Doctrine of Creation

Alrighty, guys.

It is 9 o'clock,

so why don't we jump in

!

Lord, we ask that you would bless this time

and help us all to grow closer to you.

In Jesus' name, amen.

Amen.

Alright.

Well, we're back again

after a snow hiatus.

And you may be wondering,

why are we back again?

Didn't we spend the entire last class

talking about how everybody disagrees

about what Genesis 1 says?

Why are we even talking about it anymore, right?

And if that's how you're feeling,

I'd like to start the class

by giving you a word of exhortation.

And that is,

if any interpretation we have of Scripture,

anything that we advocate for,

makes us feel like we can ignore Scripture

or avoid it,

or avoid wrestling with the text,

then I submit to you that it must be wrong.

If you're adopting an interpretation

that says,

I can just ignore this part of Scripture,

I don't have to read it,

I don't have to think about it,

then I think you should reconsider.

Because our interpretations

shouldn't be licensed to dismiss God's Word.

And ultimately,

our job is to sit under the teaching of Scripture

as a good audience,

even if we're not sure

of every aspect of the text,

every part of it, right?

And even if we all disagree

about parts of the text,

it doesn't mean we don't keep on coming back

and trying to learn

and trying to understand.

So with that exhortation,

why don't we start by reading

the portion of our text

that we're going to be considering today.

Can somebody read for me?

Yeah.

Oh, here we are.

You have your hand up.

Can somebody read for me

Genesis 1,

Genesis 1:20–25

verses 20 through 25?

Yeah, yeah.

I think that's page 1.

20 through 25.

20 through 25.

And God said,

let the waters bring forth abundantly

as it was good as it was good as it was said.

which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind,

and every winged fowl after his kind.

And God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying,

Be fruitful and multiply,

fill the waters in the sea,

and let fowl multiply in the earth.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Yep, through 25.

And God said,

Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,

cattle and creeping thing,

and beasts of the earth after his kind.

And it was so.

And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind,

and cattle after their kind,

and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind.

And God saw that it was good.

All right.

Does anyone see sort of a recurring pattern in these verses?

After its kind.

You guys see that?

God made the sea creatures after their kind,

and the birds after their kind,

and the land creatures,

and the swarming creatures after their kind.

I find that,

according to their kind repetition,

really intriguing.

What could these phrases be referring to?

Well,

I mean,

the most obvious explanation of these

is basically just the observation

that

lambs give birth to lambs,

and grapevines produce grapevines,

you know.

So it's not really meant to be communicating to us

what kinds are.

just saying that,

you know,

like things give birth to like things.

And that there's diversity.

Yeah.

It's kind.

Right,

exactly.

I actually think,

given that the original audience

of Genesis 1

were

farmers,

shepherds,

people who are

really super familiar with animal husbandry,

this would be

not really that

groundbreaking

if that was the only meaning.

You know?

I think most,

these people were

very familiar with the fact that

lambs give birth to lambs,

et cetera.

So,

I think it would kind of be doing

injustice to the text

to restrict it

to merely that meaning.

So,

what additionally

could it be referring to?

Well,

the word kind here

means something like

categories

or varieties of things,

indicating

that the text

is

drawing on

that

there seems to be

something behind

our sort of

our common sense observation

that there are

different ways

of being.

Hi,

sorry,

I'm like...

No,

don't worry about it.

No,

just the beginning.

We're just talking about

kinds,

you know,

according to their kinds

in Genesis

day five

and day six.

Yeah.

So,

there are

different ways

of being

that we can

justifiably

group together

and separate.

Okay?

Now,

what do I mean by that?

Well,

apple trees

seem to us

to be different

kinds of things

than a lion,

right?

But we would still

group together

maple trees

with the apple trees

and we would group

lions with tigers,

right?

There seems to be

sort of these

different ways

of existing

that we can

just see with our eyes

like,

oh,

that is like this.

We put them together

even though they're not

identical.

There's diversity

among the kinds

but there are

different kinds

of things,

right?

