All right, let's go ahead and get started. Let's turn to 1 Timothy 3 again, where we read in verse 1, this is a faithful saying, if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. And once again, one of the things that every elder needs to give himself to is the study of God's word and to come to an understanding so that you can rightly minister it and understand the truths and the mysteries that are given to us. And I'm talking about the mysteries that God has revealed, certainly not the ones that he has not revealed. We've been so far in our study talking about how God has created man and how man is constituted. We've been, at least I've been trying to argue the point that man is comprised of a material part and an immaterial part. The material part is comprised of many facets, many components, and so is the immaterial part. So we've been looking at these different words. We've dealt with the word soul. We've dealt with the word spirit. We've dealt with the word heart. This morning I want to tackle this word flesh. Now, it's interesting when you say the word flesh, immediately your mind thinks about the covering of the body, but when you talk about the word flesh, the Bible uses it in different ways. The flesh in the Bible does refer to the material or the tissue part of man. There are certainly verses that demonstrate that. But, and I don't think anybody here would have a problem with that use of the word. It's something we all know. But what I want to emphasize is the ethical use of the word flesh and how the Bible utilizes it. When we read of flesh, it refers to the fallen nature or the disposition to sin. The Bible represents the flesh in that way many times. You would think of this thing that is within man that is in opposition to God. And so let's look at the ethical use of the word flesh. Turn to Romans 7, and we'll go through some of these passages. Romans 7 verse 18, For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells. For to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. And so Paul's clearly outlining in this verse that nothing good dwells within the flesh. And I think we all understand he's not referring to the tissue. He's referring to that part that is within us that is opposed to God. Turn to 2 Corinthians chapter 1. In 2 Corinthians 1, Look at verse 12. And so once again, we all understand Paul's not referring to the physical flesh, but that inner part, this kind of wisdom that is opposed to the wisdom of God, that wisdom that sets itself against the wisdom of God. This is something else we need to keep reminding ourselves of. Those who want to synchronize with worldly wisdom and bring it alongside with some of God's wisdom, and we'll take the parts of God's wisdom that we think fits good with worldly wisdom. There's nothing admirable about that. That's wicked. And so the great challenge for the church today is to have men that will call them and remind them that God's wisdom is holy, good, and it's infinite. And we should never try to bring along worldly wisdom to come alongside and try to meld something together that might look a little bit more palatable to the world. Turn over to Galatians 5. And as you consider that thought, think about the first century church that was dealing with persecution. I'm sure it would have been very easy just to kind of blend a little bit of Christianity with a little bit of Greek thought and just kind of go along and get along. But nowhere in the New Testament do you see them doing that, and nowhere in the New Testament does Christ or the apostles ever call the church to do that. Galatians 5, look at verse 17, for the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary to one another so that you do not do the things that you wish. So there's something that's within us that's battling, something that's warring against the spirit, and that thing is called, the Bible utilizes the word flesh. We can look at some other examples, Colossians 2.18, 2 Peter 2.10, 1 John 2.16, and I think we understand when we talk about man, he has a material, he has an immaterial part, And when we come to the Bible, we see that just as the material part is comprised of many facets, so is the immaterial part. Let's talk about the word mind. The Bible has a lot to say about the mind. Our mind is the part of the immaterial aspect of man that allows us to perceive or understand. And so typically when we think about the word mind, it's primarily a New Testament word. I mean, the Old Testament, a lot of times we use the word heart to describe similar functions. Now, when you read of the mind, not only does it perceive and understand, but it can feel, it can judge, it can determine. It can refer to all sorts of things, but it certainly comprises a portion of man's immaterial part. It refers to the reasoning part of man. So when we talk about the mind of the unbeliever, for example, turn over to Romans 1, Romans 1, look at verse 28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, he's talking about the unregenerate, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting. So when we think about the mind of the unsafe person, if left unchecked, if not restrained by God, It turns to what the Bible refers to as reprobate, debased, and a mind like that, anything really goes. And we see that in our land today. We see that in this land, we see that the mind of the unregenerate, really anything does go. All right, turn over to Ephesians 4. Ephesians 4, look at verse 17. This I say therefore and testify in the Lord that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk in the futility of their mind. So the mind of an unbeliever is futile, is vain, is empty. Their thinking is totally useless. Why? Well, because they're only interested in the here and now. Now there may be some temporal benefits that society gets from the mind of an unbeliever, but eternally it's useless. Okay? eternally there will be no real value there because they'll be destroyed. So their walk is not characterized by eternal thinking but temporal thinking and this is something the Christian has to remind himself of. God is concerned with how we utilize our minds. In fact, it's part of the Great Commandment, is it not? You're to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. So God does care how we utilize our minds. Turn to Titus 1. And if that's the greatest commandment, then one of the greatest sins is to take our minds and utilize them in things that are unprofitable, to utilize our minds into activities that do not bring Him glory. And this is why, once again, I think we need to be seeking the grace of God to help us gain control over our minds and how we utilize them. What do we think about? What do we focus our attention on? Titus 1, look at verse 15. