I might make a quick comment. The breakdown of the creed into these 12 lines follows the Belgic, I think it's either the Belgic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism, its breakdown of the creed into 12 parts. So you might wonder at times, why is it broke there? Why did you do the line here? I'm simply following one of our sister church's way that they have broken it down. One of the unique things of the Westminster Assembly was they didn't bring the creed to the forefront in our confessional standards. They really sought to not necessarily follow along the trajectory of the creeds, the apostles' creeds, division of the Christian faith. They decided to go with in their minds an entirely biblical foundation instead of being accused of following some man written thing and that that's some of the differences between why the the Apostles Creed isn't foremost and prominent in the Westminster standards like it is in the three forms of unity in many of the other creeds or confessional traditions. Tonight we are going to be looking at the final part of the first section which is. We looked at, I believe in God, but then the rest of that, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Let me walk us through here, just going point by point. In this study, we continue on in our consideration of the first section of the Apostles' Creed, which deals with God the Father. As we consider this section, it's important to note, as Dr. Cornel Venema states in his commentary, the Creed, though it is thoroughly Trinitarian in its confession, of our faith in God focuses always on the works of the triune God in creation and redemption. The creed is not interested in an abstract consideration of who God is. It is interest. It is interested in the manner of God's revelation of himself in his works and in the covenant relationship or fellowship between him and his people. And so It's not when when Venema makes this statement here and what I say here in a second. It's not that a an in-depth discussion or or consideration of the abstract consideration of who God is that somehow that's a bad thing. That's not what it's saying. It's saying that the primary focus of the Apostles Creed is not necessarily on that question, but on what has God done? How has he revealed himself in his works? There is a valid time to ask the question, who is God? What is he like? What is it? How has he revealed himself in his essence and his character? This is dealing. The creed is primarily dealing with how God has revealed himself in his works and primarily the works of creation and redemption. Therefore, this is continuing on that first point. Therefore, the works of God, creation, providence, redemption, consummation are the primary focus of the creed, not the more abstract discussions concerning his essence and various attributes. Although, as we see tonight, Almighty is an attribute of God. And so it's not entirely without that consideration. Second point, when we confess that we believe in God, the Father Almighty, We are specifying the God in whom we believe. This is not just any generic concept of God, but a very specific God, namely the one who has revealed himself to be the father in heaven, the father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the father of all who believe. And, you know, we're not merely saying, I believe in God and then leaving it at that. We believe in God, the father. And that's a narrowing of what we understand by the terminology when we say God. We're specifying the God in whom we believe, not just any generic God out there, not the way that we tend to have conversation in our modern culture where people will simply say things like, oh, I believe in God. Really what's this God like who is that God. Well we're saying we believe in God the father. And so when we say that we're beginning to specify the God that we believe in. He's he is the father. One of the most precious things that sets our God apart from all other theistic Religions out there is that we worship, serve and relate to a personal God with whom we can have actual fellowship. This is not the case in other religions, most religions believe in a force or some other kind of impersonal supernatural power. By definition of power or force can't be personal. And thus, you don't commune or communicate with it, but rather you try to manipulate it, harness it, use it. Our God has revealed himself as our father and thus reveals to us that he is a personal God who seeks fellowship and relationship and cares for his people as a father does his children. I'm not going to go too much into this tonight, but this is a bigger deal than I think we we often realize until the revelation of God spread really by the preaching of the gospel throughout the world. The world was, and you still find this in areas of the world, was immersed in maybe what we would call magic. Magic is not religion. Magic is a particular view that flows from Really, a worldview that is absent of the kind of understanding of God as he's revealed himself in the word. Magic is an issue that deals with some sort of force or unseen power out there that you try to manipulate. You try to tap into it somehow. You try to harness it and be able to control it, to channel it to where you want it to go. It's not a personal being with whom you have a relationship. And that's the great distinction of the true God. He is a person and he reveals himself as Father. He is not force. He's not something that can be manipulated. We're not called to magic. We're called to worship. major distinctions between our faith and really the religious climate of the rest of the world. And this actually has massive impacts on all kinds of things in life, things that we take for granted in everyday life. But the whole basis of our Western culture ultimately was built on the fact that God was Father, God is Father, versus some kind of impersonal force out there. It really is a misnomer from our pagan friends to talk about Mother Earth. When they talk that way, they're not talking about Mother Earth in the same way we talk about God the Father. Theirs is much more of an issue of sort of a pantheistic force issue, not a personal mother. They