# John Piper & Christian Hedonism



## CarsonLAllen (Jan 14, 2009)

Can you all give me your opinion on Christian Hedonism as put forth in "Desiring God", and "The Dangerous Duty of Delight" by John Piper.

As of now I hold to this doctrine and try to apply to my life daily. I have not realy read a critique. So any comments will be greatly thought through by me.

Blessings

Thank You


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 14, 2009)

You can probably guess that I agree with it....

However, from some critiques of Piper on this, his Christian hedonism does require some caution, and Piper could stand to be a little more careful in his presentation of it. Some, for example, don't like that he used the term hedonism for it, which I really don't mind, since he explains what he means by its use.

This has been discussed before on the board, you'll find some lengthy discussions on it if you search for Piper and hedonism. 

The thing we need to be most careful about is that this doctrine doesn't somehow get distorted and lead to our end being our own pleasure, rather than our end being to glorify and enjoy God.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 14, 2009)

I just did a search on "Christian Hedonism" and pulled up a whole bunch of threads. That may be a good place to start. I'm kind of like you, I've read some Piper, liked most of what I've read, but have never really heard a critical review of his thinking. One of the things that helped me trust him was the amazing list of people on the back of the book! I mean if Sproul and Packer think it's good I'd be slow to disagree. (Although I have disagreed with both of them in the past!)


----------



## Honor (Jan 14, 2009)

we have a HUGE collection of Piper books... I haven't read anything I disagreed with yet


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 14, 2009)

There is nothing new to his teaching. It is found throughout reformed theology from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards. The idea is that God is not properly glorified by His people unless we enjoy God for God's sake (as opposed to what He gives as gifts). Knowing and enjoying God is what honors Him the most. This means that we can pursue our own pleasure (this is why he uses the term hedonism) above anything else as long as the pursuit of that pleasure is God Himself as the source. 

For instance, if I called you up and said "Hey, lets hang out" and you asked me, "why do you want to hang out with me?" It doesn't honor you if I say "because its my duty to hang out with you". If I say "because I enjoy spending time with you" then it honors you. You couldn't say that I was being selfish because I pursued my joy by enjoying another person's presence. In fact, my pursuit of joy in the other person is vital to them being honored.

So Piper says, "God is most glorified in you when you are most satisfied in Him".

PS-The only problem people have is him using the word hedonism. Piper explains his meaning of it so I don't think its a problem. He likes using language that grabs people and I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 14, 2009)

I think most of the problems that people run into is with the misapplication of his teaching. He is really careful to guard against misunderstanding in the book, but it seems like some people didn't read those parts!


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jan 14, 2009)

Funny, I just sent my dad a copy of Desiring God. We are going to go through it together (I haven't read it yet). 

My dad is an Indie/Fundi, KJVonly, Baptist. Should be interesting...


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 14, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> I think most of the problems that people run into is with the misapplication of his teaching. He is really careful to guard against misunderstanding in the book, but it seems like some people didn't read those parts!



You're very right. I don't know how people do that. I don't think they actually read it. Piper was God's instrument for bringing me to reformed theology! He is my favorite living preacher.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2009)

"He is my favorite living preacher."

Me too! Hubby too!

Piper is the diet light version of Jonathan Edwards.

By the way his biography CDs are THE BEST!!! Honestly probably the best set of audios you will ever hear.

Men of Whom the World Was Not Worthy :: Desiring God Christian Bookstore


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2009)

The fundamental problem is that hedonism as a philosophy inevitably leads to a utilitarian system of ethics. If Christian hedonism is permitted to permeate one's thought life it will eventually undermine the deontological morality of revealed truth and some form of utilitarianism will take its place. John Stuart Mill has already wandered down this path: "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (Utilitarianism, 1867, p. 31.) It is sad to see men failing to learn the lessons of the past.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Jan 14, 2009)

lynnie said:


> "He is my favorite living preacher."
> 
> Me too! Hubby too!
> 
> ...



Hubby here. No book besides the Bible has influenced me as much as Desiring God. In 1994 I was fed up with the excesses of the charismatic movement in which I had participated for many years, but the only alternatives seemed dry and lifeless. In reading Desiring God, Piper introduced me to a vibrant Christianity where the vibrancy is found not in superficial or worldly enjoyments which we define as God's blessings, but in the true knowledge of the true God Himself.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 14, 2009)




----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 14, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> Funny, I just sent my dad a copy of Desiring God. We are going to go through it together (I haven't read it yet).
> 
> My dad is an Indie/Fundi, KJVonly, Baptist. Should be interesting...



That's exactly where I was when God used _Future Grace_ by Piper to smack me upside the head. I haven't regretted the change for one moment. I don't agree with everything that Piper says, but his ministry has done a lot for my coming to understand the sovereignty of God. He started me on my course of pursuing the Reformed faith. I appreciate the fact that he's real. I don't think he's one way in the pulpit and another way out of it. His life is a reflection of his ministry. Even if you don't agree with his Christian hedonism (I've never been a fan of his use of the term), I think one is forced to admire his passion for God and the work of His kingdom.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 15, 2009)

Greetings:

Having been one of those who have been in the huge discussions concerning Piper before, I am a little cautious about entering in again - especially since I have little time to devote to this.

I will give you a quotation out of the original edition of his book Desiring God, and ask if you see something incorrect in it (there is by the way):



> This does not mean we have forgotten the teaching of Romans 15:13, that there is joy that comes _from_ faith. Joy in God is both the root and fruit of faith. We find the hidden treasure first. Then we venture all on it ... Behind the repentance that turns away from sin and behind the faith that embraces Christ is the birth of a new taste, a new longing, a new passion for the pleasure of God's presence. This is the root of Conversion. This is the creation of a Christian Hedonist,_Desiring God (original edition, HB) pg. 55, emphasis his._


There is a very serious error here - I guarantee it.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 15, 2009)

One thread where this was previously discussed can be found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-good-bad-32236/




CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Having been one of those who have been in the huge discussions concerning Piper before, I am a little cautious about entering in again - especially since I have little time to devote to this.
> 
> ...



-----Added 1/15/2009 at 01:31:31 EST-----

Rob:

The error you see in that quote (which, by the way, is not in the edition of the book I read) is that joy is also a root of faith. I would agree that this is erroneous if he means we are in some sense justified by joy or by faith working through joy. However, I don't think this is clearly what he is teaching; rather, his statement about joy being a root of saving faith seems somewhat ambiguous to me. If I had to decide what he is saying here, I would say his statement is referring to regeneration, which essentially all reformed people would agree logically precedes faith. Before regeneration, we do not desire to be reconciled to God. However, after the Spirit regenerates us our will is changed such that we do desire to be reconciled with God. This reconciling is through faith in Christ. Thus, I would understand the joy Piper calls a root of faith to be the desire the Spirit gives us for God at regeneration, a desire to be reconciled by faith, and the joy that is the fruit of saving faith is that joy that is the fruit of the Spirit. You are right, however, that his statement here is at the very least unclear, and can be easily misconstrued, which is probably why that statement isn't in new editions of the book. 

I think Piper deserves the benefit of the doubt here, and shouldn't be charged with heterodoxy based on this one statement. If other teachings of his can be shown to support the heterodoxy you see in this statement of his, then perhaps you have a case against him.

