← Back to sermon library

All right, chapter 4, I'll read 
beginning in paragraph 1. In the beginning it pleased God 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the manifestation of the 
glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness to create or make 
the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, 
in the space of six days and all very good. After God had 
made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, 
with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto 
that life to God for which they were created, being made after 
the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, 
having the law of God written in their hearts and power to 
fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left 
to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. 
Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command 
not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst 
they kept, they were happy in their communion with God and 
had dominion over the creatures. Amen. So of creation, certainly 
one of the add extra or external works of God. wherein He made 
the world and all things in it. And we see how the flow of the 
confession goes. You have the establishment of 
the authority in Chapter 1 of the Holy Scriptures. Then we 
have a description of the God of Holy Scriptures. And then 
the decree. Remember the decree in Chapter 
3 is His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His own will, 
whereby He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. And in the language 
of the shorter catechism, how does God execute his decree? 
God executes his decree in the works of creation and providence. 
So that's the flow with reference to the confession of faith. So 
this time of creation, next time, God willing, of divine providence. Another reference to the Shorter 
Catechism, it's a wonderful full and precise statement concerning 
the biblical doctrine of creation. It asks, what is the work of 
creation? The work of creation is God's 
making all things of nothing by the word of his power in the 
space of six days and all very good. So I don't think you'll 
do a better job in defining with a succinct statement like that 
the work of creation. Now, when it comes to the work 
of creation, one of the things that is mentioned there, that 
he makes all things of nothing, or ex nihilo. Now, the doctrine 
of ex nihilo simply teaches that there was no pre-existent matter 
when God came to create the world. but that doesn't negate the reality 
that God then can use immediately other things to create other 
things. In other words, he takes the 
ground, he takes the earth, and with that he shapes Adam into 
a sentient being. So the idea of ex nihilo doesn't 
prohibit the idea of God using things to create other things. 
Ex nihilo simply refers to and excludes the notion of pre-existent 
matter, because there have been certain philosophers and philosophies 
that have taught the eternality of matter. Well, the Bible doesn't 
teach that. In the beginning, God created. 
So, there was a point in time where God called all things into 
being. So as we look at this particular 
chapter, the first paragraph gives an overview of creation, 
the second deals specifically with the creation of man, and 
then the third goes to the probation of man and sets the stage for 
what will follow in terms of the confessions dealings with 
God and man and salvation. So let's look at paragraph 1 
in terms of an overview of creation. Notice in the first place the 
time of creation. It says, in the beginning. Now, 
beginning here does not refer to God. God has no beginning. 
He is from everlasting to everlasting. The beginning here refers to 
the beginning of creation. Genesis 1, 1. I've already referred 
to that. In the beginning, God created 
the heavens and the earth. So when we see that terminology 
employed, It's not the beginning of God who is Creator, but rather 
it is the beginning of us, or creation, that is given by Him. Notice as well the author of 
creation, and this deserves a bit more attention. Notice it says, 
in the beginning it pleased God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Turn to the book of Acts, specifically 
Acts chapter 17, to underscore what the confession is highlighting 
at this point. Notice that the confession rightly 
emphasizes that creation was a result of God's pleasure or 
God's will. It wasn't essential to God that 
he make the created order. Rather, God is, according to 
his own free will or his own pleasure, it pleased him to call 
into being all of creation. Notice in Acts chapter 17, specifically 
beginning in verse 23, the apostle says, Notice, God is not dependent 
upon His creation. God does not need His creation. 
God is not somehow completed by His creation. But it pleased 
God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to call creation into 
being. John Webster says, yet the triune 
God could be without the world. No perfection of God would be 
lost. No triune bliss compromised were the world not to exist. 
No enhancement of God is achieved by the world's existence. So 
this idea that creation somehow completes or complements God 
is simply unbiblical. God does what he does according 
to his own good pleasure. There is no thing lacking in 
him, no thing wanting in him. He doesn't make us because he 
wants to complete his being. God plus the world remains God. 
God minus the world remains God. So there's no addition or supplementation 
to who God is relative to the created order. So it pleased 
God. So that underscores it's the 
will of God and not nature or necessity that drives him to 
create. Then notice as well, after mentioning 
God, it underscores the God of the Bible, the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit. Now the creation ascribes, or 
rather the Bible ascribes creation to the one true and living God. 
We refer to that as inseparable operations. The Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit are responsible as the ever-living and true God 
for the creation of the world. But then the works of God at 
extra or outside himself are sometimes appropriated to one 
of the persons of the Trinity. That is common Trinitarian usage 
in Scripture. So we can say God created the 
heavens and the earth. And as we survey Scripture, you 
see specific persons of the Trinity being appropriated, accredited 
with the creation of the world. turn to Genesis chapter 1. And 
some of this is probably repetitious, because I know that we have covered 
this in the past, but repetition oftentimes brings home truth 
in a helpful way. Notice in Genesis chapter 1, 
beginning in verse 1, In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth. Now God taken there probably 
for Father. The earth was without form and 
void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit 
of God was hovering over the face of the waters. So you've 
got the Father and you've got the Spirit, and then God creates 
by way of divine fiat. He speaks, and everything comes 
into being. By the word of the Lord, the 
heavens were made. So we have the Father, the Spirit, 
and the Word, or the Son. So all three persons of the Trinity 
are in Genesis 1. So we ascribe the work of creation 
to the true and living God. Turn over to Psalm 33. The psalmist 
understands Genesis 1 in this fashion. Psalm 33, specifically 
at verse 6. Psalm 33, verse six, by the word 
of the Lord, the heavens were made and all the host of them 
by the breath of his mouth. Now breath and spirit are the 
same Hebrew word. So you've got the word, you've 
got the father and you've got the spirit in Psalm 33, verse 
six. Then turn over to the book of 
John. We see that their creation is ascribed specifically to the 
son. In John 1 at verse 1, in the 
beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word 
was God. He was in the beginning with 
God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing 
was made that was made. So we see him there as sort of 
an agent of creation. And then you see the same emphasis 
in Colossians chapter 1. Colossians chapter 1. You've heard of CPR, cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation, something that everybody should know in case 
somebody goes into distress next to them. Well, there is a spiritual 
CPR that we find in Colossians 1. Creation, providence, and 
redemption all ascribe to the Son of God. Notice in Colossians 
1.15. He is the image of the invisible 
God, the firstborn over all creation, for by Him all things were created 
that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, 
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. 
