John Piper, nu ai dreptate!

De la minutul 2:47 incolo ne spune ce crede el…

12 gânduri despre „John Piper, nu ai dreptate!

    • hi debby,
      he „feels at home” with the „science” that says that the Genesis „day” actually means millions (if not billions) of years. He thinks that the 6 days of creation were not actually 24 hour period, and it’s ok to teach that. That is not biblical.

      • Mii aduci aminte de o discutie care am avut-o cu un crestin de pe calea larga.El a spus ca nu ne putem lua dupa ceea ce scrie in biblie referitor la educatia copiilor si ca nu doar parintii au dreptul sa decida asupra lor ci e mai bine sa lasi totul pe seama unui expert(pastor de tineret) si chiar daca biblia acorda mandat parintilor ala nu trebie privit ca un adevar absolut.Ei bine,asemeni lui John Piper,acesta a deschiz cutia pandorei.Pai daca nu trebuie sa iau lucrul asta ca si adevar absolut,atunci cum ramane cu restul bibliei?De ce sa cred ca isus Hristos a murit pe cruce?De ce sa cred ca a inviat?

      • Asta nu inteleg eu la acei crestini care spun ca DUmnezeu s-a folosit de evolutie ca sa faca lumea. Daca nu-L cred pe Dumnezeu in un lucru, de ce l-as crede in altul. Satana vrea sa ne amageasca ca sa nu-i dam lui Dumnezeu slava cuvenita.

      • i’ve read some of john piper’s writings, but i’ve never actually encountered his view on this topic. i found some more information on it here:
        http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land
        „He[Sailhamer] writes that „the term ‘historical’ points to the fact that this view of the Genesis creation account can be traced back to a way of reading Genesis 1 and 2 that flourished before the rise of science and its use in biblical interpretation. Before progress in navigation and transportation made global exploration of our world possible, biblical scholars and ordinary people read Genesis 1 within a rather limited geographic scope….consequently, my view is often found in earlier works” (45).

        Evidence for this is that many Jewish theologians of the middle ages believed that 1:2ff. („ff.” means „and the following verses”) referred to the promised land, not the entire planet (214).”

        i had never heard of this theological view before now. they are basing it on the specific definitions of „creation”, „heavens”, and „earth”.. i’m no theologian and definitely not educated enough in the Bible to have any type of commentary on it. i find it interesting how much theologians can argue on every detail of the Bible.

      • what john piper is referring to is called „historical creationism” and has nothing to do with evolution. i don’t know enough about it to make a decision on it, other than what i was raised to believe.
        and it isn’t that tinerii de astazi vor se crede orice, it’s that we are just doing research: apologetics. because the world has turned towards science, we must find ways to prove to them that the Bible is true. and it just so happens that by reading the details found in the Bible CAN help us find scientific facts that are already in the Bible. it’s frustrating that the younger generation of today gets such a bad rap just because science happens to be a large part of the world around us. when we get asked by co-workers or other students what we believe in, they ask us for proof… the don’t just take our word on it and they don’t want to know how we „feel” about it. so, we turn to science to prove the Bible becuase we already find the Bible to hold true.

  1. Pingback: Johh Piper | Historical Creationism… « unhealthygirl

  2. I am looking at it in a different way.The world has not turned to science just recently, but the greatest scientists based their discoveries with the presupposition that God exists and He created the world as it is.

    We cannot use science to prove that the Bible is true. The methods of science cannot serve as a foundation for the Bible, because they depend upon biblical presuppositions. The Bible is the ultimate standard. Science is secondary. Scientific evidence, when properly interpreted, will ALWAYS coincide with the Bible. Science is perfectly consistent with biblical creation.

    Many christians today, young and old, fall into the trap that God used evolution, or that the earth is billion of years. Maybe because they are uninformed, lied to or too proud to recognize the authority of God in their life. It is not right to teach anything other than God created the universe in 6 literal days.

    The ultimate proof of creation is this: if biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything!

    • Cristina,
      i totally agree with you that the Bible is our first and only source of language and that science is secondary. we, as faithful ones, do not need scientific proof that the Bible is true… but haven’t you ever come across unbelievers that ask for scientific proof of the Bible’s validity? since we know the Bible to be true, we know that science can and will prove the Word as factual.. so why not give the proof to those who need it?
      as far as john piper is concerned…this was the first time i’ve come across his view on creation. otherwise, i have always found him to have a rather orthodox Christian view.

  3. We can’t „prove” that the Bible is true based on scientific methods, because we can’t take Jesus, kill and bury him, and see if resurrects again and again. Historical events are unrepeatable. Historical claims are evaluated using the legal-historical method of proof.We have to look at the written testimony, oral and physical testimony.

    It’s exactly like if i am trying to explain „what does the color red tastes” or „how many pounds does the love weights”. We use different „unists of measurements”.

    But I want to go back to my point. There are preconditions that only make sense in a biblical worldview,like the laws of logic, uniformity of nature and absolute morality.

    In order for us to reason logically, there must be laws of logic. They only make sense in a Christian worldview because they reflect the thinking of God and do not make sense in an evolutionary universe.

    We assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.

    How can I know that in the future there will be uniformity, unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past? A evolutionist does not have a good reason to believe in uniformity, and thus has no foundation for science.

    Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If the brain is a collection of chemical reactions, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are not based on rational reasons, but as a consequence of chemistry.

    To the people who asks for „scientific proof” that creation is true, I’ll say: why do we all presume that the laws of nature will work in the future as they have in the past?

    Or you can choose any topic and ask: how do we know that to be true?

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile despre tine sau dă clic pe un icon pentru autentificare:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s