✪ "Man is the visible representation of the invisible God." -- Brent Aucoin, The Pleasures of a Man’s Heart, Emmanuel Baptist Church men’s retreat, 20190920. See image - conformed to Christ and image - of new man is according to God. "Not only is Christ God through all eternity, the humanity the Savior embraced continues forever. . . The incarnation began at a point in time, but Christ is still incarnate. The only change which occurred is that humanity was glorified with His resurrection and is no longer subject to and restricted by time and space." Ref-0097, p. 75. "even Christianity's most implacable modern critics should be willing to acknowledge that, in these texts and others like them, we see something beginning to emerge from darkness into full visibility, arguably for the first time in our history: the human person as such, invested with an intrinsic and inviolable dignity, and possessed of an infinite value" Ref-1290, p. 167. "all of us today in the West, to some degree or another, have inherited a conscience formed by Christian moral ideals. For this reason, it is all but impossible for us to recover any real sense of the scandal that many pagans naturally felt at the bizarre prodigality with which the early Christians were willing to grant full humanity to persons of every class and condition, and of either sex." Ref-1290, p. 169. "it also gave that culture a coherent concept of the human as such, endowed with infinite dignity in all its individual "moments," full of powers and mysteries to be fathomed and esteemed. It provided an unimaginably exalted picture of the human person-made in the divine image and destined to partake of the divine nature-without thereby diminishing or denigrating the concrete reality." Ref-1290, p. 213. "of human nature, spiritual, intellectual, or carnal. It even produced the idea (which no society has ever more than partially embodied) of a political order wholly subordinate to divine charity, to verities higher than any state, and to a justice transcending every government or earthly power. In short, the rise of Christianity produced consequences so immense that it can almost be said to have begun the world anew: to have "invented" the human, to have bequeathed us our most basic concept of nature, to have determined our vision of the cosmos and our place in it, and to have shaped all of us (to one degree or another) in the deepest reaches of consciousness." Ref-1290, p. 213. Concerning the Substantive View: "Irenaeus is among the beginning of those who made a distinction between “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demuth). For him, the “image” encompassed physical characteristics including man’s mind and volition while the “likeness” was spiritual. Tertullian held to similar views. According to Irenaeus, the Fall had little or no effect upon the imago Dei; it endured while man’s God-likeness was destroyed. Man only lost his “robe of sanctity,” a gift originally bestowed by the Spirit. Therefore, he could no longer commune with the Lord. Clement of Alexandria and Origen also held to an image-likeness distinction. For them, the imago includes the mind and volition along with man’s physical body. They believed it is basically anything essential to humanity--what makes man “man.” Whereas Irenaeus distinguished between image and likeness as physical/spiritual, Clement and origin saw the distinction as qualities essential/unessential. In other words, man is still “man” with or without original holiness and righteousness. With these qualities he becomes God-like. Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and John of Damascus all agreed in various ways." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 15. "Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, viewed “image” and “likeness” as synonyms. Luther identified the imago as man’s original righteousness and, since man is dead in sin, the image must be entirely lost. Calvin agreed but had a more expansive view saying that the image is anything that distinguishes man from the animals; it was original righteousness plus certain natural endowments. In Calvin’s understanding, when man fell, sin permeated the imago; it was not destroyed, but horribly marred, leaving the spiritual part of it dead. Many of these nuances are subtle but all substantive views teach that the imago is is an ontological part of man. Relational and function views do not. Furthermore, this is the only view of the three that distinguishes between the terms “image” and “likeness.”" Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 16. Concerning the Relational View: "In the immediate context of the imago lies a plurality within the Godhead and plurality within mankind. Advocates of relational views say this plurality should be taken seriously. Therefore, a dynamic relationship is the essence of how man is like God." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 17. "With varying degrees, all relational views are existential." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 18. Concerning the Functional View: "God created mankind in His own image and commanded him to rule over creation. Adherents of a functional view see more than a close connection between these concepts. To them, the imago is the activity of ruling over creation. The image is something man does." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 18 "Functional views believe man represents God by taking dominion and ruling. The image is seen when this activity is done. Adherents also look to Psalm 8:5-6 for support. The psalmist says that man was crowned with glory and honor and given dominion over the earth. The language is clearly reminiscent of Genesis 1:26. . . . By equating God’s image with taking dominion, the imago means all who desire to be God’s image must take dominion; it means believers today are called to make disciples and reform culture." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 19. ". . . Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 teach that man, after the Fall, still has the ιμαγο." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 20. "The creation account teaches that taking dominion is one consequence of the imago; it is not the imago itself. Stated differently, the image of God is innately part of man; the act of ruling is a result." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 21. "When God gave the Ten Commandments, He forbid that man should ever make an image in His likeness (Ex. 20:4). What man was not allowed to do was something God had already done. God did make an image of Himself, and that image was man. Herman Bavinck wrote; ‘Man does not simply bear or have the image of God; he is the image of God. From the doctrine that man has been created in the image of God flows the clear implication that that image extends to man in his entirety. Nothing in man is excluded from the image of God.’ Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His won image.” The text does not say that parts of man were created in God’s image; it does not state that the image is relational or an action. Scripture simply says that man was created in God’s image. Therefore, the totality of a human being is what should be understood as the imago." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, p. 22. "Man was created thoroughly God-like, the physical analogy of God Himself. Man’s creation gives him a dignity and position exceedingly higher than even the angels, and this is also what makes his Fall into sin incomparably tragic. For a God-like being to do hell-bent things is the most damnable perversion. It is God seeing a reflection of Himself doing what he would never do. When man fell, the imago was distorted; and if all of man is the imago, then all of man was distorted in the fall. Man became thoroughly perverted." Shaun Lewis, What is Man? or, The Image of God, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 13-26, pp. 24-25. "God, for Edwards, was not to be understood as something like the most virtuous of all humans. Rather, because Edwards took so seriously the immensity of the gap between the ways of the infinite and eternal God and the limits of human understanding, he was willing to make the best of the biblical accounts, as counterintuitive as they might sometimes seem. Upon rigorous examination, he consistently claimed, those accounts could be proved more consistent with reason and experience than any alternatives, even if deep mysteries remained." Ref-1348, p. 478. "Spencer makes this claim: There is no possibility, according to [Genesis 1:26-27], that Adam, the male, could by himself reflect the nature of God. Neither is it possible for Adam, the female, by herself to reflect God's nature. Male and female are needed to reflect God's nature.13 There is no possibility, in light of Genesis 1:26-27, that either the man or the woman alone could display the image of God? What, then, of Genesis 5:1 and 3? ‘When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. . . . When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. God created man in His image. Later, Adam had a son in his image.’ Implication? Adam, who was in God's image, passed the divine image (albeit flawed by sin) on to his son Seth. The divine image resided in the individuals Adam and Seth. So Spencer's insistence on a collective divine image in man-plus-woman is unwarranted. . . . Genesis 1:26-27 can and should be construed to say that each individual created by God bore His image, male and female alike." Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. Male-Female Equality and Male Headship, Ref-1366, pp. 88-89. "Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following: 1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood." Ref-1366, Appendix 2: The Danvers Statement, p. 478. "No one doubts that human beings now alive are connected to human beings who lived thousands of years ago. To look at Paleolithic cave drawings is to understand that the graphic arts have not in twelve thousand years changed radically. And no one doubts that human beings are connected to the rest of the animal kingdom. It is rather more difficult to take what no one doubts and fashion it into an effective defense of the thesis that human beings are nothing but the living record of an extended evolutionary process. That requires a disciplined commitment to a point of view that owes nothing to the sciences, however loosely construed, and astonishingly little to the evidence." Ref-1386, loc. 1926. "beyond what we have in common with the apes, we have nothing in common, and while the similarities are interesting, the differences are profound." Ref-1386, loc. 1886. "[The] idea that human beings have been endowed with powers and properties not found elsewhere in the animal kingdom—or the universe, so far as we can tell—arises from a simple imperative: Just look around. It is an imperative that survives the invitation fraternally to consider the great apes. The apes are, after all, behind the bars of their cages and we are not. Eager for the experiments to begin, they are impatient for their food to be served. They seem impatient for little else. After years of punishing trials, a few of them have been taught the rudiments of various primitive symbol systems. Having been given the gift of language, they have nothing to say. When two simian prodigies meet, they fling their signs at one another. More is expected, but more is rarely forthcoming." Ref-1386, loc. 1877. "Another, more recent survey polled Americans generally and found that “43% of Americans now agree that ‘evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other,’ and 45% of Americans believe that ‘evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals.’”" Ref-1560, par. 1824.
