Tags
Piper & Sailhamer: The Offense of Biblical Creation & The False Authority of Science
by Joel Taylor
Biblical truth is always offensive to unregenerate man. The Biblical narrative on creation is certainly no exception. Scripture is quite explicit in how the universe and all that it contains came into being, and since the fall of man it’s description as recorded by God for us has been hated.
Creation is recorded as a series of totally supernatural, perfectly executed, final acts in 6 literal days. Modern philosophy and all social sciences of men have long attempted to refute the biblical account, and were in fact, created for that very purpose, to deny God’s truth.
In so-called modern times, the biblical teachings of creative, final acts by the God of Scripture have been superceded by scientific ‘processes’ so that the results of creation are placed within and are products of history and time (time itself viewed as a process, not a creature of God). In fact, much of modern historical geology is based on the philosophical assumption that the biblical account of creation ex-nihilo is false.
By the early nineteenth century the central presupposition of uniformitarianism that “the present is the key to the past” had been popularized by James Hutton and Charles Lyell (who in turn influenced Darwin). (Douglas F. Kelly, Creation & Change, p. 163)
Perhaps placing some general creation assertions of the Bible against modern philosophical sciences will be helpful:
| Bible | Modern Sciences |
| All things, seen and unseen, are the creative final acts of the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, Triune God, ex-nihilo. | All things are result of processes, placed within and products of history. |
| Meaning of history is to be understood in God. Time and history are determined and governed by God. Foundation of history is eternity, not time. | Meaning of history is to be understood in the progress of man. Time and history are products of natural processes. |
| God is Sovereign in all things and holds the very life and breath of created man at His disposal and according to His good pleasure. | The only god tolerated is a god working with man for a common purpose, to conquer and control time and history. |
John Piper has been greatly influenced by a book on old earth theories entitled Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer. In a critical review of the book over at Answers in Genesis, we’re told that Sailhamer “adopts a unique view of the creation account in order to harmonize it with the claims of modern science.”
We are further told in this review that:
“Despite his plea to allow the text of Genesis to speak for itself, Sailhamer fails to take his own advice. He writes: ‘Given what appears to be true about the age of the earth, it is likely that millions or billions of years transpired during this time of “the beginning”’ (p. 105). Such a comment clearly indicates that Sailhamer has allowed the claims of modern uniformitarian science to determine what the text is saying.”
Now why would there be a need to harmonize the creation account with modern science? To prove it’s true ….or false? Why, to prove it is false of course. If it were believed to be true there would be no need for proof. Belief vs. Unbelief.
Another question: What is this uniformitarianism? If John Piper is ‘most at home’ with Sailhamer’s view on creation, as he has stated in his recent video, what does that really tell us? More importantly, what are the ramifications for those who sit under Piper’s teaching at Bethlehem Baptist and the internet?
We’ll take these questions one at a time, but first, let’s define uniformitarianism and show why it’s important that you understand the idea behind Sailhamer’s views:
Uniformitarianism is the belief that the origin and development of all things can be explained exclusively in terms of the same natural laws and processes operating today…Uniformitarianism has been the backbone of modern historical geology and is responsible for the current widespread assumption that the earth is billions of years old…[The Uniformatarians] insist that all geological features and formations, once attributed to geologic cataclysms, can now be satisfactorily explained by ordinary processes functioning over long periods of time. (Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp 7,8)
Processes. Sound familiar?
1) Why would anyone want to harmonize the creation account with modern science?
Because on some level they reject the biblical account. For example, a preacher might reject the biblical account in order to please, and perhaps grow, the congregation. An argument could be made for curiosity I suppose, but curiosity can be a form of doubt. Either way, it is unbelief isn’t it?
2) If John Piper is ‘most at home’ with Sailhamer’s view of creation, what does that really tell us?
It tells us he is ‘at home’ with allowing modern science (uniformitarianism) to determine what the Bible is saying. In other words, the ‘science’ of natural processes has taken a position of a higher authority than the Word of God itself.
3) Finally, what does this mean, in general, for those who sit under Piper’s preaching and instruction at Bethlehem Baptist and those who follow his teachings on the internet?
