top of page

De Moor VIII:13: The Material Cause of Creation, Part 1b


This Truth is to be held, α.  not only or exclusively against all Ancient Philosophers that, if they do not quite think the Matter, together with the Form, of the World to be eternal, which is said of Aristotle and others (see what things are taught concerning their opinion in § 4, 19), at least believe its Matter to be eternal and without origin, so that in addition to νοῦν/mind there was also from eternity ὕλη/matter, from which, afterwards refined, this World was produced; which common opinion of the Philosophers concerning eternal and Uncreated Matter, although in the particulars they in turn disagree among themselves, OVID[1] not inelegantly expressed, Metamorphoses, in the beginning,


Before the Sea and Earth, and the Sky that covers all,

There was one face in all the world of nature,

Which they called Chaos, a rude and disordered mass,

Nothing but inert matter, and the heaped and discordant

Atoms of things, not well combined, etc.


Compare JUSTIN Martyr, Apology II, page 92; ATHANASIUS, de Incarnatione Verbi Dei, opera, tome I, page 54; EUSEBIUS, Præparatione Euangelica, book I, chapter VII, page 19, 20, chapter VIII, pages 22-26; TERTULLIAN, Apologia, chapter XI; Adversus Valentinianos, chapter XV, opera, pages 12, 257; GERARDUS GULIELMUS AB OOSTEN DE BRUYN, de Philosophia Gentile Doctrinæ moralis, pages 93-96; compare Leland,de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapters XII, XIII, pages 336-382.  On this part of the system diverse things of the ancient Philosophers are related in ’t Examen van ’t Ontwerp van Tolerantie, part 9, pages 153-156, and even more in de Algemeene Historie uyt het Engelsch vertaalt, part 1, section 1, Introduction, pages 1-98, in which, 1.  are mentioned those that thought to have affirmed that the World, as much with respect to form as with respect to matter, is eternal, pages 6-24:  2.  Those that asserted that the matter of the world, but not its form, is eternal and uncreated, pages 25-87:  3.  Some others are added that believe that the World was produced out of Nothing and liable to dissolution again, pages 87-98.  But MOSHEIM[2] denies this, in his Dissertatione adjecta Cudwortho,[3] tome 2, with whom agree ISAAC BEAUSOBRE, Histoire de Manichée,[4] and JACOB BRUCKER,[5] Otio Vindelico, that to him was present any one of the nations, or Philosophers, strangers to the true religion, who might by his genius rise to such an extent that he might cherish the opinion concerning the origins of things, that Christians have drawn from the sacred Books:  compare LULOFS, on Buddeus’ de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VI, § 3 (244), page 332.

One great difficulty of those that in any event uphold the eternity of the World or of Matter, which they agitate, is, that out of Nothing Nothing comes, just as PLUTARCH, in his book περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας, opera, tome 2, page 1014, among many other things that are there available to be read, also relates these things concerning the opinion of Plato:  τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν καὶ ὕλην ἐξ ἧς γέγονεν ὁ κόσμος, οὐ γενομένην, the being and matter from which the cosmos came into being did not itself come into being….  οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδ᾽ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος, ὡς οἰκίας καὶ ἱματίου καὶ ἀνδριάντος.  ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, for the genesis/beginning was not from non-being, but from being not having beauty or sufficiency, like a house, garment, or statue:  for disorderly were those things before the genesis/beinning of the cosmos.  The modern Deists repeat this objection out of the ancients, in LILIENTHAL’S Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter XVIII, § 3, part 9, pages 5, 6.

I Respond, α.  It is true, that out of Nothing Nothing comes, 1.  naturally, 2.  by way of Generation, which is performed by a fit subject, 3.  as from a subject, principium, and matter intrinsically constituative:  but all things are rightly said to be from Nothing, 1.  supernaturally by infinite Power, 2.  by way of Creation, 3.  as the terminus à quo.[6]  “If Reason insinuates,” says our ATHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus XLVIII, Part VI, § 10, “that out of Nothing Nothing comes; Reason itself will at the same time discern, that this Canon of the Physicists has regard to Natural Generation alone, and so to the Power put in second Causes by the Creator, but not to the supernatural Operation of the first Cause itself, being altogether sufficient unto itself in all things, not making use of any second Causes by any necessity, but through the abundance of its own Goodness.”

