# Christian Hedonism: Good or Bad?



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2008)

What do you all think of John Piper's Christian Hedonism?


----------



## Davidius (Apr 28, 2008)

You'll find plenty of discussion here...

http://www.puritanboard.com/searchr...000000;GFNT:0000FF;GIMP:0000FF;FORID:11&hl=en


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 28, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> What do you all think of John Piper's Christian Hedonism?



Piper, for good or ill, is a polarizing writer. After reading many of his books, then reading his critics including some on PB, I find his work mostly biblical and helpful and his critics too often off base. I suggest therefore that you read him carefully. In particular, don't fall into the error of making more of Piper's points then he does. For instance, at least one critic has overlooked the fact that Piper specifically disavows that his Christian Hedonism is in any way that God is to be used as a means to help us get worldly pleasures. (Or to put this another way, the adjective "Christian" must be seen as decisively modifying "hedonism" and not vice versa). 

Tim


----------



## Zadok (Apr 28, 2008)

You might like to listen to the following mp3, which is a message that Dr. Peter Masters (of Spurgeon's Tabernacle) gave at a fairly recent School of Theology:

 Christian Hedonism - is it right?


----------



## staythecourse (Apr 28, 2008)

*"Hedonism" is still a poor word-choice.*

I won't add much to what's been said about him in earlier posts. I listen to him preach occasionally and am seldom disappointed but he makes mistakes with words for themes. For example "God is the Gospel" just isn't true. He needs to be more careful with word choice so he doesn't go into error and lead his devotee's into the same. They tend to be 20 something rather than older saints so he needs to be extra careful with those who have not been around the block theologically.

Here's a defintion of Hedonism:

1.	the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2.	devotion to pleasure as a way of life: The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism.

He's too close to the edge of sin when employing unnecessarily provocative titles.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 28, 2008)

It has been a very long time since I read that book, and I have a copy of it on my shelf. While I cannot pick it apart theologically, I gleaned a lot from Piper's book, and much of what he said in the book helped to turn me away from rigid fundamentalism to a more positive view of God. This has made a big difference in my life.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 28, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> For example "God is the Gospel" just isn't true.



Just curious, have you read the book he wrote by that title?


----------



## staythecourse (Apr 28, 2008)

*Haven't read it.*

No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 28, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.



But to understand what Piper was saying would require a reading of the book. Certainly he is not saying that God is the gospel and that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not the gospel. The book simply states that the end of the gospel (what the Christian receives) is God, and not simply the gifts of God.

Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Apr 28, 2008)

I once listened to a series of messages he delivered over Christian Hedonism. I remember the very first thing he said in them is that the name Hedonism is not a great term for it, but its the only one he could knew to use. I think the way he uses and defines the term is completely biblical.


----------



## stevestutz (Apr 28, 2008)

How is God not the Gospel? Is not Jesus Christ Lord?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 28, 2008)

*God Is The Gospel -- John Piper*



Barnpreacher said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > For example "God is the Gospel" just isn't true.
> ...




I've read it. It's not too bad. And at 179 pages, a fairly quick read. The following quote from page 143 shows what Piper is getting at by saying "God is the Gospel"-- I think his point is well taken:



> All the enticements to God that are not God are precious and precarious. They can lead us to God or lure us to themselves. They may be food or marriage or church or miracles. All of these blessings bring love letters from God. But unless we stress continually that God himself is the gospel, people will fall in love with the mailman--whether his name is forgiveness of sins or eternal life or heaven or ministry or miracles or family or food.



Piper very masterfully deals with seeing the blessings which accompany salvation as the gifts and graces extended to us in light of the truth that God Himself is the greatest gift of the Gospel in and above all others!

This book is also filled with many wonderful quotes of Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, and many others.

Hopefully you won't see this as too, but you asked!

You may not like the title, but the book God Is The Gospel is well worth the time it takes to read.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Apr 28, 2008)

> How is God not the Gospel? Is not Jesus Christ Lord?



I dont wanna step on anyones toes here, but I think that this is sort of what is being discussed about Piper using clever sayings that are in need of definition. 

God is not the Gospel in that I can tell you much about God without ever mentioning the gospel, I can tell you much that is true about Jesus without ever mentioning the Gospel. I attended a church for 15 yrs of my life where I was taught about God weekly and never heard the Gospel.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 28, 2008)

Piper is not perfect, but I have found him helpful.