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. But even their mind and their conscience are defiled." So the unbeliever's thinking is defiled. Their thinking, one way to look at it, it literally stinks. That's a good way to put it. Turn it over to 2 Corinthians 4. 2 Corinthians 4, look at verse 4. We'll go back to verse three, but even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. Now notice how he qualifies this, whose minds the God of this age have blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. So the mind of the unbeliever is blinded. It's defiled. Their thinking literally stinks. Their mind is blinded. Their minds are futile, vain, useless. And if that's totally turned over to themselves with no restraint, their thinking goes completely reprobate or debased. Turn over to Romans 3. Romans 3, Luke verse 11. There is none who understands, and he's talking about those who are under sin. There's none who understands, there's none who seeks after God. So, Paul is describing an individual who's not been redeemed, their minds have not been emancipated from the slavery of uselessness, this idea of being vain, defiled, blinded. Here we see that the mind of the unbeliever does not understand the things of God because the unbeliever is totally depraved. This begins to set the foundation for the kind of theology that we subscribe to in the church that we go to, right? Because it tells us so much about the mind of the unbeliever. There is no rationalizing with the mind of the unbeliever. You don't reason with it, you preach it to it. You bring the gospel of Christ to that person because it's only through the power of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit that this kind of mind is overcome. And I want you to think about that for a moment. Think about the kind of mind you have. Do your thoughts stink? Are they defile? Are they useless? Are they vain? Are they only focused on the here and now? Think about how this equates to regeneration. Think about how this equates to the salvation of Christ, and we'll deal more with this later in some of the later teachings. But Christ comes in to redeem the minds of men. You do understand that when I read these passages to you and try to describe to you the state of the mind of the unbeliever, when Christ saves someone, he doesn't leave that mind there in that place. He renews our thinking. and we're being transformed as we are renewed by the Word of God. Well, for the regenerate, the Bible tells us that our mind is in complete contrast to the unbelievers. Now, and we need this work of grace in our life because in Luke 24, 45, remember the men on the road to Emmaus, they couldn't understand the events that had just happened, right? Christ is walking along and what were they talking about? They were talking about all the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. And so just understand or note that God has to open our minds to help us understand the truths that are found in God's Word. So the mind of the believer is no longer blinded, but God brings his light in and shows us his truth. And so the things that were at one time foolishness are now our hope. Remember, the things, the gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing. But the gospel is the very hope of the believer because his mind has been changed. Turn to Romans 12. Romans 12, we look at verse 2, and do not be conformed to this world. I mean, this is pretty straightforward stuff, right? This is like Christianity 101. We are not to be conformed to this world. But be transformed by the renewing of your mind. So how are we transformed? It's through our minds being renewed. that we may prove what is good and acceptable in the perfect will of God. Do you begin to see that there's a fundamental problem with those who are ignorant of God's Word? They can't start the transformation process. Their minds are not being renewed. And because of this, they're not capable of proving what is good, acceptable in the perfect will of God. Neither can you. You can't do it either apart from God's Word. So do you see the importance of regularly washing your head with the Word of God, immersing yourself in His Word and have Him transform your thinking? Turn over to 1 Peter 1. And for the elder, I think this is a big challenge because there's so many avenues for the transferring of information to the minds of people that sit under your care. The biggest challenge is to encourage those, not to allow all those different ways of communication swamp the main form of communication that God has given us, which is through His Word. 1 Peter 1, verse 13, Therefore gird up the loins of your mind. Be sober and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. So the mind of the believer should pursue what? holiness. That's not legalism. That's the expectation of Christ. Turn to Ephesians 5. And I hope as we go through this, you're laying down the principles that you're going to base your ministry off of, or for you young men, for example, that you're going to base your home off of, because you're going to be criticized for this. This is what we're talking about this morning is so foreign to so many Christians, what we're talking about. And so because they don't want to submit themselves to Christ, their first line of defense is to throw accusations. But you must stand firm on these principles that are found here in the scriptures. Look at Ephesians 5 verse 17. