Customer Reviews

The Battle For The Beginning

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

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.

John MacArthur is a man who does his homework. In this book, Dr. MacArthur takes on the tough questions concerning Genesis 1-11 in this age of science. While many evangelicals follow the leads of prominent Christians who affirm the Bible as the Word of God but reject a literal, six-day creation, John MacArthur continues to believe and preach the literalness of God's Word. And he does it by not only looking at science through Scripture but takes on the critics of literal Creationist.

If you are looking for clear, consise answers to Genesis 1-11 and a biblical alternative to the Hugh Ross' of the evangelical church then look no further than this book. It will challenge you and yet encourage you to trust that God's Word is true and everything else (including science) must bow its knee to its sole authority. A great book!

John MacArthur wrote Battle For The Beginning primarily to address the world's origins from a Biblical viewpoint. The book is aimed at a Christian audience and is not so much a defense of creationism as it is a defense of a literal six-day creation. This is not a book that primarily focuses on convincing unbelieving evolutionists of creationism, but rather it focuses on convincing Christians who believe that in some form of evolution (such as old-earth creationism or the Gap Theory) that the only valid reading of Genesis one and two is a literal reading. MacArthur bases much of the book on the view that Evolution is itself a religion that is completely opposed to Christianity. Creationism and Evolution, therefore, can never be mixed. We must believe in either one or the other.

After giving many reasons why Evolutionism is antithetical to God and His design, the book spends a chapter on each of the days of creation. In each chapter the author shows why anything other than a literal six-day creation is impossible. In so doing he gives many wonderful examples of the wonders and marvels of creation. Much of the book is focused on refuting the arguments of Hugh Ross, the most prominent of the theistic evolutionists.

I would highly recommend this book to any believer that is struggling with the conflict between creationism and evolutionism. MacArthur's ability to accurately draw teaching from scripture and using God's word as the ultimate teaching tool makes this one of the best books I have read on the subject.

I have read a number of John MacArthur's other books and found them both challenging and encouraging. I therefore looked forward to this book as one I could perhaps recommend to friends as a practical book on the subject for non-technical people. It was a sad disappointment. I am reminded of God's words to Job "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2 KJV).

Firstly, in his very title, "The Battle for the Beginning", MacArthur has bought the whole conflict metaphor for the relationship between science and Christianity. Completely discredited by all historians and philosophers of science, this destructive metaphor first promulgated by Simpson, Draper, and White in the 19th century continues to muddy the waters of sensible discussion of science and Christianity in the 21st. Interaction, overlapping, and complementary paradigms are much more useful and accurate models than conflict.

Secondly, MacArthur makes a number of elementary confusions, equating scientific evidence for an old earth and universe with that for organic evolution and confusing organic evolution with philosophical naturalism. A familiarity with some basic philosophy of science and an understanding of the interaction of science and theology would have prevented this.

Thirdly, MacArthur is fundamentally ignorant on matters of general history. On page 16 he says: "The moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern western society is directly traceable to Darwinism and rejection of the early chapters of Genesis." All the moral failings in modern society had their precursors well before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859 and many were flourishing. Moral catastrophes are not the exclusive domain of the last 140 years.

Fourthly, MacArthur is ignorant of evangelical history. He writes "over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as "old-earth creationism..."" (pages 18-19). In fact, many of the founders of geology and established the fact that the earth was very old were not only devout Christians but often evangelicals. Men such as the Playfair, Fleming, Chambers, Buckland, Sedgwick, Miller, Silliman, and Dawson. The United States was introduced to organic evolution by the evangelical Asa Gray. Evangelical theologians such as Warfield (who defined the modern doctrine of Biblical inerrancy) and James Orr (who contributed to "The Fundamentals") were strong supporters of organic evolution.

Fifthly, MacArthur is inconsistent in his approach. He is convinced that Genesis 1-3 must be taken at face value and therefore the findings of cosmology, geology, and palaeontology must be rejected. But seems to accept the fact that the earth goes round the sun, the universe is very large, that the sky is not a solid dome, and modern genetics (see pages 69-135 in particular). These are all inconsistent with taking Scripture at face value. In these other areas MacArthur accepts scientific findings to interpret the Bible in a non-literal way. However he explicitly says on page 22: "Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of Scripture..." So what criteria does he use to accept one scientific conclusion but not another?

