain the relationship between the image of God and moral responsibility
• Compare the views of Irenaeus, Augustine, and Calvinism on the corrupted image
• Discuss how God’s grace restores moral agency after the FallTop of FormBottom of Form

ChatGPT writes, ‘This comparison is especially worthwhile because, once we look at the actual statements of the Fathers, your formulation—intellect, affections, will, and moral agency—turns out to have considerable support in the early Christian tradition.

There is also an important surprise: Augustine himself gives a very strong account of intellect and will as aspects of the divine image. His major difference from the earlier Fathers is not primarily whether human beings possess intellect and will, but what happened to the will through the Fall.

1. Irenaeus: God’s image and genuine freedom

Irenaeus is one of the strongest early witnesses for your position. He explicitly says: “Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice.”

And then he writes: “God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power…”

Most importantly for our present question, Irenaeus connects this freedom with the divine likeness: “God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created.”

That is remarkably close to the thought you expressed, writes ChatGPT. For Irenaeus, being created in God’s likeness is not merely about possessing intelligence. Freedom of choice itself belongs to the likeness.

He then gives a very practical argument: If human beings did not have the power to choose, why would God and the apostles continually counsel them to do certain things and refrain from others? Irenaeus says that because man has free will, God counsels him to choose the good. That is important.

Irenaeus is not saying: “Man was once free, but after Adam’s Fall the human will ceased to be genuinely capable of choosing.” He argues that moral responsibility and meaningful choice continue to characterize human beings.

And does any of this sound like what ChatGPT is saying?

2. Gregory of Nyssa is even more explicit

Gregory of Nyssa gives us perhaps one of the clearest early formulations of your idea. He describes man as “this reasoning and intelligent creature” and calls man “the work and the likeness of the Divine and Imperishable Mind.”

Then he makes the connection you are making: “Being the image and the likeness… man kept also in the matter of a Free-Will this likeness to Him whose Will is over all.”

And Gregory continues by saying that man was “free to choose whatever he liked.” That is extremely significant. Gregory isn’t merely saying that mankind has a will. He sees freedom of will itself as a likeness to God.

Of course, Gregory does not mean that man is sovereign in the sense of being independent of God. God remains Creator and Lord. Rather, man possesses a will that is genuinely his own and is not mechanically compelled, writes ChatGPT.

My response is that I again disagree with ChatGPT. I believe Gregory does mean that man is sovereign in the sense of being independent of God. And that independence allows mankind to rebel against its creator. That is sin, and it is by definition a rebellious independence against God.

3. Chrysostom adds another dimension

Chrysostom’s interpretation is somewhat different. In his discussion of Genesis 1:26, he says that the “image” refers particularly to dominion: “The image of government is that which is meant.”

He then says that God gave mankind dominion over creation and also gave mankind: “the gift of reason, and an immortal soul.” So, Chrysostom’s understanding gives us at least three elements:

• Image includes dominion (And isn’t dominion sovereignty?)
• Human nature includes rationality
• Human dignity includes God-given authority (dominion and sovereignty)

And in his Genesis homilies, he associates “likeness” with becoming like God through human powers and moral imitation. Thus, Chrysostom doesn’t reduce the image to intellect or will. He sees the image as involving humanity’s unique God-given status and vocation.

4. Tatian gives us another fascinating early witness

Tatian is particularly interesting because he explicitly connects the image of God to freedom, and that means moral responsibility. He writes that human beings were made with freedom of choice so that: “the bad man may be justly punished” and “the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds.”

ChatGPT writes, ‘He then discusses God’s image and likeness. This is very close to the moral-agency concept you’re describing. In other words: If humans are God’s image-bearers, they aren’t merely thinking machines. They’re responsible moral agents because they are free and capable.

5. Now Augustine becomes very interesting, says ChatGPT

Augustine’s understanding of the image is actually remarkably close to your emphasis on intellect and will. In On the Trinity, Augustine famously examines:

• memory,
• understanding,
• and will/love.

He says, “memory, intelligence, will” form a triad within the human mind, and he associates this with the image of God. He also explains that the mind “remembers, understands, loves” and says that, in this, it is an image of God.

So, if you said: “The image of God involves our intellect, our affections, and our will,” Augustine would actually have considerable sympathy with that formulation. His terminology differs, but the conceptual connection is striking: Memory to understanding to love/will.