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. So Peter tells us to gird up the loins of our mind to pursue holiness with our thinking. Romans tells us that we are to be transformed through the renewing of our mind And so here in Ephesians 5, 17, there is an expectation that the believer should resolve himself to do what? Understand what the will of the Lord is. You should be giving yourself to that. Turn over to 2 Corinthians. And I'm belaboring this because it's so common in the church today to say, okay, God doesn't really concern himself with your thoughts. But I hope these passages are telling you that he's very concerned about this. And to me, it's part of the foundation of walking a Christian walk is getting your thoughts under control and bringing them under the dominion of Christ. And this is Paul's concern as well here in 2 Corinthians 10. Verse 4, "...for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God for the pulling down of strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." And so this is an important verse for us to understand. We're to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. And we are to be about the business of pulling down all those thoughts, all those ideas, all those philosophies that are out there that set themselves up against the knowledge of God. Well, when we look at the scriptures, we see that the mind is one of those facets of the immaterial part of man. And so the unbeliever has a mind that is opposed to God, while the mind of the believer has been given understanding so that he may pursue after God. Namely, pursue after seeing a transformation in his own life. He should be pursuing after holiness. He should be pursuing after understanding what the perfect will of God is. That's why God is giving you a mind. This is why we are called rational creatures. He did not give this to the brute beast. Well, let's talk about the conscience. The conscience is that witness within man that tells him to do what he believes to be right or not to do what he believes to be wrong. Now, we've got to make sure we understand something here. The conscience does not teach us what is right or wrong. That's what the Word of God is. But our conscience should encourage us to do what we think is right at any given situation. We may do something that is wrong and feel justified by doing it. And this is where you're training your conscience to be seared. You're training your conscience to be not in alignment with the Word of God. So do you begin to understand that this idea of let your conscience be your guide, that can be very dangerous, particularly if your conscience has not been tenderized by the Word of God. So our conscience is a monitor. Go over to Romans 2. It's not infallible. There's only one infallible guide, right? There's only one source of infallible truth, and it's not your conscience. It's the Word of God. But in Romans 2, look at verse 15. Now, he's talking about these Gentiles who do not have the law, and he's beginning to explain, remember, in our study of Romans 2, that the Jew is judged by the law of God. They have the law of God. They can't look to their relationship to the law of God as a basis for being immune from the judgment of God. But also, he argues that Gentiles who do not have a written form of the law are still going to be held accountable. Why? Well, he says in verse 14, for when the Gentiles who do not have the law, and he's talking about the written form of the law, by nature do the things in the written form of the law. These, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts, accusing or else excusing them. Okay, so the conscience is that thing within us that says that what we're about to do is right or wrong, And you can violate it, though, and many people do. But we never want to get to the point where we violate it to the point where we sear it. And I think the best example to help you understand that everyone has a conscience, think about the murderer who's in prison, who has violated his own conscience. He knows murder is wrong, but he does it anyway. And you say, well, how does he know that it's wrong? Well, if you say, well, I'm here to murder you, That's when he's going to throw up his hands and show that he does have the law of God written on his heart. And so he bears witness that he does have the law, because he's going to say, hang on, you can't murder me. That's wrong. It doesn't matter that he justifies murdering someone else. He knows that it's wrong. Now, when we talk about the conscience, this phrase is found mainly in the New Testament. And the function of the conscience are usually assigned to the heart in the Old Testament. One describes the conscience like this, the conscience may be likened to an unreliable brakes on the automobile. They may do their job at times, but they cannot be counted on. And so that's one expression of how the conscience might work. Turn over to 1 Timothy 1. 1 Timothy 1, look at verse five. Now, the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, from a sincere faith. And so we see that phrase good conscience. We don't want to be about the business of violating our conscience on a regular basis, on a habitual basis. You know, it's kind of like the guy who says, all right, I want to go across the state line to Georgia to buy lottery tickets. but don't tell anybody I'm doing it, right? That person is going against his own conscience. The moment someone says, I'm going to do something, but don't tell mom this, I'm going to do something, but don't tell dad, I'm gonna do this, but don't tell the boss, right? Think about how the conscience works within someone. So when a husband does something, but he doesn't want his wife to know, well, he's violating his own conscience. Look at verse 18. here in First Timothy. This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare. Having good faith and a good conscience, there's that phrase again, which some have rejected concerning the faith and have suffered shipwreck, and then of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, of whom I've delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. But here we see that Paul gives Timothy a charge. In verse 19, we see that the Christian has two battlefronts. One is with the world outside, and the other battlefront is that battle within. And so let me just say that if you want to be successful on the one battlefront, well, let me just say it this way. If you're not successful on the battlefront within, you'll never be successful with the battlefront without, okay? Paul gives us examples by name. two men who have not been successful. And he says, you know, I turn them over, I'm turning them over to Satan. Why? So they may learn an important lesson, not to blaspheme. Okay. Look at chapter 4 here in 1 Timothy. Look at verse 1. Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctors and demons, speaking lies and hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron. Now, this is the place where we never want to get. We never want to get to a place where we violate our own conscience to the point it's rendered useless. And this is what happens with habitual sin. Habitual sin will sear the conscience, and then it's rendered useless. So the conscience is another one of those facets, one of those things that God gives us. It's the immaterial part of man that convicts us when we do wrong and excuses us when we do right. Next, let's talk about the will. When we talk about the will, the Bible has more to say about the will of God than man's will. But if you read Romans 7.15 or 7.25, you're gonna see that the will of the believer can choose to do what is right or wrong. But while we're in 1 Timothy, let's stay here. Let's go to chapter 6. And look at verse 9, but those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. So the believer can will or desire to be rich even though this verse says that there are many temptations that come along with that, right? Paul says that money can be a snare. So Paul says that money leads many into foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction. So as Christians, we all know this, but you can still choose a desire or will to be rich instead of desiring or willing to please God. And I can't tell you how many people I know with this infatuation of being rich, and they overlook things like Matthew 6, 33, where Christ plainly tells the church to do what? Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. That's the first of the first. So we should desire to seek God. We should desire to please God. Because as Christians, we can desire all the wrong kinds of things. Turn over to James 4. James 4. Look at verse 4. Adulterers and adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is what? entity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." So this verse tells me, for example, that whoever wants to, whoever wills to be a friend of the world is what? He's an enemy of God. So the believer can will or want to do evil. This is how one expresses oneself. But you've got to challenge that for a moment. You've got to think, what kind of heart wants to go against the clear commands of God? What kind of heart desires to be at opposition or at war with God? I mean, think about all the things that we want to wage battle with. Why would you ever want to wage battle with the triune God of the Scriptures? Well, all of these to me are the different functional attributes of the immaterial part that comprises all of us. And so when we talk about the will, the flesh, the heart, the mind, the conscience, spirit, heart, the soul, we're talking about many different facets of the immaterial part of man. Now that's why I believe that man is, you know, composed of two parts, the dichotomy, if you like that word. Man has material Comprised of many different aspects, an immaterial part that is comprised of many different facets as well. All right, so I've kind of laid out the position that I hold to. So from this point, I'm gonna let you wrestle with this on your own, and there's a lot of resources out there that you can study this out. But let's ask another question. This one might be fun. This might get you stirred up. If man is comprised of the material and the immaterial part, then where did the immaterial part come from? Alright, let's think about that one. There are three overarching views out there. One is pre-existence. The pre-existent view says that all souls were created at the beginning and God, or gods, placed the soul in a body. And those who hold this view typically will hold that the body is punishment for the soul. So through a series of transmigrations or reincarnation, the soul is released. Plato and the Greeks believed in some of this kind of thinking. Origin seems to lean toward this kind of thinking. Hinduism believes this. We're just going to go ahead and say from the very beginning, this is heretical and it's wrong. I mean, we're not going to give time to even think about that one. All right, next, creationism. Creationism teaches that God creates the soul at the moment of conception or the moment of birth and immediately unites it with the body. So this view says that every soul is directly created by God and at the point of conception or birth, it is united with the body. And when we talk about creationism, really with all these views, there are subset views within it. So that's why I keep saying some hold to conception, some hold to at birth. And this is the dominant thought of the Eastern Church. Charles Hodge argues, for example, for creationism. If you want to study this out with him, you can go read his systematic theology in volume two, and you can find it on pages 65 to 76, and he'll talk about all the different views as well, but he argues for creationism. Now there's a new word that you may not be familiar with. It's called traducianism. Traducianism. And so this teaches that the soul is transmitted along with the body through the process of natural generation. So the point of conception, the material and the immaterial part are already there. So those who hold this view say that the soul and the spirit, the mind, the conscience are there at the point of conception, which is a little bit different than creationism. So this is the dominant view or dominant thought of the Western Church. Tertullian was the first to suggest the whole concept of Traditionism in the 2nd century. William Shedd is the spokesman person pretty much for Traditionism. So if you want to further research it, you can go look at his Dogmatic Theology and in volume 2 he talks about this on pages 7 through 94. So he gives an extended treatment on Traditionism. It's interesting, St. Augustine could never come to a position on this, and Benjamin Warfield has written extensively about Augustine. And Warfield notes a letter that Augustine penned to Jerome in the year 414 A.D. Jerome believed in creationism. He believed that God created the soul, and Augustine was baffled by that because he was wavering between creationism and traditionism. And he was leaning more towards traditionism. And in the letter, he raises a question to Jerome. He says, if new souls are made for men individually at their birth, I do not see on the one hand that they could have any sin while yet in infancy, nor do I believe on the other hand that God condemns any soul that he sees to have no sin. So how did Jerome respond? Jerome responded saying he had no leisure to reply to the question submitted to him. And five years