Grace and Peace,

Dan

-----Added 1/15/2009 at 01:43:41 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> The fundamental problem is that hedonism as a philosophy inevitably leads to a utilitarian system of ethics. If Christian hedonism is permitted to permeate one's thought life it will eventually undermine the deontological morality of revealed truth and some form of utilitarianism will take its place. John Stuart Mill has already wandered down this path: "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (Utilitarianism, 1867, p. 31.) It is sad to see men failing to learn the lessons of the past.



But is the philosophy that John Piper calls "Christian Hedonism" really a form of "regular" hedonism? If so, then it could be prone to the errors you say are the inevitable results of hedonism as a philosophy. However, if the philosophy Piper labels "Christian hedonism" is fundamentally different than regular hedonism, I don't see how your conclusion follows. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could show me how Piper's philosophy is just a form of regular hedonism (for lack of a better term than "regular;" maybe "secular" would be better), so that I could understand where you are coming from. Does Piper's problem just lie in his liberal use of the term "hedonism," or is there a fundamental problem with the philosophy for which "Christian hedonism" is his label?
Thanks.

Grace and peace,

Dan


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Jan 15, 2009)

Thanks to everyone that has weighed in so far. It's good food for thought. 

Manley: 
He is my favorite living preacher as well, and I am a presbyterian.


----------



## Rangerus (Jan 15, 2009)

There was an earlier thread asking for the board's opinion on Oswald Chambers. My Utmost... He was asking whether or not he was into "some ultra holiness type of stuff."

Here is a blip from his bio: "_while at Edinburgh, he felt called to ministry, and transferred to Dunoon College. An unusually gifted student, Chambers soon began teaching classes and started a local society dedicated to Robert Browning, his favorite poet. But during this time, Chambers did not find satisfaction in Christianity, finding the Bible 'dull' and uninspiring.

After four years of religious dormancy, Chambers came to believe that he couldn't force himself to be holy; once he realized that the strength and peace he was looking for was Christ himself, Christ's life in exchange for his sin, he experienced great renewal, so much so that he described it as a “*radiant, unspeakable emancipation*.”_

Maybe the terminology is different, or maybe this is something different all together, but to me, his terminology "“radiant, unspeakable emancipation” sounds a lot like Christian Hedonism. I think I like that wording better anyway...*radiant, unspeakable emancipation,* and if Christian Hedonism is "ultra-holiness stuff", then sign me up.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 15, 2009)

Hi:

ChristianHedonist:

I know we have clashed over this before, but the problem with your assessment concerning regeneration is that, according to all Reformed interpreters, the Spirit's act of regeneration is the granting of faith and repentance to the soul. Both you and Piper are greatly mistaken.

Philosophically: How can one have joy in something that he/she does not first believe in?

Philosophically #2: If, in regeneration, the affection of joy preceeds saving faith, then what does that say about the will? Regeneration does not only affect the emotions, but the mind and will as well. Are you now siding with the Roman Catholics and Arminians who claim that the will must be exercised before Saving Faith? One must first choose and then believe?

(I certainly do not believe that, but it logically falls out from your view that the emotions must be exercised by Regeneration before one can act in Saving Faith. The Reformed view is that the soul is granted Saving Faith in Regeneration, which acts upon the Mind, Heart, and Will.)

Scripturally: Give one clear Scripture proof that Joy preceeds Saving Faith? Citing parables, as JP does, is not proof of your position.

Theologically: 

Regeneration is that which Jesus talks about in John 3:7-21. The primary operating work of God's Spirit in this section of Scripture is the granting of faith to the unbeliever:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The granting of faith to the soul transforms the whole of it - intellect, will and emotions. The principle of New Life given to the elect sinner is a Life of Faith. This faith then acts upon the emotions to produce Joy. Such is the true teachings of Jonathan Edwards who expounded this in his book, _Religious Affections_ from the text in Scripture:

_Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8._

Jonathan Edwards himself:



> The Apostle notices two things in this text about joy. First, he notes the manner in which joy arises. Christ, by faith, is the foundation of all joy. This is the evidence of things not seen, "In whom, though now you see Him not, yet believing, rejoice, _Religious Affections, pg 4._


I will repeat that in order for it to be made clear that this is the position of Edwards: *Christ, by faith, is the foundation of all joy*.

John Piper has a doctorate. So, he should certainly be aware of what Edwards says in the first few pages of the Religious Affections - Should he not? 

The New Life (regeneration) given to the sinner is a life of faith, Gal 2:20, and repentance, Acts 11:18, which yields all of the fruits of the Spirit - including Joy.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: As I noted several times - the quotation from John Piper was from the original, or first, edition of his book. He removed the statement "Joy is the root and fruit of faith" but kept all of his argumentation for it in subsequent editions.

-RPW


----------



## sis (Jan 15, 2009)

I am in the dark on John Piper. I had read this article: Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.
so I did not know he was considered reformed till I read this thread. Can some of you make clear the official position, or is there such a thing on the Puritan Board?

Edit: never mind my question--now I see there must be a lot of discussion on him--I am new to this forum.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 15, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> ChristianHedonist:
> 
> ...



I think the problem lies in taking something that logically precedes something and seeing that as temporally preceding. Regeneration logically precedes faith and repentance but does not temporally precede it (in time we experience these instantly). Regeneration is not joy in God not yet believed in but a heart made to be able to know and enjoy God. Faith and repentance are fruit of this change. I think you are assuming too much into what he is saying. Obviously he decided it wasn't the best way to word it so he changed it. 

-----Added 1/15/2009 at 05:33:08 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> The fundamental problem is that hedonism as a philosophy inevitably leads to a utilitarian system of ethics. If Christian hedonism is permitted to permeate one's thought life it will eventually undermine the deontological morality of revealed truth and some form of utilitarianism will take its place. John Stuart Mill has already wandered down this path: "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (Utilitarianism, 1867, p. 31.) It is sad to see men failing to learn the lessons of the past.


 You are certainly right Reverend (about hedonism) but Dr. Piper is using hedonism in a different way. Because the happiness of the "Christian Hedonist" is found in God, the ethic followed is whatever pleases God revealed through the scripture.


----------



## discipulo (Jan 15, 2009)

Also deeply appreciating the writing and preaching of John Piper, I would like to add that the experimental Theology of John Piper, a Theology of the Heart, doesn’t only focus on the Delight in God (Psalm 37) or in Rejoicing in the Lord (Philippians), even if this line of his writing and thought is so rich and has been so beneficial to the Church.

For instance in his book The Hidden Smile of God, the Fruit of Affliction in the lives of John Bunnyan, William Cowper and David Brainerd (and there are more titles in this series), John Pipper, always centred in God’s Sovereignty, also deals with great Biblical insight, Pastoral care and Theological depth with the difficult issues of Pain, Suffering, Loss, Tribulation, Depression, Illness, that often afflict the lives of Christians, even heroes of faith, like those.

Not to mention that Piper himself has been struggling with Cancer, and he often preaches on how Christ is the only answer to suffering, illness and loss.

