Because of Who We Are: A Fresh Perspective on Calvin’s Doctrine of the Image of God and Human Dignity

Abstract

Scholars have connected Calvin’s idea of the imago Dei with the modern concept of inherent human dignity. Others have emphasized how Calvin tried to use the image of God to promote the significance of human dignity without connecting it with political theories. These arguments may be justifiable to some extent. However, my concern is that these scholars focus on the image of God in others rather than on how it transforms individuals who live out its renewal. For Calvin, the restoration of the image of God by the Holy Spirit aimed at enabling a holy and righteous life. In his thought, this life was marked by visible excellence, reflected in social virtues expressed toward others. Based on these insights, I show that, according to Calvin, treating others with dignity, honor, and love is not only made possible by recognizing them as bearers of God’s image but is primarily driven by the renewal of God’s image within those who display these actions and attitudes through the work of the Spirit. This fresh perspective on Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God and human dignity can be presented by analyzing Calvin’s pneumatological account of the imago Dei.

1. Introduction

John Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God has often been associated with the notion of human dignity. Most notably, scholars have attempted to connect Calvin’s idea of the imago Dei with the modern concept of each human person’s inherent liberty, value, and right to be treated respectfully and equally (Galie et al. 2020, pp. 38–39; Witte 2016, pp. 210–34; Vorster 2010).1 Other interpreters of Calvin have also emphasized how Calvin himself tried to use the concept of the image of God as a way to promote the significance of human dignity without connecting it with certain modern political theories (Topping 2016; O’Donovan 2015).2

These arguments may be justifiable to some extent. After all, Calvin did insist that one should not consider the worth of human persons and their merits in themselves but “look upon the image of God in all men [and women], to which we owe all honor and love.”3 Calvin did indeed associate the image of God “by light of intellect, rectitude of heart, and the soundness of every part,” and this would make the inherent human dignity a convincing concept.4 However, the problem is that these scholars concentrate on the image of God in others rather than on how it transforms individuals who live out its renewal. Their interpretation suggests that Calvin might argue, in essence, that individuals should be treated with dignity because they are made in the image of God. However, I contend that Calvin’s perspective would emphasize not only the inherent dignity of others as image-bearers but also the transformed nature of the one extending this treatment. Thus, the basis for treating others well lies not solely in their status as image-bearers but also in the renewed image of God within the person showing such respect. In Calvin’s theology, the believers with the image of God that have been renewed by the Spirit can and should treat other human beings as they should be treated—with dignity, respect, and love. In this regard, we can also recast the understanding of Calvin’s theology of sanctification with a focus on the communal aspects rather than an individualistic approach. This fresh perspective on Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God and human dignity can be presented by analyzing Calvin’s pneumatological account of the imago Dei in a systematic theological manner.

In order to make this case, I will use the following structure. First, I will analyze the current interpretations of Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God, point out a significant gap, and propose how it may be filled. Second, to fill that gap, I will demonstrate how the renewal of the image of God is the essential element of Calvin’s soteriology, arguing how the creation account and the image of God as a given status to all humanity are not all there is to it. Third, I will then explain the purpose of this renewal of the image of God, showing the social and communal significance of the doctrine. Finally, the visible content of the renewed imago Dei will be demonstrated. With all these components, I manifest that, for Calvin, behaving toward others with dignity, honor, and love is not merely made possible by considering them as image-bearers of God but is more essentially compelled by the renewal of God’s image within those who exhibit this respect through the Spirit’s ministry.

2. Analysis of the Current Interpretations of Calvin’s Doctrine of the Image of God

As we have noted above, Calvin scholars have shown much interest in his understanding of the imago Dei. Although numerous articles and books have been written, it seems possible to place them in the following three categories. One of the most frequently addressed perspectives can be said to be epistemology. Most notably, Shevel, Steffaniak, Noble, and Prins connect the place of reason in Calvin’s understanding of the image of God (Shevel 2018, pp. 386, 391–92; Steffaniak 2018; Noble 1982; Prins 1972, pp. 34–36). Similarly, but more broadly, scholars such as Seung-Goo Lee emphasize that, for Calvin, the image of God has to do with the soul, of which the function is “to understand and to will” (Lee 2016, pp. 138–39). Constance Lee uses a slightly different language (that of conscience and natural law), but she nevertheless belongs to this category (Lee 2019).5