Sixthly, MacArthur is not familiar with the literature. This may explain his mistakes, but it is tragic that such an influential Christian writer to pass judgement on an issue with so little knowledge of the field. The quotes only three theologians, Edward Young (three times, John Calvin (twice), and Augustine (once). MacArthur specifically discusses only one Christian in science who defends and old earth position, Hugh Ross, even though this represents the position of overwhelming majority of evangelical scientists in the relevant positions. He does not cite a single evangelical theologian (apart from disparaging passing reference to Meredith Kline) who takes a non-literal position on Genesis 1-3. Almost the only people he does quote with approval are young earth creationists, who theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific failings are too numerous to enumerate here. MacArthur quotes Michael Behe and C.S. Lewis with approval, apparently unaware that both accept an old earth, Behe one of the key tenets of organic evolution (descent with modification) and Lewis also cautiously accepted organic evolution. Apart from one Scientific American article, MacArthur does not cite a single scientific work. There is no reference to any study on the history and philosophy of science or the interaction science and Christianity, of which there are a great many excellent works readily available. This lack of familiarity with the basic literature explains, although does not excuse, the many fundamental errors in this book.

Finally, is there anything good to be said about this book? Yes, there is. MacArthur correctly identifies naturalism as anti-Christian. He is also correct in attacking the way that some philosophical naturalists use science to bolster their philosophical position. Unfortunately he picks the wrong target. Rather than attacking the weak link between science and naturalism, he chooses to attack science and naturalism, and tries to defend Christianity with the anti-science of young earth creationism. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

MacArthur's book is likely to have two sad consequences. Some will rightly reject his anti-science attitude and use this as an excuse to reject the Christian gospel. Others will correctly reject naturalism but also science, thereby missing out of something that, rightly understood, encourages faith, and is an essential tool in the understanding and care of God's world.

This book places the creation of the universe 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer. Does the author know that by the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes typified the work of Christian natural philosophers? Even a medieval Christian mindset could embrace methodological naturalism - the heart of the scientific method - because it works.

The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan, described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher's search for "appropriate natural causes" with the erroneous habit of attributing unusual phenomena to the supernatural.

Enthusiasm for the naturalist view and study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. Galileo Galilei, one of the foremost proponents of the new philosophy insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."

Scientific naturalism retains strong Christian support down to the present - hardly surprising since the concept was largely developed in Christianized Europe. Unfortunately MacArthur embraces the retrograde cant of the worst Evangelical Christian ignoramuses, denies history and reality, and wants to set your watch and worldview back to the Dark Ages. Welcome to the lunatic asylum without walls world of Young Earth Creationism.

The mangy dogma enshrined in this obtuse apologetic - that everything "poofed" into existence over a literal six day period as described in Genesis - is pathetically untenable. Nobody, especially John MacArthur, even knows who penned this contradictory and farfetched fable. Norse, Egyptian, Yokut, Babylonian, and Lakota creation myths, among hundreds of others, are equally well documented.

In the Young Earth Creationist iconography of ignorance "The Battle for the Beginning" is just another small painting. Genesis is myth. Get over it.

For a reality-based view try Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes by Alex Vilenkin or The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe by Steven Weinberg.

As would be expected from such an outstanding Bible teacher as MacArthur, he presents much fresh thought into a controversial topic. He correctly notes the futility of naturalism, with its pseudo-intellectual backing of Darwinism and in turn ITS pseudo-intellectual backing of the old-Earth dogmas of Lyell and Hutton. He also shows conclusively that EVERYWHERE else in the Bible the first chapters of Genesis are cited, they are treated as straightforward history.

As always, MacArthur has a knack for getting to the heart of the issue. He points out that all those who want to add evolution/billions of years have adopted a hermeneutic that does violence to Scripture. He explains very clearly why the infallible and perspicuous Scriptures must always take presence over so-called science, which as often pointed out really means the naturalistic *interpretations* of data. It's very clear that he understands the old-earthers like Hugh Ross only too well.

His account of the Fall is most instructive. He compares the knowledge of good and evil by God and the First Couple with the knowledge of cancer of the oncologist and the knowledge of experience of an unfortunate sufferer.