----------



## stevestutz (Apr 28, 2008)

I see what you mean. It can be a careless definition and require further explanation.


----------



## staythecourse (Apr 28, 2008)

*Clever and Provactives sayings*

A professor once told his class, "If you come up with something that no one else has discovered in the Bible you're probably wrong." 

Piper made a false premise "God is the Gospel" and then has to clarify the point: "Don't create an idol out of God's blessings" I can't help but notice that this seems like an appropriate book to clarify a previous book entitled "Christian Hedonism."

But, I concur, I have enjoyed him and will continue in the future. May he stay on track Biblically for all to enjoy God in Christ more.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 29, 2008)

Zadok said:


> You might like to listen to the following mp3, which is a message that Dr. Peter Masters (of Spurgeon's Tabernacle) gave at a fairly recent School of Theology:
> 
> Christian Hedonism - is it right?



I read an article by Peter Masters against John Piper some time ago, and I did not think that he fairly represented him when I read it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 29, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
> ...




Although it has been a while (maybe a year) since I have read anything by him, that is the general impression I have got as well.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Apr 29, 2008)

Although Piper might not be perfect, I found his "Christian Hedonism" very helpful against legalism. Those who think his book titles are misleading or need "clarification" should read the content of that book (if haven't done so already) before criticizing, as the "much needed clarification" is in the book!


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 29, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
> ...




I agree with this at face vlaue. The problem with anyone is when much reading has to be done to "correctly understand"" the person. For some odd reason, when I hear someone say 'You must read his whole works' to get the proper understanding, I am left with wondering why does it take 1000's of words to boil down to one simple point!!!!!!!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 29, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > staythecourse said:
> ...




Who asked you anyway, AG?  Where have you been by the way?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 29, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Barnpreacher said:
> ...




Rich benched me for a month. So I was playing in the minor league for the 30 days!!!!

Good to see you Barney.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 29, 2008)

Well, I'm glad to see you got the call back to the majors. 

Notice I edited in a goofy smiley face above so people wouldn't think I was really serious about not wanting your opinion. In fact, your thoughts have been some of the most helpful to me since you joined the board.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 29, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Well, I'm glad to see you got the call back to the majors.
> 
> Notice I edited in a goofy smiley face above so people wouldn't think I was really serious about not wanting your opinion. In fact, your thoughts have been some of the most helpful to me since you joined the board.



Well thank you brother. But I snuck in the back door!!!! Dont tell anyone.

Getting back to Piper though, he does have a tendacy with all 'popular' writers to use pithy sayings to attract attention.


----------



## staythecourse (Apr 29, 2008)

Please don't wink or point with the foot my friend. I had to read Piper for seminary. I just did not read God is the Gospel.


----------



## sotzo (Apr 29, 2008)

Christian Hedonism??!?!?

Big deal...how about Luther calling the book of James and epistle of straw?
How about Paul telling the Galatians he wishes the Judaizers would go the whole nine yards and cut their genitals off?

Piper uses stark language to engage people in the western church...if he did not do this it would not get the attention it does. Now attention and stark language for their own ends would indeed be wrong motives...but would anyone seriously argue that Piper is not waving the banner for living as the redeemed people of God, but rather some sort of antinomianism??? No more than Luther was really saying, "I'll decide the canon thank you very much."


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 30, 2008)

*Posting of some Private Messages*

Hi:

I have received quite a few inquiries concerning John Piper over the last several days, and I thought to share my responses with you all.

Thank you for the kind message. Most, but not all, of the criticisms of Piper's book usually do not represent Piper's position correctly. Thus, they end up attacking a straw man, and, because of this tempers flare. I will try to point out my misgivings concerning Piper's book, and hopefully, we can have a fruitful dialogue.

I read Piper's book when it first came out in 1986. At the time it was highly praised by many as a good representation of Reformed Experimental Religion from the tradition of Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, I had previously picked up the Banner of Truth's edition of Edwards' Works and had read most of his major sermons and treatises.