All things were created through Him and for Him. There's creation, 
notice verse 17, and he is before all things, and in him all things 
consist. There's providence, and then 
notice redemption in verse 18, and he is the head of the body, 
the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, 
that in all things he may have the preeminence. So the work 
of God, or the works of God, creation, providence, redemption, 
are ascribed to the true and living God. But they are at times 
in Scripture appropriated to persons in the Trinity to show 
us something about the Trinity and then as well to shine the 
light upon those persons of the Trinity. But with reference to 
the Son as the agent of creation, it's not as if He's inferior 
to the Father and He's an agent the way that you and I might 
employ an agent. We're always the superior and 
they're always the subordinate. Webster reminds us, nor is the 
son a mere instrument through whom the father works. Father 
and son act by the same principle, the simple divine essence. So 
that's how the son creates. So you've got the inseparable 
operations, the Godhead is responsible for everything outside of the 
Godhead, but then there is the doctrine of appropriations where 
works are ascribed to the Father, Son, and Spirit to teach us something 
about the Trinity and to shine the light upon those persons. Pastor Barcelos argues that the 
language in the Confession here at Chapter 4, Paragraph 1, when 
it speaks of power, wisdom, and goodness was Puritan shorthand 
for the doctrine of appropriations. When we think of power, we think 
of the Father, we think of wisdom, we think of the Son, we think 
of goodness, we think of the Spirit. not exhaustively, not 
that the others don't possess those perfections, but it's a 
way to speak about the triune God the way that the Bible does. The Bible does show us the one 
true and living God, responsible for everything outside of himself, 
but then appropriates specific works to the persons within the 
Godhead. So you've got the time of creation 
in the beginning, the author of creation, we see both the 
will of God and then the God who wills, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. And then thirdly, we notice in 
that first paragraph, for the manifestation of the glory of 
His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness. So the purpose of creation 
is to manifest the glory of God. It is to shine the light upon 
who He is. Turn to the book of Romans, Romans 
chapter 1, where the apostle illustrates or highlights that 
aspect of the created order. Notice in Romans 1 at verse 18, because what may be known of 
God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. Now there 
is a sense where all of us have the sense of divinity. In other 
words, as image bearers of the living and true God, We know 
that God is. There's no such thing as an atheist. There are professed atheists, 
there are those who claim agnosticism, but everybody in their heart 
of hearts knows that God is, because Paul tells us that in 
Romans 1. So there is that sense of divinity 
that we possess, and not that we think we're divine, I think 
we do, but the thought that there is something out there that is 
bigger and greater and transcendent. But as well, notice that God 
manifests His existence through the created order. Notice in 
verse 20, for since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes 
are clearly seen. What does that mean? It means 
we can understand something about God when we see the display of 
His perfections in the created order. In other words, the heavens 
declare the majesty, righteousness, and glory of God. When we look 
at the created order, it should lead us back to the Creator, 
and that's precisely what Paul is emphasizing. For since the 
creation of the world is invisible, attributes are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made. We look at the 
mountains, we look at the rivers, we look at the valleys, we look 
at the situation. And it should lead us back to 
the one who made all of this. His invisible attributes are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. So creation teaches us certain 
truths about God. And then turn to Romans chapter 
11. So not only does creation manifest the eternal power, wisdom, 
and goodness of God, but certainly providence does, and we'll see 
that when we consider providence, but also redemption, so that 
Paul can say in Romans 11, 16, I'm sorry, 36, for of him and 
through him and to him are all things, to whom be glory forever, 
amen. So again, I think we are faulty, 
we, I don't mean we specifically, though I'm sure that we've fallen 
into that bit at one point or another, but we as creatures 
generally have this idea that God created in order to supplement 
or to complete himself. But then if we get that pill 
swallowed and we realize, no, God with the world remains God. God without the world remains 
God. But then we get this idea that he does everything for us. 