[video=youtube;GZ67jXsZLUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ67jXsZLUo[/video]


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jan 15, 2009)

Bingo!



armourbearer said:


> The fundamental problem is that hedonism as a philosophy inevitably leads to a utilitarian system of ethics. If Christian hedonism is permitted to permeate one's thought life it will eventually undermine the deontological morality of revealed truth and some form of utilitarianism will take its place. John Stuart Mill has already wandered down this path: "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (Utilitarianism, 1867, p. 31.) It is sad to see men failing to learn the lessons of the past.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Jan 15, 2009)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> Bingo!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The text I've highlighted is not what Piper teaches. It may be implicit in his use of the term "hedonism," which is arguably a poor choice of words, but if one listens to what Piper is actually saying, he is just reiterating the answer to the "man's chief end" question in the Catechism and fleshing out "enjoy Him forever" a little more than some have. In The Pleasures of God, which came later than Desiring God and probably reflects a more mature stage of Piper's thought, he is clear and thorough that God's ultimate desire is His own glory and His own pleasure, with man's pleasure being just a by-product of that.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 15, 2009)

> I know we have clashed over this before, but the problem with your assessment concerning regeneration is that, according to all Reformed interpreters, the Spirit's act of regeneration is the granting of faith and repentance to the soul. Both you and Piper are greatly mistaken.



I didn't realize that all reformed interpreters defined regeneration as the act of granting faith. If it is, then why do most argue that regeneration precedes faith, if regenerating is actually instilling faith in the believer?



> Philosophically: How can one have joy in something that he/she does not first believe in?



I'm not sure, although I guess I could flip the question and ask: how can one believe in something he does not have any desire for, something he does not want?



> Philosophically #2: If, in regeneration, the affection of joy preceeds saving faith, then what does that say about the will? Regeneration does not only affect the emotions, but the mind and will as well. Are you now siding with the Roman Catholics and Arminians who claim that the will must be exercised before Saving Faith? One must first choose and then believe?
> 
> (I certainly do not believe that, but it logically falls out from your view that the emotions must be exercised by Regeneration before one can act in Saving Faith. The Reformed view is that the soul is granted Saving Faith in Regeneration, which acts upon the Mind, Heart, and Will.)



I was under the impression that the will is in bondage to sin prior to regeneration, but that regeneration frees our will from that bondage, causing us to exercise our will to believe. For some reason I thought the reformed view was that regeneration acts upon the Mind, Heart, and Will, by which it causes us to come to saving faith. Perhaps I need to read more on regeneration.



> Scripturally: Give one clear Scripture proof that Joy preceeds Saving Faith? Citing parables, as JP does, is not proof of your position.



Again, I am only saying that I understood Piper's "joy" as referring to regeneration, in which the Spirit gives us the will and desire to believe, and if this is the case we know the scriptures speak of regeneration preceding faith. If the joy he is talking about has nothing to do with regeneration, than I agree with you (and if it does refer to regeneration, it is not made very clear on Piper's part).



> Theologically:
> 
> Regeneration is that which Jesus talks about in John 3:7-21. The primary operating work of God's Spirit in this section of Scripture is the granting of faith to the unbeliever:
> 
> ...



It looks like I need to do some reading on regeneration. I thought that regeneration transforms the intellect, will, and emotions _unto_ faith rather than regeneration _being_ the granting of faith, which then transforms the soul's intellect, will, and emotions. I'll do some reading and get back to you. If Piper is not just talking about a desire we are given by the Spirit at regeneration but means more than this when he says joy, then I agree with you that he is wrong. However, even if he is wrong here, I don't know that it nullifies the general thesis of his book. Also, since the phrase we are discussing was removed following the first edition of the book, I'm not sure how relative discussing this statement is to the discussion of the validity of Piper's philosophy called "Christian hedonism."

I'm not just being a "Piperist" and trying to go out of my way to defend all he says; I enjoy his writing a preaching a great deal and _Desiring God_ was a means of a fair amount of change in my life and in my understanding of God, but I do disagree with him on a number of doctrines. I just think he deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to this statement.

Grace and Peace,

Dan


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 15, 2009)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> Bingo!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one (including Piper) is advocating traditional hedonism. His teaching could not lead to utilitarianism in any way.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> Does Piper's problem just lie in his liberal use of the term "hedonism," or is there a fundamental problem with the philosophy for which "Christian hedonism" is his label?



One cannot seek pleasure for pleasure's sake, whether it be in God or otherwise. Like its heathen counterpart, Christian hedonism puts the cart before the horse by making duty subservient to delight. Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever, not to glorify God by enjoying Him for ever. The traditional teaching is that God meets us in the path of duty. It is clear as day that Christian hedonism minimises the duty which creatures owe to God as God, and makes such duty subservient to delight in God.

-----Added 1/15/2009 at 07:05:48 EST-----



ManleyBeasley said:


> Because the happiness of the "Christian Hedonist" is found in God, the ethic followed is whatever pleases God revealed through the scripture.



Undoubtedly the ethic of a Christian will be that which is to be found in Scripture, but a person brings their philosophical framework to the Scripture in order to interpret it intelligibly and systemically. As with theological liberalism, one should inquire what is the ethical interpretation of Scripture rather than satisfy oneself that it professes to be based on Scripture. If subjective delight in God is primary, there can be no doubt that the ethic will become teleologically oriented as over against the traditional emphasis on deontology, that is, that an action is right because it is right rather than because it promotes pleasure.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> > Does Piper's problem just lie in his liberal use of the term "hedonism," or is there a fundamental problem with the philosophy for which "Christian hedonism" is his label?
> ...



Rev. Winzer:

Where does John Piper teach that we are to seek pleasure for pleasure's sake? Christian hedonism does not do away with or minimize duty. Rather, it encourages joyful duty. I believe God is more glorified by me if I obey him and it is my joy to do so than he is if I begrudgingly obey him. Joyful duty is more glorifying to God than begrudging duty. 

Grace and Peace,

Dan


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 15, 2009)

Hello:

ChristianHedonist:

I will await until you have done your studies, but in answer to your first question: How can one believe in something that he has no desire for?

Believing is the opening of the eyes of the Blind. Faith is the instrument of Grace. You cannot have joy in the Treasure of the Field, for example, unless you see it first. If you do not see it, then how can you have joy in it?

This is the teaching of the great Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon whose shoes I am unworthy to tie:



> The faith which saves has its analogies in the human frame.
> It is the eye which looks. By the eye we bring into the mind that which is far away; we can bring the sun and the far-off stars into the mind by a glance of the eye. So by trust we bring the Lord Jesus near to us; and though He be far away in Heaven, He enters into our heart. Only look to Jesus; for the hymn is strictly true—
> 
> 
> ...


I like to think of it as Grace being the water in a river, and faith is the channel that the water cuts. It is by Grace that you are saved through faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God. When God's grace enters the soul it does so by bringing faith with it, and with faith all of the fruits and gifts of the Spirit of God are operative.

When Piper says that Joy is the Fruit of Saving Faith, then I will stand in lockstep with him and say, "Amen, Brother! Preach On!" However, the moment he starts saying that Joy is the Root of Saving Faith, then I will hang my head in shame, and grieve that he is twisting Scripture, Jonathan Edwards, and Reformed Theology.