First, I would like to explore Piper's own "conversion" to Christian Hedonism. He gives Five "points" that illustrate this conversion (you can find it in the introduction to the book):



> 1) He says that Blaise Pascal was introduced to him.
> 2) Then he says C.S. Lewis was influential.
> 3) He quotes both Lewis and Pascal.
> 4) He then refers to Lewis again.
> 5) Finally, he quotes the Bible, and especially the Book of Psalms.



Can you see the possible problems with this presentation? One of the fundamental problems with Piper is his hermeneutic. He does not start with the Scriptures, but with Christian philosophers. He then goes to the Bible to find support for a preconceived notion.

Towards the end of the introduction he writes:



> If I cannot show that Christian Hedonism comes from the Bible, I do not expect anyone to be interested, let alone persuaded.



When you start with a preconceived notion, then you can most certainly find it in the Bible. In certain places in his book Piper is right on the money, but in other places, and more crucial, he is way off the point to the degree that he is teaching heresy.

and this one,

I should point out that I believe that John Piper is a Christian, and knows the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I believe that his pre-commitment to his Christian hedonist philosophy causes him to misrepresent the teachings of the Bible and the creeds. Since Piper begins his book by referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism I will address that first. He wrote:

Quote:


> You might turn the world on its head by changing one word in your creed. The old tradition says,
> 
> The chief end of man is to glorify God AND enjoy him forever.
> 
> ...



A subtle shift in language, but a profound change in theology. The "old theologians," as Piper calls them, used the exact language of "and" for a very definite purpose. Piper is changing the wording because he has a very definite purpose in mind. The pre-commitment to Christian hedonism shines out here: We glorify God BY enjoying Him forever. The implication of such a statement is that one cannot glorify God if he/she does not have joy in him. It is with this understanding that Piper explicates all of the Christian life in the following chapters.

James Fisher, in his catechism, tells us what the "old theologians" taught concerning the first question in the WSC:



> Q. 44. Why is the glorifying God made the leading part of man's chief end, and set before the enjoyment of him?
> A. Because, as God's design in glorifying himself was the reason and foundation of his design in making man happy in the enjoyment of him, Rom. 11:26; so he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment.


Piper has reversed what Fisher has said. Piper claims that we glorify God by joy. He has made "joy" the way and means of glorifying God. He has said in a sermon on this topic: "Without joy one cannot glorify God."

Fisher claims that as we seek first to glorify God we then come into the enjoyment of Him.

A clear example of Piper's misusing of "Christian hedonism" to interpret the Bible is found in his explication of Matt 13:44 in the second chapter of his book. The Bible text reads:



> The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.



He writes:


> This parable describes how someone is converted and brought into the kingdom of heaven. A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all he has in order to have this treasure. The kingdom of heaven is the abode of the King. The longing to be there is not the longing for heavenly real estate, but for camaraderie with the King. The treasure in the field is the fellowship of God in Christ.
> 
> I conclude from this parable that we must be deeply converted in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, and we are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy.
> 
> ...



In the original edition of the book Piper has a sentence which he omitted, "Joy is the root and fruit of faith." This phrase is a very concise view of what he wrote above - especially the last paragraph. His argument has been building up to this very last statement - that joy preceeds faith in conversion:



> It implies that something has happened in our hearts *before the act of faith*. It implies that *beneath and behind the act of faith *which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. *Behold, a joy has been born! *


I have no problem with Piper when he says that joy is a fruit of faith. My problem with him is that he says that joy preceeds faith in our salvation. This is where his pre-commitment to hedonism causes him to go beyond the bounds of inscripturated revelation.



> For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith, Rom. 1:17
> 
> Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference, Rom. 3:22.
> 
> ...



It is by faith that we live our lives now to the glory of God - it is not by joy. Seeking joy first before faith is an overthrow of everything Christian. If "joy" preceeds faith, then we would be justified by joy. In following this logically Piper shows a weakness concerning justification here that he had to correct (illogically according to his own principles of "joy preceeding faith") in order to vindicate his orthodoxy. In other words: In order to remain orthodox, and teach Justification by faith alone, he had to (temporarily) abandon his views concerning "Joy preceeding faith." Otherwise, faith would not be alone, but be mixed with "joy." However, a look at his website shows that he has not departed from "Christian hedonism," but has followed orthodox teaching despite the logical implications of his own philosophy.