Another predominant aspect on which other Calvin scholars have concentrated is the human relationality in Calvin’s theology of the imago Dei. One of the principal figures in this category is T. F. Torrance. Torrance maintains that for Calvin, the imago Dei “is not just some one thing in [hu]man but refers to his [or her] total relation with God” (Torrance 2001, p. 86). In other words, Torrance’s Calvin places relationality at the center of his doctrine of the image of God. In a similar manner, Viazovski contends that Calvin highlights the importance of relationality (especially that to God) in his theology of the image of God (Viazovski 2015, pp. 19–20).6

Scholars have also associated the image of God with human dignity. Among many scholars, O’Donovan makes this connection most clearly. For her, Calvin considers the doctrine of the image of God to be the foundation for understanding and supporting the importance of human dignity (O’Donovan 2015, p. 123). Similarly, Topping emphasizes that, in Calvin’s theology, the “remnants” of the imago Dei are seen as a foundation for ethics and reason behind the human duty to treat other human beings with adequate respect (Topping 2016, pp. 11–14). Nico Vorster also affirms that, for Calvin, the image of God is the ground for respecting fellow human beings and valuing their lives (Vorster 2015).

It seems that a great number of scholars cover a wide range of issues of the doctrine of the image of God in Calvin’s theological framework. However, we ought to ask these questions: Have all the essential issues of the topic been considered? Does Calvin wish to address these issues as central issues for his discussion of the image of God? Are these concerns his or theirs? In a sense, these scholars’ concerns are valid, as Calvin does write extensively on these matters. Nevertheless, this paper will now show that there is a significant gap between Calvin’s theology of the imago Dei and what has been researched thus far. In order to find out what the missing piece is, we will address some of the major studies in more depth and see how they make their cases.

When Prins argues that for Calvin, the image of God is primarily related to the human soul, he draws this idea mostly from Calvin’s commentary on Genesis and his Institutes. Prins concentrates on the way Calvin exegetes Genesis 2:7: God imprinted his image upon the human soul, and, therefore, he concludes that Calvin’s doctrine of the imago Dei revolves around the soul (Prins 1972, p. 34). He then moves on to the Institutes. By focusing on the Institutes 1. 15., Prins states that the soul, which is the location of the image of God, consists of understanding and will in Calvin’s theology (Prins 1972, p. 35). Throughout his argumentation, he consistently notes that Calvin approaches the imago Dei as Christological (Prins 1972, p. 43).

T. F. Torrance’s interpretation of Calvin’s understanding of the image of God contains three significant themes with regard to relationality. First, by pointing to Calvin’s Introductory Argument to the Commentary on Genesis, which is a part of his commentary on Genesis, Torrance contends that human beings received more aptitudes than animals and highlights that these abilities are not just intellect or rationality, but they are ways in which God is able to actively communicate with them to be in a close relationship. Because of this unique image of God in them, which enables them to connect with God, human beings are able to respond to God’s grace in an even more genuine way (Torrance 1957, p. 46). Second, Torrance emphasizes that, for Calvin, the “esse” of the image of God has to do with “percipere” (Torrance 1957, p. 59). Those who are created in the image of God can know God, and, by knowing God, they become who they were meant to be. According to Torrance, this knowledge is not just noetic; it is acquired through obedience. In order to support this claim, he draws from Calvin’s exegesis of Genesis 2-3 (some of which contain important Christological arguments) and the Institutes 1. 6. (Torrance 1957, p. 59). Third, the imago Dei of Calvin is understood in the light of the dynamic relation between humanity and God in Torrance. By referring to Calvin’s note on Genesis 2:2 and his Institutes 3. 2. 6., Torrance maintains that, because the very beings of humanity are sustained by God’s “dynamic relation” to them (Torrance 1957, pp. 61–62), the image of God is not a “static reflection of the Being of God, but a dynamic reflection by way of active response to the Will of God and to the Word of God” (Torrance 1957, p. 64).