would not understand Mother Earth in the same way we understand God the Father at all. So this is a distinguishing a distinguishing issue of the Christian faith. Let me let me ask you one other thing on this one of the ways for all or make maybe make one more point one of the ways that Israel was fell into sin often in the Old Testament that's recorded for us is that they often fell into treating God like he was a force that they could then manipulate to try to get him to do things for them and they so they would They would do certain things and they would think that like it. Well, if we take the Ark of the Covenant into battle with us, we'll win. That's a misuse of the things of God, a misuse and it really a denial of how he's revealed himself. He won't be manipulated. I remember as a kid before I was a Christian, the Bible was more of like a lucky charm for me. If I got scared, I would like get it and hold it near me or something like that, thinking that somehow it would maybe have a force or a power to to protect me. And then I would hear the stories of people who, you know, got shot and the Bible, you know, was in their pocket and it stopped it. And, you know, that kind of thing. By the time Christ comes along, though, he's rebuking the Israelites, the Jews, because he says, you search the scriptures. Because in them you think you have eternal life. They had really approached the word of God not as the word of God but really as as more of a some some kind of a thing that would give them power or something like that. They had missed the message of it. They had missed the message of redemption. That's a misuse of the word of God and a misunderstanding of who God is. So Israelite religion biblical religion what started as biblical religion really went off the tracks. And it was in the revelation of Jesus Christ bringing it back in, and him so prolifically speaking of the Father as the Father again, and claiming to be the Son of God, who he really was. And so this is really a distinctive of Christianity. Even Islam is not a personal God religion. Allah in Islam is entirely unknowable. By definition, Allah can't be known. It does create a problem with their whole idea of Muhammad as prophet and somehow telling us a bit about Allah. Even to know that Allah isn't knowable is kind of a problem for them. You can't know anything. He's entirely so transcendent there can't be any possible interface with him. He's that other than us. So even what we consider to be these common monotheistic religions and people try to clump them together. They're really not the same. Christianity is unique, and we are unique when we confess, I believe in God the Father. There's just something very precious about that. When we confess God as Father, this is the fourth point down. When we confess God as Father, we are not meaning that all people have the right to call on him as such. He is the universal father of all mankind by virtue of creation. But now that sin has entered the picture, it's a denial of the fall and therefore a denial of sin to speak of him as everyone's father, apart from redemption. As John writes in his prologue of the gospel to all who did receive him as Christ, believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I understand when we talk about God the Father, we're not saying that he's everybody's father in that way. In one sense, we can say, yes, by virtue of creation, he's the universal father of all. But to speak of him just without any kind of qualification as the universal father is to deny that this tragic world changing event of the fall of man has actually happened and therefore he's only father of those who believe. In fact let's let's look at this next point here try to explain this a little bit further by virtue of creation before the fall. Mankind was properly considered to be the children of God. Now that sin has entered the picture and we have become children of the devil, thereby, in other words, sin has made us now children of the devil. The only way back into the family of God to have him again as our father is by way of adoption. And that's Romans 8 15 here for you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear but you have received the spirit of adoption as sons by whom we cry Abba Father. Sin has destroyed that relationship that we had from creation and really there's been in a sense a transference of our familial relationship because of sin. Jesus would rebuke the The those in his day as he said, You are of your father, the devil. To be children of God again is not a natural thing any longer. It's a thing that happens by adoption. Now, we have to be adopted in a sense back into the family of God. And that's it. It's by his spirit that we regain sonship with the father. And so when we confess God as father, we're not making a universalistic statement saying he's everybody's father out there. We're saying we're making a personal statement. I believe in God the father the one who's revealed himself now as the father of Jesus and becomes my father by the spirit of adoption. The combination here is the second to the last point the combination here in the creed of father and almighty is a beautiful is beautiful in that this means that there is nothing that he can't accomplish. on behalf of his children. Think about how an earthly father might desire and promise to be at his child's soccer game or whatever, but then get stuck behind a freeway closing accident on Interstate 25 or some other hindrance that he's powerless to get around. As well-intentioned as he may be, he is not so powerful that he can definitely keep his promises to his children, but God the Father Almighty can. There's nothing that can stay his hand or keep him from doing whatever he wants. This is this is this beautiful wedding of these terms together. We confess and we believe in God, the Father Almighty, not just God, the Father, well-intentioned or the well-wisher. That would be wonderful and beautiful, but that wouldn't be that great. You know, there's many earthly fathers that are well-intentioned. But where this is God the Father Almighty. There's nothing he can't do for his children. There's nothing that can stop him from accomplishing