London Baptist Confession of 1689 Chapter 4

paragraph 1.  In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
( John 1:2, 3; Hebrews 1:2; Job 26:13; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 1:31 )

The question is:

How can we hold to such a strict view of creation? Isn’t the 1689 too narrow and weren’t those men writing this document without the benefit of modern scientific discoveries?

I see four essential issues stated here in the confession:

1) God created all things ex nihilo. Out of nothing! The confession rules out any who see a process whereby God took pre existing material and re-constituted it into our present universe.

2) God is the only un-caused cause therefore he is the first cause of all things; he created all things!

3) God’s creation was ‘very good!’ The material universe is a good thing and there is nothing inherently superior about the spiritual realm. Also, death did not reign before the fall.

4) God created all things out of nothing in six days.

Now what is the point of the gospel if points 1 through 3 are not true?

Is God omnipotent? Not if he merely used previously created (by whom?) material in order to re-form it into our present universe.

Is God sovereign? Not if there were pre-existant things in the universe. If some things were not created by him he would not posses sovereign control over them. But he is the first cause of all things. Therefore we must believe he created all things.
The Bible clearly teaches that death is ‘bad’ and a result of sin. Gospel believing Christians cannot believe in an evolutionary system whereby life ‘advances’ through the death of countless inferior mutations and the successful survival of superior species. If death reigned before Adam, yet death is a result of sin, then how can we speak of a redeemer who sets us free from the curse? If the curse (death) was a mechanism whereby life evolved then it makes no sense to say that death is a curse.

Point four (Six day creation) gives us the essential information that the universe was created by God in a specific time period. The 1689 writers stated it in the same way that the Genesis account speaks of it without any explanation of the how of creation – just a chronological statement of fact! And furthermore, Jesus refers to the Genesis account as a literal event. But since this is a unique event (the creation of the universe as well as the creation of time) I do find it difficult to be dogmatic about the chronological nature of creation. I think there is some degree of liberty in interpreting the biblical account of beginnings. I don’t see how the 1689 wording for point four would necessarily exclude some who may interpret ‘days’ to mean ‘periods of time’ as long as they are not trying to accommodate evolutionary processes.

Personally, I don’t see any reason to have to equivocate on the 6 literal day biblical account. Why do believers feel the need to twist the scriptures to gain acceptance? The gospel is an offense and no amount of accommodate on our part will make believers out of skeptics.

Reformed theology resists the kind of thinking that makes our ‘presentation’ an essential ingredient in the conversion of souls. That is in God’s power alone for His glory alone! We are, of course, responsible to preach the gospel as we are his appointed means, but we ought never confuse ‘who does what in salvation.’

And that makes all the difference, especially to those of us who sincerely desire salvation for our neighbors and family. If I thought that I was ultimately responsible for convincing them I would be tempted to de-emphasize the harder points of the gospel. Why tell them about God’s righteous Law and their exposure to the wrath of God? Why should I tell them of the need to truly repent? Why point out to them that they ought to, as Jesus said, “Count the cost!”