The Bible and True Science are in Perfect Harmony
- Sola Scriptura! super Scriptura sub Scientia
A Book Review of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's New Book Refuting Compromise
by Joe Sebeny, Senior Fellow, Raytheon Missile Systems
Program Director, Southern Arizona Origin Science Association (SAOSA)
"Scripture Alone!" must again be the Christian's battle cry in this time period in church history as compromising theologians, self-serving "Bible-believing" scientists and wolves in sheep's clothing subvert the Authority of the revealed Word of God, the Bible, by placing Scripture below "Science". "Scripture Alone!" and the proper ministerial role of science are the essential themes of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's new book entitled Refuting Compromise, just recently published by Master Books. Sarfati states "that God's infallible Word, the Bible, must be our ultimate authority. This means that Scripture must judge man's fallible theories about the past, not vice versa" (emphasis his).
It's a well written, well referenced (very important for this type of discussion), comprehensive and yet easy to understand salvo of mortal blows (both Biblical and scientific) against "Progressive Creationism", as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross. Having just completed reading this new text, I consider this new masterpiece on par with importance to the Biblical Creationist classic The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, which was first published in 1961 and helped to kick-start the modern Biblical Scientific Creationist movement. The church needs to return to the supreme authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture and understand the proper ministerial role of science. This new book is an excellent resource to refute the error and deviant compromising positions, not only of "progressive creationists", but also of theistic evolutionists, gap-theorists, and those teaching the framework hypothesis.
Sarfati begins by clearly arguing that the Bible is and must be the ultimate authority. He then documents that Ross not only elevates "science" to be on par with Scripture, but in practice actually places scripture below that of science, because Ross reinterprets Scripture to fit his idea of science. Ross then claims to have a literal interpretation of Genesis, too, but his definition of literal is very non-literal. Interestingly, Sarfati also documents that many evangelicals who disagree with a truly literal interpretation of Genesis and don't believe in 24-hour creation days, do so because they are intimidated by so-called "science", which they believe teaches that the Earth is billions of years old. But yet these same evangelicals will admit that the plain straightforward reading of the Biblical text teaches that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days (as I new when I was 5 years old). Sarfati then moves on to show conclusively from the Hebrew that the days of creation were 24 hours long. He also documents from the trail of the written records that Ross's scholarship (in Hebrew and in sound hermeneutics) is severely lacking, and even misleading.
Next, Sarfati shows that the overwhelming majority view (and, indeed the traditional view) of Biblical expositors through the ages has been that the days of creation were 24 hours long, and the very small minority that disagreed still believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. Long-age interpretations are relatively recent phenomena, and have come about because these ideas became in vogue scientifically, and conservative exegetes at that time tried to bring Scripture into line (Scriptura sub scientia). "But liberals, with no motivation to defend the authority of scripture, kept the traditional interpretation, mistakenly believing that it was proof of error in the Bible." Also, it is again shown that Ross's scholarship is extremely poor and/or misleading in this area.
Sarfati then goes on to show how the order of creation as recorded in Genesis is completely incompatible with long-age ideas. Then shows that the latest scientific evidence is starting to weigh heavily against the big-bang cosmology, which is the foundation of Ross's apologetics. Other cosmological models (e.g., Dr. Humphreys', etc.) are presented that are compatible with the Bible.
The next topic of extreme importance that Ross is confronted with is the origin of sin and death. Ross has death before sin. This is again clearly demonstrated to be a false teaching of scripture. The next false teaching that is dealt with is the idea that the flood of Genesis was NOT global, but a local event in Mesopotamian. The clear descriptions of the flood account in Genesis, as well as a rudimentary understanding of the geography of Mesopotamian, shatter Ross's interpretation. Then Sarfati shows that there are no gaps in the genealogies of Genesis chapters 5 & 11, and that the Bible plainly teaches that the Earth is young, created by God about 6000 years ago.
Next, Sarfati deals with the supposed Biblical arguments for an age of the Earth of billions of years and how that the Bible could have taught long vast ages (but it didn't), if that was what God had intended to teach. This is very important. God could not have more clearly taught that the creation days of Genesis were 24-hour days. God literally defines the word day in Genesis 1. Then finally, scientific evidences for a young earth are presented.
In the forward of the book, Douglas F. Kelly writes that "if we go against the plain teaching of the Bible in one area, then how can we seriously ask others to accept the parts that are currently acceptable to us?" In John 3:12 Jesus said to Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" I couldn't agree more.
The passage in 2 Peter 3 describes scoffers in the last days as having two fundamental and willful flaws: a denial of how God created (that includes when), and a denial of a global flood as clearly described in Genesis. Hugh Ross has both, and he clearly defines himself as "being willingly ignorant". Hopefully, Hugh Ross and his minions will repent of their unbelief. (Please note that I am not saying that Hugh Ross is unsaved.) Dr Sarfati has done a wonderful job of placing into one text and in a new and very coherent and powerful manner the arguments that have been used over the years to confront progressive creationism. I am prayerfully hoping that this book will also jolt those Christians caught in the web of deceit of progressive creationism, or even theistic evolution, to see the light of the clear and easily understood teachings of Holy Scripture, and be truly labeled a "Bible-believing Christian".
Check back soon to learn more or contact us at
- On 1 Nov 2009 at 2:22, Mark Penn wrote:
> The fact remains that NO ONE even considered the idea that the floodI notice that you didn't offer any scientific evidence.
> was not global until the 1800s or so when hacks like you were trying
> to insert billions of years into chapter one of Genesis.
> As for "scientific fact" AIG and ICR has more than enough to
> document from minds more educated than you.
Minds educated in lying to the ignorant do not count. Your
willingness to do the devil's work is noted. You will either repent
these sins or be cast into the outer darkness. This is not MY
judgement; this is YOUR CHOICE.
God will not struggle for your soul forever. You have chosen to
worship Belial and, if you do not renounce this worship, to Belial
you will go.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.44/2475 - Release Date: 11/01/09 11:39:00
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]