The very parable that Piper uses to prove his point militates against him. The parable requires the man to see or find the treasure. If the man does not see or find the treasure, then he will walk right by it and not sell all that he has. If he does see it, but does not understand the value of it, then, again, he will not sell his all to purchase the field. Seeing, in the Scriptures, is an act of faith:



> But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Heb 2:9.


The Bible uses the term "blind" to mean "unbelieving." Thus, the parable is teaching that we must first have faith in order to "see" the treasure, then, because of faith, we comprehend the value of it with joy we sell all that we have and purchase the field.

Piper in the quote cited above uses the word "taste": "a new taste has been born." The problem is that "tasting" in the Bible is an analogy of the act of faith:



> O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him, Ps 34:8.



Spurgeon writes of faith:



> Faith is the mouth which feeds upon Christ. Before food can nourish us, it must be received into us. This is a simple matter—this eating and drinking. We willingly receive into the mouth that which is our food, and then we consent that it should pass down into our inward parts, wherein it is taken up and absorbed into our bodily frame, All of Grace, Chapter 9.



We receive joy after we taste something sweet. Joy is the product of the grace of God which comes to us through faith. It does not come to us before we believe.

From a logical standpoint I have asked John Piper the question: "How can you have joy in something that you do not believe in?" I have yet to receive an answer.

The basic problem is that John Piper is overthrowing the Biblical basis upon which the Christian life is lived. The life that we now live is lived *by faith* in the Son of God. Piper replaces "faith" with "joy." And, by doing so, he destroys the very thing that he claims to uphold.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Apr 30, 2008)

CalvinandHodges, you brought up some good points about Piper's "Desiring God." However, as I'm sure you can tell from my user name, I tend to disagree with you. The biggest point I disagree with is what you said about joy preceding faith. 

First, if joy were to precede faith, it does not mean that we are justified by joy instead of faith. A lot of things precede Christ's sheep coming to faith, which are all means by which they are brought to faith. Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ. Thus, I don't see how it must logically follow that if something precedes faith then we are justified by that something instead of by faith.

Second, I am curious to know if you believe that regeneration precedes faith. Perhaps I am reading more into Piper than he actually explains, but it seems to me that the idea of a joy preceding our faith makes sense if our regeneration precedes our faith. What happens when we are regenerated? Doesn't the Holy Spirit awaken in our hearts a desire for God and for salvation through Jesus Christ, that immediately leads to our putting faith in Him? For who comes to faith in God unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them and gives them the desire to come to faith in God? It seems to me that Piper is calling this desire we are given "joy," and thus a joy in God is awakened in us when we are regenerated, which immediately leads us to having justifying faith in Christ.

In Christ,
Dan


----------



## Zadok (Apr 30, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> > You might like to listen to the following mp3, which is a message that Dr. Peter Masters (of Spurgeon's Tabernacle) gave at a fairly recent School of Theology:
> ...



Daniel

I have not read the article you refer to and cannot therefore comment on that. All I can say is that in Dr Masters' message, to which I referred earlier, he deals with the central thesis of Christian Hedonism and having read Desiring God etc. I cannot see that he is unfair in his criticisms of Piper. Do listen to the message for yourself. I would be interested to hear how fair or otherwise others think this is.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 30, 2008)

Truly, the internet is a theater of dilettantes.

I don't want to say even "good guys" aren't immune from criticism here on the PB. You know, like JoelD'oh!steen and JackHugee take their lumps, so too the Pipers and Sprouls, right?

My personal feeling? I'm not worthy to polish Piper's shoes.

Subjecting him to withering criticism, when he has done more to bring people to sound, calvinistic soterioolgy than any 50 of us, or maybe 100; and this quibbling over terms, by so many who not only haven't a fraction the breadth of his earning, years of experience, or mantle of office.

Piper isn't a snake-oil salesman. He isn't a psychologist, charismaniac, or a professional eschatologist parading as a preacher.

Any man's public statements or published writings leave him open to legitimate critical responses. Although it's typically fair-play to let a man clarify or contextualize himself.

Those of you who know Piper by the *title* of a book, do everyone a favor and don't type anything, Prov. 17:28. As for others, just remember the standard of your measurement, Mt 7:2.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 1, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Truly, the internet is a theater of dilettantes.
> 
> I don't want to say even "good guys" aren't immune from criticism here on the PB. You know, like JoelD'oh!steen and JackHugee take their lumps, so too the Pipers and Sprouls, right?
> 
> ...



