# John Piper Compares Quran Burning to Crucifying Christ



## MarieP (Apr 11, 2011)

What do you all think Piper's comparison? On one hand, I think I can see what he's trying to portray, but on the other, I can see where the comparison breaks down, and how it could be misunderstood.




> Highly respected evangelical pastor John Piper made a startling yet insightful comment Tuesday when he compared the burning of the Islamic holy book to crucifying Christ.
> Related
> 
> His comment comes amid reports that at least 24 people have died, including seven United Nations employees, in Afghanistan since Friday over the burning of the Quran by a fringe Florida pastor in March.
> ...



John Piper Compares Quran Burning to Crucifying Christ, Christian News, The Christian Post

My thoughts:

1. Book burning does not have the widespread cross-cultural horrific stigma that crucifixion did.

2. There's no prophecy that the Qur'an had to be burned.

3. The ashes of the burnt Qur'ans will still be in the ground three days later...

Perhaps Piper should had said, the cross would be like the Muslims burning their own Qur'ans


----------



## he beholds (Apr 11, 2011)

I think Piper's just giving us a rationale for why this incites strong anger from the Muslims. He is not himself saying that the two are equal events, but that is how the Muslims see it.


----------



## kodos (Apr 11, 2011)

The _point_ of the Incarnation was the Cross. I don't think this comparison is helpful at all.


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2011)

kodos said:


> The _point_ of the Incarnation was the Cross. I don't think this comparison is helpful at all.


 
Yes; also Christians glory in the cross of Christ, and have traditionally made no question over burning the relics of their false religion.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 11, 2011)

The parallel is in the condescension of God, whether real or perceived. While God condescended and dwelled with man in the person of Christ, Muslims are suffering under the delusion that God has condescended to meet with man in the book of the Qur'an. Christ is also the vehicle of justification, just as the Muslim is convinced the Qur'an is the vehicle of justification. While their beliefs are entirely false, their anger is understandable. In other words, the logic is sound, the premises are false.


----------



## bpkantor (Apr 12, 2011)

It is always very important with analogies, parables, etc. to only understand what truth they come to express. The truth Pastor Piper is trying to express through this analogy is one (as I see it):

It seems as though he is using the analogy to try and help his readers to understand what and why the Muslims are feeling what they are. I don't think he is trying to assert any more than that. I think he is just trying to get his Christian readers to understand how Muslims see the Qu'ran. Of course it is not a perfect analogy (no analogy ever is nor can it be) and if you try and expand it to more than just that general idea it is going to fall apart (as all analogies would when you expand them beyond their main truth).

I think he is just saying this: "Muslims don't view the Qu'ran like the bible. They don't think it is just a book. Therefore the way they feel is not as though one has destroyed their religious document but rather one has hurt/burnt/desecrated something divine."

I think that is all he was saying. I am sure that Pastor Piper would agree with the objections made in this thread as to why it is not a perfect analogy and assert that he didn't intend for it to be taken with wide application. I think he just wants to bring to western Christians a little bit of the Muslim understanding so that we can better understand their response.

There is, I think, debate in Islam regarding the divinity of the Qu'ran. Did the Qu'ran exist forever and is it divine? (these are questions that are discussed)

Anyways, I agree with your guys' points, I just don't think Pastor Piper intended for this analogy to do anything more than help us to see how Muslims regard their book as divine.

God bless,
--Ben


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 12, 2011)

Whatever Piper's motivation, the comparison distracts from the cross and cheapens it.


----------



## TomVols (Apr 12, 2011)

I don't think Piper's words cheapen the cross. 

Here's my question: they say these deaths are attributable to the Koran burning. How do we _know_ this? It's not like they weren't killing Christians _before_ this. You hear the same thing about certain American actions provoking Islamic anger - though not completely without merit - but even a casual reading of history shows that it's not like the Muslims didn't have an axe to grind long before 1980 or the 1st Gulf War, etc.


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 12, 2011)

We may wish to qualify Mr. Pipers comments for him, but the fact remains that he still wrote,



> “If this is so, then Quran-burning is parallel to Christ-crucifying.”.



Scripture is clear that the world’s religion is in no way parallel to true religion. The philosophy of Christ and the philosophy of the world are antithetical not parallel. So until Mr. Piper rescinds or qualifies his own comments we must take him at his own word.