It means that there is at least one area of John Piper’s belief system that is not grounded in Scripture: Creation. For the Christian, creation is to be understood as a series of supernatural acts, not processes. Every attempt, either by Sailhamer or Piper, to read or force process philosophies into any Biblical text, to allow the possibility of days being turned to ‘ages’, to allow room for ‘scientific’ interpretations is to yield the authority of God and His inerrant Word to process philosophies of unregenerate man. It is, at the gist, an abandonment of the absolute Sovereignty of God and of the Biblical principle of sola scriptura.
To allow this type of teaching, as harmless as it may seem to so many, is to give a nod of approval to a lie. It is to attribute supernatural powers to ‘natural processes’ rather than final creative acts of God.
This issue my friends, is not about men, it’s about biblical doctrine. It’s about the truth of God. Please do not willingly compromise it. Reject error. Find this error in your own local churches, if it exist, and root it out for the glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ.
John Piper:
Now, when it comes to the more controversial issues of how to construe Genesis 1-2 about how God did it and how long it took him to do it, there I’m totally sympathetic with a pastor who is going to lay his view down, having studied it, and is going to say to his people, “Here is my understanding of those chapters. These six days can’t be anything other than six literal days, and so that’s how long God took to do it. And this universe is about 10 or 15,000 years old. Though it looks old, that’s the way God made it. He made it to look old,” or something like that.
Or he might take another view that these days are ages.
Or he might take Sailhamer’s view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what’s going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.
In verse 1, “In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth,” he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he’s preparing the land. He’s not bringing new things into existence; he’s preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it’s all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.
So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.
That’s where I am, and I think every pastor should go ahead and say what he believes. [emphasis mine, ed.] (Online Source)
Follow continual updates on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/joeltaylor_
5 Pt. Salt 
I gagged when I watched that Piper video. Your question, “why would there be a need to harmonize the creation account with modern science?” brings focus to the discussion. And it’s the right approach – do not get distracted by the symptoms but question and examine the presuppositions. This approach will bring to light what’s at stake. Well done and many thanks.
How often in scripture do we see God enjoying being harmonized with the world and its idols…?
Romans 1:20 unequivocally states that God is understood from what has been made and that nature show us his invisible qualities. To understand nature and how it functions is to understand more about God. That is an undeniable scriptural principle that fearful people ignore.
No Charles, that is not what Romans 1:20 says, but I understand you would like it to. It actually states that God’s attributes have been seen in the creation. It does not say that “God can be understood” in that creation.
The only way to understand, know God is through the life, work of Jesus Christ shown in His written Word which is the final authority in all things.
Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made
Romans 1:20 (NAS) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made
poiEmasin noomena workmanship understood
Yes Charles, “His invisible attributes…have been clearly perceived”. That is true, unregenerate man is without excuse. My point is one cannot savingly know the One True God by studying rocks and forcing uniformatarian concepts into the biblical text of Genesis. You must be born again.
I agree wholeheartedly, my brother, we must be born again.
At some point, I’d like to take some time to reflect to you the points I have taken from your posts on this subject in the aggregate and then maybe we can dialogue some on special and general revelation.
Right now, however, I’ve just heard our medical/evangelism mission team of 32 is having difficulty getting out of Trinidad as scheduled because of airplane mechanical issues. (My wife and daughter are in this group.) I’ve got to work on adjustments on our end. Your prayers are appreciated.
Absolutely!
The team is now in the air and scheduled to arrive in Miami around 6:30 this evening. No connecting flight to Charlotte available until tomorrow so I must endure one more night without my wife and daughter. Still, God is good.
I have a strong preference for reality, so I don’t have a very high opinion of the Bible. I agree with this quote from a University of Chicago biology professor:
“If anything is absolutely, rock-bottom true, it’s that life evolved, beginning about 4 billion years ago, and that the creation myth of Genesis is completely wrong.” — Jerry Coyne
You certainly have a preference for hell, as all humans do from birth. No person can understand spiritual truths unless he is born again – not by the will of man by of God. Jerry Coyne and all who think as he does will discover Truth – too late. Repent and believe on the biblical Christ while ye yet have breath!
