Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section Three – The Decrees of God

Table of Contents

Part I – Prolegomena

Part II – What Man Ought to Believe Concerning God

  • Section Two: Theology Proper
  • Section Three: God’s Decrees
  • Section Four: Our First Parents, Sin, and the Fall
  • Section Five: Christ the Mediator
  • Section Six: The Work of the Spirit
  • Section Seven: The Death of the Righteous and the Wicked

Part III – What Duty God Requires of Man

  • Section Eight: Introduction to the Moral Law
  • Section Nine: The First Table of the Moral Law (Part One)
  • Section Ten: The First Table of the Moral Law (Part Two)
  • Section Eleven: The Second Table of the Moral Law (Part One)
  • Section Twelve: The Second Table of the Moral Law (Part Two)
  • Section Thirteen: The Proper Response to Law and Gospel

Part VI – The Communication of God’s Grace

  • Section Fourteen: The Ordinary Means of Grace
  • Section Fifteen: Prayer and the Lord’s Prayer

______________

In writing this humble series, I don’t hope to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the great theologians who have already written on these subjects. What I do hope to accomplish is to make The Baptist Catechism a bit more accessible and clear for my generation. Having completed the third series of articles on the Catechism, you may now read it in its entirety below.

 

Q.10: What are the decrees of God?

A. The decrees of God are His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.1

1Ephesians 1:4, 11; Romans 9:22-23; Isaiah 46:10; Lamentations 3:37

Moving along in our discussion of what man ought to believe concerning God, let us pivot a bit from what God is to what God does. Now, these two aspects of God should not be divorced from one another. Obviously, what God is will determine what God does. When we say that God is good, after all, we are claiming that God is the ultimate standard of all that is good. In order to properly define what good is requires that we do so in reference to what God is. It also requires that we do so in reference to what God does.

The first step in examining what God does is to look to His eternal decrees. In the decrees of God, we find the Source and Purpose for all that occurs, whether in the secret counsels of God or in the created order, from eternity to eternity. God Himself is the Source of everything that occurs. He is also the Purpose. The Westminster Assembly put it this way:

“The decrees of God are his eternal purpose according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass,” (The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.7).

William Collins, when penning The Baptist Catechism, changed nothing of substance in this answer. Why? This answer serves as one of the shortest, most succinct summaries of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty ever committed to the page. In it, we find that all that comes to pass is a result of God’s eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, and foreordained for the purpose of His own glory.

All that occurs, has occurred, or will occur is determined by the eternal will of God, comes from God, is guided and held together by God, and will ultimately culminate in His receiving all glory, honor, and power. In other words, the Source and Purpose of all things is God, God, God! “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36; NASB).

If you really stop to think about it, Romans 11:36, from a worldly perspective, is a somewhat counter-intuitive way to end the discussion Paul began way back in Romans 9. In Romans 9-11, Paul explains how the monergistic gospel he has been describing since chapter 1 is actually good news, since many of his kinsmen are not believing. He begins Romans 9 with these words:

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.,” (Rom. 9:1-5; NASB).

Many in Israel would not repent. As a result, they were broken off, as branches are broken off from a tree. Paul refers to this breaking off as a partial hardening. “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” (Rom. 11:25; NASB). How were many of Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh coming to be hardened? They were hardened according to the sovereign will of God, according to Romans 9. God demonstrates His mercy upon whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills (9:14-18).

Paul knew this was a hard pill for his readers to swallow. It was a hard pill for him to swallow. However, it was the truth, and Christians are those who ultimately must come to the place where they affirm with Paul: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36; NASB).

Notice how, in the answer given in the catechism, God’s purpose is eternal. As we have already mentioned, God is immutable; He does not change. God has never changed His mind on a matter. What He decreed in eternity past remains unchanged to this day. Thus, the apostle Paul writes: “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him,” (Eph. 1:4a; NASB). If God can change His mind, what would it matter who He chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world? He could just as easily choose differently tomorrow, if indeed He is unstable in His decrees.

However, we know that He is not unstable. Whatsoever He has decreed will surely come to pass. It is on this truth that our hope in an eternal inheritance rests, for Paul also writes: “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,” (Ephesians 1:11; NASB). But, if God’s will is mutable, might our inheritance be given to another? Why should we hold to it with any surety? On the contrary, Louis Berkhof writes of God:

“He is not deficient in knowledge, veracity, or power. Therefore, He need not change His decree because of a mistake of ignorance, nor because of inability to carry it out. And He will not change it, because He is the immutable God and because He sis faithful and true,” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids. 1941, pg. 105).

God’s sovereignty and immutability in His decrees, then, are a great comfort to us. They ensure for us all of the great promises of God. Our comfort is not the ultimate purpose of the doctrine, though. How foolish, arbitrary, overly-romantic, and trite it would be if God had determined to mold His determinative faculties around something as ultimately insignificant as human feelings. No. God’s created order does not revolve around us: our wills, our feelings, our significance, our dignity, and our glory. Rather, it is all for His glory!

It is ultimately God’s glory that hinges on His purposes being established, not ours. It is ultimately His divine, eternal reputation that is at stake. Thus, He is the One whose “good pleasure” is paramount:

“Declaring the end from the beginning,

And from ancient times things which have not been done,

Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,

And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’,” (Isaiah 46:10; NASB).

We object that God’s good pleasure must make sense to us. We must be able to wrap our finite, fickle minds around His sovereign, eternal decrees, or He is a monster! “19You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom. 9:19-20; NASB). Just as the clay does not have a right to demand to know the secret counsels of the potter, neither do we have the right to demand from God His secret decrees.

We do not get to determine the definition of good, and then demand that God fit into that mold. Rather, we determine what is good by a proper examination of God. Hence the age old problem of questioning authority. In the military, it is a soldier’s duty to disobey unlawful orders, because the law is above command in rank. In theology, we never have right disobey an order of God, because He is the law.

We have no right to question the goodness or the justice of God, because He is the standard of goodness and justice. To lay a charge against Him is to speak out of sheer ignorance. Though one may observe several instances where Lord Tennyson’s often quoted The Charge of the Light Brigade is flawed in relation to subordination in the military, it holds true nonetheless in Christian theology.

“Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.”

 

Q.11: How doth God execute His decrees?

A. God executeth His decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Under the headings of creation and providence, God accomplishes all of His good purposes. Thereby, He creates, sustains, and directs all things toward His own desired, good, and glorious ends. Nothing that comes into existence does so without God’s decree. Likewise, nothing that comes to pass does so without God’s decree. God is the prime Actor in all of creation and is necessary for its continued existence.

 

Q.12: What is the work of Creation?

A. 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.1

1Genesis 1; Hebrews 11:3

 

Ex Nihilo

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” (Gen. 1:1; NASB; cf. the rest of Gen. 1).

The Latin term ex nihilo can be somewhat misleading. The term means out of nothing, and it is used to assert just that: that God made the whole of creation out of nothing. Some may take this assertion a bit further and claim that, before God created all things, nothing existed. Of course, this could only be understood in terms of created things. Thus, it is important for us to clarify that no created thing existed, no temporal thing existed, no material thing existed. Put more plainly, before God created the cosmos (the created order), only God existed. According to A.A. Hodge:

“In the beginning of time God first, by a word of command, brought into being all the material elements of which the universe exists,” (A.A. Hodge, The System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR. 2004, pg. 21).

This is a proper understanding of the testimony of the earliest portions of Scripture. There is no before God; God has always existed. There is only before the created order. Before all things were created, there was the one, triune, divine Being who is, and who was, and who ever will be. Hence, when we say that God created all things ex nihilo, we do not mean that nothing proceeded all things.

Taken in the negative, another idea represented in the notion of ex nihilo creation is the fact that God did not use pre-existing materials to make the world. Rather, all that is material was brought into existence from a purely immaterial non-existence. That which was not, by the power of God’s Word, became so. In the material sense, nothing preceded everything. These are important concepts for us to grasp, because there are many false notions of the relationship between God and all things.

The ancient Greeks taught, as Hindus still teach, that matter has always existed. In fact, ancient Greeks like Plato taught that even moral concepts such as good and evil transcended the gods. For Plato, both moral concepts and the material world is as eternal as the gods. Also, given the choice between the gods arbitrarily creating their own morality or a co-eternal morality external to the gods being imposed even on the gods themselves, Plato chooses the latter. As Christians, we affirm that God created all material things. We also affirm that God neither created nor is subject to a moral code outside of Himself. Rather, morality is a reflection of God’s eternal and immutable goodness and perfection.

By His Word

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light,” (Gen. 1:1-3; NASB).

It has well been noted that the first three verses of the Bible follow a Trinitarian pattern. The first verse is obviously a reference to our Father in heaven. The second verse makes explicit mention of the Spirit of God. Where, though is there any mention of the second Person of the Trinity: the Son? In order to answer this question, let us consider the one verse in the Bible that most parallels Genesis 1:1-3.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” (John 1:1-3; NASB).

We must note first that the apostle John begins his Gospel with precisely the same wording as the Septuagint (LXX; an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament used in the first century): “Ἐν ἀρχῇ.” John, in writing in this way, was clearly drawing a parallel between his gospel of the new creation and the account of creation in Genesis 1.

First, John tells his readers, “In the beginning was the Word,” (John 1:1a; NASB), clearly signifying the God who speaks. Second, he goes on to say that this Word was God putting Him on par with the Father in glory, authority, and essence. Third, he tells us that He was in the beginning with the Father, drawing our attention to the eternal, intra-Trinitarian oneness and fellowship existing within the Godhead. Fourth, and most important for our discussion today, he writes that all things came into existence through the Word, and nothing came into being apart from Him.

All of this discussion of the Word of God begs the question, who is this Word of God? John answers this question in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14; NKJV). He further clarifies in verse 18 who this only begotten of the Father is: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him,” (NKJV; emphasis added; other manuscripts read: “the only begotten God”). The Word of God of which John writes is the only begotten of the Father, the very Son of God Himself, the only begotten God.

Thus, when God spoke, through the divine agency of the Son of God, all things sprang into existence. In fact, nothing that was created was created apart from the Word of God. This is an important assertion to highlight when speaking with Unitarians like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who assert that Christ was created. When confronted with the suggestion that Christ was created, we must ask how John could assert that nothing that was created was created apart from His agency. He could not have been created through Himself, could He? John obviously belabors this point so that there would be no question of Christ’s eternality. The Word is distinct from all creation, just as the Father and the Spirit are distinct from all created things.

Where then do we see the second Person of the Trinity in Genesis 1:1-3? In verse three: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (NASB; emphasis added). When God spoke the world into creation, He spoke through the agency of His Word, His eternally begotten Son.

Six Days

“So the evening and the morning were the first day. . . And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. . . So the evening and the morning were the third day. . . So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. . . So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. . . Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day,” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 25, 31; NKJV).