Believe in Jesus and you will receive Joy.

I have said all that I can say on this subject. If you don't believe me, that is fine with me, all I can hope for is that people will not blindly follow any theologian, but question them as the Bereans questioned Paul. After all, even the best of us are still sinners.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> Where does John Piper teach that we are to seek pleasure for pleasure's sake? Christian hedonism does not do away with or minimize duty. Rather, it encourages joyful duty. I believe God is more glorified by me if I obey him and it is my joy to do so than he is if I begrudgingly obey him. Joyful duty is more glorifying to God than begrudging duty.



I think your concern for unbegrudging duty is virtuous, and well stated by the conjunction and in the answer of the Catechism. But this balance is conspicuously distorted when the conjunction is exchanged for the preposition by, thereby making "joy" an agent instead of a companion.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> > Where does John Piper teach that we are to seek pleasure for pleasure's sake? Christian hedonism does not do away with or minimize duty. Rather, it encourages joyful duty. I believe God is more glorified by me if I obey him and it is my joy to do so than he is if I begrudgingly obey him. Joyful duty is more glorifying to God than begrudging duty.
> ...



From Fisher's Catechism:

Q. 44. Why is the glorifying of 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, Psalm 50:23.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 16, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianHedonist said:
> ...



What Piper is doing (and accurately I believe) is clarifying the Catechism, not changing or improving on it. The singular use of the word "end" does not allow a divorce of "glorify" and "enjoy". If it said "chief ends" then they could be arguably separated. Because glorifying God and enjoying Him are one, singular "end", the word "by" is a useful clarification of the Catechism and not a change. We must admit that obeying God joyfully is more honoring than begrudgingly. Augustine believed "sovereign joy in God" the grace in a person's obedience and godliness.

-----Added 1/16/2009 at 05:13:41 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> From Fisher's Catechism:
> 
> Q. 44. Why is the glorifying of 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, Psalm 50:23.
> ...



Certainly "aiming at his glory" is the means to greatest joy. Here's my question. How can someone aim at his glory without desiring it? How can someone desire something without joy in that something? How can we seek to glorify God unless we want to? How can we want to unless He is our joy?


----------



## Jon 316 (Jan 16, 2009)

Here is a section of piper's book on Edwards. Piper credits Edwards as the source of his Christian hedonism. And in this section explores the objections against Edwards and he lists Edwards response to them. the whole book can be read online here. As I'm sure all Piper fans know. http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bgev/bgev_all.pdf