Moreover, as we have seen above, Topping emphasizes the way Calvin connects the doctrine of the image of God with human dignity. In order to justify this emphasis, he mainly explores the Institutes, and he does so in two ways. First, as he explores the restoration of the image of God in Calvin, he bases his argument on Calvin’s Christology: for Calvin, human beings are able to bear God’s image by gazing upon the glory of Christ (Topping 2016, p. 10).7 Second, when he addresses the possibility of human dignity in the light of the imago Dei by discussing the postlapsarian remainder of the image of God, his main source of reasoning comes from the Institutes of 1536 and the commentary on Genesis (Topping 2016, pp. 11–12).

When we look at these scholars’ reasoning and analyze the sources that they present, their conclusions seem reasonable enough. However, although they are not wrong in what they affirm, they may be making a mistake of omission. If we pay attention to how they prove their contentions, the gap is immediately revealed. Here are two of the most significant commonalities among them: (1) In terms of their sources, their interpretations rely heavily on Calvin’s Institutes and his commentary on Genesis.8 (2) With regard to their approaches, they mostly deal with the creation account and make use of Calvin’s Christological notions. On the surface, this does not seem problematic at all, as Christology plays an important role in anthropology in Calvin (Zachman 2015, p. 286; Edmondson 2004, pp. 2–3), and the Institutes is the book with which Calvin sought to address the entirety of religion in all its components (Gordon 2016, p. 1; Calvin 2011, pp. 4–5). However, when we look at Calvin’s pneumatological descriptions of the image of God in the works other than the Institutes and the commentary on Genesis, we see the neglected but significant dimension of the doctrine of the imago Dei in Calvin.9

3. The Renewal of the Image of God as the Vital Component of Calvin’s Soteriology

As I will show below, when John Calvin connects the Holy Spirit with the doctrine of the image of God, he does so in relation to soteriological ideas. Most importantly, as Calvin presented a twofold way in which God saves humanity, the pneumatological renewal of the image of God is always suggested as one of the two essential elements of salvation. I begin with Calvin’s biblical commentaries other than the one on Genesis because of the reasons I have offered above.

This idea is most clearly presented in his exegesis of Acts 10:34–38. As he expounded on Peter’s sermon at Cornelius’s house, Calvin explained that salvation consists of two parts: God’s free acceptance of sinners and the regeneration of these freely adopted children of God by the Holy Spirit.10 In the context of this exposition, regeneration encompasses the whole course of sanctification, from its beginning to the glorification. Here, first, he highlighted that the children of wrath can be reconciled by Christ to be received by God into his favor entirely freely, which constitutes the first aspect of salvation. He then went on to emphasize that God makes it possible for these reconciled believers to live righteously, which refers to the idea of regeneration. In Calvin’s words, “those whom God has adopted as children, he also regenerates by his Spirit, and reforms his image in them,” and, consequently, “God no longer finds a human person devoid of grace and destitute, but also acknowledges his own work in him, indeed, even himself.”11 For him, this renewal of the image of God is the logical basis for “God accepting the faithful because they live piously and justly.”12 What is noteworthy for us is that this second part of salvation, regeneration, is made possible by the renewal of the image through the work of the Holy Spirit.13 Here we see clearly that for Calvin, the imago Dei is not an abstract idea. Rather, it is a concrete element of salvation that makes it possible for the adopted children of God to live piously and uprightly. Calvin stressed the language of Christ when he addressed the free forgiveness and, conversely, emphasized that of the Spirit when he addressed the issue of regeneration. When the Spirit renews and restores the image of God in humanity, these people become able to live according to the will of God.14

In his interpretation of Matthew 3:2, Calvin delivered the same message with a slightly different set of expressions. Again, he insisted that “the whole Gospel consists of two parts”: “forgiveness of sins, and repentance.”15 Calvin stressed that both forgiveness of sins and repentance are “the gift of God” by his mercy:

As he [God] freely pardons our sins, delivers us, by his mercy, from the condemnation of eternal death, so also does he form us anew to his image, that we may live unto righteousness. As he freely adopts us for his sons, so he regenerates us by his Spirit, that our life may testify, that we do not falsely address him as our Father.16

Here, Calvin was presenting his pneumatological take on his doctrine of the image of God in a literary way. He was using the literary device of parallelism in this note. We can see his reasoning more clearly if these two sentences are put in the following way:

A:

As he [God] freely pardons our sins (Sicut enim peccata nobis gratis ignoscit) …

B:

so also does he form us anew to his image (sic etiam reformat in imaginem suam),

C:

that we may live unto righteousness (ut iustitiae vivamus).

