The theological value of autonomy

Abstract

Western liberalism is based on two different humanistic traditions: First, the biblical tradition of the Abrahamic religions, according to which man was created in the image of God; and, second, the tradition that developed in the age of Enlightenment, which claims man’s absolute independence of any heteronomous or transcendental being and views the very existence as a goal in and of itself. Each one of these two traditions restricts the autonomy of the individual in different ways, thus influencing the constitutional structure one of whose principal functions is to safeguard the autonomy of the citizens. This article deals with the theological value of autonomy. It analyzes the tension between the humanistic-anthropocentric worldview, which sanctifies human freedom, and the humanistic-theocentric way of thinking, which sees God as the source of all norms and holds that the freedom of man is limited by the divine imperative. Subsequently, the article presents three different models of understanding the relations between the will of God and the will of man, through an analysis of the exegesis of three Jewish thinkers on the stories of man’s creation in the image of God and the sin of the Primordial Man. These models represent three attitudes towards the theological value of autonomy. After having presented the different models, I shall compare them to each other and explicate the conceptual differences between them. To conclude, I shall further assess the contribution of these models to contemporary discourse on autonomy and liberty.

Desiderius Erasmus and Christian Education

“…The meaning of this expression is that humans were raised from the Middle Ages. In medieval times, humans were considered less valued as humans (Zimran, 2020) . At that time righteousness was measured by the church (Christian view), not according to the measurements made by human.…”

“…This is in line with the basic meaning of humanism as human education (Absor et al 2020). The nature of education as a process of humanizing humans (humanization) often does not materialize because it is trapped in the destruction of human values (dehumnisasi) (Zimran, 2020).…”