β.  It would also be true, that out of Nothing absolutely Nothing would ever come, if neither God existed, nor creature, and so absolutely Nothing:  but this is not the case, since from eternity God Omnipotent has existed, who is able to produce far more things than we are able to think.

γ.  It is worthy of observation, that Sacred Scripture nowhere in so many words asserts, that the World was made of Nothing, but that God by His Omnipotence without pre-existing Matter produced it; whence that dictum, Out of Nothing Nothing comes, is much less able to be urged against our doctrine of Creation.  While already of old EUSEBIUS observed, that the World is not quite accurately said to have been made of Nothing, Demonstratione Euangelica, book IV, chapter I, page 145, in which he says of God:  Ὕλην ὥσπερ τινὰ καὶ οὐσίαν τῆς τῶν ὅλων γενέσεώς τε καὶ συστάσεως τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βουλὴν καὶ δύναμιν προβεβλημένος, ὡς μηκέτι εὐλόγως φάναι δεῖν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἶναί τι τῶν ὄντων.  οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν εἴη τι τὸ ἐκ μὴ ὄντος.  πῶς γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὂν ἑτέρῳ τοῦ εἶναι γένοιτ᾽ ἂν αἴτιον;  πᾶν δὲ ὅ, τί ποτε καὶ ἔστιν, ἐξ ἑνὸς τοῦ μόνου ὄντος καὶ πρὸ ὄντος, τοῦ δὴ καὶ φήσαντος, ἐγὼ εἰμι ὁ ὢν, τὸ εἶναι λαβὸν ἔχει, He has proposed to Himself His own will and power as a kind of material and substratum of the genesis and formation of all things, so that it is no longer reasonable to say that anything that exists must have come from the non-existent, for that which came from the non-existent would not be anything at all:  For how could that which is non-existent cause something else to exist? everything that has ever existed or now exists derives its being from the one, the only being and pre-existent being, who also said, I am the being.  The Most Learned SMITS GORDON deserves to be consulted, in his Disputatione philosophica inaugurali de Origine Universi, chapter II, section I, § 79-85; and the Most Illustrious MEYER, in his Oratione de Origine Universi, pages 43-54, who also attempts to dilute this and other arguments of the ancient Philosophers against Creation ex Nihilo.

If one should wish to Insist, that he is not able to conceive, how only by the Omnipotent Command of God the Matter of the whole World was able to pass from Nothing to Being; I Respond, That does not mean that the matter itself is to be denied.  For,

α.  “We hardly have a clear and distinct idea of that activity, which proceeds from a finite cause, and is exerted according to nature’s Laws already constituted and exposed for examination:  how much less will we comprehend that which has regard to Nature itself as to be constituted in the beginning, and, just as it far precedes it, so also far exceeds it; and which does not flow from some finite Being constrained by the Laws of Nature, but from Him, who intends by this very action to manifest the incomprehensible amplitude of His Divinity and Power.  Wherefore, if the conception of this action be not inconceivable to us, the action itself also should not be sufficient for inciting so admirable a work:”  if I might thus speak with VRIESIUS, in his Exercitationibus Rationalibus XXIII, § 4.

β.  Because this action surpasses our conception, nothing is rashly to be affirmed concerning the same; neither ought it to be said, that Scripture speaks contrary to Reason, which only speaks above Reason.  An adequate conception is wanting to us, 1.  both of the Divine Essence and Power, which surpasses our conception, Job 11:7; Ephesians 3:20:  2.  and of the mode of that Action, whereby the Omnipotent Being is able to grant to the heavens and the earth Being without pre-existing Matter.  Hence, that this action exceeds divine Power, it would be altogether rash to affirm, since, a.  no evidence of this thing is sufficient for us; b.  the Eternity of the Matter of the World is able to be indicated by no experience; c.  one may not form any real conclusion from the mere contemplation of our Ideas by Reason, as long as we are without an adequate conception of the thing, and do not know all its attributes.