What follows from this, I have found, shocks most Christians,
namely, that we should be blood-earnest—deadly serious—about being
happy in God. We should pursue our joy with such a passion and a vehemence
that, if we must, we would cut off our hand or gouge out our eye
to have it. God being glorified in us hangs on our being satisfied in him.
Which makes our being satisfied in him infinitely important. It becomes
the animating vocation of our lives. We tremble at the horror of not
rejoicing in God. We quake at the fearful lukewarmness of our hearts.
We waken to the truth that it is a treacherous sin not to pursue that satisfaction
in God with all our hearts. There is one final word for finding
delight in the creation more than in the Creator: treason.
Edwards put it like this: “I do not suppose it can be said of any, that
their love to their own happiness . . . can be in too high a degree.”9 Of
course, a passion for happiness can be misdirected to wrong objects, but
it cannot be too strong.10 Edwards argued for this in a sermon that he
preached on Song of Solomon 5:1, which says, “Eat, friends, drink, and
be drunk with love!” He drew out the following doctrine: “Persons need
A God-Entranced Vision of All Things 27
9 Jonathan Edwards, “Charity and Its Fruits,” WJE, 8:255.
10 It’s the same thing C. S. Lewis said in The Weight of Glory:
If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards
promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too
weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite
joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum
because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too
easily pleased.
C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 2.
not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious
appetites.” Rather, he says, they ought
to be endeavoring by all possible ways to inflame their desires and to
obtain more spiritual pleasures. . . . Our hungerings and thirstings after
God and Jesus Christ and after holiness can’t be too great for the value of
these things, for they are things of infinite value. . . . [Therefore] endeavor
to promote spiritual appetites by laying yourself in the way of allurement.
. . .11 There is no such thing as excess in our taking of this spiritual
food. There is no such virtue as temperance in spiritual feasting.12
This led Edwards to say of his own preaching and the great goals of his
own ministry:
I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of
my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected
with nothing but truth, and with affections that are not disagreeable
to the nature of what they are affected with.13
White-hot affections for God set on fire by clear, compelling, biblical
truth was Edwards’s goal in preaching and life, because it is the goal of
God in the universe. This is the heart of Edwards’s God-entranced vision
of all things.
Perhaps the best way to unfold the implications of this vision is to
let Edwards answer several objections that are raised.
Objections to Edwards
Objection #1: Doesn’t this make me too central in salvation? Doesn’t it
put me at the bottom of my joy and make me the focus of the universe?
Edwards answers with a very penetrating distinction between the
joy of the hypocrite and the joy of the true Christian. It is a devastating
distinction for modern Christians because it exposes the error of defining
God’s love as “making much of us.”
28 A GOD-ENTRANCED VISION OF ALL THINGS
11 Jonathan Edwards, “Sacrament Sermon on Canticles 5:1,” sermon manuscript (1729), Beinecke
Library, Yale University.
12 Jonathan Edwards, “The Spiritual Blessings of the Gospel Represented by a Feast,” in The Works
of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14, Sermons and Discourses, 1723-1729, ed. Kenneth Minkema (New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997), 286.
13 Jonathan Edwards, “Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards,
vol. 4, The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972), 387.
This is . . . the difference between the joy of the hypocrite, and the joy
of the true saint. The [hypocrite] rejoices in himself; self is the first
foundation of his joy: the [true saint] rejoices in God. . . . True saints
have their minds, in the first place, inexpressibly pleased and delighted
with the sweet ideas of the glorious and amiable nature of the things
of God. And this is the spring of all their delights, and the cream of
all their pleasures. . . . But the dependence of the affections of hypocrites
is in a contrary order: they first rejoice . . . that they are made
so much of by God; and then on that ground, he seems in a sort, lovely
to them.14
The answer to the objection above is “no.” Edwards’s call for a Godenthralled
heart does not make the enthralled one central. It makes God
central. Indeed it exposes every joy as idolatrous that is not, ultimately,
joy in God. As St. Augustine prayed, “He loves thee too little who loves
anything together with Thee, which he loves not for thy sake.”15
Objection #2: Won’t this emphasis on pleasure play into the central
corruption of our age, the unbounded pursuit of personal ease and comfort
and pleasure? Won’t this emphasis soften our resistance to sin?
Many Christians think stoicism is a good antidote to sensuality. It
isn’t. It is hopelessly weak and ineffective. And the reason it fails is that
the power of sin comes from its promise of pleasure and is meant to be
defeated by the superior promise of pleasure in God, not by the power
of the human will. Willpower religion, when it succeeds, gets glory for
the will. It produces legalists, not lovers. Edwards saw the powerlessness
of this approach and said:
We come with double forces against the wicked, to persuade them to
a godly life. . . . The common argument is the profitableness of religion,
but alas, the wicked man is not in pursuit of profit; ’tis pleasure he
seeks. Now, then, we will fight with them with their own weapons.16
In other words, Edwards says, the pursuit of pleasure in God is not only
not a compromise with the sensual world, but is the only power that can
A God-Entranced Vision of All Things 29
14 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, Religious Affections, ed. John Smith
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959), 249-250 (emphasis added).
15 Augustine, Confessions, X.24.
16 Jonathan Edwards, “The Pleasantness of Religion,” in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader,
ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven, Conn: Yale
University Press, 1999), 23-24.
defeat the lusts of the age while producing lovers of God, not legalists
who boast in their willpower. If you love holiness, if you weep over the
moral collapse of our culture, I pray you will get to know Edwards’s
God-enthralled vision of all things.
Objection #3: Surely repentance is a painful thing and will be undermined
by this stress on seeking our pleasure. Surely revival begins with
repentance, but you seem to make the awakening of delight the
beginning.
The answer to this objection is that no one can feel brokenhearted
for not treasuring God until he tastes the pleasure of having God as a
treasure. In order to bring people to the sorrow of repentance, you must
first bring them to see God as their delight. Here it is in the very words
of Edwards:
Though [repentance] be a deep sorrow for sin that God requires as necessary
to salvation, yet the very nature of it necessarily implies delight.
Repentance of sin is a sorrow arising from the sight of God’s excellency
and mercy, but the apprehension of excellency or mercy must necessarily
and unavoidably beget pleasure in the mind of the beholder. ’Tis
impossible that anyone should see anything that appears to him excellent
and not behold it with pleasure, and it’s impossible to be affected
with the mercy and love of God, and his willingness to be merciful to
us and love us, and not be affected with pleasure at the thoughts of [it];
but this is the very affection that begets true repentance. How much
soever of a paradox it may seem, it is true that repentance is a sweet
sorrow, so that the more of this sorrow, the more pleasure.17
This is astonishing and true. And if you have lived long with Christ and
are aware of your indwelling sin, you will have found it to be so. Yes,
there is repentance. Yes, there are tears of remorse and brokenheartedness.
But they flow from a new taste of the soul for the pleasures at God’s
right hand that up till now have been scorned.
Objection #4: Surely elevating the pursuit of joy to supreme importance
will overturn the teaching of Jesus about self-denial. How can you
affirm a passion for pleasure as the driving force of the Christian life and
at the same time embrace self-denial?
Edwards turns this objection right on its head and argues that self-
30 A GOD-ENTRANCED VISION OF ALL THINGS
17 Ibid., 18-19.
denial not only does not contradict the quest for joy, but in fact destroys
the root of sorrow. Here is the way he says it:
Self-denial will also be reckoned amongst the troubles of the godly. . . . But
whoever has tried self-denial can give in his testimony that they never experience
greater pleasure and joys than after great acts of self-denial. Selfdenial
destroys the very root and foundation of sorrow, and is nothing else
but the lancing of a grievous and painful sore that effects a cure and brings
abundance of health as a recompense for the pain of the operation.18
In other words, the whole approach of the Bible, Edwards would say, is
to persuade us that denying ourselves the “fleeting pleasures of sin”
(Heb. 11:25) puts us on the path of “pleasures forevermore” at God’s
right hand (Ps. 16:11). There is no contradiction between the centrality
of delight in God and the necessity of self-denial, since self-denial
“destroys the root . . . of sorrow.”19
Objection #5: Becoming a Christian adds more trouble to life and
brings persecutions, reproaches, suffering, and even death. It is misleading,
therefore, to say that the essence of being a Christian is joy.
There are overwhelming sorrows.
This would be a compelling objection in a world like ours, so full
of suffering and so hostile to Christianity, if it were not for the
sovereignty and goodness of God. Edwards is unwavering in his biblical
belief that God designs all the afflictions of the godly for the increase
of their everlasting joy.
He puts it in a typically striking way: “Religion [Christianity] brings
no new troubles upon man but what have more of pleasure than of trouble.”
20 In other words, the only troubles that God permits in the lives of
his children are those that will bring more pleasure than trouble with
them—when all things are considered. He cites four passages of
Scripture. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you
A God-Entranced Vision of All Things 31
18 Edwards, “The Pleasantness of Religion,” 19.
19 Edwards explains the paradox of self-denial in another way: “There is no pleasure but what brings
more of sorrow than of pleasure, but what the godly man either does or may enjoy” (“The Pleasantness
of Religion,” 18). In other words, there is no pleasure that godly people may not enjoy except those
that bring more sorrow than pleasure. Or to put it in the astonishing way that makes it understandable:
Christians may seek and should seek only those pleasures that are maximally pleasurable—that
is, that have the least sorrows as consequences, including in eternity.
20 Edwards, “The Pleasantness of Religion,” 18. He goes on to say, “Reproaches are ordered by God
for this end, that they may destroy sin, which is the chief root of the troubles of the godly man, and the
destruction of it a foundation for delight” (19).
and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and
be glad, for your reward is great in heaven” (Matt. 5:11). “Count it all
joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know
that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (Jas. 1:2-3). “Then
they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted
worthy to suffer dishonor for the name” (Acts 5:41). “You joyfully
accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves
had a better possession and an abiding one” (Heb. 10:34).
In other words, yes, becoming a Christian adds more trouble to life
and brings persecutions, reproaches, suffering, and even death. Yes,
there are overwhelming sorrows. But the pursuit of infinite pleasure in
God, and the confidence that Christ has purchased it for us, does not
contradict these sufferings but carries them. By this joy and this hope we
are able to suffer on the Calvary road of ministry and missions and love.
“For the joy that was set before him” Jesus “endured the cross” (Heb.
12:2). He fixed his gaze on the completion of his joy. That gaze sustained
the greatest act of love that ever was. The same gaze—the completion
of our joy in God—will sustain us as well. The pursuit of that joy doesn’t
contradict suffering—it carries it. The completion of Christ’s great,
global mission will demand suffering. Therefore, if you love the nations,
pursue this God-entranced vision of all things.
Objection #6: Where is the cross of Jesus Christ in all of this? Where
is regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Where is justification by faith alone?
I will not answer these questions here, but rather in the sermon
reprinted in the first appendix at the end of this book. Sometimes the
more precious and important things you save for last.
Objection #7: Did not Edwards extol the virtue of “disinterested
love” to God? How could love to God that is driven by the pursuit of
pleasure in God be called “disinterested”?
It’s true Edwards used the term “disinterested love” in reference to
God.
I must leave it to everyone to judge for himself . . . concerning mankind,
how little there is of this disinterested love to God, this pure divine
affection, in the world.21
32 A GOD-ENTRANCED VISION OF ALL THINGS
21 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 3, Original Sin, ed. Clyde A. Holbrook
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1970), 144.
There is no other love so much above the selfish principle as Christian
love is; no love that is so free and disinterested, and in the exercise of
which God is so loved for himself and his own sake.22
But the key to understanding his meaning is found in that last quote.
Disinterested love to God is loving God “for himself and his own sake.”
In other words, Edwards used the term “disinterested love” to designate
love that delights in God for his own greatness and beauty, and to
distinguish it from love that delights only in God’s gifts. Disinterested
love is not love without pleasure. It is love whose pleasure is in God
himself.
In fact, Edwards would say there is no love to God that is not delight
in God. And so if there is a disinterested love to God, there is disinterested
delight in God. And in fact, that is exactly the way he thinks. For
example, he says:
As it is with the love of the saints, so it is with their joy, and spiritual
delight and pleasure: the first foundation of it, is not any consideration
or conception of their interest in divine things; but it primarily consists
in the sweet entertainment their minds have in the view . . . of the divine
and holy beauty of these things, as they are in themselves.23
The “interest” that he rules out does not include “sweet entertainment.”
“Interest” means the benefits received other than delight in God himself.
And “disinterested” love is the “sweet entertainment” or the joy of
knowing God himself.24
Objection #8: Doesn’t the elevation of joy to such a supreme position
in God and in glorifying God lead away from the humility and
brokenness that ought to mark the Christian? Doesn’t it have the flavor
of triumphalism, the very thing that Edwards disapproved in the revival
excesses of his day?
It could be taken that way. All truths can be distorted and misused.
A God-Entranced Vision of All Things 33
22 Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), 174.
23 Edwards, Religious Affections, 249, emphasis added.
24 Norman Fiering is right in the following quote if you take “disinterested” in the absolute sense of
no benefit whatever, not even the “sweet entertainment” of beholding God: “Disinterested love to God
is impossible because the desire for happiness is intrinsic to all willing or loving whatsoever, and God
is the necessary end of the search for happiness. Logically one cannot be disinterested about the source
or basis of all interest.” Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’ Moral Thought in Its British Context
(Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 161.
But if this happens, it will not be the fault of Jonathan Edwards. The
God-enthralled vision of Jonathan Edwards does not make a person presumptuous—
it makes him meek. Listen to these beautiful words about
brokenhearted joy.
All gracious affections that are a sweet odor to Christ, and that fill
the soul of a Christian with a heavenly sweetness and fragrancy, are
brokenhearted affections. A truly Christian love, either to God or
men, is a humble brokenhearted love. The desires of the saints, however
earnest, are humble desires: their hope is a humble hope; and
their joy, even when it is unspeakable, and full of glory, is a humble
brokenhearted joy, and leaves the Christian more poor in spirit, and
more like a little child, and more disposed to a universal lowliness of
behavior.25
The God-enthralled vision of Jonathan Edwards is rare and necessary,
because its foundations are so massive and its fruit is so beautiful. May
the Lord himself open our eyes to see it in these days together and be
changed. And since we are great sinners and have a great Savior, Jesus
Christ, may our watchword ever be, for the glory of God, “sorrowful,
yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10).
34 A GOD-ENTRANCED VISION OF ALL THINGS
25 Edwards, Religious Affections, 348-349.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 16, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianHedonist said:
> ...