In the span of six days, God created all things that exist. This is a hotly debated issue in Christianity today, but the testimony of Scripture is plain. All things that were created were created in the span of six ordinary days comprised of both one evening and one morning. Whether these evenings and mornings put together comprised a 24, 23, or 25 hour day, the Bible does not say, but there is no reason to assume that each evening and morning spanned hundreds, thousands, and perhaps even millions of years.

Sam Waldron explains: “To state matters succinctly, the only sound interpretation of the Bible is the one which understands it to teach that God did, indeed, make the world in a literal work week,” (Waldron, An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Evangelical Press, Darlington, Eng. 2005, pg. 76). What Waldron means by literal is that the meaning of the text is to be accepted in its plainest sense. When Scripture says “evening and morning,” it clearly means to designate an ordinary day of the week.

Some have suggested that the days of creation are unimportant and that our focus really should be on God’s creative power and the beauty and perfection of His creation. Certainly they are right in the latter assertion. We truly ought to place a primary focus on the beauty and perfection of God’s creation. Furthermore, the focus of modernity on the materialistic, naturalistic science of creation is a faulty starting point, to be sure. However, this does not mean there is no significance behind God’s choosing to create the world in six ordinary days.

Certainly, were it God’s pleasure to do so, He could have created all things in the span of six minutes or six millennia. Instead, He ordained that the world should be created in six days. In doing so, He set the example for mankind of a six day work-week to be followed by a full day of covenant rest in Him.

“He ‘rested the seventh day;’ as if the Lord should say, Will you not follow me as a patter? Having finished all my works of creation, I rested the seventh day; so having done all your secular work on the six days, you should now cease from the labour of your calling, and dedicate the seventh day to me, as a day of holy rest,” (Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments. Scriptura Press, New York City. 2015, 2.4 [3]).

In short, God did not create the world in order to satisfy all of our naturalistic, materialistic inquiries. He did not create the world in the span of six days in order to help us “butter up” to the modern scientific community or to satisfy all of our vexations brought on by the Star Light theory and other such quandaries. He did, however, create all things in the span of six days. He did so as a model for us so that we might follow it.

Very Good

“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day,” (Gen. 1:31; NKJV).

When God created all things, He created them good: the lights of the day and of the night, the land, the seas, the animals, the plants, the planets, the moon, the angels, and all other things whatsoever He created. There is nothing that God created that He did not in turn look upon and say, “This is good.” However, it was only after God completed one particular creation that He finally looked upon all that He had made and said, “Very good!” This particular creation was mankind.

Mankind is alone in all of creation in that we were made in the image of God. Insofar as we are created in His image, we are the pinnacle of all of His creation. As we will see in the answer to question 13, God’s image is not the only mark of favor He bestowed upon us.

_____________________________

Alfred Hitchcock is accredited with having said, “Self-plagiarism is style.” While my views have changed since writing the paper “Trinitarian Foundations for Christian Education,” I have largely used its material in this next section of our Studies in The Baptist Catechism series. As you can observe, the sections taken from the paper have been altered to reflect a change in views. I no longer take the ESS view of the Trinity in marking the unity and diversity of man, but rather point to the economic Trinity.

_____________________________

 

Q.13: How did God create man?

A. God created man, male and female, after His own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.1

1Genesis 1:26-28; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24

 

Having examined what the Bible teaches us about creation generally, let us now turn our gaze to the pinnacle of God’s creation: mankind. Mankind is unique in that we were created in God’s image. Now, before we say anything else about what it means that we’re created in God’s image, let us first note the universality of it. The Bible does not teach that some men are created in God’s image. It does not say that some men are more created in God’s image than others. Rather, we read: “So God created man in His own image,” (Genesis 1:27a).

The Dignity of God’s Image

One might argue that the fall of man into sin changed things. Certainly the image of God in us has been marred. However, there still remains a divine image on all men, which brings with it a great dignity. Notice in Genesis 9 that, after the fall, after the murder of Abel, and even after the flood, men are still to be treated with dignity by virtue of the fact that they have been made in the image of God.

6Whoever sheds man’s blood,

By man his blood shall be shed;

For in the image of God

He made man.

7And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;

Bring forth abundantly in the earth

And multiply in it,” (vv. 6-7; NKJV).

Capital Punishment

The Bible then teaches that all men without exception, as a consequence of having been created in the image of God, have a certain dignity bestowed upon them. This dignity persists beyond the fall of man into sin. As a result, Christianity does not make light of crimes like murder. In fact, God Himself has commanded that all men who destroy a life created in God’s image are to be put to death for the crime they have committed against God Himself.

It could be said that, in the museum of God’s grand creation, He has one gallery in particular upon which He has bestowed favor. This gallery is full of self-portraits. They are not the Artist Himself, but they bear His image and are to be honored with much the same care with which we would honor His very Person. When harm is done to one of His images, it is as though an attack has been made on His very Person.

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor,” (Romans 13:1-7; NASB).

Therefore, there is no debate in Scripture over the issue of capital punishment. When a man kills one or more human beings, given the proper amount of proof and the absence of any doubt, God’s image has been destroyed. A life has been taken; the life-taker’s life shall likewise be taken. A nation that treats this duty with contempt treats God’s very image, and thus God Himself, with contempt.

Abortion

Recently, a presidential candidate came under fire for saying that women who get abortions should be subject to penalties under law, to include imprisonment. Sadly, it was not the Pro-Choice movement that came out against the politician under question; it was the Pro-Life movement that came out and loudly denounced the statement as not representative of the Pro-Life movement. As a result, the politician retracted his statement.

Let us follow this logic, though. If abortion is murder (the destruction of the very image of God), it should be treated as murder by the governing authorities. Now, consider any other situation where a woman might pay someone to murder another human being. Let us take it even further, as the Pro-Choice movement often does, and say that the woman was raped or that she was the victim of incest. Should she have the right, under law, to pay a hitman to surgically dismember the perpetrator?

Now, perhaps we could make the case that such people should receive capital punishment from the government. That is different, though, then a woman hiring someone to murder the individual. Hiring a hitman to kill another human being, for any reason, is the same as committing the murder yourself. Why then is it any different for a woman to hire a hitman to murder the human being in her womb?

13For You formed my inward parts;

You wove me in my mother’s womb.

14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Wonderful are Your works,

And my soul knows it very well.

15My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

And in Your book were all written

The days that were ordained for me,

When as yet there was not one of them,” (Ps. 139:13-16; NASB).

Dealing with Differences

Murder is not the only crime against God’s image, though. Racism has historically taught, from a Darwinian foundation, that man has evolved from lower lifeforms and some “races” are less evolved than others. Akin to racism is also the sin of ethnic favoritism. James condemns favoritism in James 2:

1My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,’ 4have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?” (Jas. 2:1-7; NASB).

What is true of partiality in general is true also of ethnic partiality. We are not to hold our faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of ethnic partiality. Ethnic partiality can be practiced by people of any color and can be used to treat people of other races as either inferior or less deserving of one’s respect. We must recognize that all human beings deserve a certain amount of respect merely out of virtue of the fact that they are created in God’s image. We would not look at a self-portrait of God and curse it. Why then do we so easily curse men, who are the very image of God? To do so is sinful. “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors,” (Jas. 2:9; NASB).

The disabled, the poor, the foreigner, the sick, the aged—all men are created in the image of God. Thus, we are called to treat all men with dignity and respect. If we are not used to a certain condition of man, it is understandable to have an involuntary reaction when we first meet one. The question is whether or not we take the necessary strides to accommodate for one another’s differences.

A man who has been poor his whole life is not naturally going to be comfortable in the presence of wealthy people, nor is a man who has never been to a homeless shelter going to immediately feel at home serving in a soup kitchen. A black man who grew up in a neighborhood has only known white people who are in positions of authority, like cops, teachers, etc., might have a great deal of discomfort to overcome when attending a predominantly white church. The same is true for white people who have never spent much time around non-whites suddenly attending a Korean church, a predominantly Hispanic church, or a black church.

There is discomfort to overcome when one begins to work with people with disabilities, or in a nursing home, or in hospice care. There is great difference among God’s people, but we are all created in the image of God. Though we may not do it perfectly or instinctively, we must each strive to accommodate for our differences.

 

Unity and Diversity

God did not merely create mankind with a common dignity; He also created us with personal uniqueness and value. Nowhere is this difference so immediately apparent than in our examination of unity and diversity. Men and women are both created in God’s image with the same nature and value, but men and women are also created unique in our roles and relationships. In the same way, the church was created to be one body, but each member of the body was created unique in our roles and relationships. The Bible teaches us that this uniqueness and diversity comes to all mankind as a result of having been made in the image of the economic Trinity.

Marriage

In 1Corinthians 11, Paul is writing to the church at Corinth and admonishing them to restore proper order in the church. In specifically addressing the issue of submission and headship among men and their wives, Paul draws on some rather gripping imagery. Paul writes, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (vs. 3). Paul’s word choice draws to mind a parallel between the complementary roles within the economic Trinity and the complementary roles God has instituted to exist within marriage.

This equality of nature and subordination of roles is what lies at the foundation of the biblical, complementarian view of marriage. The head of Jesus is God. Paul is not suggesting that the Messiah is of a lesser essence or value than God; He is of the same essence and nature in totality. Rather, it was determined in eternity past that Christ would willingly submit Himself to the Father in His incarnation and become fully obedient to Him, even to the point of death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). In like manner, women are called to submit to their husbands, not as a sign of inequality in essence or nature, but out of progressive conformity to the image of Christ (1Pet. 2:21-3:2).

Men and women do not arrive at the institution of marriage as two natural, complete wholes, both insisting that the integrity of their individual natures be given superiority over the union. Rather, they are united in essence and in goal. Similarly, men and women are not to see one another, as the egalitarians suggest, as having uniformity in function. They both offer unique and glorious contributions to the relationship. In their unique roles, they image forth the glory of the subordinate nature of the Godhead. As Gordon Clark writes:

“The hierarchy here is God, Christ, man, and woman. God and the Messiah are equally divine, but there is a subordination of function; so too, man and woman are spiritually equal, but one ranks above another in function,” (Clark, First Corinthians: A Contemporary Commentary. Nutley, N.J., P&R Publishing Co. 1975, 169).

The foundation of the principle of headship in marriage is the principle of headship within the economic Trinity. Paul states this emphatically so that in drawing agreement from his readers on the issue of divine, redemptive headship, they would be forced likewise to agree with him on the issue of marital headship (Charles Hodge, First & Second Corinthians. Carlisle, PA.: Banner of Truth Trust. 1978, 206). Furthermore, in making his case, Paul demonstrates that the principle of marital headship is first and foremost a creation ordinance, not merely an ordinance for the church (1Cor. 11:7-9, 12; see Clark, First Corinthians, pg. 169). As descendants of Adam and Eve, those who violate the principle of marital headship are guilty before God, regardless of their relationship to the church. They are guilty of marring the image of the triune God, which God Himself has placed within them (Gen. 1:26-27).