γ.  Contrariwise, Reason itself, 1.  overthrows the Eternity and Independence of the Matter of the World, and sufficiently shows, that it is not able to be of itself; and, 2.  Requires us to ascend to God, who must have given Essence to this Matter, since there is no third thing.  But, 3.  how this could be done, Reason does not comprehend, and so ought to be silent as in a matter that is not penetrable to Reason on any side:  but Scripture rushes in to help, which teaches us to grasp these things by Faith, concerning which we would have ever been in doubt with the light of Reason alone leading the way, with Scripture affirming that the whole World, with absolutely nothing excepted, was produced by divine Power without pre-existing Matter, and then the corporeal World was refined from rude and unformed Matter.  And there is no reason why we should deny Faith to God speaking concerning Himself:  see the Most Distinguished NIEUWENTYT, Fundamentis Certitudinis, part V, chapter III, § 5, page 403, chapter IV, § 17, pages 418, 419; LULOFS, on Buddeus’ de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VI, § 2 (243), pages 328, 329, § 6 (264), page 362; ALL. HULSHOFF, het ware Stelsel der Natuur ontwozyen, § 5, 6, pages 94-103.

In the place of that saying which has already been of old, Ex Nihilo Nihil fit, out of Nothing Nothing comes, Spinoza (whose system concerning this matter is summarily related in ’t Examen van ’t Ontwerp van Tolerantie, part 9, pages 156, 157, and whose πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, is uncovered, and the primary foundations, and especially the difficulty here to be set forth next, are skillfully refuted by ADAM BERNARD SMITS GORDON, in his Disputatione philosophica inaugurali, chapter II, section II, § 86-121) said:  That things that have nothing common between them are not able to be the Cause one of another; whence he concluded that God is also Corporeal, and hence the World and God are eternal:  Ethics, part I, proposition III, opera posthuma, page 3.  But, α.  it is strange, that this bit of Reasoning appeared to some to be of such strength, that it was not able easily to be refuted (just as JACOB WITTICH in his Dissertatione de Natura Dei,[7] in the year 1711, delivered at the University of Duisburg, cleaves to this difficulty and admits that he is publishing a frank confession of ignorance, by responding, It is not proven:  whence sinister suspicions arose concerning him, which thereafter in the years 1718 and 1719 furnished the occasion of some disturbances, which, with a summary added, LAMPE[8] relates, in Bibliotheca Bremensi, Classis I, fascicule IV, chapter VII, pages 550-559; likewise WEISMANN,[9] Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part II, Century XVII, § 30, pages 773-775).  For this saying is to be restricted, just like the other, that out of Nothing Nothin comes, to Natural Generation and second Causes, concerning which it is true, that one thing is produced by something Similar; but it is not at all to be extended to supernatural production and the infinitely powerful first Cause.  β.  We concede that axiom concerning things that have nothing in common between them, either formally, or eminently, or virtually; formally, that they might have the same Essence; eminently, that an Essence might be more excellent and perfect, although of the same sort, corporeal or spiritual; virtually, that one Essence might be furnished with sufficiency and power to produce another substance of lesser perfection.  Now, although Corporeal perfetions are applicable to God neither formally nor eminently; yet it is not to be denied, that the Omnipotent God possesses them Virtually, that is, is able to produce them.  How is it that in natural things Wine efficiently exhilarates the heart, since Joy is able to be attributed to Wine neither formally nor eminently? consult STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 9-15, 79, 296-298, 308, who responds specifically to Spinoza’s Objections in this matter, § 315-322.  He also relates the error of the Deists in this part, tome 2, chapter VII, § 5-8:  see also BAYLE,[10] Dictionaire Historique et Critique, on the word Spinoza, note O, page 2640; LEYDEKKER,[11] Veritate Euangelica triumphante, book II, chapter IV, § 26-39, pages 199-201; BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, and LULOFS, Annotationibus upon the same, chapter VI, § 6, pages 357, 358, 362, 363 (266).


