In his first chapter, Dr. Ross describes a few encounters with biblical creationists where Dr. Ross felt insulted and identified with derogatory names. I have to agree with Dr. Ross in this area that Christians should not use derogatory names to define those with whom we disagree. As thinking Christians, we should instead be able to identify the specific areas of disagreement and then go to our authority (the Bible) to correct those Christians, who are in error. This is the primary purpose for this book review.
Some might point to my blog post from 9/8/17 where I referred to the disciples of Dr. Ross as Rossians and accuse me of being hypocritical for having written the above sentence. But in the same way that those who follow the teachings of John Calvin are called Calvinists, and those who uphold the teachings of Martin Luther are referred to as Lutherans, so it is not unfair to name the disciples of Ross’s teachings as Rossians. It is not a pejorative but simply a collective description of the ideals that his particular brand of old earthism espouses.
In the same vein, but from the flipside, have not the old-earthers referred to biblical creationists as “science-deniers”, “knuckle-draggers”, and “ignorant morons”? Criticizing those with whom one disagrees using pejoratives rather than reasoned arguments based on God’s Word is unhealthy and against Jesus’ command for Christians to love one another. We can all do better by thinking critically rather than letting emotions lead.
On page 14 Dr. Ross says
I was overjoyed to meet many Christians, even fellow scientists, who were convinced that the Bible is completely true.
Again, I agree with Dr. Ross that the Bible is completely true. So, why do Dr. Ross and I disagree so strongly about the age of the earth when we both believe the Bible to be completely true? Because to accommodate his old earth assumptions, he must re-interpret many words and passages. We will get into many more of the specifics as this book review continues, but the following chart is a very brief summary of the re-definitions of words that allows Ross to say “I believe all of the Bible” but still hold onto his old-earthism.
There are also several other groups who have claimed to believe the Bible to be completely true, but all the while holding onto grievous theological errors.
- Socinians claimed to the believe the Bible to be true but they rejected the Trinity
- Arianism is a belief that claims to believe the Bible but they claim Jesus is a created being and not part of the Trinitarian godhead. The modern day Arians are the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
This is not to say that Dr. Ross is a heretic, but just because he claims to believe the whole Bible does not exempt him from poor exegesis and serious error.
On p14, Ross says
The solidity if the scientific evidence for both Earth’s origin (a few billion years ago) and the universe’s beginning (a few more billion years ago…
Three things with this comment:
- Before the sun/earth (as Ross would say) coalesced from dense clouds about 5 billion (MOYBOY) years ago:, what is a year? How do you calibrate a year before the “timepieces” that define a year cosmically evolve? And how do you estimate billions of those time units?
- He has conflated ‘interpretations of observations’ for ‘scientific evidence.’ We find this particular conflation throughout the book – including in the next page when he says “Evangelical leaders who believe the Bible is true and that the universe and Earth are as old as the stars and rocks…” We find this particular conflation throughout the book. Interpretations of observations ≠ evidence
- What he has attempted to prove in his book (that the Bible teaches a very old universe) he has simply assumed to be true. This is the fallacy of assuming the consequent or circular reasoning.
Later on p15 he says “Now the hurricane of controversy whirls around a peripheral point – the age of the universe and the Earth.”
If it is a peripheral point and he is dismissive of the reasons it is a controversy, why then did Dr. Ross write a 389 page book about it? The age of the earth, in and of itself may be a peripheral issue, but the way that a Christian comes to the conclusion of the age of the earth is not. The age of the earth is a question of authority and biblical interpretation. Does God’s eternal Word have authority over modern academic paradigms, culture, political, and historical jurisdictions or can those disciplines bring force over the interpretation of the Bible?
Biblical thinking rejects those other disciplines as having authority over God’s Word, but we see over and over that Ross allows modern academic paradigms to re-interpret the eternal Word of God. It is called eisegesis, and Ross appears to be an Eisegesis-ninja
On p17 Ross uses the strawman fallacy to construct an easily defeatable caricature of biblical creationists, so that he can mock it
These comments expose the widely held assumption that all evangelical Christians reject the integrity of science and accept young-earth creationism.
Biblical creationists do NOT reject the integrity of science. Biblical creationists reject the old earth assumptions that precede evaluation of evidence, which result in old earth conclusions. Science has integrity because the Bible is true. For science to work, there must be pre-conditions of intelligibility that are immutable, abstract, and absolute. Some of these pre-conditions are laws of logic, math, truth, morality, and induction. The God of the scriptures is immutable, transcendent, and absolute, so He is the only sufficient justification for the pre-conditions of intelligibility, thus making science both possible and trustworthy. Since the Bible is true, we know that the Eternal Creator, who knows everything and never lies, has revealed some things, so that we can know them for certain. Part of what He has revealed is the historical creation of the universe.
On p19 Ross makes an interesting claim:
In the past I’ve called this difference between young and old-earth proponents trivial, referring only to mathematical terms. My intent was to indicate that young- and old-earth creationists are mathematically much closer to one another than they are to any form of naturalism. Thus, the controversy seems largely unnecessary.
The main reasons why the controversy is necessary is because:
- Ross uses modern academic paradigms to re-interpret scripture. Nothing has authority to interpret scripture but scripture itself.
- Ross teaches that death/suffering/destruction/predation/thorns (the very curses for sin) all existed for hundreds of millions of years prior to the sin of mankind. That makes the difference between Rossian beliefs and biblical creationists both necessary and a gospel issue.
Pingback: Book Review: A Matter of Days 2nd Edition by Hugh Ross | ApoloJedi
Reblogged this on a simple man of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mr. Klem!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do like Dr. Ross, but I often wonder how he and others fail to see the inconsistencies in their position. I an glad for this review series (as you can see!) that goes through point by point, even by sentence and phrase.
I followed teachers like Ross for a few years to help me understand Creation science, because I figured that they must understand something I didn’t. I gave up on evolution my 2nd year of high school because of inconsistencies and contradictions, then became a Christian a year later. Clearly, a Christian scientist should get it! Right?
Years later I saw a talk by Dr. Jason Lisle while he was still with Answers in Genesis. That man made SO MUCH more sense, especially when he could admit the YE side has some problems that still need to be addressed while remaining biblically and logically consistent.
So, thank you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am a very Fundamental Christian Creationis but certainly not one of Satan’s Jehovahs Witnesses.
I am also Arianist and refuse to accept the reality of a spirit being called Holy Spirit who is supposed to float around heaven in a big white sheet!
I am sure Earth is the 6,000 year sold that the Bibel says – and Darwin unwittingly and unknowingly proved with is research on worms!
If you are an Arianist (whole different topic), I urge you to repent and trust Jesus, who claims to be the Almighty many times (John 8:58, Luke 5:20-24, John 17…)
Read the Isaiah 45 – Philippians 2 parallel. Jesus is clearly Yahweh, along with the Father & the Spirit.
Ross is a fool for Satan who cannot bring himself to really believe the Bible.
Darwins worm research proves earth is young and all Ross’s arguments are rubbish inspired by Planet of Apes and similar outpourings of Satan’s Hollywood!
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 4 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 12 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 18 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 21 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 22 | ApoloJedi