WOW!!!! WOW!!!! WOW!!!! And can I add a WOW!!!! End the thread now. Nothing better could be typed and nothing more should be added. WELL SAID with a capital WELL and a capital SAID!!!! You are not da wabbit in my book, Bruce, you are DA MAN!!!!


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 1, 2008)

Let me just add another WOW!!!!

And in adding my last words to this thread, I would like to know where some of you critics were two weeks ago when Piper was pouring out his heart in an orthodox Gospel message to some 5,000 pastors in Louisville? Maybe you should have been there.

He's human, fallible, and is self-confessed full of faults, but as Bruce alluded too above, the name I kept hearing at T4G conference as having the greatest impact on bringing many of these pastor's to Calvinistic soteriology was John Piper.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 1, 2008)

ChristianHedonist said:


> CalvinandHodges, you brought up some good points about Piper's "Desiring God." However, as I'm sure you can tell from my user name, I tend to disagree with you. The biggest point I disagree with is what you said about joy preceding faith.
> 
> First, if joy were to precede faith, it does not mean that we are justified by joy instead of faith. A lot of things precede Christ's sheep coming to faith, which are all means by which they are brought to faith. Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ. Thus, I don't see how it must logically follow that if something precedes faith then we are justified by that something instead of by faith.
> 
> ...



Hello Dan:

I can see from your profile that you are a big fan of John Piper, and thus I would anticipate extreme difficulty in "converting" you. However, it is not my plan to do so. I have stated many times before that I believe Piper to be a Christian, but I have misgivings about the major thrust of his teachings - what he describes as "Christian Hedonism." To be warned about Piper's heterodoxy is a good thing. Whether you take the warning or not is your own decision. I can see, though, that there are many who swallow his teachings, and emotionally defend him when he is legitimately criticized.

To compare Piper with a man like George Whitfield, for example, would be a good thing. Thousands of people flocked to hear Whitfield preach the plain Gospel of Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin once measured the range of his voice and the number of people attending, and came to a figure of 10,000 - just in one day. What I have read of Whitfield's biographies and the sermons printed shows a man of eloquence, but he did not preach "new doctrines" or seek to package Biblical Christianity with philosophical language.

You say that "a lot of things preceed Christ's sheep coming to faith." You miss the point. Piper claims that "Joy is a root of saving faith." If faith has its "root" in joy, then joy is an integral part of saving faith. In other words, if you don't have the root (joy), then you don't have the fruit (faith). But, there is nothing in the Bible or in Reformed Orthodoxy that states that "Joy is the root of saving faith."

This is why John Piper has to interpret a parable (Mt 13:44) in order to prove his "Christian hedonism." Jesus gave us parables for a specific purpose:



> And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, Mt 13:10,11


What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.

You wrote:



> Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ.



This is not entirely accurate. The Bible tells us:



> For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, Eph 2:8.


We are saved "by grace through faith." We are not saved "by grace through love" (though without love we have no true faith). Nor are we saved "by grace through peace" nor are we saved "by grace through joy."

"Love," "Joy," and "Peace" are all operatives in our life with Christ, but they are not operative in our salvation. The cause of our Justification is the Mercy of God - which grants us regenerating grace - which grants us faith - which converts our soul - which then gives us all the "fruits of the Spirit" one of which is "joy."



> Even the righteousness of God which is *by faith of Jesus Christ *unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being *justified freely by his grace *through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom 3:22-24.
> 
> Therefore it is *of faith*, that it might be *by grace*; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Rom 4:16



Many an aesthete are impressed with numbers. They even argue that way, and live a comfortable life thinking of all the people that have come to Christ because of their ministry. Certainly, they themselves must be teaching the way truly, and can claim a chief seat in heaven? 

I hope not, but I will leave it to your judgment. You will find that bombastic conduct is their only recourse.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 1, 2008)

> What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.



I find this judgment (along with a number of other things you have written) highly uncharitable. How do you know that Dr. Piper did not just honestly misinterpret the parable?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this judgment (along with a number of other things you have written) highly uncharitable. How do you know that Dr. Piper did not just honestly misinterpret the parable?