One can often tell the merits of a book by seeing who's attacking it. For instance, a representative of an Australian theistic evolutionary organization clearly denies Biblical inerrancy. And the organization's head even thinks that Jesus made mistakes! Another critic recommends a book by the Christadelphian Alan Hayward, while yet another recommends the non-Christian Schroeder.

I am a creationist who was read several books on the topic of creation and evolution. This was honestly, probably one of the worst ones for a Creationinst seeking honesty. McArthur does show some valid insight on symbiotic relationships within species and the complexity of creatures, but that is where it stops. His ENTIRE argument is nothing more than straw man rhetoric, and argumentation from the gaps of scientific knowledge. This type of argumentation is disasterous for Creationists. His entire approach is rude and immature, and he doesn't even have the facts or logic to back it up. He tends to act as leading Atheist Richard Dawkins in his approach, assuming that trying to ridicule the oposing view and making it sound ridiculous is in somehow proving his case. For the naive or gullible this type of approach works, unfortunately. He tends to have nothing more then a God of the gaps argument, being that if there is a gap in scientific knowledge that means God did it. As science progresses, this leaves creationist in a very vulnerable position. Once these gaps begin to become filled, it squeezes God out, making the creationist argument no longer nescessary and tremendously weak. If you are looking for a book to brush up on your apologetic skills, this book will do nothing but weaken them: unless you plan on learning how not to argue.

There were parts of this book I thoroughly enjoyed and parts that really disappointed me. John MacArthur is a fine bible expositor whose wisdom comes from years of studying scripture. He brings life and depth to the Genesis stories as he unfolds their meaning and ties them into the bible story as a whole. However, as an earth scientist with higher degrees, I found the defense for a literal six day creation, and hence a 6000 year old earth, to be lacking. Basically, John MacArthur said God created everything as it is, mature, and this is how we should take it since the bible says it is so. How, then, do we explain seeing supernova billions of light years away and hence billions of years ago. A common young earth creationist explanation is that God created the light en-transit. However, this would mean that God is deceiving us into thinking we are looking at a supernova that happened, when in fact the nova never actually happened. Likewise, how about the hundreds of thousands of annual layers of ice beneath Greenland and Antarctica? Did God put the ice layers and the supernova light there to fool scientists into thinking the earth and the universe are much older than they are? I can see accusing Satan of deception, but not accusing God of deception. Therefore, since I cannot see God as a deceiver, I have to take the Genesis story as just that, a story, with sublime and profound meaning, but not one that can be taken as literally as Young Earth Creationists take it.

MacArthur's book left me frustrated by his defense of creationism for several reasons.

1. I felt that his entire argument was based on the "because the Bible says so, no questions asked" argument.

2. The various authors, theologians and scientists that are referred to are portrayed in a very biased light. (e.g. desparaging remarks in regard to the work of Dr. Hugh Ross)

3. MacArthur shows a very limited knowledge of the natural sciences that is made evident throughout the book.

3. The entire book made a straw man of science and evolution.

As a Christian, I am ready for intelligent conversation to occur in regard to the Creation v. Evolution debate. This book did not offer said conversation.

John MacArthur wrote Battle For The Beginning primarily to address the world's origins from a Biblical viewpoint. The book is aimed at a Christian audience and is not so much a defense of creationism as it is a defense of a literal six-day creation. This is not a book that primarily focuses on convincing unbelieving evolutionists of creationism, but rather it focuses on convincing Christians who believe that in some form of evolution (such as old-earth creationism or the Gap Theory) that the only valid reading of Genesis one and two is a literal reading. MacArthur bases much of the book on the view that Evolution is itself a religion that is completely opposed to Christianity. Creationism and Evolution, therefore, can never be mixed. We must believe in either one or the other.

After giving many reasons why Evolutionism is antithetical to God and His design, the book spends a chapter on each of the days of creation. In each chapter the author shows why anything other than a literal six-day creation is impossible. In so doing he gives many wonderful examples of the wonders and marvels of creation. Much of the book is focused on refuting the arguments of Hugh Ross, the most prominent of the theistic evolutionists.

I would highly recommend this book to any believer that is struggling with the conflict between creationism and evolutionism. MacArthur's ability to accurately draw teaching from scripture and using God's word as the ultimate teaching tool makes this one of the best books I have read on the subject.