The Church

Churches also are to have within them certain structures that are put in place to image forth the Trinitarian nature of their loving God. Such structures are fitting insofar as the churches have been redeemed and assembled through the cooperative work of each Person of the Trinity. “The Lord Jesus calls out of the world unto Himself, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those that are given unto Him by His Father” (The Baptist Confession, 26.5). Based upon this understanding of the redemptive work of their triune God, the apostle Paul encourages the church at Ephesus to image forth Trinitarian uniqueness and unity.

After having shown each Person of the Trinity at work in each of the first three chapters of Ephesians, Paul opens the second half of Ephesians by making mention of them as well. He reminds the church at Ephesus that the godly character and Christian unity to which they have been called (vv. 1-3) are rooted in the identity they enjoy as worshippers of one Spirit (vs. 4), one Lord (vs. 5), and one God and Father of all “who is over all and through all and in all” (vs. 6). In vv. 7-16, Paul commences to paint a word picture of a body (vv. 4, 12-16) in which each member is uniquely gifted (vs. 7) and plays a unique role (vs. 16). Yet, each member is part of the same body which is being built up into one mature man (vv. 11-14) the head of whom is Christ Himself (vs. 15).

William Hendriksen insists, “It is exactly unity that is promoted when all become busily engaged in the affairs of the church and when each member eagerly renders service for which the Lord has equipped him,” (William Hendriksen, Ephesians, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 1995, pg. 199). This process in no way diminishes the unique and valuable identity of the persons involved. Rather, they each find their true value and identity as they use their unique gifts in contribution to the overall work of the body of Christ. “Christ, the head, unifies the body and causes it to grow, in which process every member has some part,” (Gordon Clark, Ephesians. Jefferson, MD., Trinity Foundation. 1985, pg. 144).

In Ephesians 1:1-4:16, Paul provides the church with some of the most vivid imagery of the economic Trinity by merely holding up a mirror. He demonstrates how, when every person in a local church is functioning properly, they will image forth the triune God who has called them into this glorious communion. Charles Hodge explains: “There are many passages to which the doctrine of the Trinity gives a sacred rhythm, though the doctrine itself is not directly asserted. It is so here. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father. The unity of the church is founded on this doctrine” (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York, R. Carter. 1856, pg. 209).

This exposition can be taken a bit further, though. The doctrine of the Trinity not only provides churches with a foundation for their unity, but it also provides individuals within those churches with a foundation for their dignity. It is with the foundational understanding that each Person in the Trinity supplies a unique contribution to the work of redemption that Christians also come to understand that the whole body of Christ is “being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part” (vs. 16a). “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” (1Cor. 12:17).

Made in the Image of a Triune God

The foundation for this doctrine does not originate with Paul, though; it goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. When God created man, He created him in His very own image:

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:26-27).

Many have warned against making an instant leap from the plural personal pronouns God uses in reference to Himself in this passage to an assertion of Trinitarian theology. It certainly is not enough to make a full argument for the Trinitarian nature of God. However, it is quite worth noting how quickly the passage goes from saying, “Let Us make man in Our image,” to saying, “in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Finally, he writes: “He created him (singular); male and female He created them (plural).” Man was created unique and man was created to be united in fellowship with others.

Man was never created to be an island unto himself. In fact, before God created woman, He saw fit to vocalize this truth: “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), and after she was created, Adam saw fit to vocalize this truth: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). The woman was a unique, distinct person while at once being on flesh with her husband. As such, man images forth the Triune God who created him; man and woman image forth the Triune God who created them (1Cor. 11:7, 12).

Rational and Righteous

Another major aspect of what it means to have been created in the image of God is that we were created “in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.” These three ideas interplay with one another. Obviously, righteousness assumes holiness and vice versa. Knowledge, when referring to the original estate of man, also assumes righteousness and holiness.

Knowledge

Adam was not created a super intelligent being. He was not created with all knowledge. As we said earlier in our study, were we to have all knowledge, we would be God. Adam did not have all knowledge, but he did have pure knowledge. That is to say that the knowledge that he had was pure, undefiled, and God-glorifying.

We do not often think of knowledge as having an ethical element to it. Knowledge is seen, especially in modernity, as a rather neutral endeavor. We often think, “I may be wrong about this or that, but what does it ultimately matter?” It ultimately matters because, if we are to “think God’s thoughts after Him,”—if we are to reason biblically about things—we must think correctly about things. We are often so consumed with the mere acquisition of knowledge that we do not take the time to apply to it understanding and wisdom. This is the process by which the Bible would have us acquire knowledge.

9For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God,” (Col. 1:9-10; NASB; cf. Prov. 2:6; 9:10).

According to Paul, the way that we take in knowledge is to first acquire it, then to apply to it understanding and wisdom and, when this is done appropriately, we will bear fruit in every good work and increase all the more in knowledge. Adam was created a learning being. He did not have knowledge of all things (e.g. good and evil; see Gen. 3:4-7), but what he did have was pure and rightly coupled with understanding and wisdom.

We know that rational thinking is godly, because it is part of the very image of God. Paul understood this rational element of God’s image when he wrote: “and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him,” (Col. 3:10; NASB). When in the garden, Adam reasoned rationally. After the fall, men ceased to think the thoughts of God after him; our very thinking was marred. Now that we are in Christ, we are being renewed in this aspect of God’s image.

Righteousness and Holiness

That man was created upright is undisputed. “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices,” (Eccl. 7:29; NASB). Adam and Eve were originally created holy and happy. These two qualities of their first estate were intrinsically intertwined such that, when they sinned, they fell into a new estate of sin and misery, an estate that persists to this day.

Adam was able to sin and not to sin. Since the fall mankind is not able not to sin. Since Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, Christians are freed from slavery to sin, but not its presence and influence. In glory, we will be free from all aspects of sin: its power, its abiding influence, and even its very presence. These are what have come to be known as the four estates of man.

Though Adam was created in God’s image, holy and happy, we have all now fallen from that glorious estate. That is not our final end, though. As Christians, we are called and enabled to “put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth,” (Eph. 4:24; NASB). We are daily being renewed according to the image of God the Son (Rom. 8:29). According to Beeke and Jones, “[John Owen] says that while ‘image’ denoted man’s original faculties properly oriented toward God, likeness denoted righteousness and the ability to respond to God in obedience,” (Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, pp. 670-671). In like manner, being made over (renewed) in His image means we have the righteousness of Christ and the enabling of the Spirit to respond to God in obedience.

Dominion

Finally, the image of God means that we have been granted dominion over the whole earth. The world was created for our benefit, and man was commanded to subdue it. Among other things, this means that natural resources, vegetation, the animals, and all of the other elements of the world around us could rightly have been harnessed by man in his original state to be used for his own benefit. Since the fall, even the creation has been distorted.

18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now,” (Rom. 8:18-22; NASB).

There is a sense in which creation itself has an innate understanding of the proper order of things. The fall of man essentially removed man from his rightful throne. Jesus refers to Satan as “the ruler of this world,” (John 12:31; 16:11). Paul refers to him as “the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph. 2:2).

Thankfully, though, we read that we are no longer under his rule. We have been freed from his influence through the great love and mercy of God (Eph. 2:4ff). Furthermore, we read that the ruler of this world has already been judged as a result of the sending of the Spirit after Christ’s ascension (John 12:31; 16:11). The Godman, Jesus Christ, has reestablished man’s reign through His resurrection (Col. 2:15; cf. Heb. 2:9-18). As a result, we now understand our position of one of ruling and reigning with him in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:4-6).

 

Q.14: What are God’s works of providence?

A. God’s works of providence are His most holy,1 wise,2 and powerful preserving3 and governing of all His creatures, and all their actions.4

1Psalm 145:17

2Psalm 104:24; Isaiah 28:29

3Hebrews 1:3; Psalm 103:19

4Matthew 10:29-31

One way of considering the subject of God’s decrees is to ask the question: How does God relate to every created thing? Of course, we just spent several questions considering the fact that God relates to every created thing as its Creator. There is a great Creator / creature distinction embedded in the design of all things. However, this notion of God as Creator in relation to all things only addresses origins and design. The natural follow-up question remains: How does God still relate to every created thing? This will be the subject of our study today.

The Baptist Catechism breaks up this discussion into two sections. Just as the catechism started with a discussion of creation in general and then narrowed the focus to the creation of man, it also starts with a discussion of providence in general and then narrows the focus to God’s providential dealings with man. This week, we will simply be considering providence in general.

The Sovereign God

Another way to consider God’s decree is by considering His sovereignty. In God’s sovereignty, He created all things and, thereby, established His dominion over them. In love, He uniquely created man, stamping him with His very image. Likewise, God continues to exercise His sovereignty by His great works of providence in all created things. His special act of providence toward man is one of life, love, and redemption.

“The Calvinist finds peace in the conviction that behind God’s all-encompassing providence is the full acquiescence of the triune God. The sovereign grace and love that went to Calvary has the whole world in its hands. God’s fatherly sovereignty in Christ is the essence of who God is,” (Beeke, Living for God’s Glory, pg. 40).

All things that come to pass, even the murder of the only perfect Man to ever live, are part of God’s great decree. He not only allows the evil and calamitous events of our world to come to pass. He decreed that they would and, in His goodness, He has given them purpose and meaning that we could never fully grasp.

The Supernatural God

Some assume that God’s relationship to the current state of created things is like a watch on a beach. God molded and shaped it. He fastened it all together. He even put his mark on the back of it so that people could know who made it. Then he wound it up, set it down, and walked away. This view of God and His relationship to all created things is a modern, naturalistic perversion of who God is and how He relates to the cosmos.

There is no such thing as a natural world, if we are to define natural the same way that Darwin and his predecessors have. There is nothing that just is or just does. When we say that man knows who God is because the whole of creation tells of His glory, we do not merely mean that God designed the cosmos so that men seeking for Him might discover clues in it. God does not leave the reception of His glory to the finite, fallen faculties of man to be discerned from mere clues. God is always, ever acting in every atom of His creation. If a stone attests to the glory of God and a man recognizes the glory to which it attests, God has both acted through the stone and through the man to case the attestation and the recognition. God both speaks and opens the ears of those to whom He speaks.

The Immanent God

Whatsoever comes to pass in this world then is God acting in this world. God has determined whatsoever comes to pass, and He is working it all toward His entirely holy will. “The Lord is righteous in all His ways and kind in all His deeds,” (Ps. 145:17; NASB). Even that which is evil, though God ordains from eternity past that it shall come to pass, though men mean it for evil God means it for good (Gen. 50:20). The most evil deed ever committed, the murder of Christ, was used of God to bring about the greatest good ever wrought.

“Everything depends on God as the primary cause both of its substance and circumstances (Isa. 45:7; Lam. 3:37-38). God often works through means, though He does not need those means. His providence both preserves all things (Ps. 104:19-20; Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3) and governs all things (Ps. 29:10; Gen. 50:20),” (Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, pg. 163).

The All Wise and Holy God

How does God ensure that all of His acts are holy and good? God has infinite, eternal wisdom. In all of His works, His unsurpassed wisdom is on display. In love and mercy, He has ordained that we should be able to ascertain some of His great wisdom. We can fathom some of the wisdom behind His choices, but the whole of His counsel is to us entirely inscrutable (Rom. 11:33).