The phrase that I put in bold above troubles me. Although I doubt it was the intent of the author of the catechism, it sounds like he is saying that aiming for God's glory is a means to something else, namely, attaining enjoyment. However, *aiming for God's glory should be our highest end and thus should not be a means to another end*. That is why I like the way Piper clarifies it by saying we should glorify God by enjoying him forever. This way of stating it focuses our highest end expressly on God's glory, and treats the enjoyment of God as more of a means unto that end.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 16, 2009)

Greetings ManleyBeasley, ChristianHedonist:

Instead of trying to explain it all to you - I will simply encourage you to follow the teachings of the Westminster Standards:

Throw yourself completely, body, soul, and spirit into the glorification of God. Immerse yourself in His Glory by exercising Faith in Jesus Christ. Be so wrapped up in God that all the cares of the world fade away. Love Him with all of your heart, mind, and soul. Take Him at His Word, "I will be your God, and you shall be my people."

The Bible gives you all of the confidence to approach God through Faith in Jesus Christ:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.

Believeing you rejoice with Joy Unspeakable and Full of Glory

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

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.

Now, try it Dr. Piper's way:

"Seek your joy in God first without believeing, because Joy is the root of saving faith. Joy is "beneath, behind and before faith in Jesus."

The only place in Scripture where I find that people tried it this way is found in the explanation that Jesus gives of the parable of the sower:

but he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy received it; Yet hath he not root in himself (Remember: Joy the root of faith?) but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended, Mt 13:20,21.

Which is the more Biblical: Seeking the glory of God through faith in Christ Jesus?

or,

Seeking your joy in God as a means of glorifying Him?

The former is rock solid. The latter is not so solid as the parable of the sower illustrates.

I leave it in your hands to decide. As for me and my house - we will believe in Jesus.

Blessings to you all,

Rob


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 17, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings ManleyBeasley, ChristianHedonist:
> 
> Instead of trying to explain it all to you - I will simply encourage you to follow the teachings of the Westminster Standards:
> 
> ...




Rob:

You said:


> Now, try it Dr. Piper's way:
> 
> "*Seek your joy in God first without believeing*, because Joy is the root of saving faith. Joy is "beneath, behind and before faith in Jesus."



This is a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Piper's teaching. Jesus Christ is the foundation of my salvation through faith, not through joy. I seek my delight in God, to be satisfied for all that he is for me through Christ, unto his glory.


----------



## kalawine (Jan 17, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> > Does Piper's problem just lie in his liberal use of the term "hedonism," or is there a fundamental problem with the philosophy for which "Christian hedonism" is his label?
> ...



Although I've never read any of Piper's books (only articles on the net and listened to some mp3s) I must agree with this, "Like its heathen counterpart..." I mean Hedonism is the philosophy that "pleasure is of ultimate importance, the most important pursuit." The whole idea flies in the face of true Godliness, does it not?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 17, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings ManleyBeasley, ChristianHedonist:
> ...



Yes, but if you seek your delight in God without exercising faith - which is what Piper is saying, then I invite you to do so. If Joy in Jesus as the foundation of your salvatio, then I invite you to do so without having to exercise faith.

If you can have joy in Jesus without faith, then go for it!

Rob


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jan 17, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Yes, but if you seek your delight in God without exercising faith - which is what Piper is saying, then I invite you to do so. If Joy in Jesus as the foundation of your salvatio, then I invite you to do so without having to exercise faith.
> 
> If you can have joy in Jesus without faith, then go for it!
> 
> Rob



Let me make myself clearer: It is _through faith_ that I seek to delight in God unto his glory. Faith in Christ is the foundation of my salvation. John Piper does not teach that we are to seek delight in God without faith. Remember, brother, that we should keep the 9th commandment in mind and be careful about the claims we make when we speak about someone's faith and theology.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 17, 2009)

kalawine said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianHedonist said:
> ...



What Piper is saying is that enjoying God Himself is vital in man's glorification of Him. How can it be said that man could possibly honor God while not treasuring, loving, desiring, adoring, ie enjoying God? Can a man purposefully honor God rightly when he doesn't enjoy God more than money, sex, football, and cars? Piper doesn't throw out the duties set forth in scripture in any way but claims that those duties are not God honoring if they are not preformed with love and adoration (enjoyment) as the motive.