If anyone here

is familiar

with the works

of Plato,

this may be

reminding you

of his concept

of the ideas

and some

have even noted

that the,

there's an interesting

parallel

between the Greek

translation

in the Septuagint

of these passages

that we just read

and the works

of Aristotle

in Greek

where he is

attempting to

describe what he

believes are like

the fixity

of the forms,

like how every

individual species

of thing

is its own thing

and it's,

you know,

it has to do

with substance

and accents

if you're familiar

with Greek

metaphysics.

And he's often

in those passages

in Aristotle,

he's using

a very similar

kind of language

to the Greek

translation

of these passages.

But Aristotle

is producing

what I think

could be accurately

called like a

scientific account

of these different

kinds

and he's giving

philosophical reasons

for the separation

of categories

of things

and categories

of being.

And I don't think

that's actually

what scripture

is doing here

but I think

because scripture

is not making

philosophical arguments,

it's not making

a scientific argument

here,

it's distating

a truth.

But I think

beyond all that

there is

definitely here

an affirmation

that there are

different ways

of being

and there's

variety among them.

Okay?

Different kinds

of existence.

So

where

do these

ways of being

or kinds

come from?

What was that?

From God?

Oh yeah,

that was good.

Yeah.

From God himself.

Right?

Of course.

Like all things

they come from God.

Right?

We learn

class one

everything

was created

ex nihilo.

There is

God

and everything

that God created.

And so if we're

thinking about

where did all this

different ways of being,

these kinds of existences,

these different

forms you might call them,

where do they come from?

Well they have to come

from God.

But let's consider this.

When you and I

are creative

we tend to imagine

that

we're truly

generating

concepts

and images

from nothing.

Right?

We're like

we're truly original.

We just

we create

from the nothingness

that is in our mind.

Right?

But actually

any

experienced artist

will tell you that

our creative activity

is more of a blending.

A blending

or appropriating

of the reality

around us.

Right?

An artist

first goes out

and feeds

their imagination

with information

from our senses

and then

they can go back

and recombine

and reimagine them

as their own works.

Right?

Not to say that

artists aren't creative

only that they have to

draw on existing reality

and twist them

and move them

and form them

into something new.

Right?

But they're not

truly original.

Actually

J.R.R. Tolkien

called this work

sub-creation

because none of us

can say

that we actually

create proper.

We're always

whenever we do

something creative

we're always

sub-creating

drawing on

the things

that already exist.

But if we think

about this

that can't actually

be true of God.

Right?

There is nothing

for God to go out

and observe

and feed his imagination

like

I think I'm going to create

let me go out

and see what's out there.

You know?

No.

God doesn't have

there is nothing

outside of God

to base his creation on.

And some

have attempted

to say that

God created

based on his

foreknowledge

of what would be

created

much like

some say

that God

elects people

based on their

free choice of him.

Right?

So if you're

familiar with

the doctrine of grace

we talked about this

a few weeks ago

not a few weeks ago

it was actually

like a few months ago

my goodness.

Anyways

the idea that

oh

someone chooses

God

in their life

freely

and God

from time immemorial

knows that

and says

therefore I'm going

to elect this person

because he chose me.

Right?

And so a similar

sort of activity

is thought to

some people

have thought

well

God has

perfect foreknowledge

so he knows

what will be

what will exist

in creation

and so he

creates

based on his

foreknowledge

of what will be

existing.

However

Stephen Charnock

makes short work

of this view

observing

he made all

things in wisdom

how can this

be imagined

if the things

known

were the cause

of his knowledge

and so before

his knowledge

and therefore

before his action

God would not

then be the first

in the order

of knowing agents

because he would

not act by knowledge

but act before

he knew

and know

after he acted.

You see that

it's kind of

ridiculous.

So God

can't create

based on his

foreknowledge

of what would

exist.

That creates

a contradiction

where the thing

that exists

exists before

God creates it

so he acts

before he knows

what he's creating

and he knows

what he did

after he did it.

Yeah.

If you're confused

everyone should be

confused

because it doesn't

make any sense.

So no

our creator

has made everything

in keeping with

what are called

by theologians

his divine ideas.

These divine ideas

are the patterns

of all created

things that exist

in his mind.

Now

this is actually

was developed

in the early church

as a critique

of Platonism

and Aristotelianism.