6. But Augustine’s crucial difference comes after the Fall

This is where the historical development becomes important. Augustine does not deny that man has a will. He explicitly teaches free choice in On Grace and Free Will: “There is… in a man a free choice of will.” And he argues that God’s commandments would make no sense if man had no choice. So, we need to be careful about saying: “Augustine denied free will.” That isn’t accurate. His argument is more complicated.

Augustine’s position becomes (Before the Fall):

Man had genuine freedom and could choose good or evil. (This is his first definition of free will).

After the Fall:

Man still has a will, but sin profoundly damages it. (This is his new definition of free will. A will that isn’t free to choose good or evil, but can only choose evil.)

By grace:

God heals/liberates the will so that man can turn toward God.

The Stanford Encyclopedia summarizes this development by saying that Augustine understood human freedom of choice as damaged by original sin and needing liberation by grace.

That is quite different from saying that Augustine believed human beings had ceased to possess a will, according to ChatGPT.

Again, I must disagree with ChatGPT. And I am not the only one to disagree. Scholar Dr. Kenneth Wilson wrote a book, The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism, in which he labels Augustine’s shift from libertarian free will to non-free / free will. See my other articles on Augustine and free will. Chapter two of my book, When Lies Become Truth, and many other articles. Augustine does argue that we do have a free will of sorts. But he changes the definition of free will to accommodate the idea that we have a free will that is not actually free in any meaningful sense.

7. Calvin actually makes your argument even more interesting

Calvin also explicitly connects the image of God with the faculties of the human soul. His Institutes, Book I, chapter 15, is actually titled: “The Faculties of the Soul—The Image of God—Free Will—Original Righteousness.” He divides the faculties principally into the intellect and the will.

He says that before the Fall man possessed “reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgment,” and that the will was capable of choice. So, your formulation isn’t foreign to Calvin at all. Calvin differs sharply on what happened afterward. He says the Fall corrupted human nature so profoundly that Adam lost the freedom he originally possessed.

8. Here’s the historical progression in a nutshell

This is where I think the comparison becomes especially useful.

Thinker/tradition	Image involves	What about will?	Effect of Fall
Irenaeus	Human dignity, rationality, moral agency, likeness	Genuine freedom	Humanity falls but remains responsible
Gregory of Nyssa	Rational nature and likeness to God	Free will itself reflects God	Freedom becomes disordered
Chrysostom	Dominion, reason, human dignity	Strong moral agency	Sin damages but does not eliminate responsibility
Tatian	Moral agency and likeness	Freedom makes judgment just	Man remains responsible
Augustine	Mind, understanding, memory, love/will	Free choice remains, but is impaired	Original sin profoundly damages freedom
Eastern Orthodoxy	Image, rationality, freedom, vocation	Wounded but not destroyed	Mortality/corruption and disordered desire
Calvin	Intellect, righteousness, holiness, will	Freedom lost in the Fall	Radical inability apart from grace
Arminianism	Image remains but is marred	Prevenient grace enables response	Grace restores ability to respond

9. I think your word “sovereignty” needs only a slight adjustment, writes ChatGPT

You said: “we are moral beings with sovereignty over our moral choices.” I understand exactly what you mean, and I think the underlying thought is sound. But I would substitute “agency” for “sovereignty.” Why? Because Scripture never presents human beings as autonomous sovereigns. God is sovereign. But God created us with real agency.

So, I’d formulate your thought as: human beings are created in God’s image as rational, emotional, relational, and moral beings, possessing genuine personal agency—the capacity to deliberate, choose, love, obey, disobey, and be held morally responsible for those choices.

I think that is stronger theologically and harder to misunderstand, writes ChatGPT.

10. There is another important point about emotions

I particularly appreciate that you included emotions. Some traditional treatments of the image concentrate almost exclusively on intellect and will. But Scripture gives enormous attention to human affections: love, hatred, compassion, joy, sorrow, fear, desire, anger, mercy.

And God Himself reveals Himself using the language of love, compassion, mercy, jealousy, grief, and delight.

We must not, however, conclude that God’s emotions are exactly like human passions. But the capacity for personal relationship and affection is certainly central to biblical anthropology.

The two great commandments are: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 22:37–39. That sounds much more like a whole-person image-bearing creature than merely an intellect possessing a will.

And let us not forget that from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others we get the idea that God is not only absolutely immutable but also absolutely impassible, which contradicts what ChatGPT and I agree on: the truth that God experiences emotions and feelings. Platonists, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and many Christians today all deny this.