It's all about us. It's all about our happiness, 
our beatitude, our blessing. No, it's all about God. And I 
think when we understand creation, providence, and redemption properly, 
the way the Bible sets forth these works ad extra, then it 
illustrates or underscores to us that the glory of God is uppermost. It is paramount. It is the pinnacle 
of all things. John Calvin commenting on Genesis 
chapter 1. He says, the intention of Moses 
in beginning his book with the creation of the world is to render 
God, as it were, visible to us in his works, and thus to manifest 
his eternal power, his wisdom, and his goodness. Now notice 
then, fourthly in the confession, the scope of creation. So we 
see the time in the beginning, we see the author, it please 
God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then the goal or 
purpose for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, 
wisdom, and goodness. Now notice the scope, to create 
or make the world and all things therein. To create or make the 
world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible. Everything there is, every atom, 
every molecule, every particle has been created by God. Now 
notice that what is absent from this statement is the ex nihilo 
language, that he made it out of nothing. We ought not to interpret 
the divines as having rejected that concept. There was a Baptist 
catechism modeled after the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Baptist 
one was named after Benjamin Keech, the fellow who put it 
together. So basically he took the Westminster Shorter Catechism 
and baptized it. And by that I mean he excluded 
any references to paedo-baptism, he probably made some changes 
in church polity and things wherein Presbyterians and Baptists would 
disagree. But for the sum and substance 
of it, He basically copied it, which was pretty common parlance 
in those days to copy other people's confessions and then make them 
better. But what Keech says in terms 
of the doctrine of creation follows the Westminster Shorter Catechism. 
So the work of creation is God's making all things of nothing 
by the word of his power in the space of six days and all very 
good. So in the catechism that reflects 
not only the shorter catechism, but the confession of faith, 
it wasn't that the divines, in writing the confession, excluded 
this concept of ex nihilo. No, they assumed it, and then 
the proof text given by Keech is Genesis 1.1, Hebrews 11.3, 
Exodus 20.11, and then Genesis 1.31. And then there was a marrow 
of divinity, or a marrow of theology, by a fellow named William Ames. 
Now, William Ames' theology was very important. If you read the 
first London Confession of 1644 and 1666, you will see, what's that? Or 1644 and 46, yeah. If you 
look at those, you'll see the dependence or at least the usage 
of William Ames. Ames is in print. It's a very 
readable, brief, systematic theology. It's just Puritan goodness. But 
Ames makes this observation on creation, ex nihilo. He says, 
creation then produces out of nothing, that is, out of matter 
that has had no pre-existence but which comes into existence 
with the thing created. Nothing exists from eternity 
but God, and God is not the matter or a part of any creature, but 
only the maker. So again, this does not neglect 
or negate the reality that God took the ground or dust of the 
ground and formed Adam. The idea of ex nihilo is that 
God doesn't come to a pre-existent mass of stuff and from that shapes 
it. Now you have that sort of argument 
with reference to Genesis chapter 1. Well, you know, there was 
this creation and then there was this long gap and then God 
comes to make cosmos out of chaos. That's not the way the text is 
supposed to be read. There's no gap theory in Genesis 
chapter 1. There's no sort of day age. Genesis 
chapter 1 teaches what our confession, rather, our confession teaches 
what Genesis chapter 1 says. So, to create or make the world 
and all things therein, whether visible or invisible. And then notice the duration 
of creation. It says, in the space of six 
days. So this is what I'm suggesting. 
No day-age theory, no gap theory, no sort of intrusion upon Genesis 
1 to 3, this idea of, you know, millions and millions of years. 
Now, this isn't something that's simply located outside of the 
Reformed faith. Certainly, Reformed people, outside 
the Reformed faith, I think there's more of a harmony with scientific 
sort of explanations in terms of the world itself, what's called 
theistic evolution and things like that. But the Reformed camp 
has its host of problems as well. There's a lot of issues in the 
reformed world in terms of a rejection of six-day creation. It pains 
me to have to admit this, I hate to have to even say it, but C.H. 
Spurgeon posited millions of years in his view of cosmology. Now, just to give him a little 
bit of defense or a little bit of you know, leeway. Remember 
that when Spurgeon wrote and lived and preached, as Charles 
Hodge, Benjamin Warfield, again giants of Presbyterianism, nevertheless 
they waffled with this in the space of six days-ness relative 
to creation. Now what was happening at the 
time that they lived? Well Charles Darwin was alive 
and Charles Darwin wrote, and that kind of caused a revolution, 
and there was a whole lot of, you know, attacks or assaults 
upon Genesis chapters 1 to 3. So, that has not gone away, brethren. That has not gone away. To find 
people who confess in the space of six days is getting more difficult. It's getting more of a challenge 
to find persons who are what are now called young earth theory 
people. So the common approach out there 
is an old earth view that what we have in terms of the genealogies 
and genesis and what we have in terms of the time frame given 
to us simply cannot jive with what science has taught us about 
the nature of creation. Well, when it comes to the confession, 
and there's even guys, I should tell you, in all fairness and 
honesty, that say that the divines didn't mean in the space of six 
literal days. There's guys that write that 
are Reformed believers, that have a different view of creation, 
and they have challenged the supposition that the divines 
that wrote in the space of six days meant six literal days. I think that's a specious, horrible 
argument. I think that they were operating 
in a context, especially pre-Enlightenment, pre-modern era, where they understood 
that the Bible was, in fact, the Word of God, and they didn't 
have to try and harmonize it with what science says. If that 
sort of an approach is attractive to you, look at the way we live 
today. Science has all but subjugated the written revelation of the 
living and true God. We can't let that happen. We're 
believers in Christ. We're believers in the one in 
whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid. We take 
the word of God as the word of God. Now, with reference to the 
creation account taking place in six literal days, Robert Raymond, 
as a helpful summary in his Systematic Theology. And I'll just run through 
these quickly. It's in the new Systematic Theology 
published by Thomas Nelson. Get the second edition if you're 
inclined. The first he fudged a bit on 
eternal generation of the sun. But he notes, first of all, that 
the word day in the singular, dual and plural, occurs some 
2,225 times in the Old Testament, with the overwhelming preponderance 
of these occurrences designating the ordinary daily cycle. So, 
in other words, when you come to Genesis 1 and you want to 
upbraid this opposition that it teaches in the space of six 
days, You have to attack the language. You have to go after 
the definition of words. You can't just read it and come 
out and say, oh, well, that obviously means long periods of time. So he makes that observation. 