So the idea was

if you're familiar

with Plato

you know

there are

different kinds

of trees

right

but they're all

trees

and there's

this thing

called

tree-ness

right

there's this

idea of the tree

the ideal of the tree

the form of the tree

and this idea

of the tree

this tree-ness

exists

in this realm

called the realm

of the ideas

and this is where

all the concrete

or abstract objects

exist

anyways

in Christianity

we believe

that there is

nothing else

eternal

outside of God

right

and so

based on texts

like here in Genesis

and our common sense

observation

that there are

there does seem

to be something

behind this kind

idea

or form idea

the earliest Christians

said no

these are actually

they're not in their

own eternal realm

of abstract objects

they're in God

these are God's ideas

it's in God's mind

right

and they call these

divine ideas

now are these ideas

pure inventions

totally new

based on nothing

you know

some would say

that this must be true

for God to be free

in his creation

that he had to have

just like

this

right

you know

tree

but

most

most theologians

actually

the majority

of the church

has actually

viewed these

divine ideas

of creation

that God

created

based these

on himself

that they are

they are

reflections

of aspects

of God's being

because God

himself

is the fullness

of being

right

this is the view

that was pioneered

by origin

and Augustine

and affirmed

and modified

throughout church

history

by John of Damascus

Anselm

Thomas Aquinas

Francis Turretin

and many

many others

however

like a lot

of things

I like

how Herman

Bavink

puts it

in summary

he says

God's ideas

are absolutely

original

they arise

from his own

being

they are

eternal

and immutable

indeed

they are

one with

his own

being

the ideas

in God

are the very

being of God

in so far

as this being

is the pattern

of created

things

and can be

expressed

and modeled

in finite

creatures

every creature

is a revelation

of God

and participates

in God's

being

the nature

of this

participation

is not

such that

creatures

are modifications

of the divine

being

or that they

have in some

realistic sense

receive this

divine being

into themselves

but every

creature

has its own

distinct being

because in

its existence

it is an

exemplification

of the divine

being

the wisdom

of God

is manifest

in the creation

ordering

guidance

and government

of all things

you guys

catch that

in

in virtue

of being

an exemplification

of God

in some way

all of creation

can be truly

said to be

God's

self-revelation

that means

that every time

you walk outside

and look

at a piece

of moss

or a robin

eating on the lawn

or the mushrooms

dotting a log

you are in

some sense

receiving a

revelation

of God

you're learning

something about

God

he is telling

you something

about himself

the oxaladdle

the quivering

aspen

the secretive owl

are all saying

behold your maker

how sad

that we often

walk by the

outside world

without appreciating

the central

aspect of it

Raul you had

your hand

out

even

you pointed

out

the algae

and nature

but also

the building

of cities

and civilizations

and having

governments

that's all

from God

yeah

all of that

yeah

I think

and I'm not

this is actually

outside of my purview

because

I'm not

I'm not going to be

teaching the image

of God

class

that's going to be

Pastor Nick

but I think

you're right

I think

the works

of human beings

the work

our art

our architecture

our organization

our reasoning

our science

all that stuff

is actually

reflections of God

through the medium

of the human mind

so the human mind

is a reflection of God

and therefore

our works

are therefore

like secondary reflections

of God's mind

yeah

exactly

yeah

Richard

so

clearly

creation

ex nihilo

would exclude

the notion

that

God

creates

everything

out of

himself

but does it

exclude

the notion

that God

creates

everything

out of

his ideas

no

no

so the idea

here is

God

as an analogy

the analogy

is