On this point, Hermogenes Afer of old imitated the Gentile Philosophers in the Christian Church, by asserting that the Matter of the World is Eternal and Uncreated; he, a Painter by profession, taking his start from Stoic instruction, taught in Africa, and with this error concerning the co-eternality of Matter with God, because out of Nothing Nothing comes or is able to be created, infected Christianity in the latter half of the Second Century.  THEODORET, Hæreticarum Fabularum, book I, chapter XIX, opera, tome 4, page 207:  Ὁ δὲ Ἑρμογένης ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης καὶ συναγεννήτου τὸν Θεὸν ἔφη δημιουργῆσαι τὰ πάντα.  ἀδύνατον γὰρ ὑπέλαβεν ὁ ἐμβρόντητος καὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων, ἐκ μὴ ὄντων δημιουγεῖν, Hermogenes was affirming that out of matter, presupposed and altogether unbegotton, God fabricated all things:  for even the fool has concluded it to be impossible, even to the God of all, to fabricate out of non-being.  TERTULLIAN has refuted him in a most elegent work.  Hermogenes’ followers were the Hermogenians.  After these our AUTHOR makes mention of (in addition to many other Ancient Heretics) the Seleucians and Hermiani, whom AUGUSTINE conjoins in de Hæresibus, chapter LIX, as having their name from their originators, Seleucus and Hermias, who say that the matter of the elements, from which the world was made, were not made by God, but were co-eternal with God.  But in the notes on this chapter, DANÆUS observes, that, although of old there were many heretics named Hermias or Hermius, the Hermeonites mentioned by Augustine in this chapter appear to be the same as the Hermogenians; since, 1.  one and the same Hermias was called Hermas and Hermogenes.  2.  TERTULLIAN, discoursing against Hermogenes, refutes the same errors that AUGUSTINE here observes in the case of the Hermeonites.  3.  He does not think it likely that AUGUSTINE, an African, and PHILASTRIUS, a nearby Writer of that age, were able to overlook the heresy of Hermogenes, which was still notorious and pernicious; yet AUGUSTINE would have made no mention of it, unless the Hermogenians come to be understood here under the Hermeonites.  But the Seleucians, fostering the same error concerning the Eternal Matther of the World, are referred to the latter half of the Century following, namely, the third.

Moreover, by our AUTHOR are mentioned the Audians, heretics of the fourth Century,[12] concerning whom already above in Chapter IV, § 14; but besides their error there refuted, THEODORET in Hæreticarum Fabularum, book IV, chapter X, opera, tome 4, pages 241, 242, additionally relates concerning their father, Audius:  Τοῦτον τοίνυν φασὶ τὸν Αὐδαῖον, καὶ τὸ σκότος εἰπεῖν, καὶ τὸ πῦρ, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀγέννητα.  οἱ δὲ τῆς τούτου προσηγορίας μετειληχότες κατακρύπτουσι ταῦτα, it is accordingly said, that this Audius said that the darkness, and the fire, and the water were unbegotten:  but those that bear his name disguise these things.  After these the Aquei proceed, so called from their error, which, with its author not mentioned, AUGUSTINE briefly surveys in de Hæresibus, chapter LXXV, There is another heresy, which asserts that water was not created by God, but was always co-eternal with Him :  on which chapter consult DANÆUS, in his Opuscula, page 1003a.