----------



## Philip (Apr 12, 2011)

What Piper is attempting to say is that the act of crucifying Christ is the closest that Christianity comes to how Islam views burning the Q'uran. That is to say, the Q'uran, for a Muslim, is as close as they get to an incarnation. Further, since in Islam, there is no notion of forgiveness, the only proper response is anger and revenge. There is no notion of expiation of sins through a vicarious sufferer, or even of redemption through suffering, except, of course, in _Jihad_.


----------



## he beholds (Apr 12, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> We may wish to qualify Mr. Pipers comments for him, but the fact remains that he still wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Do you seriously get from Piper's words alone that he believes that Islam and Christianity are parallels? He is telling us what they think. To them, it is as if we were crucifying God. I get that just from reading the OP. I *AM* taking him at his word.


----------



## ac7k (Apr 12, 2011)

I agree that Piper is trying to show what they think...

They believe that the Quran is the revelation from God, where we believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation from God. In that sense as a matter of thought, burning the Quran to them is the same as crucifying Christ is to us. 

Regardless of their error, it does explain their passion towards the issue.


----------



## torstar (Apr 12, 2011)

If you want to take a stick and knock down a hornet nest by all means go ahead, but please first make sure that nobody else will get hurt by your actions.

And if you do it in a way that other people get badly hurt, please don't stand there going "duh........ I didn't know there would be any pain from this."


----------



## Zenas (Apr 12, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> We may wish to qualify Mr. Pipers comments for him, but the fact remains that he still wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
His words need no qualification. What he was saying is extremely clear to me. I re-worded it to allow others who may have misunderstood to correct their misunderstanding. 

Piper never once claims that Islam is a valid religion and that's not a necessary conclusion from what he said. He is pointing out that, logically, they are mad, even though they're wrong to be so. As I said earlier, your premises may be false, but your logic may be sound. 

For example:

Bananas are the same as Cars (False Premise)
Cars are the same as Moon Rocks (False Premise)
Bananas are the same as Moon Rocks (False Conclusion, but Sound Logic) 

Why? Because: 

A=B
B=C
Therefore, A=C 

We can do the same for the present situation:

Christ = Divine Incarnation (True Premise)
Divine Incarnation = Qu'ran (False Premise)
Christ = Qu'ran (False Conclusion b/c Premise B is false, but Sound Logic)

You can be as wrong as wrong can be, but still come to a _logically_ sound conclusion.


----------



## torstar (Apr 12, 2011)

John is an interesting cat and was very instrumental in getting me on the Road to Geneva a few years back.

Please don't spend too much time trying to untangle him and his often edifying work if you are not being paid to do so...


----------



## kodos (Apr 12, 2011)

ac7k said:


> I agree that Piper is trying to show what they think...
> 
> They believe that the Quran is the revelation from God, where we believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation from God. In that sense as a matter of thought, burning the Quran to them is the same as crucifying Christ is to us.
> 
> Regardless of their error, it does explain their passion towards the issue.


 
The problem I have with this thinking is that it actually _presupposes_ that the Crucifixion of Jesus was a _bad thing_ for Christians. Without Christ Crucified you and I have no hope. None. We are in the same boat as the rest of those who hate God.

What Piper has done (in my opinion), subconsciously is this: Make it seem like the Crucifixion of Jesus is an offense to _Christians_, whereas the Bible teaches us that the offense of the Cross is an offense to _Jews and Greeks_.

1 Corinthians 1:23-25
23 but we preach Christ crucified, a *stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles*, 24 *but to those who are called*, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.​


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 12, 2011)

Zenas said:


> Piper never once claims that Islam is a valid religion and that's not a necessary conclusion from what he said.



I re-read my own post and did not see where I argued that Piper is claiming that Islam is a valid religion.

Here is the link to the blog post itself: Burning the Qur

Piper says;



> Did you catch that last line?
> 
> The parallel between Christianity and Islam is not that Christ parallels Mohammed and the Qur’an parallels the Bible. The parallel is that the Qur’an parallels Christ. The giving of the Qur’an is in Islam what the incarnation of Christ is to Christianity.
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm reading the wrong blog post and you guys are referring to another, but Piper places the antithesis between the Christian and Muslim at the point of response. Three times he uses the word parallel in context of Christ and the Qur'an to describe the relationship of Christianity and Islam. Once he uses the word difference, and that is is context of how we respond.