before we

make something

we have an idea

of it in our mind

think of it like

a blueprint

right

we have a blueprint

of a building

that we're going

to make

the blueprint

isn't the building

the blueprint

is what the building

is going to be

right

the form of it

the idea of it

in the same way

God

prior to his

creation of the world

has ideas

of what

he's going to create

and what those

ideas are

what he ends up

actualizing

creating

is based

on himself

right

the ways in which

he can be

imitated

in a finite mode

right

it's the finitude

that is the

important part here

right

none of us

none of

no part of creation

is like

this is the

divine

you know

like

it's

no no no

this is reflecting

something about God

it's not all of God

does that make sense

nothing finite

can ever encompass

all of God

but

does that make sense

what we're getting

out of there

yeah

so

if

all of creation

is a self-revelation

of God

this kind of

brings up a

perplexing question

what do we make

of all those

aspects of creation

that make us

wince

that make us what

wince

you know

make us

kind of shudder

what do we make

of the seemingly

long history

of predation

and death

in the natural world

including the extinction

of all kinds of creatures

like the majestic

dinosaur

and the funky

trilobite

ultimately

we're asking

the question

how fallen

is nature

if creation

is a self-revelation

of God

what are we

reasonably expected

to be able to learn

from God

from nature

and how corrupted

has it been

by the fall

one view

is actually

that the natural world

has been

comprehensively

affected by the fall

of man

that every kind

of natural evil

as we might

understand it

is attributable

to humanity's

primal disobedience

this view

is often

a distinguishing mark

of young earth

creationism

postulating that

predation

and animal death

per se

are results

of the fall

of man

and therefore

cannot predate

humanity

since the publication

of the Genesis flood

in 1961

the history

of predation

and extinction

as seen in the fossils

is actually explained

by a global flood

that produced

the world

as we know it today

but

this view

is actually

a little bit more

I mean

this general view

is more ancient

than that

it's

the view

that nature

has been severely

affected by the fall

is actually espoused

by John Calvin

he says

that fleas

caterpillars

and other

noxious insects

are penalties

of the fall

so the relevant

passages in scripture

that are often cited

are the descriptions

of animal diet

in Genesis 1

the curses

in Genesis 3

the prophecy

of Isaiah 11

Isaiah 11:6–9

verses 6-9

and Paul's

discourse

in Romans 8

about creation

so let's go through

some of these

Genesis 1

29-30

says

after the creation

of man and animals

and God said

behold

I have given you

every plant

yielding seed

that is on the face

of all the earth

and every tree

with seed in its fruit

you shall have them

for food

and to every beast

of the earth

and every bird

of the heavens

and everything

that creeps on the earth

everything that has

the breath of life

I have given

every green plant

for food

and it was so

this seems like

a pretty clear

prohibition

on carnivorous activity

prior to the fall

and it's only enhanced

by the prophecies

found in Isaiah 11

6-9

where he says

the wolf

shall dwell

with the lamb

and the leopard

shall lie down

with the young goat

and the calf

and the lion

and the fatted calf

together

and a little child

shall lead them

the cow

and the bear

shall graze

the young

shall lie down

together

and the lion

shall eat straw

like the ox

the nursing child

shall play

over the holes

of the cobra

and the weaned child

shall put his hand

on the adder's den

they shall not hurt

or destroy

in all my holy mountain

for the earth

shall be full

of the knowledge

of the Lord

as the waters

covers the sea

so here

the predatory animals

are seen to be

restored

in this view

to their prior

vegetarianism

in the new creation

showing that

predation

must have been

a result of the fall

