all are done with God at His service, come to Thy throne of grace, with humility, contrition, and yet with confidence, for Thou art God, Thy self alone, and Thou art reconciled in peace of Christ, that He opened that new and living way to His blood, and that we ever know, that we have in Him that shows, and unabiding, mediated, and intercessed, who is able to sail to the uttermost, or become a God in Him, being able lives to make intercession for them. In His name, our men, will not only include the lectures, but also the first five chapters of the textbook, of the page 100 and the same, to stand that the first five chapters of volume 2 in heart, and I would urge you particularly pay attention to chapter 3, because I have no depth with such a tall, the origin of the soul as it has been called, but may a particular attention to that is that what was covered in the lectures. And a particular attention to the two views, the creation of this view, will have a distribution view, which is thanks to the origin of the soul. Now after the test, I may have some things to say on this topic, but to have the present time, there is no such thing. We now turn what we were dealing with at the close of the last hour. On the first of all, the human body is in place within the divine image, and I mentioned as the first consideration and fever of that, as it is known as a human, who is spoken of. When God said, let us make man know the image after all like this. If the image of God refers to human personality, as I mentioned, if the image of God refers to human personality, we must remember that according to the biblical work with the creation of human body, you can mention very much the human personality. And the separation that takes place in depth is utterly abnormal, utterly abnormal. And therefore, there is a consideration reciting in the fact of human personality and in the unity of human personality, by which we will be constrained, that this we should be constrained, so regard the human body as brought within the school. That is to say, the human body is the subject of human body. This is predicated by predicated righteousness and holiness as well as sin and impurity. That is to say, the human body is the subject of moral predication, moral predication, and in the fallen state, as a body of sin, a body of sin, and that means a sinful body. Consequently, that predication could not be made unless moral character belongs to the body. And as the body desires for sensitivity correct, it is because man has moral identity, that he is in the image of God. So I conclude that it is man in his unity and integrity who was made in the image of God. And that therefore, the very body of man, is determined in its Christmas character and function, by the fact that man is made in the image of God. We must remember you see, that man as body has this thing-wishing character from every other being, that is body, or that is body, is the string-wishing character. Only reason why he has this thing-wishing character, is that his very identity is defined in terms of the image of God. That his very identity is defined in terms of the image of God. Not being used from that fact that God has a body or anything resembling a body. We must remember that there is a radical differentiation between God and man, even in respect of spiritual being, a radical differentiation in respect even of spiritual being. And there is still further radical differentiation in respect of man as body, but that difference, that difference, that obtains in respect of man's body is simply another example of the radical differentiation which applies even to the spirit of man. That is all on that subject of the first act meant to be defined in the world. And now let's read, let's read, so we come from the section that we have here in this section, I am so counted, with respect to the more excellent, referring to the most characteristic along to man in his original integrity, but he do not belong to him in his fallen state.
And they are briefly after the pattern of Ephesians 4 and 4 and 5 in Sweden, knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth, knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth. Knowledge is very hidden in man in his original state. We must not think of this as consisting merely in the possibility of attaining to knowledge. If knowledge is an ingredient, if knowledge is an ingredient, then it means the intelligence, intelligence, attention, not the meaning of reality. It means that the cognitive content of man's mind corresponding with reality, cognitive content of his mind corresponding with reality. That simply means that it was knowledge of the truth, and the truth vehemently as it belongs to God. So we have the knowledge of God. This does not mean that it was complete knowledge, knowledge commentary, with the knowledge of God, man will never put that. But in complete knowledge, instead of knowledge, and it measures up to that which our Lord has characterized us like, then also righteousness means not simply freedom from wrong, the way, not me, the inner hand, positive conformity to the will of God, positive conformity to the will of God. This position tells us the full film at all, and holiness through having two elements in the concentration, and purity, concentration, and purity. Man was created with this knowledge and holiness of the truth. We mean that he was created with positively holy and whiteiest character, positively holy and whiteiest character, and he did not mean to attain to that character by a process of development, that this character was concreated, concreated, investiture or a concreated endowment. That is clearly implied in Genesis 131, as it applies to man, Genesis 131 says that God saw everything that he had made and before it was very good, very good, including, of course, man, and that verification has applied to man. Very good must be given a connotation that is relevant to his distinguishing and specific character, must be given a connotation that is relevant to his distinguishing and specific character as a model and religious being. This general statement means that each creature was very good in terms of the