Human Ape indeed, a sadly blind ignorant brute. Thankfully NASA founder Werner Von Braun was a creationist and led us to get to the moon whereas his incompetent evolutionist successors have gotten us nowhere so that we’re now no longer even in space, typical for the “house” of modern “science” crashing and burning without its creationist foundation that sustained it into the 20th century, like the lawless, fascist traitors who have rejected America’s Constitution are destroying America,
There is of course absolutely no rational basis for your bigotry since the Bible is irrefutably true and you employ nothing but infantile name-calling without even rational, much less intelligent evidence, vs http://www.creation.com‘s able apologetics, no matter the silly, easily exploded lies and perversions about God’s word, like Bart Erhman’s to the contrary, for evolution is merely groundless, mindless prostitution created by apostate CLERGYMAN Darwin who hated God for the death of his daughter and out of that maniacal hatred fabricated a universal acid to destroy the world, and really largely succeeded quite admirably with the help of gullible useful idiots like those who established the USSR & Nazi Germany, antiChrist haters. See such delusions ably exposed and refuted at http://www.creation.com and http://www.trueorigin.org. I liked evolution when I was a kid but when I grew up and went to college I was so offended by the bs that, thanks to God opening my blind eyes, I became a creationist in my divinely inspired tireless pursuit of truth that can only be found in creation, not Darwin’s devils’ lies. See C.S. Lewis’s great Perelandra trilogy for his able exposing of the diabolical source of the bigoted evolutionism relgion in Weston & Devine/Feverstone & Belbury. http://www.amazon.com/C-Lewis-Space-Trilogy-Perelandra/dp/B000B7TU5S/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8 Soli Deo gloria!
I like the tone of this post much better than the “Are Piper/Keller Christians?” one.
I disagree with John Piper concerning his interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, but also recognize that I have not always held to the young earth/6 literal days view of creation that I now embrace. I was no less a Christian in those days even though I was sadly deficient in my Scriptural understanding. I am sure that there are still other areas in which God will show me my error prior to my final sanctification.
Indeed. Because you were upheld by God’s grace of Romans 14:4: ” Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.” sadly a verse too many self-appointed apologist purity promoters forget in their proud arrogance, also sadly forgetting Romans 2. “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.”
Soli Deo gloria!
I think Sailhaimers view is quite refreshing. He’s argument about the creation account being a creation account of the Promised Land makes a lot of sense exegetically in the context of the whole Pentateuch.
No, it doesn’t. I read Hebrew Bible. The creation story has nothing to do with Palestine. You can’t make that work on any level. If it makes so much sense, find a Jewish scholarly thread of that. Find a Christian commentator who thought that. You can’t
Why were they all so stupid?
It might not be the area of Palestine but the area of the whole vast area promised to Abraham. It’s quite large area that God promises to Abraham’s descendants.
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates…”
(Gen 15:18)
According this article posted to Desiring God Sailhaimers view is not unique. It hasn’t just had a lot of attention in the western world, look under the “Is Historical Creationism New?”:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/99/4645_Science_the_Bible_and_the_Promised_Land/
Matti,
Uhhh…..yeah. That would include Palestine, huh?
You made my point. After all this time, you didn’t come up with a decent scholar of any kind, Christian or Judaic.
The reason for that is the text. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Those words mean what those words mean. And God said, “Let there be light and there was light.”
If all this is symbolic, tell us, Matti, what all those symbols are. What are the heavens and the expanse of the heavens? Just the heavens over Palestine?What are the creeping things? What are the waters? Not many waters in Palestine. And what are the stars? Only the stars over Palestine?
Oh, wait. The earth rotates, so those have to be all the stars…..which means God created all of the universe at that time, except for Palestine. It was already there? He created it beforehand as a sort of prop for the upcoming play of creation? Is it the chair waiting on the stage? No. There was no stage because space had yet to be created. It had to exist nowhere. Does that sound logical? Close your good eye and squint the other one?
The Bible isn’t a Tim Burton movie.
It’ll be easier for you, Matti, if you just admit you don’t believe the text.
