A Short Review of “Creation Without Compromise”
March 8, 2010 by Dustin Crider
http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/03/08/a-short-review-of-creation-without-compromise/
a. There is no shortage of creationist resources today. Groups such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research have made a plethora of books, videos, and magazines available that discuss creation Biblically and scientifically. But I believe a recent book by Dr. Donald Crowe, Creation Without Compromise, stands apart from the rest. Dr. Crowe weaves together many threads of the creation-evolution debate and forms a wonderful tapestry of history, theology, and apologetics on the subject. He also presents a challenge to the church to have a well-rounded Christian worldview and not to compromise with the world. He states, “In like manner, no compromise is ever enough for the evolutionist because both evolution and Christianity demand to govern every aspect of life and thought.” [1]
b. Crowe does an excellent job of speaking of the creation-evolution debate in terms of presuppositions. Crowe explains, “For both the creationist and evolutionary worldviews, the presupposed axioms of thought determine what is allowed as evidence and what constitutes proof or truth.” [2] He also explains that evolution must be challenged as a religiously held worldview. Presenting ‘data’ to the evolutionists will not suffice, since at heart the theory is an expression of man’s fallen nature to exclude the Lord from scientific thought.
c. Rightly so, Crowe also emphasizes the authority of God’s Holy Word. We cannot interpret the Bible using the latest so-called scientific theories. The Bible is the supreme authority and it is the standard by which all things are judged. The extended quote below is one of my personal favorites from the book.
d. “The straightforward reading of Genesis 5 and 11 prevailed universally in Christendom for more than eighteen centuries. Only when one was convinced by ancient evolutionary thought (Babylon, Greece, or Egypt) or modern evolutionary thought (Darwin), was any other ‘interpretation’ suggested. Most of those today who advocate a non-literal view of Genesis admit that their view did not arise from the text itself (exegesis), but was determined by the outside (‘scientific’) considerations. Those who try to fit millions of extra years into the genealogies, usually also deny the worldwide flood of Noah, and the literal days of Genesis One. These are indications that for them so-called ‘science’ is a higher authority than divine revelation. This triumph of empiricism over Scripture is destructive to maintaining a consistent Christian worldview. It also makes the interpretation of Scripture an impossible task, since they can make a word mean what they want it to mean.” [3]
e. The book concludes by giving four ways Christians can avoid compromise. I won’t give those here, you’ll have to buy the book! But I will say that I found the conclusion humbling and challenging. May the Lord give His people more love for Himself, His Word, and the amazing creation that we live in.
REVIEW #1
23 April 2010
a. Book review of Did God Create in Six Days? edited by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall, Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999.
b. Here is a personal letter that I wrote to a pastor. Names and places have been omitted in order to respect the privacy of those involved.
* * * * * * *
a. Dear [ recipient’s name omitted ],
b. I was a bit horrified by the idea that you would take Pipa's book Did God Create in Six Days? and use it to support the idea that figurative views of creation are orthodox!
c. I have read this book through, every word except the last ten pages which I am about to finish up. Some of it I have read twice.
d. I happened to be in [ location omitted ] last night for a missionary meeting at [ name omitted ] Presbyterian Church, [denomination omitted ]. There was a dinner beforehand. Someone pointed Joseph Pipa out to me, so after dinner I corralled him and asked about the structure of his book.
e. I told him that my understanding of it was that his position was clearly young earth creationist and that the figurative chapters were there by those who held figurative views, and it was the author’s purpose to present these views clearly and fairly by their own adherents, but the author’s purpose was merely to define what it is that his book does and does not support--namely he categorically does support literal days and categorically does not support nor consider as orthodox any other view.
f. He told me that that was certainly his intention and if anyone had misunderstand and erroneously thought that he was supporting figurative views as orthodox alternatives that the reader probably had not read the book in its entirety and that whoever I was talking about needed to hear that he wanted this message relayed to him right now. So I am relaying his message to you.
g. In our personal meeting you said that everyone who has a view of creation thinks that he is taking it literally. That will not do, [ recipient’s name omitted ]. There is figurative language in the Bible that must be taken figuratively and literal language that must be take literally. Anyone who takes literal language figuratively (like you, [ and five other prominent names omitted ] about days of creation) is screwing up big time, just like those who take figurative language literally, like the Roman Catholics do concerning the Lord's supper, are also screwing up big time but their error is not so great as those who hold to framework or other day-age views of creation!
h. What is in store for the Church is a split, big time, because if the creation account can be taken figuratively, then anything in the Bible can be taken figuratively. Furthermore if the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are discounted as being literal (for no greater literal language exists anywhere in the universe) then the whole of Bible history is undermined because the documenting effect of Bible chronology is to certify that the people, places and what happened are true. Remove the veracity of these literal chronologies (I speak specifically of Genesis 5 and 11 which you personally should read and heed) and Bible history is reduced to myth of the "Once upon a time...." variety.
i. Furthermore, your refusal to commit out loud to me on your position means that you certainly hold a figurative view of this matter, because no one who holds a literal view of these things is ashamed to admit it.
j. Furthermore, when Bible history is thus undermined by people like you, this false testimony turns the real Gospel into a myth and renders the Gospel impotent from its inception in Genesis 3:15 all the way to the resurrection of Jesus Christ! You said that I hold Bible chronology as an idol! No, Sir! I hold Bible chronology as a integral part of Bible history which defines the Gospel of God. God Himself is my idol and you would do well to understand that!
k. Your error is so great that it cannot be passed over without some serious admonishment, because you are posing as a genuine minister of the Gospel but you are really treading on the thin ice that breaks through into irrevocable apostasy. If you do not make amends quickly you may eventually wake up one morning to find yourself among those to whom the Lord Jesus Christ will ultimately say to you, and to others like you, and to all your sorry excuses, “I never knew you! Depart from me you workers of evil.”
l. May God help you before it is too late!
Sincerely,
Paul Albert Hansen
http://www.box.net/shared/03pt6lni9y
- 2010E--Paul's updated 3942 BC--English version--Rev.01--8.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/bvvqoxmqb8
- 2006E--Paul's post-Ussher 3942 BC--English version--Rev01.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/s4gvmfjk81
- 2005E--Ussher's 4004 BC--English version--Rev06--With Luke's List.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/etkhpuubb9
- 1980E--Paul's original 4100 BC--English version--Rev07.pdf