A′:

As he freely adopts us for his sons (sicuti nos gratis adoptat in filios),

B′:

so he regenerates us by his Spirit (ita spiritu suo regenerat),

C′:

that our life may testify, that we do not falsely address him as our Father (ut vita nostra testetur, non falso ipsum invocari a nobis patrem).

A-A′ refers to the free forgiveness and reconciliation, B-B′ points to the idea of living righteously, i.e., sanctification, and C-C′ has to do with the result and purpose of the two elements that come before it. When we juxtapose this section in the way above, we can clearly observe that for Calvin, the Spirit forms believers anew to the image of God through his ministry of regeneration. In addition, this renewed image of God is in a very close relationship with righteous living. If we were to unpack this parallelism and describe what Calvin had in mind behind this device, we could say that for Calvin, God formed believers anew to his image by regenerating them by his Spirit so that they may live righteously to testify of God properly.

Can these two parts of salvation be separated? Calvin famously once wrote that “[b]y faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also.”17 In the same way, according to Calvin, the promise of eternal life is never given without the renewal of the image of God by the Spirit. Christ, the sun of righteousness, does not only bring light to believers to show and lead them into the eternal life, but he also regenerates them by his Spirit and by renewing them after the image of God. For Calvin, the spiritual light (which has to do with the idea of free forgiveness and justification) cannot be separated from actual righteousness (which is the purpose of the renewal of the imago Dei).18 The idea that the regeneration and renewal of the image of God by the Spirit can never be separated from the gracious forgiveness of sins is prevalent throughout his other works as well.19

If these two elements are inseparable as Calvin argued, is there a hierarchy between them in his logic? The answer does not seem very clear on the surface. On the one hand, Calvin gave primacy to the significance of free forgiveness. According to Calvin’s interpretation of John 20:23, the unconditional forgiveness of sins is the chief element of the gospel. He also highlighted that those who call themselves faithful administrators of this gospel “must give [their] most earnest attention to this subject [i.e., the pardon of sins].”20 Calvin stressed that this is because the principal point of difference between Christian theology and pagan philosophy lies in the pardon of sins through the unconditional grace of God. For Calvin, this forgiveness is the “source of the other blessings” of God, one of them being the renewal of the image of God through the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work.21 On the other hand, when he exegeted Colossians 1:22, while he did affirm that the remission of sins and becoming acceptable to God through the death of Christ are a “great matter,” he insisted that ”the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are renewed in the image of God” is a benefit that is “equally distinguished.”22 Given that the commentary on Colossians was written before the commentary on John (de Greef 1993, pp. 96–100), and considering that the earlier commentary resonates with the definitive edition of the Institutes of 1559,23 it would be difficult to argue that Calvin changed his view from one way to another.

In order to understand this seemingly inconsistent stance of Calvin, one needs to pay attention to his polemical background. As Calvin had to refute the Roman Catholics’ accusation that he was an antinomian and wanted to criticize their theology of merit, it was necessary for him to emphasize the importance of free forgiveness over that of regeneration at times to be strategic. In other contexts, he had to do the opposite.24 The polemical way with which Calvin addressed this issue is most clearly visible in his exposition of Acts 13:38–42. Here, just like in his exegesis of John 20:23, he stressed that believers could acquire the righteousness of Christ by faith alone and that it was sufficient for Luke to articulate this one idea—how humanity unconditionally gains favor with God. This was because human beings are prone to “easily pass thence unto the residue.”25 In this particular section, the regeneration of the Spirit and the restoration of the image of God are presented as just “other benefits” given by and through Christ.26

The key to understanding why he stressed free reconciliation can be found in the way he addressed those he called “the Papists” in this section:

Wherefore, Paul’s opinion is plain, that we are justified by faith alone, which, notwithstanding the Papists oppugn [oppose] and strive against no less obstinately than bitterly, nevertheless, it is requisite that we know what the word believe doth import, which is made unsavoury to the Papists through ignorance.27

As Calvin addressed the importance of the doctrine of free forgiveness or justification by faith alone, he clearly had the Roman Catholic theologians in mind. In this particular context, it was vital for him to emphasize reconciliation and regard other blessings of Christ, such as the renewal of the image of God by the Holy Spirit, as the “residue” that one should not concentrate on without first sufficiently appreciating the pardon of sins. For those who are only interested in the importance of regeneration and possibly for those who had to defend themselves against these Roman Catholics, he was deliberately placing more stress on reconciliation for rhetorical reasons.