In an apologetic situation with a Muslim would you ever say "You have the Qur'an and we have Jesus and they are parallel, the difference is in the response"? Maybe it's my militant Van Tilian apologetic getting in the way, but the wording of Mr. Piper is questionable.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 12, 2011)

Because he's drawing a parallel to explain _why_ Muslims are angry. Assuming arguendo that the Qu'ran is the Divine Incarnation for Muslims, then it holds the same signifigance as Christ, to an extent. 

The conclusion is that if someone blasphemed Christ, you'd be angry. Well, someone is blaspheming their "divine incarnation." They're mad and it's not hard to guess why. I don't see the necessity of reading him as affirming the equality of Christ and the Qu'ran, with the only difference between the two religions is their adherent's reactions. Again, I say this because it's not a necessary conclusion that he is affirming the validity of Islam. He is stating that, logically, even though their religion is a sham, they're mad for a reason, even if it's the wrong reason. He then draws a distinction between Muslims and Christians. I don't see how this leads to him equating Christ and the Qu'ran in the sense that they are both true.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 12, 2011)

Zenas said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > We may wish to qualify Mr. Pipers comments for him, but the fact remains that he still wrote,
> ...


 
My biggest problem is that followers of Islam have expressed murderous rage at infidels when they have not burned the Quran. So unless Piper adds this point, the discussion is at best woefully incomplete to the point that it is almost reckless because this piece of info changes the entire tone of the discussion.

CT


----------



## Zenas (Apr 12, 2011)

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see that. Reading Piper in a light most favorable to him and not assuming the worst where he has failed to address a specific, his statement is completely acceptable. I can't force charity though.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 12, 2011)

The think the wise thing to do is simply refrain from koran burning. It freaks muslims out and hurts our credibility and witness.


----------



## Rufus (Apr 12, 2011)

I think what Piper was trying to say was that the Quran to Muslims is like Christ to us. Not that they are in any truth equal, one is right (Christ) and one is False (Quran). Muslims worship the Quran, we don't worship the Bible, we just look at the Bible as our source on Christ.


----------



## Mudharp (Apr 12, 2011)

I think many are jumping off the high dive of conclusions and misinterpreting what a Godly and extremely intelligent minister of the gospel has said. Piper is merely illustrating why the burning of the Q'uaran evokes such an emotional response from certain segments of the Islamic faith. Cut the guy some slack. Sheesh.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 12, 2011)

Zenas said:


> Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see that. Reading Piper in a light most favorable to him and not assuming the worst where he has failed to address a specific, his statement is completely acceptable. I can't force charity though.



If one believes that murderous rage would occur due to open opposition to Islam, then what is the point of talking about murderous rage occurring due to some particular form of opposition? Such only makes sense if one assumes that the rage is not there when other forms of opposition are used.

Now if you say charity means that we assume that Piper does not realize the general case, then okay. Otherwise, it is misleading/reckless.

CT


----------



## Zenas (Apr 12, 2011)

So Piper's comments are "woefully incomplete" because he fails to assert that Muslims will fly into a murderous rage regardless of the offense to Islam? Why is it necessary to assert that? The topic at hand is that some Muslims will fly into a murderous rage and he attempts to explain why; a topic that I've thoroughly and clearly explained above. The point that you seem to be pushing is irrelevant.


----------



## discipulo (Apr 12, 2011)

I don’t find the comparison particularly fortunate, but I accept that Piper is well meant.

But even if qualitatively could there be a parallelism between the meaning of Christ for Christians and the Arabic Quran for Muslims. (I still find it far fetched.)

How about the quantitative side of the question, how many Copies of the Quran in Arab are available worldwide? Or just in the US?

It was not as the only Copy available was burnt, not even an historic manuscript, come on!

Their manicheism doesn't give them much empathy and here we are trying to understand their feelings. 

How often Muslims publicly burn national flags from western countries like the US or Denmark?

They forget how that hurts citizens to see? My parents in law live in Denmark where we often go to visit, so I happen to know that Dannish people were tremendously hurt to see their flag burnt in public.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 12, 2011)

I feel as if I cannot offer any other explanation that what has already been given. Any further misunderstanding is a problem that I do not believe I can remedy with my participation.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 12, 2011)

Zenas said:


> I feel as if I cannot offer any other explanation that what has already been given. Any further misunderstanding is a problem that I do not believe I can remedy with my participation.


 
Your explanations have been edifying and helpful. Thank you.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 12, 2011)

Dr. Piper's point falls flat, unfortunately, for the reasons previously mentioned. 