“This also comes from the Lord of hosts,

Who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great,” (Isa. 28:29; NASB).

In His wisdom and holiness, God has decreed that whatever comes to pass, regardless of any appearance of evil in its design, is nevertheless designed to accomplish God’s perfect and good design. The Baptist Confession states this doctrine most succinctly:

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin,” (The Baptist Confession, 5.4).

The All Powerful God

God’s providence is not only holy and wise. His meticulous and purposeful government of all things also required a third trait. God’s providence is girded not just with holiness and wisdom but also with infinite power. God is infinitely capable of accomplishing all He has ordained will come to pass.

As we saw in our study of creation, by His mere word, all things sprang into existence. Likewise, by the word of His power, all things are upheld. Indeed, it is through the Person of the Son that God has determined to hold all things together:

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” (Heb. 1:3; NASB).

Conclusion

God rules all of His creation with absolute sovereignty. He is infinitely capable in His unsearchable wisdom and absolute holiness. In His absolute sovereignty, He governs both His creatures and all of their actions. “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens and His sovereignty rules over all,” (Psalm 103:19; NASB). There is nothing that occurs within the whole of creation apart from the decree of God. Every bird and every hair that falls to the ground does so only how and when it has been eternally determined by the God of glory (Mt. 10:29-31).

 

Q.15: What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?

A. When God created man, He entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death.1

1Galatians 3:12; Genesis 2:17

 

“COVENANT THEOLOGY, SIMPLY STATED, is the view of God and redemption that interprets the Holy Scriptures by way of covenants,” (Earl Blackburn, Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, pg. 17).

What we see in Genesis 2 is not only an account of the creation of Adam and Eve. In the garden, God and man entered into a covenant. God bestowed certain benefits upon Adam; He gave him life and all the provisions he needed to sustain life in the garden. He created man sinless and in a state of joy and fellowship. Moses recounts the boundaries wherein this covenant was binding: the Garden of Eden. Finally, God established the conditions whereby man might remain in this estate: care for the garden, remain righteous, and do not eat of the tree.

This covenant between God and Adam was fully determined beforehand by God; man in no way takes part in negotiations with God over this agreement. God has given life to man, and man is expected to honor God’s just requirements in order to remain in the estate in which he was created.

“So we may say that man has not at any time entered into covenant with God but God has entered into covenant with man. It only belongs to his sovereign majesty and is the fuit of his infinite goodness to propose, as well as his wisdom to choose and order, the terms of a covenant relationship between himself and his creatures. Therefore the covenant that he has made with men is frequently in Scripture said to be the Lord’s covenant, as in Psalm 25:14, Isaiah 56:4, 6, and other places,” (Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, pg. 35).

This particular covenant between God and Adam has major implications for us today. Paul tells us that we are either in Christ or in Adam. Where Adam was unfaithful and broke his covenant with God, ensuring that all of his children would be born in bondage to sin, Christ was fulfilled it, redeeming His church from bondage to sin.

Benefits Bestowed by God

Life. The first detail that must be examined in relation to the original state of man is the fact that God gives him life (Gen. 2:7). There were no preconditions to God’s choice to bestow life upon mankind, nor could man have done anything to earn this gift. God, out of His own good pleasure, bestowed life upon man. We often do not think of life as a gift, especially when we’re going through hardships, but it is most certainly a gift of God (Deut. 32:39; Job 33:4; Eccl. 9:9; Acts 17:25).

All life is a gift from God. I am always confounded to hear of total strangers who see “large” families in the mall or in the grocery store and stop the mother to ask, “You know how to fix that, right?” Somehow, in our society, we have come to view the gift of life, and especially the lives of children, as a burden. We have forgotten the righteous prayer of Hannah (1Sam. 1:1-11).

Tellingly, The Baptist Catechism does not refer to this covenant by its more common moniker: the Covenant of Works. This moniker focuses on the condition of the covenant rather than the benefit. Rather, The Baptist Catechism calls the covenant the “Covenant of Life,” which focuses our attention on the benefit we receive. This is the mindset with which we ought to consider all of God’s covenant dealings with man. In this sense, all of God’s covenants are gracious in that they bestow upon us a benefit not previously merited by us.

Provision. Not only did God bestow life upon Adam, but he also provided him all he needed to sustain and enjoy life in the garden. God provided Adam with food (Gen. 2:16), companionship (Gen. 2:18-23), and fellowship with God (Gen. 3:8a). It had not yet rained on the earth, so Adam and Eve needed no shelter. Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness, so they needed no clothes. Thus, we see that God had provided for them everything they needed and more.

“Adam enjoyed the unmerited privilege of physical and spiritual life. He enjoyed communion with God. He knew God. He had affectionate fellowship with him. Scripture calls such a knowledge and fellowship with God ‘life’ (John 17:3). Thus Adam had life, physical and spiritual,” (Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants, pg. 338).

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus assures us that God provides for us all things that we need, and that we in turn are to be anxious for nothing:

25For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? 28And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the filed grow; they do not toil or spin, 29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! 31Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34Do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:25-34).

If there is one thing that we as Christians in America tend to be guilty of, it is relying on our fallen world system to provide us with all we need. Contrary to this mode of living, we ought to look to man’s original state and see that God is the giver of all things. He placed man in a state of perfect, abundant provision. The height of this mentality is most potently displayed during election seasons in America. Our default assumption seems to be that our country will fall apart tomorrow if we do not get what we want today.

We need to be constantly reminded that God is the one who is in control. God provides for us, and if He decides to take our prosperity from us, so be it. He has not promised us prosperity; He has promised us provision.

The Character of Man’s Original Estate

Sinless. Whatever we might say about man in his original state, it is important to recognize that man was created sinless (Gen. 1:31a; Eccl. 7:29). When first created, Adam knew neither bondage to sin nor the effects of sin. His estate was not only ideal because of his external circumstances, but also because of his internal disposition. Man was created in a state of perfect communion and union with God (Gen. 3:8a).

This state of perfect communion and union with God is the ultimate goal of redemption (Rev. 21:3-4). God’s purpose in redeeming His elect is that they be conformed to the sinless and perfect image of His Son Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 4:15), ensuring an eternal union and communion with God in heaven. What Adam and Eve had in the garden, freedom from bondage and penalty of sin, we will have in glory, but with the full assurance that we will never again be subject to the dominion of sin over us.

Joyful. Regarding the joy man had in his original state, first, we should recognize the fact that Adam and Eve had no shortage of joy in the estate in which God created them. They not only had an abundance of necessary provisions, but God also provided them with the most delightful provisions. “Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9). In other words, God originally created man to enjoy his existence and enjoy the rest of creation.

Second, God created man to enjoy the blessing of relationship. This is one of the aspects of the Imago Dei. Just as the Trinity is eternally relational, so too man (His image bearer) is created to be in relationship (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:18, 22-24). Man and woman were created for one another and, in their original state, their relationship did not bear the mark of shame (Gen. 2:25).

The Boundaries of Man’s Original Estate

The Garden of Eden. In the ancient Near-East, when two kings would sign a treaty, they always established the boundaries wherein that treaty was binding. For man, his arrangement with God was binding within the Garden of Eden. God created the garden especially for man and placed him there to tend it (Gen. 2:15), it was in the garden that God walked in their midst in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8), and it was in the garden that God placed the tree of life. When Adam sinned against God, he was kicked out of the garden and lost direct access to God and to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24).

When we ponder these realities, it should cause us to look forward to our glorious inheritance in heaven. All those who are no longer in Adam, but have been transferred into the New Covenant, in Christ, have the hope of experiencing all these things. God will transfer us to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:10-27) where He will once again walk among His people (Rev. 21:3-4) who will yet again have access to the tree of life (Rev. 22:2).

The Conditions of Man’s Original Estate

“Under this covenant, man must do what he was commanded in order to continue in a state of blessedness. If righteous man was [sic] to remain happy, all hinges on what he does! If man failed, then the curse falls. If man succeeded, blessing would be his and to all his offspring. Historically, this divinely-given arrangement by which man may be blessed has been called the Covenant of Works. That name was chosen because its focal point was on man’s working. Everything depended upon what man did,” (Walter Chantry, Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, pg. 91).

Care for the Garden. There were essentially two commands that God gave Adam in the garden. He placed him there to tend the garden (Gen. 2:15) and commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Gen. 2:16-17). Adam’s care and cultivation of the garden was one aspect of the dominion that Adam was to have over the earth. One thing of which to take note is the fact that Adam never complained of his work. In fact, it was not until after Adam sinned against God that we see that his toil and labor became toilsome and laborious (Gen. 3:17-19).

Work, in and of itself, is not evil. In fact, when we look at the fourth commandment, we see that it was not only God’s design that man rest on the seventh day, but that he work all six days leading up to it:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle  or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy,” (Ex. 20:8-11; NASB).

Do not eat of the tree. In the Garden of Eden, God expected perfect obedience from Adam and Eve, upon pain of death. Man was made upright (Eccl. 7:29). “This uprightness or rectitude of nature consisted in the perfect harmony of his soul with that law of God which he was made under and subjected to,” (Coxe, Covenant Theology, pg. 43). Coupled with this “internal and subjective” law (Ibid.), which was encoded in his very nature, was a positive precept.

God verbally commanded him not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die’” (Gen. 2:15-17).

Of course, we know that Adam did not obey God. That’s why we see in Romans 5:19: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” Adam was the first man. Through his disobedience, we all became sinners but, through Christ’s obedience, all who believe in him are freed from the dominion of sin.

Conclusion

In Adam, we see that the original covenant between God and man was broken. In Christ, there is a new arrangement, the New Covenant, in which all who are in Christ are made right with God. Where Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed. Where we are condemned in Adam, we are redeemed in Christ. Thank God for His sovereign, redemptive dealings with His people.

Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section Three – The Decrees of God (Q.11-12)

Q.11: How doth God execute His decrees?

A. God executeth His decrees in the works of creation and providence.

 

Under the headings of creation and providence, God accomplishes all of His good purposes. Thereby, He creates, sustains, and directs all things toward His own desired, good, and glorious ends. Nothing that comes into existence does so without God’s decree. Likewise, nothing that comes to pass does so without God’s decree. God is the prime Actor in all of creation and is necessary for its continued existence.

 

Q.12: What is the work of Creation?

A. 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.1

1Genesis 1; Hebrews 11:3

 

Ex Nihilo

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” (Gen. 1:1; NASB; cf. the rest of Gen. 1).

The Latin term ex nihilo can be somewhat misleading. The term means out of nothing, and it is used to assert just that: that God made the whole of creation out of nothing. Some may take this assertion a bit further and claim that, before God created all things, nothing existed. Of course, this could only be understood in terms of created things. Thus, it is important for us to clarify that no created thing existed, no temporal thing existed, no material thing existed. Put more plainly, before God created the cosmos (the created order), only God existed. According to A.A. Hodge:

“In the beginning of time God first, by a word of command, brought into being all the material elements of which the universe exists,” (A.A. Hodge, The System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR. 2004, pg. 21).