all the good he wants to bestow upon his children. Nothing can stop him because he's almighty. That is that is a glorious truth. Keith. Yeah. Yeah. Now, if you could ask him, are you using a little G there? We could say, yeah, I'm guessing that's the case with it, not with our God is God. Yeah, yeah, I think we and I mean, I think we've all met with people who have experienced tragedy. And it's, it's often difficult to speak the truth in those times. And sometimes it's hard to, to To be honest, at that time, we want to say something that we think might be more helpful or something like that. But I think that even in light of those awkward situations, we're not we're never justified in taking away from the character of God, especially some beautiful truth like this. Really, one of the most comforting truths that we could ever believe and confess as Christians is that our God is almighty. And there's nothing that he can't accomplish. This should be this truth should be a great comfort to all of God's children and make us exclaim as John does in first John three one behold what manner of love the father has bestowed on us that we should be called the children of God. Again I hope sometime in our studies these these things maybe create a good good fodder for you to meditate on during the week to be thinking about the fact that we are children of God. What a precious truth that really is. Well as we turn the page we are turning now to the other major doctrine that's affirmed here in this section of the creed and that's the doctrine of creation. I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth. Dr. Venema Reminds us that Luther in his meditation on God's sovereign and gracious work in creation once remarked that this confession is in many respects more difficult to understand than the confession of the eternal sun's becoming flesh for our salvation. For when we confess that God created all things by the word of his mouth out of nothing. We are saying that God has done something for which there is and could be absolutely no analogy in our experience. I struggled with this a little bit, wondering why Luther would say the incarnation is easier. I think the key is the final word here, in our experience. In other words, we have experienced the incarnation. It's happened in this world. It's something we can look back to. But there we've never been when there was nothing and something was called into existence. That's that's the I think the great thing that Luther saying how do we ever how do we go from nothing to something we will have never experienced that. I think that's what he's saying. But it's it's an interesting comment nonetheless that this is the doctrine of creation is in some respects may be more difficult to understand than the doctrine of the incarnation. The biblical doctrine of creation is a major tenet of the Christian faith and therefore it is not surprising that it has been under attack for centuries. Indeed it's not just since Darwin that the doctrine of special creation ex nihilo or out of nothing. Is that right Jill? Okay. I feel like it's just an obligation. Now, any time I use Latin, I have to check with you. So it's not just since Darwin that the doctrine of special creation, ex nihilo, has been under fire. But throughout history, this doctrine has been the arena of much debate. And that is because so much hinges upon it. In our day and age, it's considered ignorant and naive to confess that creation is that act of God in which, by the all-powerful command of his will, he made out of nothing and perfected the whole universe in the space of six days. Thus, there are multiple and sundry positions on the subject of creation, some better and some worse. I don't know if we could even list all the different scenarios and versions that people have when it comes to origins. And like I'm saying here, some are better, some are worse, and some are just downright dangerous and denials of the gospel are ultimately Indian denial of the gospel. I think there are a lot of questions that are that are remain unanswered. I think that we will. This world will pass away. Christ will come back before we actually understand everything. There's just the biblical account of creation is is relatively short and it gives us the information we need but it doesn't tell us everything necessarily that we might want to know. And that that oftentimes is a is a problem for us because we want to push farther or we want the Bible to work like a science book which it's not. It's a book of the history of redemption. And so sometimes we ask questions that it's not necessarily even designed to answer. But nonetheless the doctrine of creation is a major tenet of the Christian faith. Without it we really undermine ultimately the gospel. One way that men have tried as it were to have their cake and eat it too is to redefine what is meant by creation. and thus departing from the biblical concept of creation out of nothing. There has been and are many views that purport that God in some way created out of something. In this general category are the theistic evolutionists who say God created by way of the evolutionary process and the heretical school of the Sassanians who followed who follow their leader Sassanians instead of the Bible and held that scriptures Do not teach and try to hang with me in this quote. So, Sinead said that the scriptures do not teach that in creating and forming the world, God made use of the services of none at all, but only of none that did not entirely depend upon himself. And that had not derived from him the power of doing something towards the creation of the world. It's a it's a it's a strange syntax there to read that. But you understand, Sesenius is saying as long as we give the final accolade to God, then we can call it creation. God could have used other things to create as long as we say that the power all came from him. We're saying that he created. Sicinius predated Darwin by a long period of time. A lot of these views that ultimately Darwinian evolution kind of gave a better articulation to, they'd been around forever. A lot of people denied that God alone created ex nihilo, out of nothing, but that he used certain