He is attempting to account for what he frames as a reaction from Muslims that is out of the ordinary. But it is not out of the ordinary

The answer to "Why did the Muslims kill in response to this?" is not "because the Koran is more than just a book to them, so it has unique offense when burned." 

No, the answer is: "Why? Because that's what they do."


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 12, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> Dr. Piper's point falls flat, unfortunately, for the reasons previously mentioned.
> 
> He is attempting to account for what he frames as a reaction from Muslims that is out of the ordinary. But it is not out of the ordinary
> 
> ...


 
On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 12, 2011)

> On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?



Is there anything in the West has _not_ been used as justification for violence by Muslims?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 12, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> > On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything in the West has _not_ been used as justification for violence by Muslims?


 
That's not the point. You claimed that violent reactions are simply "what Muslims do." I'm asking what leads you to make such a claim. Certainly there have been Muslims that have rioted over all sorts of things. This isn't exactly new in history for them or for any other group.

What I'm asking is on what basis you make the claim that this is simply what Muslims do, as if that applies to all or even most Muslims, is representative of them, etc. Or, if that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misreading you.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 12, 2011)

> What I'm asking is on what basis you make the claim that this is simply what Muslims do, as if that applies to all or even most Muslims, is representative of them, etc. Or, if that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misreading you.



Of countries with Muslim majorities, how many of them can we generally categorize as peaceful nations?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 12, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> Of countries with Muslim majorities, how many of them can we generally categorize as peaceful nations?



First of all, that is hardly a sound strategy for figuring out the situation. If anyone had looked at Europe during the Middle Ages and used the same methodology, they would have drawn some dire conclusions. Or even take a step back to the first 100 years of American history...peace was not readily to be found. That's not to say that America is bad only that your reasoning seems faulty. Secondly, you're judging a whole group of people based on the political happenings. I don't want to be judged by all of what the American government does/has done and the wars it fights/has fought. I want people to get to know me, not make generalizations based on what my nation has done. Thirdly, much (not all) of the strife taking place in these countries has as much to do with politics, culture, and history as it does with religion. Fourthly, there are Muslim-majority nations that are "peaceful" even on your standards (Jordan, Morocco for example). Lastly, my point is not to debate all the ins and outs of this. My point is this: as Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. Part of that means not just painting with broad strokes, but viewing as others as we want to be viewed. And the best way to do that is to go seek out some Muslims in your area and get to know them. You may find something quite different than you see on CNN and FoxNews.

And I think that is all I will say on it, as I'm just seeing the thread title again and seeing that this is a rabbit trail. As to John Piper's message, he was spot on _in terms of how Muslims understand the Qur'an._ He wasn't giving any legitimacy to their view, simply pointing out that this is part of the reason why there was a strong reaction, and that it highlights a crucial difference.


----------



## caoclan (Apr 13, 2011)

When I read it, I was uncomfortable with his comparison, although I knew what point he was making. But, did anyone else have an issue with his last quote: “So the Quran has been burned and the Christ has been crucified – and *continues to be crucified*,” Piper wrote. “The test is in the response.” I thought the crucifixion was a once-for-all act, which occurred around 2,000 years ago. His statement could have come from the Pope, in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 13, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> > On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything in the West has _not_ been used as justification for violence by Muslims?


 
Blind cave salamanders?


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 13, 2011)

> And I think that is all I will say on it, as I'm just seeing the thread title again and seeing that this is a rabbit trail. As to John Piper's message, he was spot on in terms of how Muslims understand the Qur'an. He wasn't giving any legitimacy to their view, simply pointing out that this is part of the reason why there was a strong reaction, and that it highlights a crucial difference.



If what I'm saying is correct, it means Dr. Piper is wrong, which makes it quite relevant. 

I also question whether there was indeed a 'strong reaction' in the Muslim world. 

If we zoom out over the last few centuries, or decades, or years, or even the last few months, the riots/attacks in response to the Koran burning barely register as an increase over normal, everyday, garden-variety attacks on anything insufficiently Islamic. More world leaders chimed in on this one than normal, but the violence is hardly out of the ordinary or "strong" given what they have been doing for the last few (insert any time period here).

If this is pretty much par for the course, then it undercuts the thesis that there was burning the Koran had a unique ability to inspire attacks. Are we really supposed to believe that the attackers in this situation would have lived in peace and harmony if the thing had not been burned? At most, it changed when, not whether, those folks would terrorize.