and that nature

is in fact

currently cursed

Genesis 3

recounts

God's curse

on Adam

saying

because you have

listened to the voice

of your wife

and have eaten

of the tree

of which I commanded

you

you shall not

eat of it

curse is the ground

because of you

in pain

you shall eat of it

all the days

of your life

thorns and thistles

shall bring forth

for you

and you shall eat

the plants

of the field

by the sweat

of your face

you shall eat bread

till you return

to the ground

for out of it

you were taken

for you are dust

and to dust

you shall return

biologist

Dr. Gordon Wilson

one of the people

I think is

one of the best

proponents of this

view of a cursed nature

and

simultaneously

the creator

of an excellent

nature documentary

called

The Right and the Dance

if you're able

to watch it

you should watch it

it's great

I mean all nature

documentaries are awesome

but this is great

he comments

on that work

that documentary

that the curse

is manifest

when looking closely

at these elephant seals

in this case

the male domination

of the cows

the accidental crushing

of calves

and violent

territorial battles

between males

are on full display

this is a powerful

reminder that the creation

though impressive

is truly fallen

because of man's sin

right

he also

Dr. Wilson

also connects

this curse

to Paul's commentary

on the fallenness

of the world

in Romans 8

many of you

are probably familiar

with that

Paul says

for I consider

that the sufferings

of this present time

are not worth comparing

with the glory

that is to be revealed

to us

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 first fruits

of the spirit

groan inwardly

as we wait eagerly

for adoption as sons

the redemption

of our bodies

for in this hope

we were saved

now hope

that is seen

is not hope

for what

who hopes

for what he sees

but if we hope

for what we do not see

we wait for it

with patience

Wilson

Dr. Wilson again

speaking of venomous snakes

observes that

the difference here

is that venomous snakes

curse condition

negatively impacts

human health

and welfare

especially in tropical countries

as we profiled

these deadly snakes

and our adversarial

relationship with them

throughout the world history

we wanted to highlight

the hope of the gospel

not only does God

reconcile man

to himself

through the life

death

burial

resurrection

and ascension

of Jesus Christ

but the whole creation

will be liberated

from its bondage

to corruption

quoting Romans 8

so

you can see

that altogether

this view

can support

the idea

of a creation

that is bound

in corruption

as exemplified

in predation

venomous animals

and animal death

generally

so this is one view

of how fallen

nature is

in contrast

another view

is that creation

as we have received it

is now

even now

still very good

as God declares

at the end of the creation account

they would say

that predation

animal death

even venomous animals

are a part

of this good creation

and that it is

the fallenness of men

that restricts us

from being able

to fully appreciate

the breadth

of God's works

among these proponents

would be

figures like

Augustine

Basil of Caesarea

Thomas Aquinas

William Paley

to name just a few

in fact

this is

if I had to

survey

church history

generally

this seems to be

the majority view

in the church

an excellent

modern proponent

of this view

would be

scientist

and Old Testament

scholar

Dr. C. John Collins

I'm a huge fan

love Dr. Collins

who in a chapter

in his book

Science and Faith

Friend or Foes

takes up this challenge

he points out

that when we look

at the supposed

prohibition

on predation

in Genesis 1

that there is

a curious omission

from the list

of animals

who are meant

to eat vegetation

did you guys catch it?

let's see

verse 30 says

and to every beast

of the earth

and every bird

of the heavens

and everything

that creeps

on the earth

everything that

has the breath

of life

I have given

every green plant

for food

you guys notice

there's no mention

of aquatic life

there?