things to bring forth the creation, many of them There's many views far far earlier than Darwin that said God basically what creation is is basically God forming some pre-existing matter and he forms it into the world that we have now. The word creation can be used that way. It's used that way sometimes in the Bible. The word itself isn't going to solve the debate but the unanimous testimony of scripture is is that God created alone. out of nothing. He is the one who did all of these things. And so creation is attributed to him. Let me continue on this point. Again, this is a little, maybe not so clear and I hope not irrelevant, but I want to try to make a point here that might or might not be Someone might want to debate or not, but the reason for bringing up the Sassanians is that along with rejecting the Orthodox doctrine of creation, they also rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, monergistic salvation and other things. That is to say, they are an example of the trajectory that is set in changing the Orthodox view of creation in rejecting the notion that God alone created the world. And again, I should put out of nothing. They also would reject that God alone provides the salvation they would reject that God alone provides the salvation we need. In other words, starting at a weakened version of creation, they produced a weakened version of salvation. If God could use the service of others in creation, then he could use the works of men in salvation as long as it all depends on him. And therefore, it doesn't need to be God who actually saves us. Thus, we don't need a divine Christ, divine Messiah. We just need a savior who God can use. The point, Sistineanism was somewhat of a package deal. They continued to chip away from this high view of God creating out of nothing, speaking the world into existence out of nothing and said, no, God used process. He used other things. As long as we say God gave the power. Then we can still claim that's creation. But then they went on from that and they went into salvation as well, and they said, and we can still say God saves us, even if our works are part of the process of salvation, because we'll still say God gave those works. It really was not a lot of lot of difference than Roman Catholic views of salvation. God gives the grace for us to do good works that he can then reward with the gift of salvation. But see, God did it all. There is this connection here between the Soscenian view of creation and their deficient view of salvation. It's not necessarily an absolute connection that has to be there, but it was with them and it tends to be with others. People who deny The Orthodox view of creation, ex nihilo, tend to have, it's always usually a package. They tend to deny justification by faith alone. It usually goes together. I don't know how to explain that. I can't really trace that entirely, but those two views tend to be found together. And yet, the testimony of Scripture is consistent and monolithic. in its declaration that God alone created and created all alone out of nothing. Here's just a string of passages that take us through from really from Genesis to Revelation. In the beginning God created and again it's just it's very simple but it's pretty profound. God created the heavens and the earth. It's attributing 100 percent of creation of heaven and earth to God. It doesn't say God and someone else or with others. God created the heavens and the earth. Isaiah 37 16 O Lord of hosts God of Israel enthroned above the cherubim. You are the God you alone of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Isaiah 42 5 Thus says God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it. Again, this is the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out. Isaiah 44, 24. Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb. I am the Lord who made all things who Here's that key word who alone stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by myself. I mean these are again I think these are simple but the profundity of what's being said here and what this what these statements then negate. God did creation by himself. He did not use others in creation. He did not employ others in the creative process. He created alone. That's, you know, again, you're thinking, I mean, you know, it might not seem it's a it's a big deal. This is the this is the point at which so much is denied and the doctrine of creation tends to become weakened. No, God used other things. in the creative process. No, he's saying I alone created. I was the one who stretched out these things. That was me. I did that. So these passages are emphasizing that Job 38 for where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth. Tell me if you have understanding. Psalm 96 5 for all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the Lord made the heavens. Hebrews eleven three by faith we understand the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen. This is a key passage as well with the question of evolution so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. This could be articulated in other words the things that are made were made from the invisible. In other words things that didn't exist. It's a statement of ex nihilo creation. God didn't use other things and ultimately mold them into or bring through a process. He made the things that exist were made out of things that don't exist or are not visible. He spoke them into existence for different reasons. Romans 4 17 is Paul's dealing with justification by faith but he's using this creational analogy God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Revelation four eleven worthy are you our Lord and God to receive glory and honor and power. You created all things and by your will they existed and were created again. We're just It's fairly brief. We're not going into a in-depth study of this tonight, but we're hitting this trying to show a little bit of the importance of this confession and this tenet of the Christian faith that that we believe we depend upon God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. The doctrine of creation, special creation, ex nihilo, God speaking it into existence out of nothing. That