Secondly, the recurring phrase, and the evening, and the morning, 
suggests as much. Right? If you were to read Genesis 
1 without the influence of Darwin or those who are sympathetic 
to Darwin, you wouldn't come out with an age, you know, day-age 
theory or some gap theory. You would read it as history. 
You would read it as divine narrative. Third, the use of yom with ordinal 
numbers, first, second, third, never means anything other than 
a normal, literal day. You read in the Old Testament 
and you see that word for day, it usually means day. Fourth, 
the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night, suggestive 
of normal, literal days. Why would we think anything other? 
Fifth, the reference to creation in the Sabbath command in Exodus 
chapter 20. When Moses says, for in six days 
the Lord your God created the heavens and the earth, do you 
think people that were hearing Moses thought, oh, that means 
in 6,000 years or 6 billion years? No, they understood six days. And then the availability of 
a word for ages in the Hebrew language. So if God, through 
Moses, wanted to communicate that it took ages in order to 
build the earth or create the earth, there was language sufficient 
to express that. But the language of day is employed, 
and we see this recurring cycle in Genesis chapter one. And I 
would suggest that outside of any harmonization with science, 
we would read that and we would come out, young earth, Literalists, 
with reference, to buy the word of his power in the space of 
six days and all very good. We wouldn't question that. We 
wouldn't have an issue with that. We would simply accept it by 
faith because we understand that God made and God reveals to us 
how he made. So for the person that says, 
well, you're just accepting that by faith. Have you considered 
evolution? Talk about an adult fairy tale. 
They don't accept that by faith? Come on. It is as much a faith 
commitment as is us. There's worse. I mean, we have 
the written word of the living and true God calling us to believe 
what he has said concerning creation. And then it ends paragraph one 
with the result. Notice, and all very good. You 
see that recurring theme in the creation week. The one time that 
God saw something that wasn't good, it was when Adam was alone. And it was in that sort of a 
context that God makes the woman and he brings the woman to Adam. 
But creation is good. You probably heard me say that 
before. God's not at war with us because we're creatures. There's 
nothing wrong with eating. There's nothing wrong with sleeping. 
There's nothing wrong with exercising. There's nothing wrong with the 
conjugal relations that marriage provides. There's nothing wrong 
with the physical. God is not at war with us because 
we're creatures. It's because we're sinners. It's 
not creatureliness that is an offense to God. God made us creatures 
and for us to function as creatures brings glory to God. It's that 
we're sinful creatures. It's that we engage in wickedness. 
That's why the incarnation of the Son of God was such an offense 
and such an affront to the Greek mind, or at least to certain 
philosophical groups at that time. They thought that the physical 
was bad. The physical was not good. The 
physical was a necessary evil to contain what was really important, 
namely the soul. Well, I think that's crept into 
the Christian world as well. We have this idea that all that 
matters is the soul. No, we confess with the Apostles' 
Creed that we believe in the resurrection from the dead, right? It's the reality that if I drop 
dead right now, I enter into the intermediate state. My body 
goes into the earth to be eaten by worms, but my spirit departs 
and is present with the Lord. But there's a grand event coming. 
That selfsame body will be raised from the dead and then brought 
into the presence of God Almighty. Brethren, we are not Gnostics. 
We are not against the creaturely. We are not against, you know, 
steaks and shrimp in the New Covenant. We would have been 
in the Old Covenant. We're not against the conjugal 
relationship. We're not against those things 
that Paul describes are good in 1 Timothy chapter 4. It is 
the doctrine of demons to condemn the creaturely order. No, God's 
problem with us is in the manner of sin, not in creation, not 
in the fact that we are, you know, people, flesh and blood 
and bones and skin and that sort of thing. So the result of creation 
is that it was all very good. Now notice in the second paragraph 
we have the creation of man. And again, this is going to set 
the stage for what follows in terms of the redemption of man. So notice, we have the constitution 
of man and then the identity of man. First, the Constitution. After God had made all other 
creatures, He created man, male and female. Genesis chapter 1. 
Again, this is all basic information, but it's information that does 
demand confession by the people of God because it's Christian 
doctrine. And when we sacrifice the doctrine of creation, we 
sacrifice a lot. We're going to end on that note 
in a few minutes. But with reference to the doctrine of creation, 
God made man, male and female. And then notice it underscores 
the identity of man with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering 
them fit unto that life to God for which they were created, 
being made after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, 
and true holiness. Now, there is some debate or 
some discussion in theology about the parts of man. Is man a three-part 
being, or is man a two-part being? Is it trichotomy, or is it dichotomy? I suggest that the Bible teaches 
dichotomy. I know there are challenging 
verses with that particular position, but the arguments for trichotomy 
have never captivated my conscience. Can you go to heaven if you believe 
in trichotomy? Yes. Can you go to heaven if 
you believe in dichotomy? I hope so. So the bottom line 
is, when we look at man, what is he? Is he made up of three 
things or is he made up of two things? I see material and immaterial. I see body and then either spirit 
or soul. However, I think the scripture 
uses those terms synonymously. That's why I hold to dichotomy. Some say No, it's not a synonymous 
use. There's a difference between 
spirit and soul, and that would lead persons to a trichotomy 
view. And again, I know that position's 
out there. My position here, or my intent 
here is not to condemn that. It is simply to underscore what 
I think Scripture teaches and what I think the confession is 
teaching here. So, the dichotomous nature of 
man. So, he's this physical being 
and then God breathes life into him according to Genesis 2.7. 