In short, Calvin would argue that both free forgiveness and regeneration are equally important in his soteriology, as he would emphatically affirm in his definitive edition of the Institutes.28 However, when he was particularly bearing in mind and considering his opponents’ emphasis on the renewal of the image of God and their inattention to the divinely initiated free reconciliation, he would polemically and temporarily focus on the significance of the latter.

4. The Purpose of the Renewal of the Image of God

As we have observed above, the renewal of the image of God plays a crucial role in Calvin’s soteriology as one of the two indispensable key elements of salvation. This statement immediately leads to another question: what are, then, the end and purpose of this renewal? For Calvin, the main reason for the incarnation of the Son and his self-revelation to humanity was the renewal of the image of God in them by giving them the Holy Spirit.29 If the renewal of the imago Dei was such an important issue for him, what did he say about the purpose of it? We have indeed addressed this issue above to some extent, but we will now focus on the issue more in depth.

As his commentary on Matthew 22:11 reveals, Calvin affirmed that it is believers’ entire beings that are renewed by the Holy Spirit after the image of Christ. Since the Lord calls believers on the precise condition that they put off their old selves with contaminations, lead a new life, and live according to the will of God, he gives them the renewed image of God as a gift so that they are able to do what is required of them in order to remain in his house for good. Calvin writes, “We are called by the Lord on the condition that we are renewed in his image by the Spirit. To remain in His house forever, we must cast off our old selves with all their corruptions and embrace a new life.”30 In other words, those who have the renewed image of God have to lead a new good and virtuous life. For Calvin, this concrete life was not just about knowledge, will, or body alone. It had to encompass the whole being in a visible way.

This issue of visibility of the renewed image of God in a believer is most manifestly expressed in Calvin’s exegesis of 1 John 4:17–18. Calvin first noted that the Roman Catholic theologians use this passage to assert that believers can have a sense of confidence or assurance in their salvation through their works. In order to refute their claim, Calvin distinguished the cause of salvation, which was the grace of God alone for Calvin, from what is added to it as a result—i.e., the good works that come as a result of the said salvation. In doing so, Calvin also emphasized that no one is accepted favorably by God through Christ except when she or he is also renewed after the image of God. His conclusion was that the newness of life can be a source of confidence, but only as a secondary and inferior source. To be exact, according to Calvin, believers’ true confidence ought to be based on grace alone.31

What is noteworthy for our discussion is this statement of his: “the Apostle [John] … excludes from the confidence of grace all those in whom no image of God is seen.”32 For Calvin, the good works created by the renewed image cannot be the primary or adequate source of assurance. However, he insisted that it is imperative that believers show these good works in a visible way. Therefore, for Calvin, the image of God is not an abstract notion. Rather, it should be and is visible to the human eye. Those who have the renewed image of God in them cannot but reveal it through their new upright lives. This visible newness of life may not be the ultimate source of confidence, but it is nevertheless a necessary and observable outcome of the Spirit’s work of regeneration and, more importantly, restoration of the image of God. In this sense, the purpose of the renewal of the image of God by the Holy Spirit is to have a virtuous life that is visible to other human beings.

5. The Content of the Renewed Image of God

If the renewed image of God is indeed visible, what does it look like? What is visible must have content to show. How can one see it and know that it is the image of God that has been restored by the Holy Spirit? We can answer these questions by exploring the way Calvin interpreted Galatians 5:22–24. In this exegesis, Calvin began by noting that the entire nature of unbelievers produces nothing but wicked and corrupt fruits. Conversely, when believers produce goodness, every fine virtue flows from the Holy Spirit and the new nature that has been regenerated by the Spirit. In this particular section, Calvin did not explicitly refer to the renewed image of God.33 However, as we have noted above (especially in relation to Calvin’s interpretation of Matthew 3:2), regeneration of one’s nature and renewal of the image of God are used interchangeably and identically in Calvin’s theology. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that here, Calvin was also saying that the fruit of the Spirit proceeds from the pneumatologically renewed image of God. In addition, for Calvin, the renewed nature given as the gift of the Spirit is the same thing as the nature “which God forms anew after his own image.”34 Thus, in this exegesis, Calvin was in effect contending that the renewed image of God produces the fruit of the Spirit. In short, for Calvin, the content of the renewed image of God is the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