Phil Perkins.
Sailhamer’s view was refuted as erroneous long ago at http://www.creation.com. http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules
Also see Holding Fast to Creation at amazon.com (Kindle edition only) for why you, Piper & Sailhamer are sadly deluded about creation. Creation.com has long exhaustively refuted the laughable evolution fraud of religious bigotry, as has http://www.trueorigin.org Evolution is the religion of useful idiots unable to handle real science in real life, e.g. the proven East Anglia & global warming fraud that proves how much of today’s laughable “science” is just about $, sex & power. God save us.
Sailhamer is just plain wrong, not refreshing, except to those who enjoy rejecting Biblical authority, often a sign of incipient gnosticism; he’s been refuted for a long time by creation.com, for those who prefer the truth of God’s Word to man’s ignorant delusion that has sadly also duped uncritical John Piper who is usually sound in his exegesis, but not here : http://www.creation.com. http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules God save us.
just as long as you don’t take the Bible seriously, you’re fine, but to call what is clearly eisegesis exegesis is absurd.
Great writing… But…
Your first sentence is flawed. [ Biblical truth is always offensive. ]
Although much of “Biblical Truth” is offensive (convicting) to un-regenerate man.
God gave us much “Biblical Truth” that is desirable.
So “Biblical Truth” is NOT always offensive.
And I have read much of what you have written, and know that you also know this.
So this response in in Love, not in criticism.
As for the rest of this piece, it is great, and I am thankful to have come across it.
Thank you for your hard work in writing and sharing this.
You’re absolutely right. Thanks Mike. Correction made.
SDG,
JT
My wife and I have been Members of Bethlehem Baptist Church for a year and a half. In 2008 we fled what had become an emergent-lite, man-focused, worship-in-the-darkness, seeker-sensitive, Willow-Creek-Association, “relevant” church here in the Twin Cities. We didn’t want to leave that church. It was our home. It was the church we were raising our family in; but, like the experience of scores of other Born Again Christians here in the Twin Cities, we had to flee when it became clear that the pastors and elders were set on their course and had no intention of heeding the cries of the sheep.
We believe that God drew us to BBC. This church is a refuge for the Remnant. I don’t know its future. It may go the way of the church we fled. It may not. But I do know the stories of many who have fled other churches and who have been drawn to BBC — and we are all grateful, so thankful to our God, to be here.
I also know and have spoken with some of my pastors and elders here about our senior pastor and other matters. They’re not unconscious.
I know I risk the wrath of you bloggers by contributing this brief reply to point 3 above. There is so much I could say about what is going on here in the Twin Cities and at BBC; but many of you would find much to castigate in what I say, and you would do it with great skill and scripture citations. John Piper is not perfect in his doctrine. That’s obvious. BBC has its flaws. They’re obvious. (I’ve discussed them with pastors here. Would you believe they’re aware of them and have sorrow over them?) But God is indeed drawing people to this church — in spite of the flaws.
So go ahead, trample away. I’ve given you a couple of pearls. I’ll hold the rest close to my chest. And before you write off completely the ministry of John Piper, Bethlehem Baptist Church and we fools who continue to go there, let me know when you’d like to come to the Twin Cities and I’ll take you on a tour of the churches people have fled. And then we’ll go to Bethlehem.
Dear “Buck”
I’m not looking for things to castigate brother, nor do I expect any pastor to be perfect, not a one. I certainly am not on the edge of my seat looking for something or someone to ‘trample’ on! I would certainly rather see your family attending BBC than Willow Creek!
As for Dr. Piper and his ministry, I have no intention of ‘writing him off’ as you say. I have been blessed many times by his ministry and that of BBC. My goal in this post is to point out what I believe to be a most important matter of doctrine. For what it’s worth, if John Macarthur had publicly stated he was ‘at home’ with the views of Sailhamer, I’d have written the same thing. Again, it’s not about the man, it’s about the truth!