So, material and immaterial, body and then either soul or 
spirit, whatever you want to call that. And then notice the 
immortality of man is highlighted. Now, when it speaks of man being 
immortal, we need to understand it in a qualified sense. We have 
a beginning. Immortality, with reference to 
the creature, is derivative. We derive it from God. God's 
immortality is underrived. He doesn't derive immortality 
from something outside God. God, by virtue of his godness, 
is an immortal being. Now, when he creates us, he creates 
us with immortality, such that when we breathe our last in this 
body, we go off into heaven or hell. And therein we will live 
forever and ever, world without end. Amen. So we have an immortality 
about us. But again, it needs to be held 
in distinction with the immortality of God. God's is underrived. 
Ours is derivative. And this underscores, once again, 
what not only this chapter does, but the rest of the Bible, or 
the whole Bible does. There is a distinction between the creator 
and the creature. And then notice it asserts the 
image of God. It says, being made after the 
image of God. Well, wherein does consist the 
image of God? Typically, theology describes 
it in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. So the image 
of God consists of knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. 
How do we know that? Well, when we go to the book 
of Colossians, for instance, or we go to the book of Ephesians, 
and we see that we're new men in Christ Jesus, what does Paul 
say? We're restored or renewed. in 
knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. So we understand that 
that is wherein the image of God consists. Some have added 
to this, and I think it's a great add, rationality. Why isn't, 
you know, the Baltimore Oriole an image-bearer? He doesn't have 
the ability to add 2 plus 2. We do. We have that ability to 
think God's thoughts after it. It's not to suggest that the 
Oriole is bad, not to suggest that the Beluga whale is bad. 
It's simply to suggest that they're not created in the image of God. And therefore, you can't murder 
an animal. You can kill an animal, and you 
shouldn't willy-nilly and sadistically kill animals, but if you need 
to kill an animal, in order to eat, or perhaps it's causing 
you threat or damage. That's not murder. This whole 
idea that meat is murder reflects an anti-Christian posture. So 
many of the things that are happening in our culture today, if you 
trace them back, it's anti-Christian. It's anti-Bible. They're at war 
with the living and true God. Again, we saw that in this past 
week. Thankfully, the young man was 
vindicated for exercising self-defense. The Bible gives us the warrant 
for self-defense. That's a basic fundamental principle 
of image bearing. If somebody wants to do you harm, 
you have the right under God to defend yourself. So when you 
look at these various attacks or assaults in society today, 
I suggest you can trace them all back to this. They have a 
grand enemy, and that enemy is Yahweh and is Christ. We are 
witnessing a Psalm 2 mutiny. They're raging against the Lord 
God Most High and against His Christ. When it comes to sexuality, 
what is that? But an attack upon what God has 
determined is legit amongst His creatures. sort of an assault 
that we see today. There is cohesion, there is systemicness, 
there is connection. They're at war with the living 
and true God every step of the way. And so when the Christian 
church sacrifices the doctrine of creation, We're giving away 
ground. We're giving away a means by 
which we fight against, and I don't mean physically, but we fight 
against these fools that are seeking to assault God most high. So the image of God consists 
of knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, and then the 
image of God demonstrates that man is the crown of creation. In other words, the animals are 
good. I'm not anti-animal. That's not 
the argument. But there is a distinction between 
animals and humans. And when you care more about 
baby seals than you do about unborn or preborn babies, again, 
where does that come back to? They're at war with God. They're 
at war with the created order as God intended it to be. So 
when we look at this doctrine of creation, the church having 
given up ground is not the stronger for it. The church needs to hold 
and fight for every inch of Christian doctrine. In the language of 
Westminster Shorter Catechism, how did God create man? God created 
man, male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, 
and holiness, with dominion over the creatures. That's an interesting 
addition that theologians have debated throughout the centuries. 
Is that legit? Is that an aspect of the image 
of God, is that we have dominion over the creatures? I think a 
good case can be made for that, because you've got God who makes 
the man, and then he gives the man the headship over the woman, 
and they both exercise dominion over animals. And then you see 
the inversion of that when the snake comes along and gives instructions 
to the woman who then hands the fruit to the man. You see at 
the very beginning it was an inversion of the created order. 
In the very beginning it was an assault upon what God had 
established in terms of cosmos. And that's what man is desperately 
doing today. He wants to dissolve cosmos and 
he wants to put in its place chaos. He wants to get rid of 
any strictures relative to the sexual experience. He wants to 
get rid of strictures with reference to defense, with reference to 
babies in the womb or old people in the hospital. He wants to 
invert God's created order. I suggest there's far more at 
play today than just leftist whack jobs who don't know how 
to think. I think that they do have more cohesiveness and more 
cohesion about their mission than oftentimes we suspect. Now 
notice the image of God in Genesis 1. Go back there for just a moment. 