What then constitutes this fruit of the Spirit in Calvin’s thought? In other words, what is its visible content? Strikingly, Calvin saw it in an almost exclusively, or even entirely, social sense. For example, for Calvin, joy here in Galatians 5:22 does not mean joyfulness because of God or happiness in him. Instead, Calvin insisted that joy as the fruit of the Spirit is an uplifting attitude and conduct toward other people. For him, it was “cheerfulness we show toward our neighbors.”35 Calvin tried to clarify its meaning by offering outward sulkiness as its antithesis, rather than internal sadness or depression. It was the way one treated other people. Similarly, Calvin did not argue that faith in this context refers to one’s faith in God or trusting God under difficult circumstances. Rather, for Calvin, faith in this context was being faithful and truthful to others without deceit or trickery. Perhaps we may even translate the word as honesty or sincerity. In addition, according to Calvin, to possess peace as the fruit of the Spirit was not to be quarrelsome or hostile, rather than finding peace in trusting God’s sovereignty. Long-suffering, then, was taken to mean kindness of mind toward others and an ability to appreciate positive aspects in everything without being readily offended by small things. For him, patience was “a gentleness of spirit, which leads us to bear all things with equanimity and not be easily provoked.”36

Unfortunately, Calvin stopped there and did not explain the other aspects of the fruit of the Spirit in his commentary, saying they were already too clear. Fortunately, he did try to explain this verse further in his sermon. He paraphrased Paul’s words to the Galatians in the following way:

It is as if Paul were saying ‘if we are guided by the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, it will be clear and discernable in our lives. We will be held back from going astray like others who are dissolute; we will be charitable and compassionate to all, and will not be wicked, deceptive, or coercive. We will be happy with what we have and will serve each other’.

(Calvin 1563, p. 704)

Here, Calvin was clearly saying that the fruit of the Spirit is visibly obvious to human eyes. In other words, for Calvin, the renewed image of God had to do with holiness. This holiness, in addition, was not an aloof idea but was about a new life, a new life of good character. Calvin insisted that this renewed image of God empowered believers to be considerate and kindhearted to other people. He explained that those for whom the image of God is renewed live lovingly and kindly toward others and serve others. This is the way the renewal of the imago Dei is evidently visible in Calvin’s theological anthropology.

Although Calvin highlighted the importance of an individual believer’s character as the result of the renewal of the image of God, it would be a mistake to think that he stopped there. Indeed, according to Calvin, Christ inaugurated his kingdom from within, giving his people a newness of life within them. However, as soon as he emphasized that, he immediately stressed that this significance of inwardness pertained only to its beginning. For him, believers “begin to be formed anew by the Spirit after the image of God” so that “our entire renovation, and that of the whole world, may afterwards follow in due time.”37 In other words, Calvin argued that the endgame of the restoration of the imago Dei in believers was the renewal of the whole world through those newly regenerated image-bearers of Christ. When God forms his children’s images/natures anew by his Spirit according to the image of Christ, his entire creation has to follow.38 In this sense, the renewal of the imago Dei for Calvin encompassed the whole created world of God and had a teleological aspect.

