Comparing Jones 'And Barth's True Humanity'

Jones’ theological anthropology is a contemporary understanding of human nature and sin. Whereby, sin is a state or a condition of humankind of which we are culpable – it affects everything we do. Specifically, Jones states that sin is “unfaithfulness” and “to be in sin is to live in a state that opposes God’s will for our flourishing.” (Placher, p. 149) Jones’ interpretation of human nature parallels Barth’s “True Humanity” by which both theologians define ontological significance of humanity as being created by God. She does this by describing seven features of what it means to be a creature in faithfulness to God. Then she describes the seven alternative features, or distortions, that represent unfaithfulness to God. These dichotomies are
She invokes the imagery of a “grand theater” to depict human nature or what she terms theological anthropology, which is understood in a variety of ways. “…Not only in our church’s doctrines, liturgies, and sacraments, but also in the daily patterns and practices of living the church teaches…[one] can find resources for sorting out [one’s own] many questions about human nature.” (Placher, p. 141) To support her claim, Jones outlines four “dramatic portraits” that are intertwined and played out in life in complicated ways. These portraits speak of humans as “creatures, sinners, forgiven saints, and recipients of life eternal.” (Placher, p. 142) The portraits are significant because they provide a framework through which we may understand ourselves to be connected to God from the beginning to the end of life. We are not monoliths, and the Bible does not describe monolithic human
To begin anywhere else is “no longer theological anthropology.” (Green, p. 227) The “whatness” of Jesus is “God’s act of deliverance…for all other people.” (Green, p. 227) The “whoness” of Jesus lies in his existence “from God”, “in God”, and “for God, not himself.” (Green, p. 227) From this, we understand that our own humanness is connected to Jesus, and therefore, is connected to God. If this claim is not true, Barth says that we would be “something other than what we would have been.” (Green, p. 228) Barth’s theological anthropology matters because it explains the inextricable relationship humanity has with God through Jesus. It also demonstrates our connection to one another. Furthermore, in all of creation, humanity’s relationship with God the Creator of all things has “particularity”. We are “originally and decisively with Jesus.” (Green, p. 232) Our being is inalterable.
Barth’s definition of sin is “godlessness.” (Green, p. 231) The ontological determination, of which Barth speaks, is that if we are with Jesus we are with God. Therefore, it is impossible to be without God; sin is an “ontological impossibility.” (Green, p. 231) That is not to say that we do not sin. It does mean that “we choose our own impossibility.” (Green, p. 231) By choosing “godlessness” or sin, we deny our own