CH 4 Of Creation

Introduction

The Baptist Catechism, like its parent document, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, asks in question 11, “How doth God execute his decrees?” and answers by stating that “God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.” The presence of this chapter immediately after one on God’s decree speaks to the fundamental importance of the doctrine of creation.

questions 12-15

4.1

Differences

Quotes

To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2 (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2)

In this case, the three terms (eternal power, wisdom, and goodness) refer specifically to the three persons of the Trinity: eternal power speaks of the Father, eternal wisdom refers to the Son, and eternal goodness draws to our minds the Holy Spirit. The persons of the Trinity are named in the first clause, the unity of God is highlighted by the use of a singular pronoun (his eternal power), and then the persons are again designated by attributes generally associated in Scripture with them.

To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2 (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2)

the creation of man, Particular Baptist Robert Purnell wrote, “Although God made man of the dust of the earth, yet he could have made him of nothing, as he made all things else of nothing, in six daies, Heb. 11.3. Exod. 20.11.”227

To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2 (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2)

Creation was accomplished in the space of six days. It is very clear that the seventeenth-century Puritan theologians understood this phrase literally, referring to twenty-four-hour days. David Hall has convincingly demonstrated this fact.

Historical Significance

The doctrines articulated in 1689 LBC 4.1 were primarily under attack during its time of writing, and in the prior century, by movements such as Rationalism, Socinianism, and Deism, as well as early Natural Philosophy (the precursor to modern science). These movements, alongside certain Anabaptist and Radical Reformation groups, posed challenges to the biblical view of creation held by the framers of the London Baptist Confession. There are 6 key figures and instances relevant to these attacks:

1. Socinianism:

Socinianism, named after Fausto Sozzini (1539–1604), rejected the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and the traditional view of God’s omnipotence. Socinians, influenced by Rationalism, denied the supernatural aspects of creation and emphasized human reason over divine revelation.

Key Figure: Fausto Sozzini (Faustus Socinus)Relevant Work: De Auctoritate Scripturae Sacrae (On the Authority of Holy Scripture), where Socinus denies many traditional Christian doctrines, including the literal interpretation of Genesis.Doctrinal Attack: Socinians argued that the creation accounts in Genesis should not be taken literally. They challenged the idea that God created the world out of nothing and instead promoted a more rationalistic and less miraculous view of creation.

2. Rationalism:

Rationalism, which began to rise in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, emphasized human reason as the primary source of knowledge, often rejecting supernatural explanations like the creation account in Genesis.

Key Figure: René Descartes (1596–1650)Relevant Work: Principles of Philosophy (1644) – Descartes sought to explain the universe through mathematical and mechanical principles, reducing the need for divine intervention in creation.Doctrinal Attack: Rationalist thinkers often promoted the idea that the universe could be explained through natural laws without the need for a creator or supernatural intervention, which stood against the biblical account of creation emphasized in LBC 4.1.

3. Deism:

Deism emerged in the late 16th and 17th centuries and became a significant challenge to the traditional Christian view of God’s active role in creation. Deists acknowledged that God created the world but believed He withdrew from it after creation, leaving it to operate under natural laws.

Key Figure: Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648)Relevant Work: De Veritate (1624) – Herbert’s work laid the foundation for Deist thought by arguing for natural religion and downplaying God’s ongoing involvement in the world.Doctrinal Attack: Deism denied the biblical doctrine of God’s active, ongoing role in creation. While admitting that God was the creator, they rejected the providential care that LBC 4.1 affirms, reducing God’s role to a distant, uninvolved being.

4. Natural Philosophy and Early Science:

Early developments in Natural Philosophy (proto-scientific exploration) during the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly in astronomy and physics, began to challenge the biblical worldview, although many early scientists were Christians. Some thinkers, however, used their discoveries to promote views that minimized or denied the need for supernatural creation.