later, in 419, someone asked Augustine, did you ever hear from Jerome? And he responds, and Warfield quotes him. Augustine, in answering this letter, expresses his sorrow that he had not yet been worthy of an answer from Jerome. Although five years had passed by since he wrote, but his continued hope that such an answer will come in due time. For himself, he confesses, he has not yet been able to see how the soul can contract sin from Adam, and yet not itself be contracted from Adam. So Augustine was puzzled by all this. And Jerome didn't even take the time to answer the inquiry. And I guess that's what we all do when we're stumped, right? So what do we say about some of this? Well, the Roman Catholic Church believes in creationism. Aquinas says it this way, it is heretical to say that an intellectual soul is transmitted by the way of generation. What do Protestants believe? Well, Luther believed in tradutionism. John Calvin believed in creationism. Jonathan Edwards believed in tradutionism. And so, you know, on the Protestant side of the fence, you've got good men on both sides of it. I tend to lean more towards the traditional position, but there are good men that hold to a creation point. And so the idea there is this being created at... I think the issue always falls down, and there again, I don't hold to this thing tightly, but I think the issue always falls down to if God creates a soul at the moment of conception, if that's indeed what's going on, is that soul he creates a sinful soul at the point of creation. So that's the piece that I can't, just because I can't overcome it doesn't mean that it doesn't have its plausibility or has a view rooted in the scriptures, according to the people who hold to it. Turn to Hebrews 7. Hebrews 7. Look at verse 10. Now, remember, what is the writer of Hebrews doing in this section? In this section, he's arguing how Christ is not of the... Remember, the accusation is Christ is not of the Levitical priesthood, but Christ is still seen as a great high priest. So how is he arguing? Well, he's arguing through Melchizedek. And what he's going to do is he's going to argue from the lesser to the greater. And if you go back to verse 1, "...for this Mechizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave him a tenth part of all, being translated the king of righteousness, and then to the king of Salem, meaning king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually." Now consider how great this man was to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils. And so the writer is making these arguments and jump down to verse 10 where it says, Who was still in the loins? Verse 9. That's an interesting verse, isn't it? So, those who typically hold to that position of traducianism would look at something like this, and remember, I'm not sure how much weight you can put on all this, but nevertheless, that is an interesting verse, that as Abraham is giving tithes to Mechizedek, which pictures something of the lesser, because Levi is in Abraham, is given a tithe to the greater, which is Mechizedek. So this is kind of why I hold to this. Creationism says that God creates a soul that is sinless and places that sinless soul in the body, and the body and soul then become sinful. Theologically, that's challenging to me. And quite frankly, there is some Greek thinking in that thought. And I think that's why the Roman Catholic Church is held to that view predominantly. So the idea is that if God is going to create a soul that is sinless, and then God's going to create a sinless soul only to put it in a body to make it sinful. Anyway, I think there's a break there somewhere. And so somehow or another, we've contracted Adam's fallen nature because we're in Adam. Anyway, this is why I believe this particular position. And so at the point of conception, everything was there. You had the material, the immaterial that comprised the individual. Alright, so keep in mind we may have different opinions when it comes to how we answer some of these questions. But I do want us to back up for a moment. We do hold to the same position with a lot of these guys that God does create. This is not an evolutionary process or anything like that. So at this point, I'll leave you with this to study it out further. I've given you some men by the way of Shad and some of those guys to go look at this and study it out a little bit more if you find this interesting. Turn over to Genesis 2. Let's continue to look at this a little bit more. Genesis 2, look at verse 7. And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. So obviously according to this verse the constitution of man is comprised of at least two parts. We see a material part when it says God formed man from the dust of the ground. This did not involve any evolutionary process that that describes man going from some subhuman form to a human form. I don't know how I can read this and come to those kinds of conclusions. But this verse says that man was created specially and immediately by God. Well, you know, a lot of times people, you know, and it's amazing to me of how modern man, I'm talking about man in 2016, still can look at these evolutionary charts You know, and nobody really challenges or asks the question, where do these charts come from? Well, they're just the result of an artist's imagination. And they're just a reconstruction of what some scientists think how man should evolve. They're just models, plastic models. There's no full skeletal remains to make these kinds of assertions. And what's interesting about all these reconstructions is that they're taken from a few bones, and in some cases scattered all over the place when they go find them. So scientists are not sure sometimes whether the bones came from a man, an animal, or even from the same body a lot of times when they go and they dig these things up. So when you look at all this, you would have to obviously say that it really testifies to the ingenuity of the scientists to reconstruct and form these pieces of art, certainly not science. One professor of anatomy at the University of London says this, I find no occupation less worthy of science, of anthropology, than the not unfashionable business of modeling, painting, drawing these nightmare pictures of the imagination and lending them in the process of utterly false value of apparent reality. Listen to these words, I know nothing about the origin of man except