β.  That this whole World was created in the Mosaic Beginning without any pre-existing Matter, is to be also to be held against Thomas Burnet,[13] who, although in the Apologia published by him he admits that the prime Matter of all things was created from Nothing, and was not from eternity; yet in his Archæologia Philosophica he converts the entire Mosaic history of Creation into parabolic speech, with which it is not inconsistent that that prime Matter pre-existed with the Angels through innumerable ages before this sublunary World:  against whom see the strictures of SPANHEIM in his Elencho Controversiarum, opera, tome 3, columns 1007, 1008; and MEYER’S Orationem de Origine Universi, pages 75-81.  And also against the Socinians, among whom Crellius, in his Commentario on Hebrews 11:3, opera, tome 2, page 184, has these audacious assertions:  The Learned author shows with sufficient clarity, what also out of the history of the Creation of the world described by Moses appears, that God, when He founded this World, or initiated the Creation described at the beginning of Genesis, at that time did not bring it to complete perfection out of Nothing; but from that mass, rude and covered with darkness, wherein earth, the waters, mists, winds and air, were confused, or of unformed matter.  But of the Creation of this Matter there is no mention in the Sacred Books.  Thus the divine Spirit did not think it worth the effort to mention anything concerning thisVolkelius, de Vera Religione,[14] book II, chapter IV, attempts to assert the same things at length; to whom compare MARESIUS in his Hydra Socinianismi expugnata, tome 1, pages 699-706.  Whether that unformed Matter was at that time uncreated or not created, see Volkelius, de Vera Religione, book II, near the end of chapter IV, and MARESIUS, pages 705, 706:  or it was indeed created, but its existence only preceded the Mosaic Creation through a space of a few or many ages together with the Angels; which latter position is maintained by various among the Remonstrants, like Episcopius,[15] Institutionibus Theologicis, book IV, section III, chapter I, opera, tome I, page 346; Curcellæus,[16] Institutionibus Religionis Christianæ, book III, chapter IV, § 1, 6, opera, pages 92-94; Limborch, Theologia Christiana, book II, chapter XIX, § 2-4:  without this they think that God is able only with great difficulty to be cleared of the accusation of idleness; as if God could not be conceived as acting or actuose, unless working outside Himself, with an overly crass conceptualization of God:  and, although before the Mosaic Creation there was no external time, which is measured by the motion of the Sun and the Moon, nevertheless they believe that there was internal time, which was consisting in the duration of pre-existing things.  In this manner our Opponents endeavor to enervate the Eternity of the Son of God and of the Decrees, as if what pre-existed the Mosaic Creation were not then eternal.  Or additionally to deny, that the Deity of the Son is rightly confirmed from the Creation ascribed to Him; since they think that the Angels, in like manner pre-existing in the Mosaic Beginning, also cooperated, or were able to cooperate, with God in Creation.  Or to recall the work of Creation to the class of natural productions, which presuppose Matter.

However, this have nothing wherewith they might effectively defend themselves:  for, 1.  that no mention is made in Sacred Scripture concerning the first production of Matter, is false from what has been observed above.

2.  That Moses in Genesis 1:2 makes mention of the face of the Earth, which sort was before the six days of the Mosaic Creation, as if here a longer duration were indicated for the face of Earth being rude and unformed, and for the incubation of the Spirit upon the waters:  this hypothesis is quite doubtful, since it is altogether clear to us from the Mosaic narration, that he speaks of the Earth created at the beginning of the Mosaic six days, according to verse1, and of its Founding, which sort obtained through the former Creation, not before the same; neither does the work of the incubation of the Spirit on the waters require a longer delay, since the work of Creation by the Omnipotence of God, which He here wished to illustrate magnificently, proceeded most speedily.

3.  If they should add, Of what sort is a thing in its dissolution, of such a sort it is also in its genesis:  but no thing is reduced to nothing; therefore, no thing was produced out of nothing.  I Responda.  This rule also has regard to natural generation, not to supernatural Creation.  b.  Although we see no thing actually reduced to nothing, yet all things are able, at least those without reason, to be reduced to nothing, if it should please God so to do.