Key Figure: Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)Relevant Work: Leviathan (1651) – Hobbes argued for a materialistic worldview and naturalism, reducing all phenomena, including human life, to mechanical processes.Doctrinal Attack: Hobbes’ mechanistic and materialist approach to the world challenged the biblical view that creation was a deliberate act of God, rejecting divine involvement in favor of a purely naturalistic explanation.

5. Radical Reformation Movements (Anabaptists):

Some Anabaptist and Radical Reformation groups held heterodox views that rejected traditional interpretations of creation and often spiritualized or allegorized biblical doctrines. These groups sometimes promoted mystical interpretations of Scripture that diverged from the literal, historic understanding of creation.

Key Figure: Caspar Schwenckfeld (1489–1561)

Relevant Work: Schwenckfeld rejected traditional sacramental and creationist doctrines, promoting a spiritual and mystical understanding of both.Doctrinal Attack: Schwenckfeld and other radicals allegorized key biblical teachings, including creation, often denying the literal six-day creation and the specific acts of God described in Genesis.

6. Theological Attacks from Catholic Theology:

While the Roman Catholic Church affirmed the doctrine of creation, there were internal debates about how to reconcile new scientific discoveries with traditional teachings. Some Catholic theologians accommodated Aristotelian philosophy or Neoplatonism, which introduced ideas that blended naturalistic explanations with biblical doctrines.

Key Figure: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) and the Catholic Church – While not a direct theological attack on creation ex nihilo, the tension between Galileo’s scientific discoveries and traditional biblical interpretations marked a shift in how some theologians began to accommodate or reinterpret biblical doctrines in light of new scientific knowledge.Doctrinal Attack: The conflict between new scientific observations and traditional Christian teachings created pressure to reinterpret the Genesis creation account, though this conflict was more about interpretation than outright rejection.

Conclusion:

At the time of the writing of 1689 LBC 4.1, several theological, philosophical, and proto-scientific movements were challenging the biblical doctrine of creation. These attacks came from Socinianism, Rationalism, Deism, and certain Radical Reformation groups, each promoting views that either denied or undermined the traditional teaching that God created the world out of nothing in six days by His sovereign power. Figures such as Fausto Sozzini, René Descartes, Edward Herbert, Thomas Hobbes, and Caspar Schwenckfeld were among those whose writings and ideas stood in contrast to the biblical doctrine reaffirmed by the Particular Baptists in 1689 LBC 4.1.

1. Response to Rationalism and Materialism:

During the 17th century, Rationalism and Materialism were on the rise, with figures such as René Descartes and others promoting a worldview that emphasized human reason and often downplayed or rejected the biblical account of creation. Deism was also gaining traction, which held that while God created the world, He did not intervene in it afterward. The 1689 LBC 4.1 stands against these views by affirming the supernatural act of creation by God, ex nihilo (out of nothing), upholding the biblical doctrine that God is intimately involved in His creation and actively sustains it.

The confession states that God created the world and everything in it, both visible and invisible, in six days, by the word of His power, affirming that creation was a deliberate act of God's will and not a natural process.

2. Affirmation of Biblical Authority:

The doctrine of Creation as articulated in LBC 4.1 emphasizes the authority of Scripture. At a time when human reason and empirical methods were increasingly being prioritized over divine revelation, the Baptists upheld the biblical account of creation as recorded in Genesis 1. This affirmed the Bible as the ultimate authority on matters of faith and practice, over against the emerging views that sought to reinterpret creation through the lens of human reason alone.

By grounding the doctrine of creation firmly in Scripture, 1689 LBC 4.1 connects with the broader Reformed commitment to the sufficiency and authority of the Bible in all things, particularly in opposition to speculative philosophical ideas about the origins of the universe.

3. The Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty:

The confession's teaching in 4.1 underscores God’s absolute sovereignty over all things, including the act of creation. It affirms that creation was not an accident, a process of chance, or something that occurred without divine intervention, but rather a purposeful act of God that displays His power, wisdom, and goodness. This teaching aligns with the Reformed tradition, which emphasizes God’s sovereignty in both creation and providence.