sphere, in terms of the sphere, to which it belonged and in terms of the purpose of the purpose was called a ponderful pen, the sphere to which man belongs of course, is the highest sphere of creative reality in terms of explanation. The definition of very good as it applies to him requires no lower definition than knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth, for only in terms of these characterizations could he be pronounced very good. Well, whatever it may have referred to in the particular text, that's a matter of possible differences of things, and I think it does, in terms of both lightness and holiness in that particular text, but even if in the scriptic thesis of that past, it is referred only to holiness. Nevertheless, we, on the general principle, would have replied all three. Of course, the knowledge that makes itself to what the scripture describes is never knowledge and that is knowledge of the truth, and righteousness is never true like this, in that these righteousness that is in conformity was true. So, whatever particular next thesis would require that text, nevertheless, it's proper to extend that with that phrase of the true true or true. Now, I come to an appendix throughout this question, expecting the image of God, the man in the image of God, and this person expects to dominion over the creation, to dominion over the creation of the reformation. This was sending him to a strict fate of divine image, to dominion over the creation, to make that restriction. It doesn't mean to enumerate all the grounds for the basis of which that position would have to be pronounced as a lonely image. But even orthodox, theologians, theologians, will take the position that dominion of the creatures is to be regarded as an ingredient in the divine image. It would be strict as number three as an ingredient in the divine image. It's an element of the divine image. There are two things to be said about that position. It would not involve serious errors, it would involve serious biological errors, to be regarded as an element in the divine image. The second thing I have to say about that position is that, they're all certain pathogens, it's my thing to convey this idea.
That the dominion is to be written as a piece of the image of God. It takes half eight, for example, half eight. What is man, since I was mindful of him, all this thought of man as a physicist, this is him. So he's made him a little lower than the angel, so I was crowned him with glory and honor. There was good all things under his feet, he pronounced him gay and the beast of the field, so on. Well, that song is deemed suspiciously with the dominion, with which man is imaginary on that song, these two things that appear. The theme of that song, of course, is as far as man is concerned, the dignity of the long human being is of his dominion. I shouldn't say that with the theme of the song, this is the song, the theme of the song, the idea of a weapon of the long, but as far as man is concerned, his dominion is reflected and the dignity of the long human being in virtue of that investigation. Now, it might seem, therefore, that dominion is in view in the very definition of man, because the song is, ah, what is man, is that there was mindful of him, or this kind of man as a physicist, it would be very easy to infer that this domain belongs to man's very definition, because it is with that question, that the very careful man's creation begins, what is man, what is the mindful of him, what is the son of man, that though this is just, I must make him a little lower than me, the angel, if you will, that he was lower than God, that was the son of man, and the other passage, which might appear to give some plausible support to the idea, that the image is to be defined in terms of the authority, which belongs first to him, he is eleven-seven, so Paul there, you see, he was the authority, with which the man, that is the which of the woman, is in depth, is the authority that belongs to him, and it is in that collection, that he sees, the man is the image, and glory of God, and he, Paul, may remember his youth's death, and is the image, and glory of God. All these considerations, could be given support of the seasons, that dominion over the creatures, must, in some way, rather, be defined, in what is with God, is as the image of God, and it is in God. But say, with respect to this, question, in some way, rather, be defined, in what is with God, as the image of God. And say, with respect to this question, as to what isn't a question, that is, rather, what you would call, by the way, you might as well consider it, but I would say about this, that the relevant evidence would not favor the influence, that dominion is an aspect of the divine image, that dominion is an aspect of the divine image. When you go back to, Genesis 1, 26, through 28, Genesis 1, 26, through 27, are given a very different perspective, in the perspective, the relation of dominion to the image of God. Genesis 1, 26, you remember, and God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let them have dominion, let them rule over, the fish of the sea, and over the furl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over everything of the earth, and over all the creeping things, which creeps upon the earth, and God created the man in his image, in his image, in the image of God, created he, him, I just pass over to verse 28, at the latter part of the verse. This is a command directed to man and exercise dominion, and rule over, literally, and exercise dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the furl of the heavens, and over every living creature, which creeps upon the earth. So representation, which you have in Genesis 1, is through the effect that his man is in the image of God, he is to exercise this dominion, but the dominion is something which is wrong, is being in the image of God. That is to say, it dominions, which God is as a function, as a beauty, as a beauty, that man is to perform. In other words, the sequence would be much more naturally taken as follows. This is the implication of the sequence, which naturally be taken as follows, man is made