God bless and thanks for the comments
SDG
Joel
Pingback: Are Tim Keller & John Piper Even Christian? « 5 Point Salt
Wow. You have GOT to be kidding. Your argument is not much unlike saying that, since Satanists also drive cars – and you drive a car – that you are somehow in league with Satan. Is is POSSIBLE that a solid, Biblical interpretation of the Hebrew creation texts MIGHT actually line up with – or at least leave an open door for – some of what the majority of the Scientific community believes about the age of the universe and origin of things be true? If I discover something in the Scriptures, and then note, “hey – look how that lines up with this” – it doesn’t mean that I’ve been influenced by whatever “that” is, or that I’m fully endorsing all of those views… only that I’m noting the similarities in hindsight. Glad you have a heart to uphold the Word, but your reasoning here is WAY off… of course, judging by some of your other blogs, you probably don’t even consider me a Christian, so who am I to speak into your life, right?
Pingback: The Offense of Biblical Creation & The False Authority of Science « Defending. Contending.
This is were you get into the problem that you would have to believe that death and dying occurred before original sin of man, and suffering and dying in the world wasn’t caused by man. If you try to mix evolution with the Bible, it will blow your theology apart. You would have to believe that God caused death and not man.
I wonder if salhammer had happened to meet Adam 2 days after he was created , if he would have believed that adam was just 2 days old?
Brother Joel,
You are terribly mistaken in your view of Sailhamer and conclusions of Piper. I don’t intend to prove Sailhamer correct, or defend Piper’s ministry, but your premise, and therefore conclusion, is incorrect.
Your whole criticism is based on one quote that “indicates that Sailhamer has allowed the claims of modern uniformitarian science to determine what the text is saying” I don’t have the old edition so I can’t find this quote but Sailhamer adamantly states over and over and over that we must let the text speak for itself (pg 38, 2011 edition).
On pg 37 (2011 version) he states, “Genesis 1:1 allows for (but does not require) a vast period of time during which God was at work in the World…” In other words, if you’re convinced for some reason the earth is 10,000yrs, old, OK, the text (Gen 1-2) simply doesn’t tell us. If you’re convinced it’s 8 Billion years old, fine. God didn’t think it important to reveal the exact age of the earth is, so we can’t say with certainty one age or the other is true.
You must actually read read Sailhamer’s most recent (2011) work before making a judgement on Piper AND everyone who sits under him. While you may not agree with Sailhamer, I think you will see he’s hardly trying to get the Bible to fit with Science but rather let the Bible speak for itself. Weather or not you agree with all of Sailhamer, you will gain a deep appreciation for how the creation account is connected to God’s covenant with His people. I think we miss the point of that beautiful story in trying to squeeze out things only God knows (Job 38 ff). Stop trying to be like God and understand HOW he made the earth.
Again, I’m not attempting to defend Sailhamer’s conclusions (I’d need a lifetime of study in Hebrew to do that), but to say that Sailhamer, Piper, everyone sitting under Piper, and everyone who follows him on the internet abandon “the absolute Sovereignty of God and of the Biblical principle of sola scriptura” (your words) all because one blogger took a quote out of his book that “indicates” a need to harmonize scripture and science is a GROSS error. Read the book before you slander our brother Piper any more with this dubious post.
In Christ,
Scott
The gross error is sadly yours. You clearly don’t understand what you’re defending since Sailhamer & Piper clearly are merely equivocal in holding to ultimate Biblical authority on this issue (Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.) in their manifestly ignorant and mistaken ceding to “science” the last word on reality. See David Hall’s “Holding Fast to Creation” (https://www.scribd.com/doc/106183543/Holding-Fast-on-Creation-by-David-Hall [the website accidentally got the title wrong, “on” vs “to”]) on how most professing Christians today are so grossly ignorant of God’s Word and World when it comes to creation and science. True science was creationist (e.g. Galileo (who ironically fought the evolutionists of his day http://www.creation.com/the-galileo-twist), Copernicus, et al ) until civilization’s demise became so acute folk were no longer intelligent enough to know evolution’s scam was bs. Evolution’s ace in the hole is promotion of lust perverting the sole true sexuality of divine marital relations’ perversion that sadly enslaves many if not most professing “christians.” Mea maxima culpa, Soli Deo gloria!