is a basic doctrine of the Christian faith. And you can't get around that biblically. And when you begin to weaken that, other things go. That's the history of Christianity. When we weaken the doctrine of creation, you will end up with a different doctrine of salvation. Jill. I'm not a, I'm not going to probably give you the full comprehensive answer or anything like that. My, my read is, is it, and this is because this, this Darwin simply, uh, I think gave a biological or tried to get, I'm sorry, tried to give a scientific, um, veneer to basically a worldly thinking on the issue of origins. philosophers, and I think a lot of times the church was hard pressed to try to make our theology appeal to philosophical speculation. Part of that is the eternality of the universe. That's a philosophical position that the church had always kind of debated with, and our doctrine of special creation flew in the face of. And so here we are trying to make our doctrine fit the thinking of man at the time. And so we deny biblical revelation on that. And we try to say, well, then God made and created with things that were already in existence. And, and, you know, at that time it was simply a capitulation to philosophers, or I should say at the most, maybe not actually, we were moving into science at that time, or the scientific age at that time. But earlier than that, the church had dealt with this as well, trying to reconcile our doctrine with basically the thinking of the day when it came to musing upon origins of the world. I think in our day and age, it's largely driven now by scientific categories. We're constantly trying to make our theology comport with the state of science. But these things have become like this. This is a shifting thing all the time. And again, it undermines our belief in the scriptures. Are we going to stand here and let the winds of change work themselves out out here? Are we going to constantly try to adapt our doctrine and God's clear words to just whatever the blowing winds of change are at any given time in society. If it's not science at this point, you know, it'll come back again. It'll be philosophy again or whatever. It might be, but I think it was an issue of philosophy. How do we the whole everybody else out there thinks that there's an eternal universe? How do we jive our understanding that God created out of nothing with that? Well, let's let's redefine creation as he molded this eternal substance into what we have now is the world. That would be my. My best. guess at this point that we're going to let's let's let's finish by or conclude our study tonight. But in and also section one of the creed considering five benefits that we gain or applications for us from the first section. And these are from Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the Apostles Creed. I'm really glad we actually have a translated copy of his commentary on the creed that he gave five kind of benefits or applications that we gain from this first section. The first that Aquinas laid out was it gives us knowledge of the divine majesty. In other words, this first section impresses upon us the greatness of God, that he spoke the worlds into existence, that he's the creator. of heaven and earth, God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And so we gain from this a knowledge of the divine majesty of God's greatness and Aquinas would say, surely then the maker surpasses the maid. We have a God to worship that he should be acknowledged above all created things. Secondly, we are led to give thanks. Again, quoting Aquinas, surely whatever we are and whatever we have comes from God. If he's the maker of all things, then we owe him thanks for our own existence and whatever we have. So this should drive us to thankfulness. Thirdly, we are led to have patience in adversity. Aquinas would go on to say we ought to endure it patiently. That is adversity when it comes into our life, both because it comes from God and because the suffering is ordered to the good. He would say, because God is an almighty father, even adversity that comes in our way, he can work it to the good for us. And so we should find comfort in adversity, knowing that our father is almighty, no matter what it is that comes into our lives, whatever is brought into our lives, he can work it for good. And he ultimately has promised to turn it for our good. And so We should be led to have patience in adversity. Fourthly, we are drawn to the right use of created goods. Knowing these things are created, we ought to use creatures for the purpose that they were made by God. And he goes on and he says they were made by God for two reasons. For the glory of God and for the benefit of mankind. And he goes into this whole section here of how because God made all things there's a there's a right and a good purpose for all things that he's made. And we should be careful about how we use the things we use in this world knowing they came from him. And so first and foremost we should use them for his glory. And secondly knowing that we're the center of his creation we should recognize they're for our benefit and so we should use them in a healthy and a right way not to destroy one another or ourselves with them. So these are just some thoughts from Aquinas on what we can gain from this first section of the Creed. And fifthly, finally, we are led to a knowledge of human dignity. We ought to consider humanity to be more worthy than the rest of creation. And his point in that is because we've been made in the image of God. We can't just adopt that a person and a tree are of equal value. The doctrine of creation does not allow that. There is human dignity and humanity stands above as the apex of God's creation created in his image. Bob. Yeah. Yeah. Amen. Yeah, I think that's a great point. And I hope you know, even this concept of God, the Father Almighty, as we as we pray now, our Father who art in heaven, that that concept would come into mind. This is the one we're praying to this God who's Almighty I think that's wonderful. Any other final comments as we're closing here? I think we'll go ahead then and take a break right now and we're going to gather in a few minutes back for