One more post before I turn to some of my own reflections, continuing to share Jordan Hillebert's reading of Henri de Lubac in his book Henri de Lubac and the Drama of Human Existence.
To recap, Hillebert argues that de Lubac attempted to navigate between intrinsicism and extrinsicism. De Lubac's initial concern in writing Surnaturel was to reject the reigning extrinsicist views concerning nature and grace found in "two-tiered" Thomism. De Lubac did this by positing an organic connection between nature and grace through the "natural desire for the supernatural." But in his writings after Surnaturel, Hillebert argues that de Lubac took care to clarify that his views regarding the "natural desire for the supernatural" did not imply intrinsicism. De Lubac did so for two reasons, one ontological and the other evangelical. Regarding the ontological, our desire for God is a "longing born of lack." Human nature cannot, on its own, actualize its supernatural telos. And beyond this ontological insufficiency there is the evangelical demand for metanoia, the need for conversion as we move toward union with God.
In short, de Lubac articulated a balance between intrinsicism and extrinsicism.
Another way to describe this balance, following Hillebert, is through de Lubac's appropriation of the patristic contrast between image and likeness in Genesis 1:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
Most readers of Genesis 1 tend to treat "image" and "likeness" in the creation account as synonyms. But some of the church fathers, like Irenaeus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, saw a contrast here. In this view, image and likeness are not the same. Broadly speaking, among the early fathers who worked with this contrast, image referred to the created capacities conferred upon human nature, ontological gifts like rationality that made humans human. Likeness referred to what humans are called to become. In the Fall of Genesis 3, the image was retained—humans remained human—but the likeness was damaged and lost. Thus, while we possess the image of God as humans, our likeness to God has become an eschatological task. We possess the image of God but have yet to become like God. Theosis, in this view, is achieved when likeness is fully restored.
De Lubac saw something generative in the patristic contrast between image and likeness. As described by Hillebert, de Lubac articulated what he called a "mysticism of likeness." De Lubac describes it this way: "'God, who is completely present everywhere, does not, however, dwell in everyone.' In other words, the divine image is inalienable in every human being, but union with God is 'a union of likeness.'" As Hillebert points out, de Lubac is deploying here, in his account of mysticism, "a particular reading of the biblical creation narrative in which God created human beings in his image (Īµį¼°Īŗį½½Ī½) in view of ultimately leading them to his likeness (į½Ī¼Īæį½·ĻĻĪ¹Ļ)."
This contrast introduces an eschatological and evangelical element into the ontological account. As Hillebert observes, while the fathers differed in how they contrasted image and likeness, they agreed that "the likeness can only be attained within the economy of God's salvific dealings with humanity." De Lubac picks up this point. He writes, "The divine resemblance is something to be realized through the action of the Holy Spirit, by man's dependence on the redeeming Incarnation."
Stepping back, we can see how de Lubac's use of the patristic contrast between image and likeness allowed him to position his views between intrinsicism and extrinsicism. Against extrinsicism, humans possess the image of God. Human nature is graced and connected to the supernatural. And yet, because of sin, human nature has lost its likeness to God. The economy of salvation is concerned with restoring this likeness. Thus, whereas image is ontological and creational, likeness is evangelical and eschatological. Nature is intrinsically graced (image), but the achievement of likeness demands repentance and conversion.