what I'm told in the scriptures that God created him. I do not know anything more than that and I don't know of anyone who does. You don't have any more information than what God has given you here concerning the creation of man, the origins of the universe. And that's right. Everything else is pure speculation. Everything else is philosophy. It's not science. So when we come to the Bible it says that God did it and when He created man He did it out of the dust of the ground. And so this is how God formed man's material part. Now in our study we've argued that man is comprised of a material, immaterial part. This immaterial part can be separated from the material part. The immaterial part separates from the body. It survives. And all the terms we've used to describe this would be the soul, spirit, heart, will, all these ideas express the immaterial part. So when we talk about the material part, it's multifaceted. And when we talk about the immaterial part, it's multifaceted as well. So all these terms explain the various aspects of the whole. Buzwell says it this way, and it's systematic. He says, which is the man may be referred to as the heart, the mind, the will, the spirit, the soul, and affections. And then he goes on. He says this, there are several nouns that are not synonymous any more than uncle or father are synonymous, but they may be all designated with the same substantive entity. And that's right. And so this is why we hold the position that we hold. So when I come to Genesis 2-7, if everything I've said is true so far, then what makes man different from the animal kingdom? Now, depending on how man's behaving, sometimes you wonder if there is much difference, but there really is from a biblical standpoint. Look at verse 19. Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So every beast of the field, like man, was created from the dust of the ground. We know this from the scriptures. So there are some similarities, but my question is, well, what makes the difference? And you say, well, I know what it is. It's the breath of life. Remember in Genesis 2.27, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Well, hold that thought and turn to Genesis 7. Look at verse 21. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth and every man. All those whose nostrils was breathed of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land died. So notice we're told that everything that was on the dry land died in that phrase breath of the spirit of life. That's the very same phrase you see in Genesis 2. Let me see. Take a look at verse 15, I think it is. So when you look at the grammar, you can't just say the breath of life is what separates man from animal. That's not what makes the distinction there. Although if you ask a lot of Christians, that's what they would say. And there again, this idea that they're living souls, living beings, we've looked at that in the past, but in Genesis 120, Genesis 121, Genesis 124, all the living creatures have this living, they're seen as living souls or living beings as well, okay? All right. So when I come to this, what is the difference? Well, I think the difference is found in that phrase, image of God, okay? So when we come When we come to the creation account, we see that what makes the difference between man and animals, or the animal kingdom, is this idea of the image of God. We see that in Genesis 1-26, then God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over all the earth. over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. Okay? And so the distinction between the man and the beast is this idea that man has been created in the image of God. That's never used at the animal kingdom. Okay? And so what I believe Moses is trying to emphasize here in Genesis chapter one is that he uses image three times. That's what makes us unique. We also see the word likeness, so there's a difference between image and likeness, but they are used interchangeably at times. The Greek and the Latin Church Fathers believed that there was really a real distinct difference between the two. They argued that the image refers to the physical body, the material part, and likeness refers to the immaterial part, the ethical part, the soul. Arrhenius in the second century said it this way, image refers to man's freedom and his reason, likeness refers to the supernatural gift of communion with God, and that was lost with the fall. So Arrhenius says that man retained the image but lost the likeness. Augustine said that there was a difference between the image and likeness. Image refers to intellectual. Likeness refers to the moral faculty of the soul. So what do we say about all this? Well, when you come to these two words, image and likeness, I think they're synonymous. I think that can be proven. You see this when you read verse 26 when he says, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness. It's used similarly, right? And so I believe he's further explaining image with the word lightness. So they're synonyms. One is used to describe more of what the other word means. One writer says it this way, rendering of them provide more than adequate evidence that they are synonyms. Another writes, there is no possibility of discovering a sharp, well-defined difference between them. Another writes it this way, parallel words to give us essentially the same thought or a familiar form of a Hebrew expression. And you may be sitting there saying, well, I see a difference when I read them because you read the word image, you use the preposition in, and when you read the word likeness, you read a different preposition after. Well, let me get you to hold that thought and look at Genesis 5. So the very same author and the very same book says this in Genesis 5. This is the book of the genealogy of Adam and that day when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in his own likeness after his image. So he's kind of reversed the order there, didn't he? So notice what he does with the prepositions. Here you see, in the likeness, in Genesis 1, he says, after the likeness. So this whole idea of making a big distinction with the prepositions, I don't think, you know, it's obvious Moses used them interchangeably, and he flips the order when it comes to Genesis 5. Now you see, after his image in Genesis 5, 3. In Genesis 1, it is in his image. So when you come to Chapter 5, the very same prepositions are changed. In