This is a proper understanding of the testimony of the earliest portions of Scripture. There is no before God; God has always existed. There is only before the created order. Before all things were created, there was the one, triune, divine Being who is, and who was, and who ever will be. Hence, when we say that God created all things ex nihilo, we do not mean that nothing proceeded all things.

Taken in the negative, another idea represented in the notion of ex nihilo creation is the fact that God did not use pre-existing materials to make the world. Rather, all that is material was brought into existence from a purely immaterial non-existence. That which was not, by the power of God’s Word, became so. In the material sense, nothing preceded everything. These are important concepts for us to grasp, because there are many false notions of the relationship between God and all things.

The ancient Greeks taught, as Hindus still teach, that matter has always existed. In fact, ancient Greeks like Plato taught that even moral concepts such as good and evil transcended the gods. For Plato, both moral concepts and the material world is as eternal as the gods. Also, given the choice between the gods arbitrarily creating their own morality or a co-eternal morality external to the gods being imposed even on the gods themselves, Plato chooses the latter. As Christians, we affirm that God created all material things. We also affirm that God neither created nor is subject to a moral code outside of Himself. Rather, morality is a reflection of God’s eternal and immutable goodness and perfection.

 

By His Word

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light,” (Gen. 1:1-3; NASB).

It has well been noted that the first three verses of the Bible follow a Trinitarian pattern. The first verse is obviously a reference to our Father in heaven. The second verse makes explicit mention of the Spirit of God. Where, though is there any mention of the second Person of the Trinity: the Son? In order to answer this question, let us consider the one verse in the Bible that most parallels Genesis 1:1-3.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being,” (John 1:1-3; NASB).

We must note first that the apostle John begins his Gospel with precisely the same wording as the Septuagint (LXX; an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament used in the first century): “Ἐν ἀρχῇ.” John, in writing in this way, was clearly drawing a parallel between his gospel of the new creation and the account of creation in Genesis 1.

First, John tells his readers, “In the beginning was the Word,” (John 1:1a; NASB), clearly signifying the God who speaks. Second, he goes on to say that this Word was God putting Him on par with the Father in glory, authority, and essence. Third, he tells us that He was in the beginning with the Father, drawing our attention to the eternal, intra-Trinitarian oneness and fellowship existing within the Godhead. Fourth, and most important for our discussion today, he writes that all things came into existence through the Word, and nothing came into being apart from Him.

All of this discussion of the Word of God begs the question, who is this Word of God? John answers this question in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14; NKJV). He further clarifies in verse 18 who this only begotten of the Father is: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him,” (NKJV; emphasis added; other manuscripts read: “the only begotten God”). The Word of God of which John writes is the only begotten of the Father, the very Son of God Himself, the only begotten God.

Thus, when God spoke, through the divine agency of the Son of God, all things sprang into existence. In fact, nothing that was created was created apart from the Word of God. This is an important assertion to highlight when speaking with Unitarians like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who assert that Christ was created. When confronted with the suggestion that Christ was created, we must ask how John could assert that nothing that was created was created apart from His agency. He could not have been created through Himself, could He? John obviously belabors this point so that there would be no question of Christ’s eternality. The Word is distinct from all creation, just as the Father and the Spirit are distinct from all created things.

Where then do we see the second Person of the Trinity in Genesis 1:1-3? In verse three: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (NASB; emphasis added). When God spoke the world into creation, He spoke through the agency of His Word, His eternally begotten Son.

 

Six Days

“So the evening and the morning were the first day. . . And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. . . So the evening and the morning were the third day. . . So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. . . So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. . . Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day,” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 25, 31; NKJV).

In the span of six days, God created all things that exist. This is a hotly debated issue in Christianity today, but the testimony of Scripture is plain. All things that were created were created in the span of six ordinary days comprised of both one evening and one morning. Whether these evenings and mornings put together comprised a 24, 23, or 25 hour day, the Bible does not say, but there is no reason to assume that each evening and morning spanned hundreds, thousands, and perhaps even millions of years.

Sam Waldron explains: “To state matters succinctly, the only sound interpretation of the Bible is the one which understands it to teach that God did, indeed, make the world in a literal work week,” (Waldron, An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Evangelical Press, Darlington, Eng. 2005, pg. 76). What Waldron means by literal is that the meaning of the text is to be accepted in its plainest sense. When Scripture says “evening and morning,” it clearly means to designate an ordinary day of the week.

Some have suggested that the days of creation are unimportant and that our focus really should be on God’s creative power and the beauty and perfection of His creation. Certainly they are right in the latter assertion. We truly ought to place a primary focus on the beauty and perfection of God’s creation. Furthermore, the focus of modernity on the materialistic, naturalistic science of creation is a faulty starting point, to be sure. However, this does not mean there is no significance behind God’s choosing to create the world in six ordinary days.

Certainly, were it God’s pleasure to do so, He could have created all things in the span of six minutes or six millennia. Instead, He ordained that the world should be created in six days. In doing so, He set the example for mankind of a six day work-week to be followed by a full day of covenant rest in Him.

“He ‘rested the seventh day;’ as if the Lord should say, Will you not follow me as a patter? Having finished all my works of creation, I rested the seventh day; so having done all your secular work on the six days, you should now cease from the labour of your calling, and dedicate the seventh day to me, as a day of holy rest,” (Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments. Scriptura Press, New York City. 2015, 2.4 [3]).

In short, God did not create the world in order to satisfy all of our naturalistic, materialistic inquiries. He did not create the world in the span of six days in order to help us “butter up” to the modern scientific community or to satisfy all of our vexations brought on by the Star Light theory and other such quandaries. He did, however, create all things in the span of six days. He did so as a model for us so that we might follow it.

 

Very Good

“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day,” (Gen. 1:31; NKJV).

When God created all things, He created them good: the lights of the day and of the night, the land, the seas, the animals, the plants, the planets, the moon, the angels, and all other things whatsoever He created. There is nothing that God created that He did not in turn look upon and say, “This is good.” However, it was only after God completed one particular creation that He finally looked upon all that He had made and said, “Very good!” This particular creation was mankind.

Mankind is alone in all of creation in that we were made in the image of God. Insofar as we are created in His image, we are the pinnacle of all of His creation. As we will see in the answer to question 13, God’s image is not the only mark of favor He bestowed upon us.

Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section Three – The Decrees of God (Q.10)

Q.10: What are the decrees of God?

A. The decrees of God are His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.1

1Ephesians 1:4, 11; Romans 9:22-23; Isaiah 46:10; Lamentations 3:37

Moving along in our discussion of what man ought to believe concerning God, let us pivot a bit from what God is to what God does. Now, these two aspects of God should not be divorced from one another. Obviously, what God is will determine what God does. When we say that God is good, after all, we are claiming that God is the ultimate standard of all that is good. In order to properly define what good is requires that we do so in reference to what God is. It also requires that we do so in reference to what God does.

The first step in examining what God does is to look to His eternal decrees. In the decrees of God, we find the Source and Purpose for all that occurs, whether in the secret counsels of God or in the created order, from eternity to eternity. God Himself is the Source of everything that occurs. He is also the Purpose. The Westminster Assembly put it this way:

“The decrees of God are his eternal purpose according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass,” (The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.7).

William Collins, when penning The Baptist Catechism, changed nothing of substance in this answer. Why? This answer serves as one of the shortest, most succinct summaries of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty ever committed to the page. In it, we find that all that comes to pass is a result of God’s eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, and foreordained for the purpose of His own glory.

All that occurs, has occurred, or will occur is determined by the eternal will of God, comes from God, is guided and held together by God, and will ultimately culminate in His receiving all glory, honor, and power. In other words, the Source and Purpose of all things is God, God, God! “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36; NASB).

If you really stop to think about it, Romans 11:36, from a worldly perspective, is a somewhat counter-intuitive way to end the discussion Paul began way back in Romans 9. In Romans 9-11, Paul explains how the monergistic gospel he has been describing since chapter 1 is actually good news, since many of his kinsmen are not believing. He begins Romans 9 with these words:

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.,” (Rom. 9:1-5; NASB).

Many in Israel would not repent. As a result, they were broken off, as branches are broken off from a tree. Paul refers to this breaking off as a partial hardening. “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” (Rom. 11:25; NASB). How were many of Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh coming to be hardened? They were hardened according to the sovereign will of God, according to Romans 9. God demonstrates His mercy upon whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills (9:14-18).

Paul knew this was a hard pill for his readers to swallow. It was a hard pill for him to swallow. However, it was the truth, and Christians are those who ultimately must come to the place where they affirm with Paul: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36; NASB).

Notice how, in the answer given in the catechism, God’s purpose is eternal. As we have already mentioned, God is immutable; He does not change. God has never changed His mind on a matter. What He decreed in eternity past remains unchanged to this day. Thus, the apostle Paul writes: “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him,” (Eph. 1:4a; NASB). If God can change His mind, what would it matter who He chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world? He could just as easily choose differently tomorrow, if indeed He is unstable in His decrees.

However, we know that He is not unstable. Whatsoever He has decreed will surely come to pass. It is on this truth that our hope in an eternal inheritance rests, for Paul also writes: “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,” (Ephesians 1:11; NASB). But, if God’s will is mutable, might our inheritance be given to another? Why should we hold to it with any surety? On the contrary, Louis Berkhof writes of God:

“He is not deficient in knowledge, veracity, or power. Therefore, He need not change His decree because of a mistake of ignorance, nor because of inability to carry it out. And He will not change it, because He is the immutable God and because He sis faithful and true,” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids. 1941, pg. 105).

God’s sovereignty and immutability in His decrees, then, are a great comfort to us. They ensure for us all of the great promises of God. Our comfort is not the ultimate purpose of the doctrine, though. How foolish, arbitrary, overly-romantic, and trite it would be if God had determined to mold His determinative faculties around something as ultimately insignificant as human feelings. No. God’s created order does not revolve around us: our wills, our feelings, our significance, our dignity, and our glory. Rather, it is all for His glory!

It is ultimately God’s glory that hinges on His purposes being established, not ours. It is ultimately His divine, eternal reputation that is at stake. Thus, He is the One whose “good pleasure” is paramount:

 “Declaring the end from the beginning,

And from ancient times things which have not been done,

Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,

And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’,” (Isaiah 46:10; NASB).

We object that God’s good pleasure must make sense to us. We must be able to wrap our finite, fickle minds around His sovereign, eternal decrees, or He is a monster! “19You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom. 9:19-20; NASB). Just as the clay does not have a right to demand to know the secret counsels of the potter, neither do we have the right to demand from God His secret decrees.

We do not get to determine the definition of good, and then demand that God fit into that mold. Rather, we determine what is good by a proper examination of God. Hence the age old problem of questioning authority. In the military, it is a soldier’s duty to disobey unlawful orders, because the law is above command in rank. In theology, we never have right disobey an order of God, because He is the law.