Genesis chapter 1. I've shared with you before. I know I mentioned it on Wednesday 
night. Remember the mountain, Mount Sinai? How did Mount Sinai 
function? It functioned as a sanctuary. 
You had the top or the pinnacle, you had the middle portion, and 
then you had the base. That is the language of sanctuary. 
That's the design of the tabernacle in the temple. You have the outer 
court, you have the holy place, and you have the holy of holies. 
Well, you had that in the Garden of Eden. It was a sanctuary. 
There was the outer court. It was everything outside of 
the garden. You had the holy place where 
Adam and Eve lived. And then you had that time when 
God would meet them in the cool of the day. So you had the Holy 
of Holies. It was a sanctuary. Adam's primary 
function was not agrarian. I mean, he was a farmer, he was 
good at agriculture, but his primary function was priestly. 
He was given the task to extend the garden sanctuary, to multiply 
the image of God, and to populate the earth to reflect God's glory. That's what Adam's vocation was, 
and that's the context in which we understand the vocation of 
the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. What Adam fails to do? Jesus comes and dies. He saves 
us and then He calls us as His bride in the Great Commission 
to go there for and to make disciples and to baptize them, to extend 
that sanctuary, to extend that blessed place where God meets 
with His people. So in Genesis chapter 1, specifically 
at verses 26 to 28, then God said, let us make man in our 
image. And I take the plural reference 
there as the Trinity. Let us make man in our image 
according to our likeness. And again, it's not that we're 
spirit beings. God is spirit. He does not have 
a body like men. So it's that knowledge, righteousness, 
holiness, dominion over the creatures, rationality. It's those things 
where we locate the image of God. So 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, and over the cattle, 
over all the earth, and 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. 
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and 
multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. 
Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the 
air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. So multiply 
the image of God through procreation. Fill the earth with what? More 
image bearers fill the earth with the image of God and extend 
the garden temple. That was Adam's commission. And 
then to extend God's rule over creation through his image bearer. So that's what God does in the 
creation of man. And again, it underscores for 
us the distinction in the created order. There's a difference between 
us and dogs. Dogs are wonderful. They're great. They're a wonderful aspect of 
the creaturely order, but they're not man. They're not humans. 
They're not us. We are made in the image of God, 
and so there is a distinction, and we need to appreciate that 
distinction. Again, relative to abortion, euthanasia, the 
various assaults upon the image of God that we find rampant in 
society today. And then back to the confession 
after underscoring the identity of man as image bearer of God, 
it underscores or highlights the integrity of man. It says 
at the end of paragraph two, having the law of God written 
in their hearts and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility 
of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, 
which was subject to change. Go to chapter 19 for just a moment. This is a great contribution 
of Reformed theology that I think rightly has understood the history 
of interpretation relative to the Word of God. Notice in chapter 
19 at paragraph 1, God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience 
written in his heart. You need to get that. We in God's 
image bear that law of God upon our hearts. Now the codification 
of the summary comes at Sinai in Exodus chapter 20, but that's 
not where the law began. The law begins in the garden. 
The law begins when God makes man after his own image. So notice, 
God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, 
and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree 
of knowledge of good and evil, by which he bound him in all 
his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, 
promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the 
breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep 
it. So back to paragraph two in chapter four. having the law 
of God written in their hearts and power to fulfill it, and 
yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of 
their own will, which was subject to change. One man, John Lightfoot, 
said, Adam heard as much in the garden as Israel did at Sinai, 
but only in fewer words and without thunder. I think that's excellent. That's what they're saying in 
chapter 19, paragraph 1. And that's what they're saying 
here in chapter 4, paragraph 2. Having the law of God written 
in their hearts. That's why I've said, there's 
no such thing as a true atheist. They have the law of God. written 
in their hearts. How do you explain religiosity 
outside of Israel? How do you explain religiosity 
today in places that have been untouched by the gospel? How 
do you explain persons sacrificing, persons having some concept of 
deity? Did they just stumble into that? 
Is it what Mark said, the opium of the masses, they just develop 
this to sort of satiate their wretched consciences? No, this 
is universal. We come from the hand of God 
already hardwired we already come with certain software loaded 
upon us. It's not the case that you open 
up this computer and then you have to load the operating system. 
As image bearers of God, there is an operating system. That 
law of God is there, now it's twisted and distorted because 
of our sin and because of the post-false situation we find 
ourselves in, but in man's heart of hearts, he knows there's certain 
things wrong, even if he's never heard sermons on those particular 
subjects. So back to paragraph 2, having 
the law of God written in their hearts, power to fulfill it. 
So Adam had the capability, he had the ability, he had the potentiality 
to do what God commanded him. But then notice, God did not 
make man immutable. Notice, yet under a possibility 
of transgressing. being left to the liberty of 
their own will, which was subject to change. So Adam was made upright. Adam was made in the image of 
God. Adam possessed all of that, all of those things that are 
good to commune with God, but there was within Adam the potential 
for sin. Now, when we ask the question, 
why did God make him that way? The rest of the Bible answers 
the question. If Adam hadn't sinned, there'd 
be no need for the second Adam. See, God had a plan and purpose. 