4.  It is not as the Socinians as boast, that this opinion was received by the people of God even of old, appealing to the Apocryphal book of Wisdom, where it is said of God, ἡ παντοδύναμός σου χεὶρ καὶ κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, thy almight hand that made the world out of matter without form, Wisdom of Solomon 11:17.  For, I Respond, a.  that these things are able best to be explained concerning the works of the Second Creation, which were furnishing a sufficiently eminent proof of divine Omnipotence:  in which sense Estius took the passage in Hebrews 11:3.  b.  That to this one Apocryphal passage another is able to be set in opposition, seeing that 2 Maccabees 7:28[17] is read:  ἀξιῶ σε τέκνον—γνῶναι, ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός, I beseeth thee, my son…consider that God made them of things that are not, according to the Vaticanus Exemplar;[18] but according to Codex Alexandrinus,[19] οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων, ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός, not out of things that are did God make those things (τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, just now mentioned).  c.  But the one passage and the other are Apocryphal, and so neither proves anything absolutely:  compare MEYER’S Orationem de Origine Universi, pages 70-74.

[1] Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-17 AD) was a Roman poet.

[2] Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) was a German Lutheran church historian.  He is especially remembered for his Institutionum historiæ ecclesiasticæ.

[3] Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688) studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he was elected fellow (1639) and Regius Professor of Hebrew (1645).  He was supportive of the Commonwealth, but, after the Restoration, he appears to have had little difficulty accepting appointments in the established church, serving as Vicar of Ashwell, Hertfordshire (1662), and then Prebendary of Gloucester (1678).  He was a leader of the Cambridge Platonists.

[4] Isaac de Beausobre (1659-1738) was a French Protestant Pastor, best known for his Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme.

[5] Johann Jakob Brucker (1696-1770) was a German Lutheran historian of philosophy.

[6] That is, the border/limit from which.

[7] Jacob Wittich (1677-1739) was a German-Dutch Reformed scholar and Cartesian philosopher.  He served as Professor of Philosophy at Groningen, and of Mathematics at Leiden (1718-1739).  Wittich’s de Natura Dei is ostensibly directed against Spinoza, but it raised questions about his orthodoxy nevertheless.

[8] Frederic Adolphus Lampe (1683-1729) studied under Campegius Vitringa, and held various ministerial posts.  At Utrecht he was appointed Professor of Theology (1720), then of Church History (1726).  He departed to teach at Bremen in 1727, and died there in 1729.  He was especially learned in ecclesiastical history and antiquities.

[9] Christian Eberhard Weismann (1677-1747) was Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen.

[10] Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) was a French philosopher.  He was the son of a Reformed minister; for a short time he defected to Roman Catholicism, only to return again to his Reformed roots.  He was influenced by Rationalism; and consequently he advocated for a separation between the domains of faith and reason, and for toleration of differing beliefs.

[11] Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721) studied under Voetius at Utrecht, and Hoornbeeck and Cocceius at Leiden.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1676).

[12] The Audians were a fourth century sect in Syria and Scythia.  They were followers of Audius, who took Genesis 1:27, about God creating man in His own image, literally and physically.

[13] Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715) was an English theologian and philosopher.  He is perhaps most remembered for his speculative cosmogony.

[14] Johanns Völkel (c. 1565-1616) was a German Socinian.  His De vera religione was the first major systematic presentation of Socinian doctrine published at the Racovian Academy.

[15] Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was a Dutch theologian.  He studied at the University of Leiden under Jacobus Arminius, and embraced his teacher’s distinctive doctrines.  He became a leader among the Remonstrants, playing a significant role at the Synod of Dort (1618).

[16] Etienne de Courcelles (1586-1659) was an Arminian theologian.  He studied in Zurich, and later succeeded Simon Episcopius at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam.  He was a personal friend of Descartes, and was influential in introducing Cartesian rationalism into Dutch Arminian circles.

[17] 2 Maccabees 7:28:  “I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.”

[18] Codex Vaticanus is a fourth century Greek Unicial, of the Alexandrian text-type.

[19] Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth century Greek Unicial, of the Alexandrian text-type.

100 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Dr. Dilday
Dr. Dilday
Nov 22, 2023

Westminster Confession of Faith 4:1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good."


Dr. Dilday
Dr. Dilday
Nov 22, 2023
bottom of page