We have no right to question the goodness or the justice of God, because He is the standard of goodness and justice. To lay a charge against Him is to speak out of sheer ignorance. Though one may observe several instances where Lord Tennyson’s often quoted The Charge of the Light Brigade is flawed in relation to subordination in the military, it holds true nonetheless in Christian theology.

“Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.”

The Ultimate Fate of the Universe

In the previous blog, I argued that God’s providence accounts for the orderliness and regularity of our universe. In essence, the reality of God’s providence allows one to have confidence in the use of the scientific method for the study of natural phenomena. If we believe that the natural world is simply a product of unguided physical laws, then the only way in which we can have confidence in the reliability of the scientific method is through induction of a large collection of observations, which is subject to interpretive errors. However, if we believe that the natural world is upheld and guided by God’s providence, then we can base our scientific knowledge claims on God’s revelation of the natural world.

These are two fundamentally different starting points for understanding our world and ultimately, this means that two people can come to radically different conclusions about the nature of the world based upon the same evidence. In the previous blog, I argued this principle by discussing some of the irrational interpretations from quantum theory, particularly the idea of effects without causes. It is my contention that the Christian worldview concerning the nature of the universe is most consistent with our evidence of the natural world. This means that the universe is not only understandable and consistent, but it is purposely designed to communicate a particular message concerning God’s invisible attributes. In previous blogs, I made arguments concerning the existence and knowability of God based on the creation and maintenance of the universe. To end this mini-series, I want to address a topic of growing interest: what is the ultimate fate of the universe? This is no longer a purely speculative, philosophical question, but it is now a scientific question. This topic is also important because our answer is fully based on deductive reasoning concerning the origin of the universe.

Heat Death or Cold Death

This semester, I have the privilege to teach my favorite physics course as an undergraduate: thermodynamics. The impetus for the development of thermodynamics was the industrial revolution and the efficiency of heat engines, but now we’ve come to understand that many of the fundamental phenomena in our world are implications of the laws of thermodynamics. The key to thermodynamics is to understand the role of entropy.  Entropy is the precursor of the definition of information as developed in information theory. Information is carried, stored and processed by all macroscopic physical systems and is ultimately governed by the laws of physics, so it’s not surprising that physics and information should be closely related to one another. The usefulness of the concept of entropy can hardly be overstated and it’s probably fair to say that the connection between physics and information is still not fully exploited.

There are many ways in which a person can qualitatively understand the concept of entropy. First, it can be said that entropy is a measure of energy concentration in that entropy increases as the energy of a system becomes more dispersed throughout time. This is related to the idea that entropy is a measure of disorder of a given system. Second, it can be said that entropy is the variable that determines irreversibility of physical processes; in particular, entropy controls the direction of heat transfer between systems as well as causal arrow of time in the universe. Finally, it can be said that entropy determines the amount of available energy that can be used to do useful work for a given system. Entropy is also a central concept in understanding the natural world because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe (as a closed, isolated system) will always increase over time. In terms of the above definitions, this means that energy is become more dispersed throughout time, that time is irreversible, and that the avaiable energy in the universe is gradually decreasing.

image: universe

There are numerous implications of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but one that is relevant concerns the fate of the universe. Even though it is difficult to define the entropy of the universe, there should be a theoretical point in time in the distant future in which the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy according to the 2nd Law. This happens when all the available energy of the universe has been completely exhausted. When this occurs, there will be no more heat flow, no more work done, and the universe will essentially become dead and inert.This can also be thought of in terms of chemical reactions. According to the 2nd law, a chemical reaction will only occur if it results in an increase of entropy. Any reaction that takes place will either result in the products becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means at some time far in the future, when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat and fundamental particles. No reactions will be possible, because the universe will have reached its maximum entropy. The only reactions that can take place will result in a decrease of entropy, which is not possible according to the second law, so in effect the universe will have died. Because of the emphasis on the lack of heat flow, this theory is sometimes called the heat death of the universe.

Another theory concerning the fate of the universe is based upon the expansion rate of the universe. Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever and that the expansion rate of universe is increasing. If so, the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. Moreover, the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted, and as existing stars run out of fuel and ceases to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker, one start at a time. Eventually, even the stellar remnants left behind by these stars will disappear, leaving behind only black holes, which themselves will eventually disappear as they emit radiation. In this scenario, the universe ends in a whimper, becoming dark and cold. Because the universe will approach absolute zero temperature in this scenario, this is known as the cold death of the universe

The Conclusion of the Matter

The heat death and cold death theories are just two of many theories produced by cosmologists that seek to explain the ultimate fate of the universe. Though these theories have numerous differences between them, what is common between them is the assumption that the universe will end through slow, gradual, unguided natural processes. Moreover, it is assumed that death of the universe comes from a source within itself and is based on the inherent futility of our universe. These theories are expected if it is believed that the universe has no inherent purpose for its existence and has purely naturalistic origins. The narrative produced by this worldview is that the universe was created without purpose, the earth has no preferred position in the universe, the life within the universe has no inherent purpose, the current cosmological epoch has no central place in time, and the end of the universe has no purpose. With this view of the universe, it’s no wonder why a growing number of people essentially agree with this famous quote from Richard Dawkins:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

This conclusion is the result of attempting to understand our natural world without acknowledging God’s providence and eternal decree. As was argued previously, the origin of the universe and the meticulous fine tuning of the universe both point to the existence of God. Moreover, the constancy and regularity of the universe all point to the God’s active providence in the world. If the existence of the universe comes from a source outside of itself, then it stands to reason that the end of the universe will occur from a source outside of itself. In other words, if the origin of the universe has a purpose outside of itself, then the end of the universe has a purpose outside of itself as well.

The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. Our physical world continues to march forward in time not in meaningless, random fashion, but its purpose is tied up in God’s purposes of redemption. This is best described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:19-23

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The message of the apostles is that the current age we live will end, not when entropy maximizes or when the universe approaches absolute zero, but when God completes His redemptive purposes. This means that we do live in a central place in time and that the end of the universe will also declare God’s glory. If the current universe was created solely from God’s Word (cf. Hebrews 11:3) and upheld by His providence, then it will end based on His decree. This is vividly expressed in 2 Peter 3 in which “the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” and “the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.” This is the picture of catastrophic un-creation, which will be replaced by the new heavens and the new earth in the age to come (cf. Revelation 21-22).

So let’s return to the original questions which started this blog series: (1) Why do you believe that God exists? (2) Why do you believe that God can be known by us? The evidence of God can be known based on the very origin of the universe and the active maintenance of the universe. We see God’s power and wisdom in the origin of the universe; we see God’s power and faithfulness in the maintenance of the universe (as observed through the fine tuning of the fundamental forces in the universe); and we see God’s intention and purpose through His active interaction with creation. Contrary to popular opinion, all things are not continuing as they were from the beginning of time. There have been numerous miraculous signs in which God has judged His creation (such as the global flood) and rescued His people (such as the exodus). However, His supreme interaction with His creation and revelation to us has come through the incarnation of His Son through which we have redemption. God’s acts of redemption, creation, and providence ultimately give us the evidence that God exists and can be known.

Providence and the Scientific Method

In the previous blog, I argued that the orderliness and consistency of our physical universe, as seen through the fine tuning of the four fundamental field interactions, provides clear evidence of God’s handiwork. This regularity is not simply the result of unguided, impersonal physical laws, but rather it is due to the faithfulness of God. In other words, the evidence of God in our physical world is seen by His acts of creation and providence. Chapter 5, Paragraph 1 of the 1689 LBCF states it in this way

God the good Creator of all things, in his infinite power and wisdom doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were created, according unto his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable.

This classic statement on the providence of God explains why being a scientist is an honorable vocation and why the scientific method (when used properly within its constrained limits) does correspond to our reality. When we affirm these basic truths concerning God’s providence with the regularity of our physical world, we will develop a more robust, holistic view of the physical world. Unfortunately, many Christians have inherited a worldview in which the governing physical principles of the natural world are divorced from God’s works of providence. This worldview is not only unbiblical, but it’s also contrary to the worldview of the men who pioneered the modern scientific age. When Isaac Newton published his treatise of classical mechanics, entitled The Principia, he discusses the motivations for his study. He writes:

I had an eye upon such principles as might work, with considering men, for the belief of a deity… this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these being formed by the like wise counsels, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all … All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.

From the depths of his own soul, Newton came to know God through the Word, but through his study of the design of the physical universe, his belief was reaffirmed. Thus, the diligent student of science and the earnest seeker of truth will learn, as Newton did, that all science and all truth are one which has its beginning and its end in the knowledge of Him whose glory the heavens declare and whose handiwork the firmament shows forth (cf. Psalm 19). Of course, this blog series is being written because many no longer hold on to this worldview. Apart from evolutionary biology, it is my belief that quantum theory militates most strongly against this worldview. In this blog, I want to discuss what happens when we divorce God’s providence from the study of the natural world.

The Leap of Quantum Theory

It is well-known that the two irreconcilable fields in theoretical physics are quantum theory and general relativity. Theorists hope these fields can be reconciled so that a unified field theory can be developed. Undergraduate students tend to ask me whether I believe these fields will be reconciled and my answer has always been in the negative because the interpretations and implications of quantum theory appear to be irrational.

Quantum theory traces its origin to the work of Max Planck, who presented in 1900, the hypothesis that energy comes in discrete units called “quanta”. The watershed moment for quantum theory came in 1927 with the uncertainty principle by German physicist Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg found that one can learn either the exact position of a given particle or its exact trajectory, but not both simultaneously. This is contrary to the classical physics which states that the location and trajectory of any particle can be determined, in principle, at some point in the future.  This means that classical physics is philosophically built on determinism.

Heisenberg’s experiments showed that this assumption was false – that we can never know everything about the behavior of even one particle and, therefore, can never make predictions about the future that will be completely accurate in every detail. This marked a fundamental change in the worldview of physics and lead to famous debates in the early half of the 20th century. Those who held to classical physics (such as Einstein) believed that the observed randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, whereas proponents of quantum theory believed that the physical world is fundamentally built on uncertainty and probability.

The interpretation of the mathematical postulates of quantum theory led to a number of implications. The most fundamental interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that the natural change of any quantum system is by way of indeterministic physically discontinuous transitions between stationary states. For a classical example of this postulate, consider the description of the subatomic world as described by Timothy Ferris in his book Coming of Age in the Milky Way

The more closely physicists examined the subatomic world, the larger indeterminacy loomed. When a photon strikes an atom, boosting an electron into a higher orbit, the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit instantaneously without having traversed the intervening space. The orbital radii themselves are quantized, and the electron simply ceases to exist at one point, simultaneously appearing at another. This is the famously confounding “quantum leap” and it is no mere philosophical poser; unless it is taken seriously, the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately.

