Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 3 of 7): Basis of the RTB biblical creation model

In addition to a day-age interpretation of yom, there are other factors which RTB uses to construct their biblical creation model. One of these is that “the Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation” because “the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree.” ¹² On this point, Ross adds, “there can be no contradiction between what He has made and what He has spoken through the inspired writers of Scripture. The testimony of both will always agree.” ¹³ “No contradictions exist between the established record of nature and a plain reading of the biblical creation texts.” ¹⁴ Referencing Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20, “The Bible...declares that the record of nature is reliable and understandable.” ¹⁵

Ross, an astronomer and physicist by education as well as by profession, accepts an age of the universe in the billions of years. ¹⁶ Therefore, he concludes, God must have supernaturally created the universe at the Big Bang some billions of years ago and supernaturally intervened at various times since. Ross says that if the universe’s age is younger than that, it would create a logical disconnect between the real age of the cosmos versus its apparent age. ¹⁷ Also, Ross says, a deceptive appearance of age would violate God’s own stated character and purpose. ¹⁸

Ross continues, “Advocates of the appearance-of-age view typically hold what may be termed a ‘biblicist’ perspective – belief that the Bible is the only reliable truth source about any subject” (i.e., from astronomy to zoology). “Biblicists claim the Bible must be interpreted ‘literally’ (by which they mean concretely), even if that interpretation contradicts observable facts of nature. . . . Biblicism has sometimes been confused with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, according to which the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all subjects it addresses.” ¹⁹

From my perspective, RTB’s subscription to Sola Scriptura (albeit from a theologically Reformed viewpoint) makes it understandable to also find that they subscribe to biblical inerrancy in the sixty-six books of the Bible²⁰ as well as to the use of “sound exegetical techniques” and the “historical-grammatical method.” ²¹ RTB holds that its model remains consistent with the creation tenets of the Reformation confessional statements of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. ²² The tendency of RTB toward the rationalism of Reformed theology comes to light with the tendency to rationalize miraculous events,²³ the inclination toward the reasonableness of the objects of faith, ²⁴ as well as the tendency toward pre-millennialism. ²⁵

---

¹² In this context, Ross also states that “the Bible, therefore, has a definite priority over the facts of nature and a unique authority as the sufficient standard for Christian doctrine.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 89-90.

¹³ Ross, A Matter of Days, 211.

¹⁴ Ross, A Matter of Days, 237-238.

¹⁵ Ross, A Matter of Days, 60.

¹⁶ http://www.reasons.org/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-age-universe (last accessed April 5, 2011)

¹⁷ In citing the opinion of Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), Ross concurs with North that “a cosmic creation date of only thousands of years implies, in some respect, that the universe is an illusion. Since astronomers have sound reasons for concluding that the cosmos is real, they cannot reasonably adopt young-universe creationism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 36.

¹⁸ Ross, A Matter of Days, 86. “To suggest that God artificially fixed the broadening and reddening of the light individually from 10 billion trillion stars and 100 billion galaxies is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. …such action would be contradictory to His revealed character and purpose and to His declaration that creation is a truthful witness.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 163. The reader should be aware that I do not agree with Ross’ conclusions here and intend to cover this subject more in depth at a later date.

¹⁹ Ross, A Matter of Days, 37. In the endnotes, Ross points out that “Sola Scriptura is the position held by Reasons To Believe.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 259. Sola Scriptura means, literally, Scripture alone.

²⁰ Ross, More Than A Theory, 60-61.

²¹ Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach To The Origin Of Man (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2005), 43; “Reasons To Believe [adheres] to the doctrinal statements of the National Association of Evangelicals and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy”, Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances And The Accuracy Of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 239. The reader might be familiar with the fact that, in 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in 1982, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and, in 1986, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application. See http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094578,00.html (last accessed April 7, 2011).

²² Ross, More Than A Theory, 59; Ross’ source for The Westminster Confession of Faith is http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (last accessed April 3, 2011)

²³ “If the Sun, Moon, stars, and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 77.

²⁴ “The Bible claims that faith is based on reasonable evidence.” Continuing the quotation, “All the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible translated into English as ‘faith’ document the importance of belief – and action – being based on verifiable truth.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 63. Here, Ross includes such examples as 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1 and Acts 17:11. The application made by Ross is to ultimately come to a consistent agreement of information from both Scripture and nature. He points out that some “believe that by discrediting Genesis they can demonstrate a flawed Bible. This ‘faulty creation message’ is [then] used to discredit the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines of heaven and hell, and so forth. If the creation account is implausible, what basis remains to believe anything else the Bible declares?” [emphasis mine] Ross, A Matter of Days, 17. This subject of dual revelation, as well as the related subjects of the roles of faith and reason, will be covered in a separate paper. In the meantime, however, the reader should observe with caution how reason here seems to be emphasized since scientific plausibility is purposed to verify Scripture.

²⁵ “A common, though not universal doctrinal position among old-earth creationists is premillennialism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 265.