> Blind cave salamanders?



Looks like I have to concede on that point.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 13, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> If what I'm saying is correct, it means Dr. Piper is wrong, which makes it quite relevant.
> 
> I also question whether there was indeed a 'strong reaction' in the Muslim world.
> 
> ...


 
If it is relevant, then you didn't respond to any of the points that I made. And I highly doubt John Piper was saying that this a sole cause, but rather that it explains this specific series of riots. And my point still stands that you are making huge generalizations here, when what we ought to do is just make some Muslim friends and find out what they are really like rather than judging what is normal for a Muslim based on the latest news headline.


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 13, 2011)

Mudharp said:


> I think many are jumping off the high dive of conclusions and misinterpreting what a Godly and extremely intelligent minister of the gospel has said. Piper is merely illustrating why the burning of the Q'uaran evokes such an emotional response from certain segments of the Islamic faith. Cut the guy some slack. Sheesh.



The fact that Piper is a Godly and intelligent minister who’s ministry reaches millions world wide, and is one of the few reformed voices that is listened to outside of the reformed world is precisely why he needs his work critiqued, and not just cut some slack.

But the point still stands that there are no parallels between Christianity and the world’s religion, which includes Islam.

If all Piper was trying to say is that the Quran is divine to Muslims and this is where their outrage comes from when it is burned, then why didn’t he just say that? Why did he go so far to say that the Quran is somehow “parallel” to Christ for Christians? This is quite problematic from a theological point of view.

Let’s step back and trace out what happens if we bring Pipers quote; “The giving of the Quran is in Islam what the incarnation of Christ is to Christianity” to some sort of logical conclusion.

Romans 1:18-25 tells us that God has reveled Himself to man, but man in his unrighteousness suppressed that truth and consequentially worships the creature rather than the Creator. So anything that is worshiped that is not the triune God of Scripture is only a creation of the minds of sinful men so as to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. We are left concluding, from Pipers remarks, that either Christ is just a creation of men or that the Quran has a claim to real deity. Now I know that’s not what Piper is attempting to say, but it’s what he ends up saying when he attempts to find a parallel between Christ and Islam.

We must begin any discussion with the belief that there is no parallel between anything Islam or the world has to offer and the truth revealed in scripture. 

I understand what Piper might be attempting to say, but anyone who is reading his post who does not have a fully biblical understanding of the creator creature distinction, doctrine of God and doctrine of man is bound to be led to believe something that is not true.

Further more, to the Muslim the Quran is a way of salvation, what one must do to be judge as righteous by Allah. Is this anywhere near what we confess Christ to be?

I appreciate John Piper and all that he has done with his ministry, but Christians should never seek to find parallels between Christianity and the religions of the world, they will never be helpful because Christianity is wholly different from what the world believes.


----------



## Philip (Apr 13, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> But the point still stands that there are no parallels between Christianity and the world’s religion, which includes Islam.



Might there be analogies? Because this is what most would understand him to mean by "parallels." I think you are imposing a rigid systematic-theological definition of "parallel" when Piper is writing for a lay audience that would take parallel in the common everyday sense.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 13, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> But the point still stands that there are no parallels between Christianity and the world’s religion, which includes Islam.



Your point is unclear. There are parallels. That doesn't mean at all that the other religion is valid, simply that there are formal parallels between the two. 



> If all Piper was trying to say is that the Quran is divine to Muslims and this is where their outrage comes from when it is burned, then why didn’t he just say that? Why did he go so far to say that the Quran is somehow “parallel” to Christ for Christians? This is quite problematic from a theological point of view.



That's pretty much what he did say. You're reading a lot into his statement that just isn't there. He's not giving any legitimacy to the Qur'an, simply that _for Muslims_, the Qur'an is similar to what Christ is for Christians. This explains their rage. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the Qur'an. So it is not problematic theologically at all, but is a well-accepted point among those who study the relationship between the doctrines of Christianity and Islam.



> Let’s step back and trace out what happens if we bring Pipers quote; “The giving of the Quran is in Islam what the incarnation of Christ is to Christianity” to some sort of logical conclusion.
> 
> Romans 1:18-25 tells us that God has reveled Himself to man, but man in his unrighteousness suppressed that truth and consequentially worships the creature rather than the Creator. So anything that is worshiped that is not the triune God of Scripture is only a creation of the minds of sinful men so as to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. _We are left concluding, from Pipers remarks, that either Christ is just a creation of men or that the Quran has a claim to real deity._ Now I know that’s what Piper is attempting to say, but it’s what he ends up saying when he attempts to find a parallel between Christ and Islam.