Hi:

I am sorry that you find it so. Do you think that Piper just jotted down what he thought without referring to commentaries, the Greek, etc? If he "honestly" misinterprets the parable, then, in light of what Jesus said (which I take it was not "uncharitable") what does that mean?



> And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, Mt 13:10,11



I am not criticizing you, but I am asking you to use your own judgment.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 1, 2008)

Zadok said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Zadok said:
> ...



Satch

The article IS the audio recording distilled. PM never wastes anything he does. Things tend to go like this: Wednesday Bible Study, Seminary Lecture, School of Theology Lecture, Sword and Trowel Article, Book (or part thereof).

I do think that on this matter Dr Masters and many others have got hung up too much about Dr Piper's poor choice of words.

I used to be very anti-piper. Until one day I realised that I had never read much of him at all. So now I have five books to work through, and even then I shall be very slow to voice an opinion regarding such an instrument of God whose shoes I am not even worthy to buy polish for, let alone actually polish them.


----------



## Galatians220 (May 1, 2008)

A "position paper" John Piper wrote a long time ago with which I agree: Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library.

His views on the topic are rather strange - and he flies in the face of the WCF. I hope he still holds to this position, if not to those strange conclusions.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 1, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.
> ...




Robert

I just don't think it is a good idea to accuse Dr. Piper of deliberately distorting the meaning of a text due to a preconceived idea. He may have just made a mistake in his interpretation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 1, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



My concerns about PM's critique are probably just what Jonathan said; he seems to get too hung up about terms which John Piper would have been better not using.

It is good to hear PM does not waste his work; one of our ministers once told me "the reward for good work is more work."


----------



## Galatians220 (May 1, 2008)

joshua said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > A "position paper" John Piper wrote a long time ago with which I agree: Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library.
> ...


 
I think Piper confuses *me* when he adopts the "no remarriage after divorce" (NRAD) position, but then unctuously sanctions second marriages already in existence. As far as I know, the PRCA is the only Reformed church at present that holds to the NRAD stance for both the innocent and guilty (adulterous, for that would be the only ground for dissolving the marriage bond) parties. Dr. David Engelsma and Rev. Kenneth Koole have written some wonderful articles on the subject; they're on the PRCA web site... (I've got to get going; I'd write more on this now if I had more time.)

I don't know where Piper is coming from on this. I'm open to being educated. I just think that when you say "till death us do part," in front of God and His people -- that's it. Second marriages - after what Piper said initially? And, BTW, nobody's marriage is paradise, regardless of how it appears to others. Next Monday, we'll have our 35th wedding anniversary, Lord willing, and I know of what I speak in that area...  (Although my husband knows *better! *)

Margaret


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2008)

Here is Paul Helm digressing on a recent work by John Piper, _The Future of Justification_ (Crossway, 2007):
Helm's Deep: Analysis 14 - Which Comes First?

(HT to JT @ Ref21 blog)


----------



## greenbaggins (May 1, 2008)

I really appreciated Bruce's post. I don't want to gild a lily like that, only to put out my own thoughts. To my mind, a great deal can be forgiven Piper when he has justification so incredibly right. Read his critique of N.T. Wright, and his book on imputation. That is the Gospel. And, as Calvin himself said (still trying to track down the source of this quotation!), any theologian can be at most %80 correct. I would chalk up his "Christian Hedonism" to that %20, and also his future grace idea. And he is a stalwart Calvinist. Furthermore, he seems completely free of the sectarian tendencies of some among Baptist circles in his views on baptism. So I am quite willing to forgive him his oddities (as if I were more right than him!).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 1, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I really appreciated Bruce's post. I don't want to gild a lily like that, only to put out my own thoughts. To my mind, a great deal can be forgiven Piper when he has justification so incredibly right. Read his critique of N.T. Wright, and his book on imputation. That is the Gospel. And, as Calvin himself said (still trying to track down the source of this quotation!), any theologian can be at most %80 correct. I would chalk up his "Christian Hedonism" to that %20, and also his future grace idea. And he is a stalwart Calvinist. Furthermore, he seems completely free of the sectarian tendencies of some among Baptist circles in his views on baptism. So I am quite willing to forgive him his oddities (as if I were more right than him!).



I would chalk up "%20" to your 20% Lane.


----------