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 04:28:52 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



Rob, you are not wrong in what you are saying. Faith must be exercised. You are wrong in believing that Dr. Piper believes that these things happen apart from faith. As I said before, your error is that you see these things (regeneration, faith, repentance) happening in a temporal sequence. Though they follow a logical sequence they occur in time at once. When one is regenerated he receives faith at that time. He also receives repentance.

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 04:39:47 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings ManleyBeasley, ChristianHedonist:
> 
> Instead of trying to explain it all to you - I will simply encourage you to follow the teachings of the Westminster Standards:
> 
> ...



Rob, this is very unfair. No one believes this seeking of joy in God happens apart from faith. Not me, not Dan, not John Piper. Don't you think that it's more possible that you may be misunderstanding what Dr. Piper means than it is that we have all excluded faith from salvation? Do you think R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, J.I. Packer, and Jerry Bridges would have all written glowing recommendations of "Desiring God" if Dr. Piper had committed such a gross error?


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 6, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> The fundamental problem is that hedonism as a philosophy inevitably leads to a utilitarian system of ethics. If Christian hedonism is permitted to permeate one's thought life it will eventually undermine the deontological morality of revealed truth and some form of utilitarianism will take its place. John Stuart Mill has already wandered down this path: "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (Utilitarianism, 1867, p. 31.) It is sad to see men failing to learn the lessons of the past.



I think you might have slightly misread Piper's position. It's not that God seeks ultimately the good of his creatures by making much of them, but that he desires their ulimatel joy that can only be found when the creature makes much of God. The theology is entirely God-honouring to the highest level, thus making God, his supremacy, holiness and ethical standard as the highest good to be sought after and practiced.

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes through Piper's use of the term "hedonism" which does have its negative connotations. But I appreciate the use of this word in all its force (even in the risk of being misconstrued). It all suggests that what we might find in God truly is a delight of the richest kind. 

____________________________________________________

In terms of the on-going debate. I appreciate Calvinhodges desire to protect Reformed standards by not allowing some intermediary to stand between regeration and faith. Indeed faith is essential to any union with Christ and reconciliation with God - which is eternal life and ultimate joy. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. If the debate is centering on a phrase now-edited out, then there's probably no point continuing. 

I would say that perhaps Piper new definition of what is means to glorify God does rest on some presuppositions concerning the human condition, in particular our bent toward self interest. I do find the discussion on joy to be vague at times. For the most part, it resides the emotional realm, of which we know little nor have much control over. 

Serving as a missionary in Thailand, I have found the religious sentiment of the people as being very self-less and opposed to personal gain, thus Piper's theology may be construed as vastly inferior to Buddhism. Teaching this theology does not come easily. But then again, is might strike a resonant chord with some. Time will tell.

Let's keep learning and loving ..

Den.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> The theology is entirely God-honouring to the highest level, thus making God, his supremacy, holiness and ethical standard as the highest good to be sought after and practiced.



If God's supremacy is the highest good, then hedonism of any kind is false, since hedonism by definition is "the doctrine that pleasure is the chief good." If the teaching is misunderstood it is owing entirely to the people who espouse it.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Feb 6, 2009)

CarsonLAllen said:


> Can you all give me your opinion on Christian Hedonism as put forth in "Desiring God", and "The Dangerous Duty of Delight" by John Piper.
> 
> As of now I hold to this doctrine and try to apply to my life daily. I have not realy read a critique. So any comments will be greatly thought through by me.
> 
> ...



Well there is always Peter Masters' critique


----------



## discipulo (Feb 6, 2009)

I just read Peter Master’s critique of John Piper’s concept, thank you, Masters is truly worth reading, as one would expect from one of the front leaders of Reformed Thought in the UK.

Still, I think, rephrasing Luther, that certain portions of truth are more urgent to a certain generation or context, and to avoid those is a great fault.

Piper addresses a society and a culture, this generation in the Western World, that is intoxicated with pleasure seeking, self indulgence, materialism, easy living, etc.

Yet like drinking salty water, their inner thirst is not quenched but worsened.

While Piper proclaims the One Who can truly satisfy the soul with Living Water.

_To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that He might be glorified. _Isaiah 61:3


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Feb 6, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > The theology is entirely God-honouring to the highest level, thus making God, his supremacy, holiness and ethical standard as the highest good to be sought after and practiced.
> ...


You cannot separate them. If God is supreme then He should be enjoyed and treasured. If He isn't He is dishonored. To seek one's joy in God is to seek the glorification of God.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> You cannot separate them. If God is supreme then He should be enjoyed and treasured. If He isn't He is dishonored. To seek one's joy in God is to seek the glorification of God.



Clearly the Scriptures teach that a believer's full enjoyment of God shall not be experienced until he is safely admitted into the presence of God in heaven, Jude 24, and that for the present he must count certain laborious and undesirable situations as a joy for the sake of glorifying the Most High, James 1:2-4. Given this clear teaching of Scripture, it is obvious that the glorifying of God and the enjoying of God are not commensurate and therefore can and ought to be separated.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot separate them. If God is supreme then He should be enjoyed and treasured. If He isn't He is dishonored. To seek one's joy in God is to seek the glorification of God.
> ...



Yes, but don't the Scriptures also clearly teach in 1 Pet 1:8-9 that, "Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls" ? It seems that Peter here is speaking of a present inexpressible joy that is available to those loving Christ for his salvific work. 

In the end we need to grapple with Piper's main presupposition, that is, to enjoy and delight in God brings him greater glory than to present to him a colder, "Kantian" worship of duty. I think he is right on this point, though I admit that I can only know this through my own subjective understanding of human reality.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 03:06:56 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> it is obvious that the glorifying of God and the enjoying of God are not commensurate and therefore can and ought to be separated.



We probably need to nuance our understanding of God's glory a bit here. There is the sense that God is glorious out of the necessity of his being. When the Trinity existed in eternity past before having created anything, God was supremely glorious and no glory could ever be added to what he has always possessed. However, the Bible seems to also speak of a glory that comes as a result of created beings becoming more and more aware of God's infinite attributes and works. In this sense, God's glory is "increasing" in degree. This is where Piper makes his point I think. On this second tier of God's manifest glory among his creation, the enjoyment thereof elevates it to a "higher state" as it were.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot separate them. If God is supreme then He should be enjoyed and treasured. If He isn't He is dishonored. To seek one's joy in God is to seek the glorification of God.
> ...



We may be shooting past one another here. The point you made indicates what I'm saying. If we go through difficult circumstances and instead of being bitter and miserable we have joy in God and in the fact that he is being honored, this glorifies God. Seeking joy in God Himself means it is our joy to see Him glorified. He is more glorified the more we enjoy Him even though the world around us falls to pieces. The world has no explanation for the way a Christian can endure a trial with joy. It proves to them that the world is not our treasure but that God is supremely valuable. Can a Christian honor God if he doesn't value/treasure/enjoy Him? How can we glorify God without obeying the command to delight in Him?


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> If we go through difficult circumstances and instead of being bitter and miserable we have joy in God and in the fact that he is being honored, this glorifies God.