Chapter 1, they're used for image, likeness. Then you come to Chapter 5, they're reversed. So when I read it here, I don't think you should make too much of the prepositions the way some of these theologians do. Now, when I come to Genesis 1-26, I read this verse, I think lightness further explains image, which means God is the original form in which man is a copy. Not in every way, right? But there's certain aspects of God that we are created, like we're rational thinking, able to communicate. He's able to fellowship with us. Okay. If you want to say anything distinct about the words image and likeness, you could make a case for this. Image indicates something concrete, while likeness indicates something abstract. So when you look at an image, normally it's a fashioned image. You would think of something representative, a shape, a figure, but it's used in some concrete sense in the Old Testament. The word likeness has more of an abstract thought to it. So man concretely and abstractly reflects something of God. So what does it mean? Well, if God is the original and we are the copy and we reflect something of God, we are created, we are very distinct from the rest of the creation, and so we have to ask the question, what do we say here? Well... So when we think about God who, and just give you some things to chew on and noodle on at this point, God has passions, he makes moral decisions, he has relationships, God has dominion. Likewise, man thinks, man has passions, man makes decisions, he has relationships, he also has dominion. Man images God in this way. And this is the way God was in the beginning. Now, since the fall, we still reflect something of the image of God. And there are texts that suggest that fallen man is still in the image of God, but it needs to be restored. And I would just, the best way I could say it is that the image of God at the fall was not completely destroyed, but it certainly has been distorted, and it needs to be restored, okay? Let me give you some texts that kind of emphasize this. Go to Genesis 9. Genesis 9, verse 6. Whoever sheds man's blood by man's blood shall be shed for the image of God he made man." So murderers are to be executed since they killed another person who was created in the image of God. Turn over to James 3. James 3, look at verse 9. Notice he's talking about the tongue. He says, with it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men who have been made in the similitude of God. So this is an exhortation not to talk or curse men with our tongues since they were created in the image of God. Turn to 1 Corinthians 11. 1 Corinthians 11, look at verse 7, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God. That's an interesting text there. We are the image and glory of God. So there are texts that suggest that the image needs to be restored. Turn to Colossians 3. So we see that the image of God has not been fully destroyed. But there are texts that seem to indicate that the image does need to be restored. Now, Colossians 3, look at verse 10. Well, he says in verse 9, do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with his deeds and have put on a new man who is renewed in the knowledge according to the image of him who created him. Turn to Ephesians 4. Ephesians 4, verse 24. and that you put on the new man which was created according to God in true righteousness and holiness. And when you look at that idea back in Colossians 3, the idea is it needs to be renewed. Something needs to be renewed, and that thing that needs to be renewed is what was lost at the fall, and part of that was the distortion of the image of God. Turn to Romans 8. And so this is important because this helps us understand one of the great functions or aspects of salvation is the restoration of this image. So in Romans 8, 29, we read this, For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be, what, conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. So this suggests that Christ, or those that are in Christ, are being, what, conformed back to the image of God. For Christ is the very expressed image of God according to Hebrews. Okay? So this causes some people, I don't know why, but it causes some people to say that there's a tension here or there's a contradiction, but I don't think so. How do we resolve this apparent tension? Well, this conflict appears to give angst amongst the different theologians. And so there are different groups who try to explain this away. Now it's interesting, the Lutheran view, let's talk about them for a moment. The Lutheran view teaches that the text about the image of God, they don't really believe that man is still the image of God. So they have a strange position there. Roman Catholicism and the Armenians, for example, teach that texts concerning the loss of the image of God don't really teach that either. They don't teach that man is the image of God. So when we read about the image needing to be restored, they explain those texts in a different way. The classic reform approach teaches that both texts need to be affirmed in their natural understanding, but we have to understand that they're talking about the image of God in different senses. In one sense the image is lost, but in another sense the image of God is not lost. These are really the only options you have. So let's talk about the Roman Catholic view of man for just a moment. Roman Catholicism teaches that man is created in the image of God in the sense that it is unlosable. In their view, man has certain natural abilities that cannot be lost. Man has spirituality, rationality, and the freedom of the will that cannot be lost. However, according to the Roman Catholic view, man has added to him the supernatural grace called the Donum Superdidum. It's the gift over and above. God gave man a gift over and above in the making him in the image of God. And this added gift is man's moral excellency, his integrity, and his righteousness. And so God added this to man since man is created, is a created being, and there is a drag on him towards sin. So the Catholic view teaches that the body, if not wicked, does tend towards wickedness. Since man has a body, then God had to intervene to counteract that tendency towards sin. And I hope you begin to hear what they're saying and what's underlying all this. This is so influenced by Greek philosophy. The Greeks taught that the body is somehow dirty. It's a drag on our ability to