In contrast to Arminian and Pelagian tendencies, which tended to elevate human autonomy, LBC 4.1 reinforces the Reformed view that God’s authority extends to every part of the universe, having created it by His word and sustaining it by His power.

4. Baptist Identity and Continuity with the Reformed Tradition:

LBC 4.1 is significant for showing the continuity of Particular Baptists with the wider Reformed tradition, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration, which also affirm the same doctrine of creation. By including this doctrine in their confession, the Particular Baptists were making it clear that, although they held distinct views on ecclesiology (like believer’s baptism), they stood in line with the broader Reformed theological heritage when it came to core doctrines like creation.

This commitment to Reformed orthodoxy distinguished the Particular Baptists from other groups in the 17th century, such as the General Baptists, who held more Arminian views, and the Radical Reformation, which often strayed into more speculative theology regarding creation and divine sovereignty.

5. Theological Battle Against Atheism and Heretical Movements:

1689 LBC 4.1 also takes a stand against emerging atheism and heretical movements of the time that denied the personal, intentional nature of God's act of creation. In an era of increasing skepticism toward divine involvement in the world and the rise of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, this confession serves as a declaration of faith in the God of Scripture as the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

The historical significance of 1689 LBC 4.1 lies in its strong affirmation of the biblical doctrine of creation, which positioned the Particular Baptists within the broader Reformed and Puritan tradition and against the rising influence of Rationalism, Materialism, and Deism. By affirming God’s sovereign act of creation, ex nihilo, in six days, the confession resisted contemporary philosophical trends and upheld the authority of Scripture, reinforcing the Reformed view of God’s sovereignty over all creation. This section reflects the Baptists’ commitment to grounding their theology in the Bible, while also aligning themselves with the theological orthodoxy of the time.

Modern Attacks

1. Denial of Creation Ex Nihilo (Naturalistic Evolution)

Challenge: Naturalistic evolution denies that God created the world out of nothing. Instead, it posits that life arose through purely natural processes over billions of years, often without the need for a divine creator.Prominent Figures:

Richard Dawkins – Biologist and author of The God Delusion, who argues for atheistic evolution and dismisses any need for a divine creator.Stephen Jay Gould – Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist who promoted naturalistic explanations for the origin of life without divine intervention.Doctrinal Attack: This worldview contradicts the teaching that God created everything by His word and power, ex nihilo, and denies the supernatural origin of the universe.

2. Theistic Evolution

Challenge: Theistic evolution attempts to reconcile evolution with the belief in God by suggesting that God used evolutionary processes to create life over millions of years, which contrasts with the biblical account of a literal six-day creation.Prominent Figures:

Francis Collins – Geneticist and leader of the Human Genome Project, who promotes theistic evolution through his book The Language of God.BioLogos Foundation – An organization that advocates for theistic evolution, aiming to harmonize scientific findings with faith, but accommodates evolutionary theory over the literal reading of Genesis.Doctrinal Attack: Theistic evolution undermines the six-day creation account and the idea that God's creation was immediate and direct, as emphasized in 4.1.

3. Progressive Creationism/Old Earth Creationism

Challenge: Old Earth Creationism holds that the earth is billions of years old and tries to harmonize this with the Genesis account by interpreting the days of creation as long ages rather than literal 24-hour days.Prominent Figures:

Hugh Ross – Astronomer and author who advocates for Progressive Creationism through his organization Reasons to Believe, which supports an old earth while maintaining some supernatural creation events.Doctrinal Attack: This view compromises the biblical teaching of a six-day creation, which the 1689 LBC 4.1 explicitly affirms.

4. Deism

Challenge: Deism teaches that God created the universe but is no longer involved in it, denying His ongoing providential care and interaction with creation.Prominent Figures:

Thomas Paine – A key figure in promoting deistic thought through his book The Age of Reason, which argued that after creating the world, God left it to operate under natural laws without further intervention.Doctrinal Attack: Deism denies the doctrine in 4.1 that God actively sustains and governs His creation, emphasizing a hands-off approach after the initial act of creation.