Brother, your logic here does not follow at all. The sentence I have put in italics does not follow from the preceding ones. His point has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Islamic views or the Qur'an. His point is simply that for Muslims, the Qur'an is more nearly similar to how we view Jesus, not to how we view the Bible. He's very clear on who Christ is and that the Qur'an is not real deity. I really don't see how you can get that anywhere from what he said. Simply having a formal parallel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of that claim.



> We must begin any discussion with the belief that there is no parallel between anything Islam or the world has to offer and the truth revealed in scripture.



Then why does Paul begin in Acts 17 with the parallel with the unknown God? Why did the apostles start off with Jews as if there were huge, necessary parallels? There are parallels, particularly since with Judaism, we share the Old Testament, and with Muslims, we share significant biblical stories. What they do with those is obviously of greater significance, but the parallels don't mean that thereby they have salvation or that they don't need Christ.



> I understand what Piper might be attempting to say, but anyone who is reading his post who does not have a fully biblical understanding of the creator creature distinction, doctrine of God and doctrine of man is bound to be led to believe something that is not true.



To be honest, unless they were looking to read something into it, I honestly don't think that would happen. His point is simple and clear. How we view Christ is how Muslims view the Qur'an (as revelation from God), and so that explains (at least partially) some of the recent anger at its burning. Although on the other hand, if someone's view of the creator/creature distinction, the doctrine of God, and the doctrine of man is seriously in error, then yeah, they're probably going to get something wrong out of about half of what is said on blogs, and probably in books and everywhere else. That isn't anything against what Piper wrote.



> Further more, to the Muslim the Quran is a way of salvation, what one must do to be judge as righteous by Allah. Is this anywhere near what we confess Christ to be?
> 
> I appreciate John Piper and all that he has done with his ministry, but Christians should never seek to find parallels between Christianity and the religions of the world, they will never be helpful because Christianity is wholly different from what the world believes.


 
He never said that they are parallel in every way. That would be silly, as one is a book and the other is a person. Obviously there's differences. His whole post is predicated on the fact that there are differences. Nonetheless, there is a parallel in terms of self-revelation, despite it being one that leads them away from God rather than towards him.


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 13, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Might there be analogies? Because this is what most would understand him to mean by "parallels." I think you are imposing a rigid systematic-theological definition of "parallel" when Piper is writing for a lay audience that would take parallel in the common everyday sense.





> From Parallel | Define Parallel at Dictionary.com
> 
> 2. having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency; corresponding; similar; analogous: Canada and the U.S. have many parallel economic interests.
> 
> ...



I much prefer any of the antonyms of parallel to describe the relationship between Christianity and Islam than parallel itself.

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

First, let me apologize as i made a major typo in my response, i meant to say, "Now I know that’s *not* what Piper is attempting to say..." not "Now I know that’s what Piper is attempting to say..." 



Covenant Joel said:


> Then why does Paul begin in Acts 17 with the parallel with the unknown God?



Here is a brief article i found describing a Van Tilian approach to Acts 17. The writer shows that Paul is not attempting to draw parallels between the unknown god and God, instead Paul is pressing the antitheses between the two.

Contra Gentes: The Knowledge of God, Pressing the Antithesis: Acts 17


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 13, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Here is a brief article i found describing a Van Tilian approach to Acts 17. The writer shows that Paul is not attempting to draw parallels between the unknown god and God, instead Paul is pressing the antitheses between the two.
> 
> Contra Gentes: The Knowledge of God, Pressing the Antithesis: Acts 17



You did not respond to any of my thoughts. The simple point is that Piper is not claiming what you make him out to be claiming (or at least implying, or leading to). I don't have time to read through whole articles on one point and respond to them. That's not a discussion; we can all throw articles at each other and not get anywhere.

I am also quite Van Tillian in how I view these things. There are formal similarities/parallels despite the fact that we have no ultimate common ground with nonbelievers.


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 13, 2011)

Covenant Joel said:


> You did not respond to any of my thoughts.



Sorry for the brief response, I am very short on time, when i return home from work tonight i will try to respond in more length. Also, please note my typo noted above, as I hope this will clarify a few things.