✪ "For this is the fourth beast, whose head was wounded and healed again, in its being broken up or even dishonoured, and partitioned into four crowns; and he then (Antichrist) shall with knavish skill heal it, as it were, and restore it. For this is what is meant by the prophet when he says, “He will give life unto the image, and the image of the beast will speak.”" Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 218.
✪ "Over time, he ]Thomas à Kempis] compiled some two thousand homiletic statements (about half of them from the Bible) that offered comfort and inspiration. These became the basis for The Imitation of Christ. Influenced by the medieval mystics, Thomas urged readers to achieve union with God by shunning the outside world and cultivating the inner spirit. “The Kingdom of God is within you,” he wrote, quoting Christ. “Forsake this wretched world and your soul shall find rest. Learn to despise external things, to devote yourself to those that are within.”" Ref-1522, p. 17. "Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, read a chapter a day and regularly gave away copies. Translated into hundreds of languages and appearing in more than five thousand editions, the Imitation remains the bestselling Christian book after the Bible. . . . Erasmus would not be among its admirers. He was never one for spiritual contemplation. Nor did he place much value on austerity and self-denial." Ref-1522, p. 18.
✪ Hebrew: "with us, God"
✪ "Since we never know exactly when an imminent event will occur, three things are true. First, we cannot count on a certain amount of time transpiring before the imminent event happens; therefore, we should always be prepared for it to happen at any moment. Second, we cannot legitimately set a date for its happening. As soon as we set a date for an imminent event, we destroy the concept of imminency because we thereby say that a certain amount of time must transpire before that event can happen. A specific date for an event is contrary to the concept that the event could happen at any moment. Third, we cannot legitimately say that an imminent event will happen soon. . . . an imminent event may take place within a short time, but it does not have to do so in order to be imminent. Thus ‘imminent’ is not equal to ‘soon.’" Ref-0220, p. 127. See Ref-0220, pp. 128-142 for an excellent discussion of imminency. "In light of the concept of the imminent coming of Christ and the fact that the New Testament does teach His imminent coming, we can conclude that the Pretribulation Rapture view is only view of the Rapture of the church that comfortably fits the New Testament teaching of the imminent coming of Christ. It is the only view that can honestly say that Christ could return at any moment, because it alone teaches that Christ will come to rapture the church before the 70th week of Daniel 9 or the Tribulation period begins and that nothing else must happen before His return." Ref-0220, p. 149. "And this event [the catching away], which is the Church’s proper hope, is as independent of the chronology, as it is of the geography, of earth. It is with the fulfilment of Israel’s hope that the “times and seasons” have to do, and the signs and portents that belong to them." Ref-0762, p. 289. "It seems that many of the more recent and popular date-setting schemes have implemented Israel’s feast cycle in some way. There is one major problem with this approach that disqualifies any use of it for date-setting. Israel’s feasts relate to Israel and Israel alone. True, the fulfillment of Israel’s feast relate to salvation for all mankind, but the precise fulfillment relates exclusively to national Israel. The Rapture is a new event related only to the church and thus could not have been predicted through Old Testament revelation such as Israel’s feast. Thus, any use of the feasts of Israel in an attempt to date set is invalid." Thomas Ice, Why the Bible Still Prohibits Date Setting, Bible Prophecy Blog [https://www.bibleprophecyblog.com] accessed 20131220. ". . . three facts are true [concerning imminency]. 1. People cannot count on a certain amount of time transpiring before an imminent event occurs. Thus, they should constantly be prepared for it to happen at any moment. 2. People cannot legitimately set a date for an imminent event to occur. The setting of a date for an imminent event violates the concept of imminency. It signifies that a certain amount of time must elapse before that event can happen and thereby conflicts with the concept that the event could occur at any moment. 