How can one part of a logical theological system such as Augustinian Calvinism be so wrong on this essential point while the other essential parts are right, such as the effects of the fall and Original Sin? A little leaven leavens the whole lump, and that is what Augustine’s new Orthodoxy has produced in the West: pervasive leaven.

Notice that ChatGPT often talks about Augustine’s new developments as if they were positive and really added something beneficial to the discussion of the truth. But when it talks about Pelagius’s ‘new developments, ’ such as that man has the natural ability to obey God, it is talking about heresy, which is not positive.

Pelagius believed, like the early church, that mankind could obey God’s commands. Augustine rejected that basic truth in his new orthodoxy, which was influenced by paganism (See Dr. Wilson’s book and my other articles). Calvinism’s extensive influence in Western Christianity is very strong, despite the low numbers of people who fully espouse it. The number of adherents grows significantly if we include those who believe in some, but not all, of the tenets of Calvinism, such as eternal security.

11. And this helps us understand the Fall more carefully

Here’s where I think your formulation can become particularly useful. I would describe the Fall as damage to the image-bearing human person rather than destruction of the image-bearing person. Think of four dimensions:

Intellect

Still present, but capable of deception, ignorance, and suppression of truth.

Affections

Still present, but capable of becoming disordered—loving the wrong things or loving good things in the wrong order.

Will

Still present, but capable of becoming enslaved to sinful habits and desires.

Moral agency

Still present, because Scripture continues to hold people responsible for their choices.

According to ChatGPT, ‘That gives us a much more nuanced understanding of fallen humanity.

Let me add this note. All these things just mentioned that represent fallen humanity belonged to Adam and Eve before the fall. So, what exactly does the fall mean? See my many other articles.

12. And here is where Romans 1 becomes important

Paul doesn’t portray sinners as morally unconscious robots. He says: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” And “their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2:15). Paul’s argument depends on people having some awareness of moral truth, writes ChatGPT.

• They can suppress truth.
• They can reject truth.
• They can harden themselves.

But you can’t meaningfully suppress or reject something unless you’re aware of it. That fits very naturally with the concept of the fallen but still image-bearing human being.

13. And here’s the question I think we should pursue next

A fascinating question sits right underneath all of this: If the image of God includes intellect, affections, will, and moral agency, what exactly did Adam lose when he sinned? Was it:

A. The image itself?

B. Original righteousness?

C. Communion with God?

D. Immortality?

E. Proper ordering of the affections and will?

F. Some combination of all of these?

The early Fathers, Augustine, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, and Arminianism answer that question differently. This is precisely where the dispute over inherited corruption and free will becomes more concrete.

For example, Gregory of Nyssa says that man was created free from the liability to passion and death, and that man’s free will reflected God’s own freedom.

Irenaeus says man was created a free agent and that God gives him counsel precisely because he possesses the power to choose.

Augustine says the will was genuinely free but became significantly damaged by original sin.

Calvin says Adam had free choice, but that freedom was lost through the Fall.

That is the actual historical fault line.

And I think it is much more illuminating than simply saying “Eastern Orthodoxy believes free will and Calvinism doesn’t.” The historical reality is more subtle: They agree that man has intellect, will, moral responsibility, and God’s image. They disagree profoundly about how much the Fall impaired those faculties and what grace must do to them before a sinner can respond to God.

That distinction, in my view, gives us a much better foundation for examining your larger question about Augustine’s development and whether the later doctrine of total inability goes beyond what the earliest Christian writers actually taught.

Let me respond to ChatGPT’s comments. Many Calvinists may claim that we still have free will, but they have redefined what that means. Early in his life, Augustine claimed that free will was the ability to say yes or no to sin and God. Free will means we can choose good or evil. He, and then Luther and Calvin, redefined it as the free will to do only evil, with no capacity to do good, yet they falsely claimed we have free will. Free will became the slavery of sin, which is not free will. See my many articles on free will, Augustine, and ability and inability.

In closing, this article is all about what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God. That becomes difficult or impossible when theologians change the definition of words. I do not believe our free will is predetermined toward sin because that would make our will bound, not free. A will that is not free as a result of Adam’s sin means that we are not now in the image and likeness of God to some degree and to some extent. But that is not what the Bible teaches.

If our will is bound by sin, we are not moral agents and are not subject to moral law. We are no longer in the image and likeness of God. And we are not sinners and not guilty. There is no sin because we are not free to choose righteousness, which means we can only sin. To believe that God decreed this is obscene and a gross miscarriage of justice.

---

Sources

i