23 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Battle Over "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth", July 6, 2009
This review is from: The Battle for the Beginning (Paperback)
I bought John MacArthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning" several years ago but didn't set aside the time to read it until late last year. I didn't bother reading reviews on the book since I thought how controversial can a book on Genesis be anyway? Well, I should have expected that any book written by John MacArthur would be a lightning rod for controversy. He is very popular pastor and author in part because he doesn't shy away from the cutting-edge subjects that challenge the reader to think.
After reading MacArthur's book, I was surprised to find how many non-Christians wrote reviews. It appeared that some of them actually read the book, too. I doubt that John MacArthur wrote this book primarily with non-Christians in mind. Though I may be wrong. Most non-Christians are comfortable in their evolutionist and naturalist worldviews and therefore simply dismiss MacArthur's book. They rarely want to consider God as the source and sustainer of the universe. They know to do so may lead them to draw conclusions they simply don't want to consider. However, I personally know several individuals who held strongly to this belief system and then gave it all up later when they became Christians. It really happens.
I guess what really surprised me the most was how many Christians disagreed with MacArthur's traditional creationist position, choosing to deviate from the literal interpretation of scripture at this point in the Bible to what they contend is a more "scientific" viewpoint. This has led many into what has come to be called evolutionary-creationism, theistic-evolution, or old-earth creationism. This blends some of the principles of biblical creationism, naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two completely opposing world-views.
Many of the reviewers panned MacArthur's book because it wasn't an attempt to prove creation from a scientific system. Readers will, however, discover that the book does address a number of the primary scientific, evolutionary and naturalism theories. MacArthur makes it clear at the beginning of the book that his goal is to address creation primarily from the Genesis record in chapters 1 and 2. At key points, he takes the time to address both evolutionist and evolutionary-creationism issues.
As I mentioned earlier, I think MacArthur wrote this book primarily for Christians, showing that right from the first verse of the first chapter in Genesis, God's Word sufficiently records a rational record of creation. I think MacArthur was clear that there is a place for scientific experimentation, but biblical interpretation is not it. We don't interpret scripture based on scientific conclusions. Most will agree that scientific theories are constantly changing. Just wait a few years and those rock-solid theories just five years ago are now old-school, and often obsolete and erroneous ideas. The scripture doesn't change (Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away - Luke 21:33). The opening statement in Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is still the same, it hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the world views of some Christians from pure creationism to an evolutionary-creationism worldview. Along with this change has also come a wave of criticism of those who faithfully trust the scriptures, as written.
MacArthur is strongly criticized for his so-called emotional appeals in this book. I think these reviewers mistake his commitment to sound hermeneutics in interpreting Genesis instead of consulting ever-changing scientific theories as an emotional appeal. Granted, not all of scripture is to be taken literally. Some portions are poetic, some are parables like the Prodigal Son, and some are apocalyptic imagery. But the Genesis record gives absolutely no indication that it should be taken as anything but a literal record. Few "old earth" Christians are aware that the literal view of the Genesis record is supported throughout scripture, Old and New Testaments. In fact, Jesus, Moses, the Psalmist, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the author of Hebrews, and most, if not all, of the apostolic authors made specific references to the Genesis record as a literal record of creation. Unless you take those individuals as mythological characters too, that kind of biblical evidence is difficult to overcome.
Some say that MacArthur's book is full of the "God of the Gaps" explanations. That isn't what he wrote at all. After a fair and unbiased reading one should see that MacArthur exposes the inability of evolutionism and naturalism to explain how the universe began and how it is sustained in light of science's own highly regarded laws of thermodynamics. Though they claim they can, scientists simply can't use their scientific method (observation, form a hypothesis and duplication through experimentation to validate the hypothesis) to explain how life and the universe began because they have nothing with wich to form a hypothesis. Why? Because they weren't there to observe the phenomena--the beginning! Scientists can examine artifacts, catalog them, and make guesses using techniques of historiography, but he can never perform a controlled experiment to discern what happened in the past.
The scientific method is supposed to provide data independent of the scientist's worldview. A scientist who is a Christian (and there are many)will arrive at exactly the same data using the scientific method as an atheist. Science doesn't depend upon a particular belief system and is, therefore, not the sole domain of evolutionists. Thus, the attempt to cast the debate between evolutionists and creationists as one of science versus religion or fact versus faith is erroneous.
MacArthur says that most evolutionary-creationists reinterpret the word "day" in the Genesis record to mean "ages" or "epochs" in order to square Genesis with their evolutionist positions. Personally, I don't understand why a believer would subject the Holy Scriptures to this kind of illogical gymnastics? God clearly stated in Genesis 1 that he divided the light from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night." Most importantly, at the end of each part of God's creative activities scripture specifically identifies each day as day one, day two, day three, and so on. Without trying to embarrass anyone, even a child and a scientist can understand this. Unless God was playing a cruel joke on humanity, why wouldn't he make the creation account at the beginning of the Bible simple enough for everyone to understand? It simply makes perfect sense. But expecting Moses and the rest of humanity to conclude from the Genesis record that God actually only created time and space and then the basic elements of the universe and then allowed them swirl around and around for billions and billions of years before evolution spawned life takes more faith than simply believing the literal Genesis record. To do so would truly be a huge blind leap of faith!
Here are a couple of what I hope are viewed as relevant questions: What was the benefit (from God's vantage point, that is) of taking billions and billions of years of evolution to create the universe, instead of just a simple "poof-there-it-is" method (as one reviewer calls the literal 6-day creation model)? God said he created all things for his own good pleasure. I simply don't see the point of creating such a random process that takes eons to become anything worthwhile, and will never end! Think about it...according to evolutionists, the process has no foreseeable ending. Didn't God record in scripture that he wrapped all of creation up? Note the following:
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." Genesis 2:2-3.
Another question: When God destroys the old universe (2 Peter, chapter 3) and creates a new one (Revelation, chapter 21), will that also take billions and billions of years to accomplish, just like evolutionary-creationists allege it took to create the first universe? Or will that one be just a "poof-there-it-goes" and another "ex nihlo" creation by God for the new heaven and earth, just like scripture tells us it will?
Last question: Is it so difficult to accept that by design God created a complete, mature universe and not just elements swirling around for billions and billions of years before becoming anything usable? Is it so unlike God to create a mature earth and a mature Adam and Eve as described in the Genesis record? Or does that simply take too much faith to believe? The Genesis record or evolution? You decide.
The Battle for the Beginning was such a pleasant surprise. I highly recommend it to any Christian and non-Christian alike. All I ask is that if after reading the entire book you are motivated to write a review, please, out of respect for Amazon.com, the author, and those of us who also read the book, don't just criticize the author. Write a thoughtful review, a rational, intelligent, thought-provoking book review for others to consider and benefit from.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
