Authors: Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn
Format: Softcover
Page Count: 527
Publisher: Apocalyptic Vision Press
Publication Date: 3rd edition, 2007
ISBN: 0979914701
Rating: 2 of 5 stars
I want to thank Timothy Martin for providing me with a complimentary review copy of his book, Beyond Creation Science. It was a pleasure to read and interact with this book.
It’s a rare book that aims to confront its readers thinking and challenge their deep set assumptions and beliefs on an important topic. In Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn attempt to do this on two fronts, with the young-earth / old-earth creationism debate and end-times theology (eschatology). With such a daunting aim, it would be surprising if the book succeeded in both goals with every reader.
While the book did not overturn my thinking completely on both ends of the Bible, it did stretch my mind and give me cause to evaluate what I believe in light of the Bible’s entire teaching. The authors present their case well in a coherent manner, and they deserve a hearing.
The work is subtitled “New covenant creation from Genesis to Revelation”, and the authors do succeed in convincing the reader that Genesis and Revelation are inextricably linked. How one thinks and interprets Genesis directly impacts how he thinks of eschatology and Revelation.
A strength of the book is its stress on biblical theology–seeing all of Scripture in light of the redemptive story. I also share a suspicion of dispensationalism with its authors. I found their claim–that the same scientifically literal approach, championed by dispensationalists, which results in a full-fledged futuristic approach to Revelation (pre-trib, premillennialism) also leads them to subscribe to young-earth creationism–convincing.
While I am not completely convinced of old-earth creationism, this book certainly gave me more respect for that view. The authors show how young-earth creationism, was in large part advanced after the threat of Darwinism surfaced, and with the benefit of dispensational hermeneutics. I was shocked to learn that the hugely influential book The Genesis Flood (by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), was based to a large degree on an earlier work by a Seventh Day Adventist (who would certainly be biased toward a literal 24-hour day view of the creation week), one George McCready Price who wrote The New Geology in 1923.
What was especially fascinating for me was the authors defense of a local flood view. I’ve always just assumed the flood was global. The evidence does seem quite compelling when you examine the terminology used and some of the Biblical and scientific questions which arise when one holds to a global flood. In our scientific age we are biased to see global-sounding terms as unequivocally global. In days gone by, that is not how such terms were understood, and this book explains why.
Another interesting element in the book was the discussion of the antediluvian lifespans. The book shows how it was only Seth’s descendants who were said to have long ages. It also points to millennial lifespans mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation and concludes the biblical ideal life is one thousand years old.
I must admit I was wary of this book’s advocacy of full preterism. I had hardly been exposed to partial preterism before reading this, so full preterism was hard to swallow. In one sense I can see the evidence for partial preterism (the view that the Olivet Discourse has largely been fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). But as the arguments were pressed further for a full preterist view that the resurrection is solely spiritual (i.e. regeneration), and the new heaven and new earth are fulfilled in a Christian’s existence today, I had to balk. In Acts, the angels say Jesus will return visibly like the disciples saw him go into heaven, and in John 14, Jesus says he’s building a place for us and will come back to bring us to be with him. These are just two passages which in my mind directly contradict a full preterist view.
To be honest, this book is not attempting a full fledged defense of full preterism. The book focuses more on Genesis than Revelation. And it doesn’t attempt to answer all the counter arguments for both issues. It aims to show how one’s views of prophecy influence one’s views of creation and the flood. It succeeds in that respect.
I found the book fascinating but remain unconvinced. Often I thought the argumentation was somewhat weak. Authors were quoted as if simply providing their quote proved the point. When trying to disprove the notion that death could not exist before the Fall, the book did not adequately deal with some of the key theological and exegetical supports for that view. This being said, I can understand many of the Biblical arguments for these views now. I can appreciate the authors’ desire to follow Scripture wherever it leads. This is what all of us should aim to do. And to that end, studying out the claims of preterism and evaluating them Biblically is no waste of time.
I would recommend Bible students read this book. But I would caution them against the full preterist view. It runs counter to the historic church creeds and seems to deny some important truths. At the least be wary of it and do more research before adopting that view as your own.
Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.
This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from beyondcreationscience.com.
I wouldn’t say that I was “shocked,” as you were, to learn of Morris’ reliance on the findings of Price, an Adventist amateur geolgist, but I did find it ironic that scientific creationism is partly based on the seemingly a priori work of an Adventist, for King James Onlyism also owes a debt of gratitude to the work of an Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, whose book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” was featured in David Otis Fuller’s “Which Bible?”