This "joy" is a matter of consideration, not an experience of the whole man, as many of the Psalms testify. Faith comes first and sight follows. This demonstrates yet another weakness in the hedonistic argument, because it is clear that a chief end is something which ought to be pursued holistically, but the physical element of the Christian ought to be subdued and denied pleasures that it naturally seeks. Not until the redemption of the body will the Christian be able to holistically enjoy God.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > If we go through difficult circumstances and instead of being bitter and miserable we have joy in God and in the fact that he is being honored, this glorifies God.
> ...



Ah, I see what you're saying with the word "holistically". I completely agree with you because this present flesh cannot love or enjoy God. Piper completely agrees with what you're saying. He preaches that enjoying God comes through faith and does not believe it happens holistically. You certainly have an argument that "hedonism" may not be the best word for Dr. Piper to use but I assure you he agrees with you that it is not a fleshly pursuit. I encourage you to listen to his preaching on "prosperity gospel".

[video=youtube;mOPzFGSL2Sw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOPzFGSL2Sw&feature=channel_page[/video]


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> I encourage you to listen to his preaching on "prosperity gospel".



Good to see he gets "upset" with prosperity evangelists also.


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 8, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianHedonist said:
> ...



By using he word *Hedonism*

" *Hedonism is the philosophy that ones own pleasure is of ultimate importance, the most important pursuit. The name derives from the Greek word for "delight" (ἡδονισμός hēdonismos from ἡδονή hēdonē "pleasure", a cognate of English sweet + suffix ισμός ismos "ism").* "

Words have meanings, and those who try to change their meanings all on their own are not changing the meaning of the word they just add confusion. Piper knows this, he makes his living by the words he speaks. In the end is making a sinful philosophy more palatable to those who are truly desiring God. I believe Piper is in error in using the word Hedonism and making it seem acceptable in Christian practice. Note, I do not believe he is preaching heresy for I seriously doubt he believes or is teaching that ones own pleasure is of the ultimate importance. But by using that word he is by mistake opening up a lot of doors for interpretations.

Note, I believe using terms like Christian Hedonism and Christian Egalitarianism, or many other philosophies by putting a Christian label on it indicates that it is more than likely not of Christ. For if it was, you wouldn't have to white wash it with Christ name. The way of thinking or model of life is either inherently Godly or it is not. For example, Marriage itself is Godly. And means that a man and wife have joined to become one flesh. And when talking about Marriage in a Christian community we need not label it as Christian. And when the Christian is confronted with a couple of the same sex that say they are married the Christian should not accept that couple as being married, but should declare it for what it is, and that is an abomination of Marriage. Same hold true for when a man marries his daughter, it is an abomination. We need not redefine things. Piper by redefining a sinful philosophy is treading on dangerous ground, by making a devilish word acceptable to Christians.

After all, if you call me a hedonist, I don't really care what context you meant it in, you are stating that I am lost in my sin.

Oh, well, guess I have strong opinions. I hope I didn't insult any piper fans. I've only read parts of the book by the way.:


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 9, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> ChristianHedonist;529774[RIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 10, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianHedonist;529774[RIGHT said:
> ...


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 10, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Wanderer said:
> ...


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 10, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 10, 2009)

Wanderer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Wanderer said:
> ...


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 10, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 10, 2009)

Brothers,

We should give the current contextual usage of a term priority over its historical use or etymological root. I think it’s vital that we do theology with a proper understanding of sound linguistic principles. For example, the discipline of lexicography (def. “the science or practice of defining words”) is primarily _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_. Lexicographers who compile a dictionary do not meet together, choose a word, decide its meaning or meanings, and then prescribe that meaning on society. Rather, lexicographers observe the usage of a given word in various contexts and offer a description of how that word is used in said contexts (contemporary and/or historical). That description, in turn, becomes the definition or definitions of the word found in a dictionary. A good theologian will choose a word whose observed and described semantic value accurately communicates the biblical concept that the theologian wishes to communicate to a given audience. 

Piper himself offers a lengthy apologetic for his use of the phrase “Christian Hedonism.” You can find it in Appendix 4 of the 2nd edition of _Desiring God_ (Multnomah Press, 1996). He offers six reasons which in a nutshell are 1) the definition in Webster’s dictionary is generic enough to justify its use, 2) according to the article on “hedonism” in the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, the term “hedonism” is not tied to any particular worldview or philosophy but may be used more loosely to denote the pursuit of pleasure, 3) others before him have spoken of Christianity in terms of a kind of hedonism (he cites three examples), 4) the phase has “an arresting and jolting affect,” and he wants to get people to open their ears to what he believes is a biblical message, 5) Jesus and the Scripture writers sometimes employed language with worldly connotations in order to make an important biblical point, and 6) by attaching the word “Christian” to “Hedonism,” he is signaling “loud and clear that this is no ordinary hedonism…. Every claim to truth that flies under the banner of Christian Hedonism must be solidly rooted in the Christian Scriptures, the Bible. And the Bible teaches that man’s chief end is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever.” (pp. 287-90).

Does the Scripture ever use the terminology from which the term “hedonism” is drawn in a positive sense? Yes, sometimes. For example, in LXX of Numbers 11:8 we read, And the people went through the field, and gathered [the manna], and ground it in the mill, or pounded it in a mortar, and baked it in a pan, and made cakes of it; and the sweetness [_hedone_] of it was as the taste of wafer made with oil.” In Proverbs 17:1, Solomon advises, “Better is a morsel with pleasure [_hedones_] in peace, than a house full of many good things and unjust sacrifices, with strife” (LXX). Even when used negatively, the negative element is not necessarily inherent to the word itself but is determined _by the context_. So Jesus says in Luke 8:14, “And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.” But the negative connotation of “cares” [_merimnon_], “riches” [_ploutou_], and “pleasures” [_hedonon_] is not derived from the Greek words themselves but from the qualifying phrase “of life” and by the theological fact that such “cares, riches, and pleasures of this life” may not be evil in themselves but become evil when they are treasured more than Christ and the gospel. Hence, the issue is _not the word itself_ but _the way the word is being used in a given context_. This is even true of the Greek word _agape_, which is thought by many to refer always to the “noblest form of love.” That assumption is patently false. We’re told in 2 Samuel 13:1 and 15 that Amnon, the son of David, “loved” [_agapao_] his sister Tamar. We know from the context that such “love” was in fact “lust” (in the negative sense). Conversely, the Greek word for “lust,” _epithumia_, may sometimes describe a legitimate desire. Jesus says to his disciples, “I have earnestly desired [_epithumia epithumesa_; literally, ‘I have lusted with lust’!] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:15). 

Context, context, context must decide the day. Therefore, when Piper uses the term “hedonism” in a distinctively Christian and (at least in his view) biblical context, I don’t feel compelled to make a huge fuss. What’s important is what he means by that phrase, which is, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” 

I have discussed the issue fallacious arguments based on faulty linguistics in a blog article entitled, "Yes, We May Be Passionate: A Friendly Response to Dr. James Renihan's 'Are You Passionate?'" The article focuses on whether we may use terms like "passion(s)" or "passionate" in a positive sense (such as "God's Passion for His Own Glory"). I think the discussion there is related to the question of the propriety of the terminology "Christian Hedonism" being discussed here. 

Hope this is helpful.


----------