be righteous or to obey God. So in the beginning, God gives man this supernatural gift. And when man fell into sin, what does the Catholic say man lost? Did he lose the image of God? Not according to the Roman Catholic position. He didn't lose his spirituality, his rationality, or freedom of the will. What did he lose? Well, he lost this gift. And now he lives for bodily desires. So that teaches a lot about their position. What about the Arminian view of man? Well, in church history, the followers of Arminius were referred to as the remonstrants. And in their view, man is created in the image of God that consists in rationality and free will. The Sosinians added that it included dominion. Now, in their view, the image of God is the abilities that are to be exercised. Now, in this view, man does not possess positive righteousness. Remember, in the Roman Catholic view, man did have this positive righteousness, and they lost that at the fall. In the Arminian view, man is not positively righteous at creation. He's only innocent. And so in this view, God created man with a free will that was neutral and it was innocent. It could go either way. It could either do good or bad. So by man's disposition, he could obey or he could disobey. If he disobeyed, he would fall into sin. But when he fell into sin, the Arminians believed that man did not lose the divine image. They believe that man has lost those abilities by which he makes spiritual or moral decisions. But by falling into sin, he did not lose positive righteousness since he didn't have it in the first place. Now that's different than the Catholic view. It's also different than the Reformed view. Let's talk about the Reformed approach. Man is created in the image of God, and this image has two aspects to it. The Reformed position holds to the image in a broad sense and in a narrow sense. The broad sense means that man has spiritual, intellectual abilities that distinguish him from the animals. And it is in this broad sense of the image of God that's never been lost in man. In the narrow sense, man has moral excellence, which is to say he does have positive righteousness. Remember, our confession says that man was created upright, holy, and knowledgeable. Now let's compare that with the Roman Catholic position. The Roman Catholic position believes that man had a moral righteousness because he had this super added gift. The Reformed view teaches that since man was created in the image of God, which does include positive righteousness, this was not additional, but it's what God included in the original. And so at creation, man exercises his ability in a God-honoring way. And when man falls into sin, he didn't lose this superadded gift, he stopped using the moral abilities for the sake of excellence and began to serve himself. That's the Reformed position. He made himself his own little God. So the question is, does man still have the image of God? In one sense, yes, but in another sense, no. In one sense, man still retains the image of God in that he makes moral decisions, he reasons, unlike the brute beast. In another sense, the answer is no, since man is unrighteous and God is righteous. Man has lost his image or his imaging of the moral excellence of God and he has become totally depraved. Man is totally depraved, but he's not an animal. Man at his worst is not a brute beast, but in a wretched way he is still in the image of God. And this is why God will hold him accountable. Wicked man will still retain a sense of the image of God even in hell. You see, if man became a block of stone or an alligator, then hell wouldn't be so horrible to him, would it? But in hell, the sinner is still in the image of God. And so this is one of the reasons why hell is going to be so horrible, because he's going to be experiencing it consciously. Alright? So you begin to... I mean, these are some nuances here, but they're succinct differences, because What these other positions are trying to do is they recognize that there's some sense that something has been lost, and they're trying to wrestle with this. And so sometimes they bring things that are not really biblical to the table to try to explain these differences. So we see that in the Arminian view, the image of God didn't have, or I'm sorry, the man creating the image of God didn't have positive righteousness. He was just innocent and neutral, so to speak. But in the Reformed approach, There's some similarities between the Reformed and the Catholic approach, except that the Catholic says, well, there's this super added gift that was lost. And we just don't believe that this is a super added gift. This is just the way man was created. The Lutheran view. The Lutherans teach that man is made in the image of God. And what they mean is the image of God is moral excellence. And so if the image of God refers to the reflection of God's holiness, then when man falls into unrighteousness, the image is gone. And so you see what the Lutheran has done. He restricts the image of God only to the moral excellences of God. The Reformed approach, in my opinion, harmonizes the text of Scripture better than the other views. I guess that's why I'm here. So the advantage of the Reformed position is that I think it handles all the biblical texts better. It does a better job of recognizing that the word image of God is used in different senses in their context. And so the only way to avoid contradiction is to distinguish the different senses in which the word image is used with respect to man. So we believe that one should not murder or should not slander. Why? Because, in fact, man still is created in the image of God. But at the same time, we do believe that man needs to be conformed to the image of God. We need to be conformed to the moral excellencies of the Lord Jesus Christ. All right? Well, I want to stop here, and Lord willing, next time we're going to pick up, we're going to start dealing with sin and its punishment. Sin and its punishment. And so we've still got quite a bit to cover. But all this is setting us up for the work of Christ. Can you see where we're headed? The next section of systematics that we're going to deal with is the work of Christ, but we need to lay out this foundation of how God created man in his original condition, what took place at the fall, and we'll deal with sin and its punishment, and that way we're going to better understand the work of Christ. Okay?