Thus, if this explanation is an accurate description of the subatomic world, then quantum mechanics has revived the concept of change and self-creation as a tool to explain the physical world. If the “quantum leap” is literally simultaneous, then we have a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction since the electron is in an orbit and not in an orbit at the same exact time and in the same relationship. However, a more serious problem with the explanation is that it introduces the tacit assertion that effects can exist without causes. The popular interpretation of quantum theory suggests that quantum leaps occur by “chance” (since probability distributions are the irreducible physical concept) and this justifies the hypothesis that nothing causes the behavior of subatomic particles. To be free of casuality is to be free of logic, and license is given for making nonsense statements with impunity.

Ultimately, we must come to the conclusion that quantum theory and general relativity cannot both be correct. While general relativity allows for (and predicts) a perfect point-like singularity at the beginning of time, quantum mechanics does not, for it prohibits defining at the same time the precise location, velocity, and size of any single particle or singularity. Furthermore, quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the sub-atomic world – and even the world beyond the atom – has no independent structure until it is defined by the human intellect. We can say that quantum theory has great explanative power for many phenomena, but for the reasons given above, it cannot be a full and accurate description of reality.

The Conclusion of the Matter

So what are the conclusions that we should draw from this? First, we should recognize that the behavior of the natural world cannot be fully explained within itself. When we attempt to explain the nature of this world without a consistent natural theology, we end up with inconsistencies and absurdities. No one disputes the appearance of quantum behavior on the subatomic scale, but the interpretation of this behavior leads to absurdities. Second, we are meant to use general and special revelation to understand this world. Human knowledge is limited not only by our sin and our intellect, but it’s also limited by our finitude. Thus, we need special revelation to inform our observations of the natural world.

Third, it’s important to note that no scientific theory develops in a vacuum. Our worldview affects how we interpret the natural world. It is not an accident that many Christian scientists gravitate towards general relativity since this theory is the culmination of classical physics, which is built off of ultimate causation. Conversely, it’s not an accident that quantum theory is appealing to those who gravitate toward Eastern religion and philosophy since its predictions has many similarities to Eastern mysticism. Ultimately, this means that a discussion on the existence of God and science boils down to a question of worldviews. The fundamental Christian claim states that the universe, being made by the all-wise, all-knowing God, is internally self-consistent because it reflects His wisdom and knowledge. Thus, we do not have a universe in which contradictions abound, but one in which Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power. In the next blog, I will conclude this mini-series by discussing two of the strongest unifying concepts in physics, energy and entropy.

 

Contingency, Complexity, and the Existence of God

In the previous blog, I argued that there is significant evidence that points to the fact that the universe is finite and has an origin (which points to the existence of God). This evidence rules out the possibility of a static, eternal universe, but it also must rule out any notion of self-creation and spontaneous generation.

First, it’s important to note that self-creation and spontaneous generation is a logical and rational impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to exist and not to exist at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, for something to create itself, it must exist before it exists. A being can be self-existent and eternal without violating the law of non-contradiction, but a self-generating, self-creating being is a rational impossibility. Second, it’s important to note that if there was a point in which the physical universe did not exist, then this also means that there is no purely naturalistic reason for the why the universe does exist. In other words, there is no cause for the existence of the universe in and of itself – the cause of the universe must come from outside of itself. This means that the universe could not have been created by “chance”. Because chance is not an entity (i.e it has no being), it does not have any instrumental power to cause anything. Therefore, any appeal to “chance” for the existence of the universe is in effect an appeal for self-creation, which has been shown to be a rational contradiction.

Now, we must ask the next question: Why does the universe exist and what is the purpose of its existence? The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known (cf. Psalm 19:1-6). Here, I’m going to argue for evidence of purposeful design from the vantage point of the physical sciences, rather than the biological sciences.

A basic question that is usually asked is whether or not the scientific method can actually determine whether or not an event can be the result of a purposeful and designed cause. The emphatic answer is yes. Because of what we know about undirected natural causes and their limitations, the scientific method can be used to rigorously test whether or not there are significant design processes in the universe. First, we may ask whether a particular occurrence was naturally necessary or contingent. An occurrence is naturally necessary if the natural laws governing the physical objects involved are sufficient to explain the occurrence, whereas an occurrence is naturally contingent if it’s dependent upon a non-natural explanation. Second, we may ask whether a particular occurrence is simple or complex. Third, we may ask whether the inherent pattern in the complex occurrence is ad hoc or specific. An ad hoc pattern is one that has no true meaning or significance outside the single occurrence in which it is found. The argument of design easily explains the origin of the universe, but I want to apply this to the regularity and orderliness of universe.

Overview of the Standard Model of Particle Physics

Currently, the standard model of particle physics states that there are four fundamental forces throughout the universe which are constant everywhere and affect all physical objects everywhere. These four fundamental forces (or interactions) are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. The standard model seeks to illustrate that matter and energy are best understood in terms of the interactions of elementary particles with their underlying physical field. Thus, the standard model attempts to unify the four fundamental forces into a unified field theory. Although there are problems with the Standard Model, the standard model demonstrates (and anticipates) that there is an inherent self-consistency within our universe. However, the Standard Model also shows that the relative strengths of the fundamental forces are so finely tuned to the extent that life as we know it would be virtually impossible without them.

We can start with the nuclear forces. The strong nuclear force ensures the stability of ordinary matter by binding subatomic particles together within the nuclei of atoms. This force is enormously strong because it must overcome the electromagnetic repulsive force between protons in the nucleus. If the strong force did not exist (or was weaker than it is), all atomic nuclei in the universe would undergo spontaneous fission and the universe would be almost entirely composed hydrogen and neutrons (and thus uninhabitable for human life). With the same reasoning, if the strong force was stronger, then hydrogen would not exist at all in the universe, leading to the same conclusion of an uninhabitable universe (see this article for a more detailed explanation). The weak nuclear force is the interaction which is responsible for radioactive decay of subatomic particles and nuclear fission. If the weak nuclear force increased, too much hydrogen would convert to helium and thus stars would produce an overabundance of heavy elements, making life chemistry impossible. Conversely, if the weak nuclear force decreased, too much helium would be produced and thus stars would not produce enough heavy elements, making life chemistry impossible.

The electromagnetic force binds electrons to the nuclei of atoms. If this force were slightly weaker, the electrons would be repelled by the nuclear forces and thus chemical bonding would be disrupted to the extent that molecules would not form. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger, the atoms could not share electrons (since they would strongly bind to the atomic nuclei) and again no molecules would form. Moreover, heavier elements (like boron) would be unstable to fission and thus would not exist. The gravitational force is the weakest of all of the fundamental forces, but it is responsible for the large-scale structure and evolution of stars, galaxies, and planets. If the gravitational force were somewhat stronger, the stars would be so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly for life to form. If gravity were somewhat weaker, the stars would not become hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Such stars would burn quietly for a long time but make no heavy elements needed for planets.

The Conclusion of the Matter

So what are the conclusions that we should draw from this? First, we should note that the universe is balanced on a knife-edge and is clearly contingent upon external sources. It is not necessary that the gravitational force and the strong force are as strong as they are. Nor is it necessary that the physical constants and other phenomena of the universe have happened together, making the universe hospitable and observable for us. There are numerous other examples of the fine tuning in the universe that demonstrates that the universe truly is contingent and yet internally consistent. We don’t live in a universe in which instabilities and contradictions abound. These are undeniable realities and these realities become clearer when one takes the time to study the discoveries within these fields. Consider the words of Fred Hoyle, a renowed 20th century English astronomer:

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Second, we should note that the universe is deeply complex and harmonious. Undergraduate physics students around the country who study theoretical physics feel an overwhelming sense of complexity, but also begin to sense a deep sense of internal consistency and harmony within the universe. This sense is magnified by the fact these fundamental interactions that we are describing are also described by deep mathematical symmetries. Again, it’s important to note that there is no necessary reason for why the physical processes of our universe are accurately described by mathematics. Here’s a quote from physicist Eugene Wigner regarding this point

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.

The last question to ask is whether the complexity and harmony in nature is ad-hoc or specific. First, the mere fact that our universe is coherent, understandable, and predictable indicates that the complexity is specific and purposeful. However, here I want to note that the complexity, regularity, and harmony observed in our natural world today is absolutely consistent with God’s covenantal dealings with man as revealed in scripture. In the Noahic covenant (cf. Genesis 9:8-17), God promised consistency and regularity in the cosmos, which means that the orderliness of our physical universe is because of the faithfulness of God. In other words, we don’t have a “natural” world in which supernatural events occasionally happen; rather our universe is held together by the Word of His power (cf. Hebrews 1:3), which includes ordinary events that occur daily and extraordinary events of redemptive history (such as the resurrection, the global flood, and the future return of Christ). The constancy of the physical world is not an a priori assumption, but rather it is the result of God’s covenant faithfulness to man and God’s providence throughout this physical world.

In the next blog, I will address how the harmony of the physical sciences with our human experience serves as evidence of God’s existence and knowability.

The Evidence of God in the Origins of the Universe

As mentioned in the previous blog, the fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. This statement includes two other presuppositions: truth and reality exists and can be known.

In most matters, most people speak and act as if reality matters, but not when it comes to God. In matters of religion and faith, there seems to be a pervasive idea that all religious beliefs are equally valid, as long as those beliefs do not harm people, and all religious beliefs have different perspectives that should be celebrated and preserved, rather than challenged and critiqued. In other words, many people are troubled by claims that a particular religious belief is objectively true and does correspond to reality. Frankly, if this popular notion is true, then all defenses for the faith are exercises in futility since Christianity (and any other religious belief) would be nothing more than escapism and speculation.  C.S. Lewis addresses this mentality:

Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts— to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.

Escapism in philosophy and religion boils down to a matter of folly and self-deception. It’s simply foolish to try to avoid the truth about who we are, what we are, and why we are here in this world. If there is a God who made us and has placed demands over us as His creation, we need to know. Conversely, if God is nothing more than a clever mythological device from the ancient world, we need to know that, too. Even if one believes that the reality that we live in is a mere illusion (as some do believe), the very concept of an illusion presupposes a reality. Ultimately, reality exists and ultimately, we cannot escape it.

Our common experience also tells that we can know objective truth. For instance, many accept mathematical statements (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4) and scientific statements (i.e. humans require air to breath) as absolute truth. In making these statements, we are not imposing fictional models on reality; rather, we are recognizing truths that would be true even if we did not recognize them. In other words, human beings do not create knowledge, but we recognize the reality of our world. This leads to the ultimate question: if human beings do not create knowledge or reality, then what is its ultimate origin? In this, our ability to know truth (which exists outside of us) is a kind of evidence for the existence of God. If there is a God, then it must be true that some ideas about God will be true and others false.

My first evidence pointing to God’s existence and knowability comes from the very basic fact that the universe has an origin. The topic of the eternality of the universe was originally a matter of philosophy in which Western philosophers generally assumed that the universe had a beginning until the late 18th century. Immanuel Kant originally argued for the infinitude of the universe and over time, this theory became widely accepted among scientists. By the turn of the early 20th century, the common worldview held that the universe is static – more or less the same throughout eternity. However, the discovery of Einstein’s theory of general relativity and astronomical observations contradicted this view.