Now this is just my own personal logic at work, but a few years ago, when I realized the shallowness of KJV Onlyism, and recalled that Morris, the father of modern scientific creationism, was a KJV Onlyist himself (he even promoted Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions”), I began to suspect young-earth “6/24” creationism must also leave something to be desired. Then, my church had Henry Morris’ son come speak at a men’s prayer breakfast, and he for the first time informed me that, indeed, most evangelical seminaries no longer favor young-earth “6/24” creationism. He mentioned John MacArthur’s school as among the few which still defend the view.
I personally remain agnostic about those aspects of creation, but I’m still emotionally tied to the Morris view, although I’m finding the framework view particularly persuasive on the days of creation.
John,
I was aware of the Wilkinson dependency among KJV Onlyists. It’s interesting that for both Henry Morris and Fuller, that they did not properly give credit (at least at first) to their respective SDA authors who preceded them. In Fuller’s case, he even edited out many sections which would not pass muster among his intended audience.
I wasn’t aware that Henry Morris was a KJV Onlyist, however. But I do recall his book being prized in my KJV Only college….
I’m with you I think on this issue. I’m open to a framework view, and to possibly a gap view in the sense of an older earth. But then I’m not so comfortable in thinking of death before the Fall and so I haven’t yet arrived at a position yet. I’m a default 6/24 creationist in the meantime, I guess.
Thanks for your thoughts, John.
http://www.icr.org/article/803/
The above link takes you to an article Morris wrote defending the continued use of the King James Version. Also, you’ll notice his Defender’s Study Bible only comes in KJV and it contains notes and articles defending the typical KJV Only defense.
Oh, also, about George McReady Price’s geology, before Morris got his hands on it, it was previously used by William Jennings Bryan during the Scopes Monkey Trial, according to Wikipedia:
“Price’s work was cited at the Scopes Trial of 1925, yet although he frequently solicited feedback from geologists and other scientists, they consistently disparaged his work.[24] Price’s “new catastrophism” went largely unnoticed also among creationists until its revival with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, a work which quickly became a classic among fundamentalist Christians[2] and opened the field of creation science to go beyond critiques of geology into biology and cosmology as well. Soon after its publication, a movement was underway to have the subject taught in United States’ public schools.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
Thanks for the links, great stuff.
You do realize these guys are hyperpreterists & are pushing this as a way to get OECs into hyperpreterism…they even say so in the book.
Hyperpreterism for those who don’t know, advocates 3 things:
1. Jesus came back once & for all around or at the year AD70.
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in or around AD70.
Please read my chapter-by-chapter review of Martin’s 2nd edition of BSC:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=939
Roderick,
I do realize this. I disagree with all 3 points I think its somewhat dangerous. I said so in my review. However, I don’t think they are necessarily heretical. If you read what they are claiming, it does not negate Biblical doctrine. I haven’t heard them say there is no hell, no heaven, no afterlife, salvation is here and now only or anything like that.
I’m sure your point by point review may be helpful. I was just giving an overview of the book.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
Now I notice that my pingback includes the new picture (think I better just do the head shot like you said), but my comment above still includes the old picture. What’s up with that?
I replied on your blog.
I wish to thank you for your honesty in writing about this. My bone of contention with the Hamites/ICR types is that they seem to feel (as do evolutionists) that all hominids are Adam’s seed, whereas, just as the ICR methodology is not found in the Fathers, or the Church before, say, 1830 (using Adventist dates in a tongue in cheek manner, noting the connection above as was mentioned), so, too, Europeans did not equate missions and the “Brotherhood of Man” until Darwinism and Marxism made miscegenation no longer sinful…. and we are now seeing the folly of that in an Obamanation.
I think that Roderick ‘doth protest too much’ in his review, in that ‘covenantal’=Reformed, as most know; as a convert to Orthodoxy, I find much in Reformed theology that is far more patristic than, say, Modern Romanism, or Evangelicalism that is no longer Evangelical. But their deficient sacramentalism leaves me cold.
I, too, find the three end premises of full preterism to be heretical, against the Fathers and the Creeds, and therefore, heretical. Nevertheless, this field needs to be further studied. Thanks…
I disagree with the notion that full Preterism is heretical. Church fathers writings should not be the basis for heresy; the Bible alone is the inspired work. Please read this text and ponder it…
For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his angel; and then shall he reward every man according to his works. Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kinddom. Mthew 16:27-28
With all so respect, I thank you for permitting me to comment on this subject.
Ben