aquatic

there's no mention

of aquatic life

so

at the very least

if this is a prohibition

on predation

it doesn't seem

to be a blanket

prohibition

of predation

because

it does not

encompass

the

aquatic animals

many of which

as you may know

eat other things

and the

ancient people

would know that too

and further

he points out

that the prophecy

in Isaiah 11

showing the lion

eating straw

like an ox

is actually

sandwiched

between two sections

discussing the turning

of all the Gentile

nations to Jesus

suggesting

it actually

might be

more properly

understood

to be a poetic

representation

of the peace

between Jew

and Gentile

a result

that would be

just as startling

as lions

and lambs

laying peacefully

together

more importantly

he points

to those passages

in scripture

like Psalm 104

that seem

to glorify God

for the predation

of his creatures

we read here

verse 19

he made the moon

to mark the seasons

the sun knows

it's time for setting

you make darkness

and it is night

when all the beasts

of the forest

creep about

the young lions

roar for their prey

seeking their food

from God

when the sun rises

they steal away

and lie down

in their dens

man goes out

to his work

and his labor

until the evening

oh Lord

how manifold

are your works

in wisdom

have you made them all

the earth

is full

of your creatures

so proponents

of this

we would say

we surely

have to include

these passages

into our view

of creation as well

so how do we

balance those

and as far as

the curse

in Genesis 3

is concerned

he would argue

that Dr. Collins

would say

that these are

properly understood

to be judgments

on man alone

and that thorns

and thistles

are going to be

God's means

for punishing Adam

not that

they are now

going to exist

for the first time

at all

similarly

the corruption

in Romans 8

on this view

is better understood

to be a lament

of creation

for man

to finally

take up

their role

of vice-regent

for the flourishing

of all of creation

not for the

that nature

of predation

and animal death

but that mankind

would finally come

and lead creation

the way it was meant to

to Christians

like Collins

this would also

make sense

of our intuition

of the amazing glory

and beauty

of these created beings

you know

the intricacy

of the spider's web

the astonishing speed

of the barracuda

and the superb design

of the eagle's eyes

and claws

Augustine thought

the same of the insects

saying

all things after all

have in them

a certain worth

or grace of nature

each of its own kind

so that in these

minute creatures

there is even more

for us to wonder at

as we observe them

and so praise

the almighty craftsman

for them

more rapturously

than ever

if we pay close attention

we are more amazed

at the agile flight

of a fly

than at the stamina

of the sturdy mule

on the march

and the cooperative

labors of tiny ants

strike us

as far more wonderful

than the colossal loads

that can be carried

by camels

ultimately

the proponents

of this view

would say

that the parts

of creation

that we are

uncomfortable with

is a result

of our inability

to fully appreciate

the whole of creation

and see

just like

the dark spots

in a painting

the greater glory

that is produced

in the completed project

Augustine exhorts us

some things you see

abide by soaring

over the whole

rolling wheel

of time

in the widest range

of holiness

under God

while other things

do so according

to the limits

of their time

and thus it is

through things

giving way to

and taking the place

of one another

that a beautiful

tapestry

of the ages

is woven

they would say

just like

sore eyes

make the light

hateful to us

our fallen

attitudes

make us unable

to properly

appreciate

the temporal

beauty

of some aspects

of the world

and even

for those parts

that we can't

fully understand

their purpose

John Chrysostom

would say

from the creation

learn to admire

the Lord

and if any of

the things

which you see

exceed your

comprehension

and you're not

able to find

the reason

for its existence

then for this

reason

glorify the

creator

that the wisdom

of his works

surpasses your

own understanding

these views

were espoused

well before

the theory of

evolution

was proposed

so they can't

actually be

considered a

capitulation

to the current

scientific theory

but it has

not been lost

on modern

proponents of

this view

that it would

certainly make

acceptance of

some kind

of development

and creation

more plausible

given the

animal death

and predation

in the fossil

record that

seems to

predate humans

okay

so

are those

the only

options we

have left

to us

I have to

say

I lean

towards the

second view

with its

insistence

on the

goodness

of creation

here and

now

but I'm

still

not fully

satisfied

with the

arguments

against our

perception

of some

kind of

natural

evil

I feel

like the

virtues

of the

first

view

are that

it gels

with that

intuition

that we

have

that there

is

something

wrong

there's just

something

off

about

creation

something

that's just

not quite

right

still beautiful

but still

I don't know

it's hard to put

words on it

and I feel

like the

virtue of

the second

view

is that

it helps us

to appreciate

creation as

we have it

now

receive

the world

that we go

out right

now and

see

and appreciate

and glorify

God for it

there are

pros and

cons

to each

of them

I feel

like one

of the

cons

of the

first view

is it

does seem

to kind

of require

us

to posit

some kind

of like

post-creation

creation

right

so pre-fall

there wouldn't

be predators

or

you know

decomposers

or all these

different aspects

of creation

that seem

to be designed

to work

with animal

death

and

deal with

those issues

and so

I guess

in this view

the idea

would be

at the

cursing

of creation

you have

this moment

where there

are suddenly

lions who

have like

big teeth

now

and claws

and digestive

systems that

work on

eating animals

and you

know

venomous snakes

suddenly have

to get glands

that inject

venom

you see

what I'm

saying

there seems

to be

some sort

of

there would

have to

be

some sort

of like

second

creation

event

sort of

although we

don't really

see something

like that

in scripture

and again

I think

one of the

greatest

cons of

this second

view

is just

that

I feel

like it

asks us

to

pretend

like we

don't see

what we

see

you know

that we

don't

that when

we watch

the nature

documentary

we honestly

don't

root

for the

squirrel

right

that's being

chased by

the fox

we're like

get away

squirrel

go

what is

that

I don't

know

so

I say

surely

we have

modern

glasses

so we

have to

come at

this with

a little

bit of

humility

right

because

we

probably

have

modern

glasses

that make

us

more apt

to

anthropomorphize

animals

their

animals

the

suffering

and death

of animals

and

it could

be

let's

be honest

most