That's what the decree tells us. Everything that he has done, 
he's foreordained for his own glory. He is decreed whatsoever 
comes to pass. Why? Adam sins such that there 
will be the last Adam who comes to rescue us from our sin. See, 
prior to the creation of the world, the angels, for instance, 
they are amazed at who God is. But the angels never experienced, 
and they still don't experientially, but they do so cognitively, the 
mercy of God, the grace of God, the blood atonement wrought by 
God. The angels, that's why there's 
places in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians chapter 11, for 
instance, where it says the angels are watching worship. And in 
Ephesians chapter three, it says that the church is sort of a 
trophy case so that the angels themselves can see and witness 
the glory of God. There was a plan and purpose 
even for the fall of Adam, and it was to set the stage for the 
coming of the last Adam to save his people from their sins. So 
Adam the first was made after the image of God, but he was 
not immutable in the sense that he couldn't change or that he 
couldn't choose evil. And so that's what the Confession 
says there. Again, it's going to come up 
in chapter 6 in more detail of the fall of man, of sin, and 
of the punishment thereof. And then finally, notice the 
probation of man. The probation of man in paragraph 
3. Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a 
command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 
which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion 
with God and had dominion over the creatures. So the divines 
make a distinction between moral law, which is the 10 commandments 
summarized at Sinai, but the moral law is what is referred 
to at the end of paragraph two, having the law of God written 
in their hearts and power to fulfill it. And then there's 
something called positive law. Positive law is something that 
you do because God commands it. Notice in paragraph 3, besides 
the law, moral law, written in their hearts, they received a 
command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
There's not some universal law out there that says you can't 
eat of this particular tree. No, in this instance, for probationary 
purposes, God makes this prohibition. This is called positive law. 
When you look at, for instance, the Sabbath commandment, the 
fourth commandment in the Ten Commandments, it's both moral 
and positive. Moral, the principle is, one 
day out of seven, you worship the true and living God. The 
positive aspect is conditioned by the covenant that you happen 
to be in. If you're in the old covenant, 
it's Saturday. If you're in the new covenant, 
it's Sunday. So you've got the moral aspect of the fourth commandment, 
which means that you come in from out of the world and you 
rest and you have your joy and sanctification and blessing in 
God and in his people. And then the positive aspect 
is that in the Old Covenant, it was Saturday worship. In the 
New Covenant, it's Sunday. So that's the idea behind positive 
law, paragraph three. So besides the law written in 
their hearts, the moral law, they received a command not to 
eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. which whilst 
they kept they were happy in their communion with God and 
had dominion over the creatures. So that's setting the stage for 
the probation of man that will come. So chapter 6 will further 
describe the context of man in sin. Chapter 7 will further explain 
it specifically in a covenantal framework, and then chapter 19 
underscores while man cannot live in a covenant of works because 
we're sinners and in Adam we're dead and so we need the covenant 
of grace in order for salvation. Now just a few thoughts and then 
we'll close. First, we need to appreciate the creator-creature 
distinction. It's not the case that God's 
just a bit better version. John Webster says the difference 
between creator and creature is infinite, not just very great. Creator does not merely refer 
to the supreme causal power by which the world is explained, 
for God would then be simply a principle superior to the world. 
or the biggest thing around. God the creator is not simply 
the most excellent of beings because the distinction between 
uncreated and created being is not a distinction within created 
being, but one between different orders of being. God is not one 
item in a totality, even the most eminently powerful item 
in the set of all things. In other words, there's creature 
and there's creator. It's not that God is at the top 
of the creaturely realm and therein He's better than us. There has 
to be an appreciation for what the Bible underscores throughout 
between the Creator, a distinction between the Creator and the creature. 
As well, the doctrine of creation and ethics. I've just mentioned 
a few things, but if you think about it, maybe tomorrow when 
you happen to be watching the news, think of it from a biblical 
framework. Think of it from a God who made 
the world and defined how life is to be lived in the world, 
and then perhaps think about the moral law of God, the Ten 
Commandments, and see how at every step of the way, every 
single one of them is turned on its head under the engineers 
of this modern experiment. We have the integrity of man 
as an image-bearer of God. And as an image-bearer of God, 
he shouldn't be murdered. He shouldn't be discounted. He 
shouldn't be thrown away. He shouldn't be discarded like 
a piece of trash. And again, I don't think animals 
should be either. I think we should treat animals 
properly. Solomon says in the Proverbs that a righteous man 
has regard for his beast. He doesn't kill them just for 
fun and sadistically abuse them. That's not legit. With reference 
to the wingnuts and the environmentalist realm, we can't go the other 
way and not be good stewards of the created order. We need 
to be good stewards of the created order. The earth is the Lord's 
and the fullness thereof. So everything that he has given 
us, we are to operate with a responsible attitude in terms of the way 
we subdue the earth. And then he has given that authority, 
however, to man over over the greater creation. So it's not 
the case that we should devastate people's livelihood because of 
kangaroo rats, brethren, or we should not have water in California 
because it might jeopardize the life of a little fish. No, you 
sacrifice the fish for the men, the women, the boys and the girls. 
California's drought problem isn't because of a lack of water, 
it's because of a lack of wisdom. And it's because of a commitment 
to the creature rather than the creator who has said that man 
should exercise dominion and do what needs to be done in order 
to sustain life. So when we do that kind of thing, 
when we exalt the fish or we exalt the kangaroo, rat, and 
we watch farmers lose their livelihood, I think we need to go back to 
the beginning and figure out God's plan for us on how to deal 
in society. In terms of the ethical implications 
of man as image bearer, When you get to the New Testament, 
whenever the apostles, and I would add to that Jesus, argue for 
ethics, where do they typically argue from? Genesis 1 to 3. Where does the apostle ground 
male headship in the church in 1 Corinthians 11? He does it 
from Genesis 1 to 3. Where does the Apostle deal with 
or ground male headship in the context of the family in Ephesians 
5? He does it with Genesis 1 to 
3. So you see, when you get rid 
of Genesis 1 to 3, you put yourself at odds with Jesus and the Apostles. 