5. Pantheism and New Age Spirituality

Challenge: Pantheism and New Age Spirituality assert that God is identical with creation (i.e., everything is divine), which denies the Creator-creation distinction that 4.1 upholds.Prominent Figures:

Eckhart Tolle – Spiritual teacher and author of The Power of Now, who promotes a pantheistic view of divinity being present in all things.Deepak Chopra – Author and New Age advocate, who blurs the distinction between the Creator and creation, suggesting that the divine is a part of everything.Doctrinal Attack: Pantheism contradicts 4.1, which teaches that God is the transcendent Creator of all things, distinct from His creation.

6. Process Theology

Challenge: Process Theology teaches that God and creation are in a state of mutual change and evolution, which denies the unchanging nature of God and His sovereign creation.Prominent Figures:

John B. Cobb – A key proponent of Process Theology, arguing that God is in a process of becoming, alongside creation, rather than being the all-powerful Creator.Doctrinal Attack: This view undermines 4.1 by denying God’s unchangeable nature and sovereign power as the Creator who established and governs all things according to His will.

7. Atheism and Secular Humanism

Challenge: Atheism outright denies the existence of God and the biblical account of creation, promoting a worldview that relies solely on naturalistic explanations for the origin of life.Prominent Figures:

Sam Harris – A prominent atheist author and philosopher who rejects any notion of divine creation, promoting naturalism in his books like The End of Faith.Christopher Hitchens – An atheist writer and critic of religion who argued against the concept of a divine creator in his book God Is Not Great.Doctrinal Attack: Atheism directly denies the existence of God and the entire framework of 4.1, which affirms God as the Creator of all things.

Conclusion:

The doctrines in 1689 LBC 4.1 are under attack by various modern movements, from atheism and naturalistic evolution to theistic evolution, progressive creationism, deism, and pantheism. Figures like Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, and others represent worldviews that challenge or modify the doctrine of creation as articulated in 4.1. These challenges include the denial of creation ex nihilo, the rejection of a six-day creation, and the blurring of the distinction between God and His creation, all of which are vital elements of the doctrine in 1689 LBC 4.1.

4.2-3

Differences

The main differences between Savoy/WCF 4.2 and LBC 4.2, 4.3 primarily relate to how the 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC) articulates the nature and responsibilities of humanity in creation. The doctrinal core remains the same, as all three confessions affirm God’s special creation of humanity and their original righteousness, but the LBC introduces additional detail and clarifications. Below are the key differences:

1. Division of Content:

WCF/Savoy 4.2 combines the teaching on the creation of man and the duties and responsibilities God gave him, particularly focusing on his being made in God's image, endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, and given the law written in his heart.LBC splits this content into two paragraphs (4.2 and 4.3), providing a more detailed and focused explanation on each aspect.

2. Creation of Man (LBC 4.2):

The LBC 4.2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve in more specific detail compared to WCF/Savoy 4.2. It emphasizes that Eve was created from Adam, bringing a focus on the distinct creation of both man and woman and their unique roles in creation.LBC 4.2: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God; for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness."The WCF/Savoy 4.2 does not explicitly mention the creation of Eve from Adam in this section, though it does speak generally of the creation of male and female in the image of God.

3. The Law of God Written on the Heart (LBC 4.3):

LBC 4.3 introduces more detailed language about the responsibilities given to Adam and Eve. It states that God gave them "a law of commandment written in their hearts," highlighting more clearly the idea of natural law or God's moral law being innately understood by humanity from creation.LBC 4.3 also explicitly mentions the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, with more clarity than the WCF/Savoy. This command is described as a "positive law," meaning a law added beyond the natural moral law to test their obedience.In WCF/Savoy 4.2, the law written on the heart is mentioned, but the LBC makes a more explicit distinction between natural law and the specific command about the tree.