A Brief Historical Survey of 20th Century Physics

In 1913, astronomers noticed that several galaxies were moving away from our planet at high speeds. Shortly thereafter, Einstein published a series of papers which described the theory of general relativity and derived the Einstein field equations, which was a mathematical tool used to describe the general configuration of matter and space taking the universe as a whole. Einstein’s work was endorsed by numerous famous experiments, and by the early 1920s, most leading scientists agreed that the Einstein field equations could serve as a foundation for cosmology.

Shortly after Einstein published his theory, Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter produced a cosmological model from the Einstein field equations which pointed to an expanding universe (for those who are interested in the debate between Einstein and de Sitter, see this historical page). Later, Edwin Hubble used his telescope to verify de Sitter’s mathematical prediction that “the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves” – implying that the universe was expanding from a central point. The implication of these findings was obvious: the universe is finite and had a beginning. Even though there were (and still are) scientific concerns about the big bang theory, numerous scientists, from Einstein to Eddington, opposed the big bang theory because it contradicted the prevailing worldview of a static, eternal universe. For example, in an exchange of letters with de Sitter, Einstein quipped “this circumstance irritates me,” and “to admit such possibilities seems senseless.”

There were numerous theories that attempted to revive the eternal universe model (for a historical survey, see this historical page), but all of these alternative models, which utilize a static universe, received a fatal flaw through the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (which is the background radiation that the big bang hypothesis had predicted would be left behind by the initial creation of the universe). In early 1990s, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) demonstrated that the cosmic background radiation was homogeneous enough so that the universe must have begun from a singularity point and yet the background radiation had just enough irregularities (of an extremely minute amount) to account for the formation of the universe’s galaxies.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Now what conclusions can we draw from this historical survey? First, even if one argues with the methodology of the big bang hypothesis, what should be plain and obvious is that the universe is finite and has a beginning. This means that there once was a time when matter did not exist. Therefore, any worldview that requires spontaneous generation or self-creation to explain itself must be inherently self-refuting (since something has to already exist in order to create itself). Second, the existence of the universe is not the result of “chance”. If there was a point when matter did not exist, this also means that there is no naturalistic reason for why it is necessary for the universe to exist. This means that questions regarding the purpose of the universe must be asked if we care about matters of truth and reality.

Now this is a point that is not that difficult to understand. All of us have asked questions about the origin of the world as children and I can bet that none of us concluded that the world was eternal. This basically means that this knowledge is self-evident to us and to deny it means that we are suppressing this truth (cf. Romans 1:18-23). This leads to the last point: the fact that the universe has a beginning and is separate from its Creator is only explained in theism. In theism, God is understood as the distinct, eternal being who brought the universe into existence by an act of His will. However, it is only in Christianity in which the purpose of creation is linked with redemption. Consider the apostle Paul’s words concerning Christ in Colossians 1:15-20:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Christ is not only the agent of creation, but He is the agent of the new creation for those who put trust in Him. In the next blog, I will address the contingent complexity of our universe as an evidence of God’s existence and knowability.

Knowing God in the Sphere of Nature

As mentioned in a previous blog post, there are three questions that I’m asked pretty often:

Why aren’t there more Black Reformed Christians? This question was answered in a blog series, in which I asserted (and attempted to demonstrate) that traditional Black spirituality is quite different than Reformed spirituality. The second question is similar to the first.

Why have I chosen to join a church with no other minorities? This question is usually asked from other Black Christians, and it’s a question that deals with the matter of ethnic solidarity vs. doctrinal convictions. However, the question that I want to answer is as follows:

How do I reconcile my vocation as a physics professor with my confession of Christ? This question is asked by Christians and non-Christians alike. When the question is phrased by an unbeliever, it can be a statement of curiosity (usually in the best case scenario) or it can be a statement of incredulity (usually the common scenario). When the question is phrased by a believer, it usually is a question about the scientific method, the creation debate, and the claims from modern scientifically-minded atheists.

Whatever the case may be, ultimately these questions devolve into questions regarding apologetics. At the end of the day, every Christian must be able to give an answer to at least three basic questions: (1) Why do you believe that God exists? (2) Why do you believe that God can be known by us? (3) Why do you believe the Bible? From the perspective of a scientist, I’m usually asked to answer the first two questions more often than the third so in this blog series, I want to address the first two questions from a scientist’s perspective.

__________________

As an broad introduction in addressing these questions, I want to address the topic of how God reveals Himself to us, apart from special revelation. This is answered in Chapter 1, Paragraph 1 in the 1689 LBCF.

… although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.

This states that God reveals Himself to us internally (through our religious consciousness and moral conscience) and externally (through His works of creation and providence).

It’s also important to note that both modes of natural revelation depend upon each other. On one hand, if there was no preceding innate knowledge of God, no amount of observation from nature through scientific processes would lead to an adequate conception of God. On the other hand, our innate knowledge of God is not complete in itself apart from our external knowledge of God from creation – in other words, the works of creation and providence gives our innate knowledge of God richness and concreteness. This can be observed in Romans 1, and it explains why the scripture never assumes (even in regard to the atheist) that man must be taught the existence of God. Rather, when the scriptures exhort unbelievers to know God, this is a call for unbelievers to become acquainted with Him through knowing what He truly is.

With the entrance of sin, the structure of natural revelation itself is greatly disturbed and put in need of correction. In most discussions of this topic, emphasis is given on how sin has affected our innate knowledge of God such that both our religious and moral sense of God have become blunted and blinded. Now, it is true that man’s innate sense of God is more seriously affected by sin than his outward observation of God’s work in nature. This explains why the scripture exhorts unbelievers to correct their foolish pre-conceptions of the nature of God through proper attention to the works of creation (cf. Isaiah 40:25-26; Psalm 94:5-11).

The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. In this blog series, I will answer the question of God’s existence and knowability by emphasizing the contingent complexity of our physical world (which is a statement of God’s purpose and wisdom), the existence of the governing laws of nature (which is a description of God’s covenant faithfulness to His creation), and the internal consistency of His creation with His Word (which is a description of God’s self-disclosure to the world).

Another way to address these questions is to examine how man’s knowledge of God through nature has also been made subject to error and distortion because of the effects of sin. In this blog series, I also want to examine how otherwise brilliant scientists make significant errors in interpreting the complexity of our physical world, give irrational and illogical explanations regarding the governing laws of nature, and express various internal inconsistencies concerning various knowledge claims. This is to demonstrate that sin doesn’t remove the existence of natural revelation in our understanding of creation, but it does significantly distort it.

These considerations demonstrate that special revelation is needed not just to reveal things to our inner knowledge, but it is needed in order to correct our misconceptions of nature. The main correction of the natural knowledge of God cannot come from within nature itself, but it must be supplied by special revelation. I want to end this post by quoting Geerhardus Vos in his work Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments:

Redemption in a supernatural way restores to fallen man also the normalcy and efficiency of his cognition of God in the sphere of nature. How true this is, may be seen from the fact that the best system of Theism, i.e. Natural Theology, has not been produced from the sphere of heathenism, however splendidly endowed in the cultivation of philosophy, but from Christian sources.

Who Were the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6? (Application)

In addressing the identity of the sons of God in Genesis 6, I have stated the most common interpretation today, given a negative argument against it, and offered a positive argument in favor of my personal understanding of it. The last couple posts have been rather long for me. Thus, in conclusion to our study, there are just a few applications I’d like to make.

The Analogia Fide

First, we ought always to be mindful of the fact that our interpretation of one text cannot cancel out our interpretation of other texts in the word. We must recognize that, insofar as the word was written by one divine Author, it cannot contradict itself at any point. So, when the Bible teaches creation as a divine attribute (Psalm 33:6-9; 148:5; Isaiah 43:7; 45:12; Ephesians 46f1a1ed!h_300,id_1999,m_fill,w3:9), we must recognize the utter blasphemy of attributing creative power to any created being. So, whatever we say about the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6, we have no liberty to say that they are angels who created flesh for themselves.

When people take hard to understand passages and use passages that are even harder to understand to try to explain them, there is always the risk of altering very important truths in other parts of the Bible. As such, we need to revive the old hermeneutical principle of analogia fide, or the analogy of the faith. This principle is simple. It asserts that we interpret the less clear parts of Scripture in light of the more clear parts. With this principle as our guide, we will be less likely to try to apply the difficult writings of Peter to the less difficult passage in Genesis 6, obscuring its more rich meaning.

Which of the Angels?

Second, let us glory in our place in creation. When we understand that Christ didn’t go and make proclamation to angels in hell, it allows us to affirm with the author of Hebrews the true goal of the gospel. Christ came to bring many sons to glory, not from the hosts of fallen angels, but from his brothers in the flesh (Hebrews 2:9-13). “For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the [descendant of Abraham” (vs. 16).

Not only is Christ exalted above the angels, but He also secured a place for His brethren above the angels in glory. Our eschatological place in creation has been established by our victorious Savior, and He is not ashamed to call us brothers. What a place of significance this truth affords us. What dignity we have above even the angels!

The God of Promise

Third, let us recognize the fact that God is faithful. Whatsoever He has promised, He will deliver. When Cain killed Abel, God’s promise stood. He provided a way through the godly line of Seth. When Adam died and all seemed lost, within the year God took Enoch demonstrating that He is a God of deliverance. When the godly line of Seth began to intermarry with heathen women and abandon God, He provided an ark of salvation. When God had been silent for hundreds of years, Rome had conquered Israel, and all once again seemed lost, God finally sent the Seed of the woman to crush the head of Satan and deliver His people from their sins.

God has met every promise He ever made. He is the God of promise, and He will remain faithful to the end. Let us glory in our great God of promise!

 

The Baptist Catechism – Questions 62-67, The Fourth Commandment

Q.62: What is the fourth commandment?

A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy: six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

( Exodus 20:8-11 )

Q.63: What is required in the fourth commandment?

A. The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God one whole day in seven to be a Sabbath to Himself.

( Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-14 )

Q.64: Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?

A. Before the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.

( Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-14; Psalm 118:24; Matthew 28:1; Mark 2:27-28; 16:2; Luke 24:1, 30-36; John 20:1, 19-21, 26; Acts 1:3; 2:1-2; 20:7; 1Corinthians 16:1-2; Revelation 1:10 )

Q.65: How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?

A. The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.

( Exodus 16:25-28; 20:8, 10; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Psalm 92; Isaiah 66:23; Matthew 12:1-13; Luke 4:16 )

Q.66: What is forbidden in the fourth commandment?

A. The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about worldly employments or recreations.

( Jeremiah 17:24-27; Isaiah 58:13; Ezekiel 22:26; 23:38; Amos 8:5; Malachi 1:13; Acts 20:38 )

Q.67: What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment?

A. The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, are God’s allowing us six days of the week for our own lawful employments, His challenging a special propriety in a seventh, His own example, and His blessing the Sabbath day.

( Exodus 20:9, 11 )