And then with reference to the six day creation, with reference 
to the way that Genesis describes creation, I think it was Douglas 
Kelly who says that there are 54 times, I think that's the 
number, 54 times where Jesus and the apostles refer to Genesis 
1 to 3 as history. There's no story, fable, myth 
or anything like that. It is recorded history. When Jesus is confronted about 
marriage and divorce, where does he go? He goes to Genesis chapter 
1 to 3. In the beginning it was not so. 
God intended male and female to be together forever. Now, 
because of the hardness of hearts, and because of the sinfulness 
of man, and because men would abuse women, Moses permitted 
certificates of divorce, but there was a procedure with reference 
to that as well. So the creation account affords for us the fodder 
for Christian ethics. So, sanctity of human life, doctrine 
of marriage and divorce, homosexuality. Again, people don't like it. 
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. You know, they chuckle 
and ridicule and all that sort of thing. But what does God do 
at creation? He sets the stage for everything 
to follow. Why wouldn't he make one man 
with two women if that was the way it was supposed to be, or 
one man with one man, or one woman with one woman, or with 
men and women that wanted to be something other? He does what 
he does in a paradigmatic way. It is a pattern for us to function 
under, the doctrine of gender distinction. Now brethren, this 
is not just an out there problem. We got big problems with feminism 
in the church today. We've got big problems in a church 
like ours that's committed to the Bible and to the Reformed 
confession. I always feel constrained to 
qualify everything when I'm in Ephesians 5. I shouldn't have 
to do that. The husband is the head of the 
wife. If any of us have problems with 
that, it's ultimately with God. It is just that simple. 1 Timothy 
2, how does Paul ground the idea that women are not supposed to 
teach or exercise authority over men? He doesn't do so from culture. He doesn't say, well, Ephesus 
is messed up, and you've got some pushy women here, and because 
of the problems at Ephesus. No, he goes back to creation 
and to the fall. to argue and ground the statement 
that I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority 
over a man. That Christians today struggle 
here show us how unfamiliar we are with Genesis 1-3 and how 
unfamiliar we are with the importance of Genesis 1-3 for subsequent 
revelation. G.K. Beal makes the observation 
that the rest of the Bible is about Genesis 1-3. The rest of 
the Bible is about Genesis 1-3. So what happens to the church 
that gives away Genesis 1-3? What happens to the church that 
says, well, it doesn't really matter, it just matters that 
it's here? We don't really concern ourselves with why it's here 
or how it's here, but it's here. And when it comes to, you know, 
husband-wives relationships, You know, that just doesn't fly 
in modern society. We're giving away the very weaponry that we 
are to use to combat all of these encroachments upon scripture. And then the doctrine of race 
relations, Acts 17. We shouldn't be racists. We shouldn't 
have issues. God made from one all the various 
peoples on the face of the earth. We should just function with 
that appreciation that man as man bears, including women, there's 
that qualification, but there is the case that man as man bears 
the image of God, and therefore they deserve respect, they deserve 
proper treatment, they deserve all that God calls us to exercise 
one with another. And then the doctrine of creation 
and scripture. I don't know how you can subscribe 
to inerrancy and infallibility and give away Genesis 1 to 3. I've just, I was a simple conversion. I went from darkness to light 
to Reformed Baptist. And I never got into the day 
age. never got into the gap, never got into all of the harmonizations 
with, you know, for me it always made sense. God says he made 
it all in six days by the word of his power and all very good. 
Sure, okay. So I've never understood that 
foray into attempts to harmonize the Bible with Darwin. I just 
don't get it. But if I did, I would still be 
questioning the doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy. If we question 
or we can mythologize Genesis 1 to 3, then why can't we mythologize 
blood atonement by our Lord Jesus in the gospel records? In other 
words, if it's not the case that the entire Bible is true, then 
how do we know what part is true? Because of what Darwin says is 
okay? Because of what Hodge and Warfield 
and Spurgeon in their lesser stellar moments said? No, for 
my money, you can't do better than what the Bible describes 
in Genesis 1-3 as to how the world got here, and the purpose 
for it, and the result of it, and the necessity for us to live 
in light of it. And praise God for the last Adam, 
who saved us, who gives us the Spirit, and calls us to function 
in a manner that is consistent with God's original design. So 
when it comes to new creation, the new heavens and the new earth, 
do you think it's going to be absolutely, utterly, positively 
new? No, it's a restoration. You have 
paradise lost and then paradise restored. Lost because of the 
first Adam, restored by virtue of the last Adam. So scripture 
has rhyme, reason, and cohesion. Well, let us close in a word 
of prayer. Father in heaven, we thank you for this confessional 
statement concerning creation, and I pray that we would see 
how important this is to maintain, to hold to, not only with reference 
to our own love for you and our worship and adoration of you, 
but apologetically, because we face a world that hates these 
things. We face increasingly a church 
that has disregarded these things. So give us grace to be committed 
to the law and to the testimony. And we ask this through Jesus 
Christ,