4. Focus on Accountability and Fall:

LBC 4.3 includes a statement about how this law "promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it," thus focusing explicitly on the covenantal nature of the relationship between God and Adam. This reference to a covenant is implied in the WCF/Savoy but not as clearly spelled out as it is in the LBC.The LBC draws out the consequences of disobedience in greater detail, making clearer the connection between the moral law, the specific command, and the fall of man, setting up the need for redemption, which is further developed in later chapters.

Summary of Differences:

Division of Content: LBC splits WCF/Savoy 4.2 into two sections (LBC 4.2, 4.3) to emphasize both the creation of man and woman and the specific laws given to humanity.Detailed Account of Creation: LBC 4.2 gives more attention to the creation of Eve from Adam, highlighting the distinct creation of man and woman.Law Written on the Heart: LBC 4.3 makes a clearer distinction between the natural law written on Adam’s heart and the specific command concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil.Covenantal Focus: LBC 4.3 emphasizes the covenant of works more explicitly, describing the promise of life and the threat of death based on Adam's obedience or disobedience.

While the LBC aligns with the WCF and Savoy on the major theological points regarding the creation and responsibility of man, it adds clarity and more explicit details, particularly regarding natural law, the covenant, and the distinct creation of man and woman.

Quotes

5 key quotes from Reformed theologians during the 1600s that reinforce the doctrines expressed in 1689 LBC 4.1-4.3 regarding the doctrine of creation:

John Owen (1616–1683) – English Puritan theologian:

Quote: "The works of creation are all wrought by the power of God. The creation of man, male and female, was in a peculiar way ordained to glorify Him, for they were created in His image, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness."

Relevance: Owen affirms the biblical doctrine of creation, particularly the creation of man in the image of God with righteousness and holiness, which aligns with 1689 LBC 4.2.

Francis Turretin (1623–1687) – Swiss-Italian Reformed theologian:

"The creation was immediate, by the will and power of God, not arising from any pre-existing matter, but ex nihilo, that the world might declare His glory. The perfection of the first creation was such that man was endowed with knowledge and righteousness."

Relevance: Turretin’s affirmation of creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in righteousness is in line with the doctrine articulated in 1689 LBC 4.1-4.2.

Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) – Scottish Presbyterian theologian:

"God created the world and all therein for His own glory, and the first man and woman He formed, to bear His image and reflect His holiness."

Relevance: Rutherford affirms the purpose of creation being for God’s glory and highlights the creation of man and woman in God’s image, reinforcing the teaching in 1689 LBC 4.1-4.2.

Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) – English Puritan theologian:

"The law of God was inscribed upon the hearts of our first parents in their creation, so that Adam knew instinctively what was required of him, both by nature and the positive law given in Eden."

Relevance: Goodwin reinforces 1689 LBC 4.3, which speaks of the law written on Adam’s heart and the positive command given to him, reflecting the Baptist confession's view of man’s moral knowledge and responsibility before the fall.

5. William Ames (1576–1633) – English Puritan theologian:

"God created all things out of nothing in the space of six days by His powerful word, that His wisdom, power, and goodness might be manifest in all His works."

Relevance: Ames supports the teaching of 1689 LBC 4.1, emphasizing creation ex nihilo in six days, for the purpose of manifesting God’s attributes.

Historical Significance

Summary

Conclusion

In both the 1600s and today, 1689 LBC Chapter 4 defends the sovereignty and authority of God over creation in the face of intellectual movements that seek to replace divine revelation with human reasoning or naturalistic explanations. In the 17th century, the confession stood against the rise of Rationalism and Deism; today, it confronts evolutionary naturalism and other modern ideologies. By upholding the biblical account of creation, this chapter continues to assert the uniqueness of humanity, the purposefulness of creation, and the moral responsibility of all people before God, bridging the challenges of both past and present.