3. People cannot legitimately say that an imminent event will happen soon. The term soon implies that an event must take place “within a short time (after a particular point of time specified or implied)” (The Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “soon”). In contrast, an imminent event may take place within a short time, but it does not have to take place soon to be imminent. Thus, imminent is not equal to soon. This truth is illustrated thus;: the next coming of Christ was imminent in New Testament times, but because His coming has not occurred yet, it obviously was not soon then." Ref-1385, p. 201. "J. Barton Payne, a post-tribulation rapturist, was convinced that eleven New Testament passages teach the imminent coming of Christ (Mat. 24:42-25:13; Luke 12:36-40; Rom. 8:19,23,25; 1Cor. 1:7; Php. 3:20; 4:5; 1Th. 1:9-10; Tit. 2:12-13; Jas. 5:7-8; Jude 1:21; Rev. 16:15; The Imminent Appearing of Christ, pp. 95-103)." Ref-1385, p. 206. "Brethren, I would be earnest on this point, for the notion of the delay of Christ’s Coming is always harmful, however your arrive at it, whether it be by studying prophecy, or in any other way. . . Do not, therefore, get the idea that the Lord delayeth his Coming, and that he will not or cannot come as yet. Far better would it be for you to stand on the tiptoe of expectation, and to be rather disappointed to think that he does not come. . . . He will come in his own time, and we are always to be looking for his appearing. (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Twelve Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ, pp. 137-38)" Ref-1385, p. 231. "Oh, beloved, let us try every morning to get up as if that were the morning in which Christ would come; and when we go to bed at night, may we lie down with this thought, “Perhaps I shall be awakened by the ringing out of the silver trumpets heralding his Coming. Before the sun arises, I may be startled from my dreams by the greatest of all cries, ‘the Lord is come! The Lord is come!’ What a check, what an incentive, what a bridle, what a spur, such thoughts as these would be to us! Take this as the guide of your whole life. Act as if Jesus would come during the act in which you are engaged; and if you would not wish to be caught in that act by the Coming of the Lord, let it not be your act. (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Twelve Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ, pp. 140)" Ref-1385, p. 232. "People of the Tabernacle, you are set to watch tonight just as they did in the brave days of old! Whitefield and Wesley’s men were watchers; and those before them, in the day of Luther and Calvin, and backward even to the days of our Lord. They kept the watches of the night and you must do the same, until “Upstarting at the midnight cry, ‘Behold your heavenly Bridegroom night,’” you go forth to welcome your returning Lord. (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Twelve Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ, pp. 141)" Ref-1385, p. 232. "The Pre-Wrath view CONFUSES, yea, TOTALLY REJECTS the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ (the doctrine that Jesus Christ may come for His Church at any time). Instead of looking for the Saviour from heaven (Phil. 3:20), we should be looking for the signing of the treaty (Daniel 9:27). Instead of looking for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God (Titus 2:13), we should be looking for the coming of Antichrist. Instead of looking for the Bridegroom (John 14:3), we should be looking for the man of sin. Instead of rejoicing in the fact that "we shall not all sleep" (1 Cor. 15:51) we should be bracing ourselves to face the persecutions of Antichrist resulting in physical death for believers. Instead of the Lord being at hand (Phil. 4:5), He is at least four or five years away. Instead of rejoicing in the fact that His coming is drawing nigh (James 5:8), we should be sobered at the thought that the 70th week of Daniel is drawing nigh. Instead of looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 21), we should be looking for the greatest time of tribulation that this world has ever known (Matt. 24:21). Instead of waiting expectantly for His Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10) we should be waiting for the abomination of desolation." -- 20151205203548.pdf, pp. 3-4. "But I hear a protest. How, you say, can we be expecting Jesus to come at "any moment," if the city of Babylon must be rebuilt before He can come? We reply that Jesus' "Second Coming" will be in "Two Stages." At the "First Stage" He will not come all the way to the earth but will stop in the "Air," and all believers who have been "Born Again" will be caught up to Him. 1Th. 4:13-18. They will then be judged for their "Works," that they may receive a proper reward, at the "Judgment Seat of Christ." 2Cor. 5:10; 1Cor. 3:11-15. This will take some time. Then the Church will be married to Christ, after which He will come WITH the saints (the Church) to "Judge the Nations" (Mat. 25:31-46) and set up His Millennial Kingdom. This will be the "Second Stage" of His Coming, and will be visible. Between these "Two Stages" there will be a "Time Space" of at least SEVEN YEARS, the last "Week" of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks." (See chapter 9.) But there is not a word in Scripture that says He cannot come before the beginning of those "Seven Years." He may come five, ten, or even twenty-five years before, which would give ample time for the rebuilding of Babylon before the rise of the last Gentile Ruler, the ANTICHRIST." Ref-1324, Dan. 5:31.