If we were to sum up Calvin’s view on the content of the visible renewed image of God, we might say that for Calvin, it was about one’s ethical character and attitude toward other human beings. It seems clear that in Calvin’s logic, the real reason and power behind how one person can treat another with respect, dignity, and love was the renewed image of God in the person who is doing the action. Of course, this is not to deny what the scholars in the past have said regarding Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God and human dignity. The subtle difference is this. For Calvin, a person should respect, honor, and love another person not because of their own worth but because of the image of God in them. This is because the image of God is what makes them “owe all honor and love.”39 To be exact, Calvin’s language here is “should” and “owe.” However, Calvin did not necessarily say that this knowledge of the image of God in other people is a sufficient cause to respect, honor, and love these people. In other words, Calvin simply emphasized the idea of duty and obligation, not the natural capacity to carry out this duty. In this sense, scholars like Topping and O’Donovan are right in that Calvin did underline human dignity because the image of God was in the people, whether it is fallen or restored. However, Calvin would probably wish to add that appreciating other human beings’ dignity is not possible without the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work on the image of God, on the part of those who are respecting and loving. For Calvin, those for whom the image is not restored by the Spirit are evil and enslaved to sin to the core.40 Thus, consequently, they cannot treat others with dignity properly even if they know that their neighbors are made in the image of God. Calvin’s interpretation of Galatians 5:22–24 is, as we have noted, clearly affirming that the sole source of treating others correctly and righteously is the Spirit’s renewal of the image of God. Of course, the knowledge of other human beings’ dignity based on the image of God in them may help, but that is not the central issue for Calvin.

6. Implications

As we have addressed the final element of the thesis, it would be useful to summarize the key points discussed thus far and, more importantly, to critically engage with the scholarly debates addressed in the previous sections of the paper. I have shown that for Calvin, the doctrine of the image of God does not simply center around the issue of human dignity. Rather, he is emphatically attentive to connecting the image of God with soteriology, contending that the renewal of the image is a key component of salvation. For Calvin, this restoration of the imago Dei has a specific purpose: to live justly and righteously. The new life, then, has to be visible to others around them. I have also demonstrated that for Calvin, a holy life has a distinctly defined content, centered around a social and communal perspective. In conclusion, Calvin’s understanding of the imago Dei extends beyond human dignity, linking it directly to salvation through the renewal of God’s image. This renewal is not an abstract concept but serves the concrete purpose of living a visibly just and righteous life. Additionally, Calvin’s vision of holiness is deeply rooted in a communal and social context, emphasizing the importance of outward expressions of faith within society.

What are, then, the implications of these significant findings for the important discussions surrounding the concept of the imago Dei according to John Calvin? First, contra Shevel, Steffaniak, Noble, Prins, and Lee (Shevel 2018, pp. 386, 391–92; Steffaniak 2018; Noble 1982; Prins 1972, pp. 34–36; Lee 2016, pp. 138–39), I have discovered that the discourse on the image of God does not have to center around human rationality or will. They are important elements but not the whole picture. Rather, for Calvin, the image of God renewed by the Spirit of God is the faculty that makes being holy possible and allows loving others, having faith in one’s neighbors, and being patient with one another to be a reality. Second, contrary to the interpretations of T. F. Torrance and Viazovski, Calvin’s doctrine of the image of God goes beyond the capacity to have a relationship with God (Torrance 1957, p. 86; Viazovski 2015, pp. 19–20). To be sure, Viazovski does not rule out the importance of relationality toward other human beings. However, neither of the two sees how insistent Calvin was regarding the central place of sanctification and social righteousness in his doctrine of the image of God.

Third, my fresh and fuller interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of the imago Dei challenges the prevailing scholarship on the subject matter, i.e., human dignity. Rather than suggesting that believers respect others because they are image-bearers, Calvin emphasizes that this respect and justice flow from the believer’s own renewed image of God. This renewal empowers individuals to treat others with dignity, not because of the inherent honor of others but because of their own spiritual transformation. In light of this, the arguments made by scholars such as O’Donovan, who claims that Calvin’s imago Dei doctrine underpins human dignity (O’Donovan 2015, p. 123), and Topping, who posits that it forms the ethical basis for treating others with respect (Topping 2016, pp. 11–14), do not seem to capture the bigger picture. Similarly, Nico Vorster’s assertion that the image of God is the foundation for valuing human life overlooks Calvin’s deeper focus on the renewal of the believer’s image (Vorster 2015, p. 6).

7. Conclusions

This study has shown that the renewal of the image of God in humanity is an important subject for Calvin in his soteriology. With that idea, I have demonstrated that for Calvin, the purpose of the restoration of the image of God by the Holy Spirit was to live a holy and righteous life. For Calvin, this life was a visibly excellent life, a life of social virtues expressed toward other human beings. With these findings, I have established that according to Calvin, treating other people with dignity, honor, and love is not simply made possible by knowing that these people are image-bearers of God but more primarily enabled by the renewed image of God by the Spirit in the subjects of these actions and attitudes.