Covenant Joel said:


> I don't have time to read through whole articles on one point and respond to them. That's not a discussion; we can all throw articles at each other and not get anywhere.
> 
> I am also quite Van Tillian in how I view these things. There are formal similarities/parallels despite the fact that we have no ultimate common ground with nonbelievers.



I understand you may not have time to read the brief article, but my point was simply that Paul is not drawing parallels between the unknown gods and God, instead he is showing the antithesis.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Apr 13, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Sorry for the brief response, I am very short on time, when i return home from work tonight i will try to respond in more length. Also, please note my typo noted above, as I hope this will clarify a few things.



No worries about the time, we're all there. I was operating under the assumption that it was a typo.




> I understand you may not have time to read the brief article, but my point was simply that Paul is not drawing parallels between the unknown gods and God, instead he is showing the antithesis.


 
Showing the antithesis does not mean one can't admit the existence of formal parallels.

I think, though, that I don't really have the time to fully continue this conversation. Feel free to respond, but I think I'm done personally.


----------



## Philip (Apr 13, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> I much prefer any of the antonyms of parallel to describe the relationship between Christianity and Islam than parallel itself.



You're missing Piper's point here. He is not saying "Christianity is like Islam" he is saying "Muslims view Q'uran in the way that we view Jesus." There is nothing syncretistic or unclear here When we draw parallels as Piper is doing here, it is in the sense of correspondence or analogy, obviously not that of the same direction.


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 13, 2011)

Covenant Joel said:


> Showing the antithesis does not mean one can't admit the existence of formal parallels.
> 
> I think, though, that I don't really have the time to fully continue this conversation. Feel free to respond, but I think I'm done personally.



Yes, formal parallels exist. And i too will end it there, good discussion.

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> he is saying "Muslims view Q'uran in the way that we view Jesus."



And I'm saying, that scripture is saying, that that is not possible.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 14, 2011)

We can understand why Muslims get angry and upset when their "Holy Book" is desecrated. They are under the false notion that it is a holy book. Comparisons with the Crucifixion of Christ are unhelpful. 

Christians get upset and angry when the Bible is desecrated. It's just that the Christian religion doesn't sanction people going on the rampage and killing people as being the appropriate or godly response.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 14, 2011)

Where is the original statement Piper said. I don't have much confidence in ''The Christian Post''


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 14, 2011)

Burning the Qur


----------



## he beholds (Apr 14, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> We can understand why Muslims get angry and upset when their "Holy Book" is desecrated. They are under the false notion that it is a holy book. Comparisons with the Crucifixion of Christ are unhelpful.
> 
> Christians get upset and angry when the Bible is desecrated. It's just that the Christian religion doesn't sanction people going on the rampage and killing people as being the appropriate or godly response.


 
I think, at least from what I can understand, that this is exactly WHY Piper needed to explain to us why Muslims get enraged when the Quran is desecrated. We just don't get the extent of their beliefs. It is not the same as someone burning the Bible. To the Muslim, the Quran is apparantly NOT just the medium that the word of God is made available to them, but instead, again, to the Muslim, it is God incarnate. Of course, and I wish it could go without saying, I know it is not really God incarnate. But that is what they believe it to be--so they feel as if someone were killing God--just as Jesus' disciples were sad/angry/violent when he was under attack.


----------



## MarieP (Apr 14, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> We may wish to qualify Mr. Pipers comments for him, but the fact remains that he still wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ok, you are going to laugh at this, but my reaction was, uh, Doug Pagitt is on the PB? 

You must get that all the time, especially up there in Rob Bell country!!


----------



## TimV (Apr 14, 2011)

You're being a trouble maker, Marie.........


----------



## Douglas P. (Apr 14, 2011)

MarieP said:


> Ok, you are going to laugh at this, but my reaction was, uh, Doug Pagitt is on the PB?
> 
> You must get that all the time, especially up there in Rob Bell country!!



Haha, yeah. And I am a member at University Reformed, Pastored by none other than Kevin DeYoung, author of Why Were Not Emergent. The first 6 months there every time i introduced myself to anyone they always raised an eyebrow. I even had one person (who is now a great friend) think I was just trying to play a practical joke on the church.


----------



## MarieP (Apr 14, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you are going to laugh at this, but my reaction was, uh, Doug Pagitt is on the PB?
> ...


 
Ooh, I KNEW I recognized the name of your church!!! (Just don't call it comeback...)


----------