in the image of God, because he is God, how is it over, is that which he has created? Since he is God, is started over, is that which he has created? And since he is in the image of God, he is God's vice-gerent, upon earth. That is to say, he is given a dominion, which is happening there. There is a dominion which God exists. The same dominion which God exists, but it doesn't be fine, it's Godhood, is any facility arising from it. The dominion which man exists, is not the destination of his manhood. A function which he met for the exercise in virtue, is defined in manhood, but this assumption, which he never saw in the exercise, is the cause of his manhood. And his man, is defined in terms of the image of God, and he, and in first place, the MZ-17 is a sequence, the MZ-17 suddenly reflecting upon the dignity which belongs to man, the dignity that belongs to man, the dignity that belongs to him, and this express in the dominion that the exercise is, but not made according to being defined, so to mean, from capital with the sequence of form eight, has to be compatible to regard the dominion, the dominion reflected upon, which illustrates, and certifies, illustrates and certifies, the dignity which belongs to his mate, belongs to his being. And likewise, the MZ-17 is the MZ-17. It does not say, that the image, this in the authority, with which man is invested, is consistent in the authority, and so it is practically compatible with the thought of that man, in the authority with which the man is invested, in correlative with, in which the man is invested, in which the correlative is being, image and glory of God, but is correlative with, and glory of God does not mean, image and glory of God is actually defined in terms of conditioning and correlativity does not mean, identity or equation. We must remember, as the uniform representation of the Church with respect to humanism, the uniform representation is, that it is a function of office to be executed, or oughted to be executed. It is a duty, which man is commanded to prepare, commanded to prepare. Now these two, these two considerations, in which it is a function to be executed, and a duty to be fulfilled, do not comport, do not agree, do not conform with the idea that it belongs to the image of God, but it is wrong involving the power he is made in the image of God, or he is made in the image of God. Now that is my respect to the man, do not conform with the idea that he is made in the image of God, he is not explored, although here for the position has taken. Here, why is it that he is not curious about the art happening in the world? No, no, something may be exegetically unpellable, and yet not involved, but these things belong to comparison. If you were to suppose that the image of God is comprised exclusively in the dominion, that would be a period. But I didn't have it arise, did you find that it is a subordinate element of the divine image? It is a subordinate element, and it is not involved, it can be seen in the logic of error. In any case, the logic of principle would be at the same. That's all. There are certain things which deviate of what you call found exegesis, but which, nevertheless, do not involve the basic logic of error, or deviation from found exegesis, is error. But there are different degrees of error. All I would say is that not involved in the basic logic of error. There is just not involved principles that are determined to see the reality as a whole. Would you make a great deal of difference to all that you recognize the times in the first twelve of us, especially of the first twelve of us? Well, now, I'm going to pass on to the name of humans. Where is you with respect to the image of God? It is more accurate at this point to use the definition of man's primitive condition, just the view of man's primitive condition. That's so happenable. It's especially with respect to the whole capacity of humans. That is a more realistic way. The elliptic is the capture. If there is much more than the new movement of that in which you bear that in mind because if I should ever ask you a question with an examination and give the set-up of the movement capture view of man's primitive condition and you understand what I'm getting at. It wouldn't be so accurate to call it the movement capture view of man's primitive condition because it is both far more than that. That is only a subordinate aspect of the same concern of the movement view and that it was born in the way. So, this capture is a little more nitrogen, more felicities, and this particular point. Now, we take up first the wall of the capture view of man's primitive condition and I'm going to deal with that under the ben with some warning capture movement capture view of man's primitive condition and it is expanded before its second level of movement. You will have to be satisfied before they now. And that is the expertise The first, I'm going to put down, let me tell you, the state of pure nature, but the woman is happy with certain features, respecting the state of pure nature, the little imagination, the state of pure nature. Then the second would be what the woman can't take such features about the conflict, and then the final turn, which could not come with just the chestiness, the chestiness, the chestiness, and the chestiness. And then you have the third, the doughnut, the psoradicals, which will have the mango base, which is gone. Now if you want them here, about the doughnut, the psoradicals are gone. It's really not strictly true. The second would be what the woman can't take such features. The second would be what the woman can't take such features about the chestiness, the chestiness, the chestiness, but the doughnut, it's absolutely��. The older woman can't take such features about the doughnut, and then the tighten made it, so that it has the second. It feels very dangerous but it's seems. And it's broken. A montage of bubbles, Around the corner, the surface is covered with penetrey. and don't know. This refers to the image of God. Now, we'll begin with the first point, which is the state of pure needs, as well as no purpose in my beginning. This is where we live in a moment.