# "Piper is Down. Repeat, We Have a Piper Down"



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

Dear list,

My Presbytery thesis for my Final Trials is complete. If anyone would kine to read it, it is avaiable on my blog site in PDF form. If you like Piper, you'll hate the essay. If you like the Puritans, you'll like the paper.

http://www.freewebs.com/knowhim/articles.htm

The article is titled "And Enjoy Him Forever: A Reformed Look at Christian Hedonism"- (.pdf) Jerrold H. Lewis. 

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2005)

Love the thread title! 

The paper is excellent, Jerrold! I never liked the phrase "Christian hedonism." You have expounded Puritan thought on the chief end of man admirably. There is much wisdom from your pen as well as from the sources that you cite. Very well done!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

Thanks a bunch Andrew!

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Dear list,
> 
> My Presbytery thesis for my Final Trials is complete. If anyone would kine to read it, it is avaiable on my blog site in PDF form. If you like Piper, you'll hate the essay. If you like the Puritans, you'll like the paper.
> ...



You have to write a thesis? And I thot WE had it rough!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

It's the old Scottish way. :bigsmile:

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 13, 2005)

The OLD Scottish way was to do it in Latin! 

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

er... the new old Scottish way then. 

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

BTW Chris, the guy standing in your Avitar looks like he is holding a remote. 


Jer


----------



## Ivan (Apr 13, 2005)

Although I like much of what Piper has written, I have NEVER like the term "Christian Hedonsim" either. As I have time, and I have precious little these days, I'll be reading your paper, Jerrold.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 13, 2005)




----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Although I like much of what Piper has written, I have NEVER like the term "Christian Hedonsim" either. As I have time, and I have precious little these days, I'll be reading your paper, Jerrold.



Thanks Ivan!

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 13, 2005)

Sort of does doesn't it. 
This is detail from The Covenanters. For anyone interested, I still have some of these high quality reproductions at Naphtali Press, click on Reformed Art. Only one of the large ones left.
http://www.naphtali.com


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 13, 2005)

It's pretty good in general, although I'm not a big reader of Piper.

One minor question, what does Fanny Crosby's song on pp. 14-15 have to does with Christian contentment?


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> It's pretty good in general, although I'm not a big reader of Piper.
> 
> One minor question, what does Fanny Crosby's song on pp. 14-15 have to does with Christian contentment?




I thought the context of the lyrics spoke for themselves. I guess not. Happiness is founded on contentment, and contentrment on assurance.
If you have no assurance of God's love you will never be content nor happy as per the Chief End of Man.

Kind regards,
Jerrold


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 13, 2005)

I can't seem to open it. I have Adobe 7.0 with its updates. The other articles open just fine? It says something about my security settings not allowing it. I turned them off and it still comes up. What can I do? I want to read the paper. 

Please help me. Randy


----------



## daveb (Apr 13, 2005)

Jerrold,

Great paper, really enjoyed reading it! Thanks for making it available. BTW, this is the first thread title that made me laugh.


----------



## re4md (Apr 13, 2005)

I can't open it for the same reasons as Randy. I disabled my pop up blocker and enabled cookies. 

I really want to read this!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by re4md_
> I can't open it for the same reasons as Randy. I disabled my pop up blocker and enabled cookies.
> 
> I really want to read this!



If you send me your email addy, I can fire over a copy.

[email protected]

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Jerrold,
> 
> Great paper, really enjoyed reading it! Thanks for making it available. BTW, this is the first thread title that made me laugh.



So glad you liked the paper. As for the thread title...I could not resist 

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

In light of the moderator's post, perhaps I should have listed this initial post in theology, or some other forum. My apologies.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by re4md_
> I can't open it for the same reasons as Randy. I disabled my pop up blocker and enabled cookies.
> 
> I really want to read this!



If you still cannot open it, email me at [email protected] and I will send it to you.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 14, 2005)

Thanks for sharing your Thesis Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> Thanks for sharing your Thesis Jerrold



Thanks for reading it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 14, 2005)

Send it to Piper.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 14, 2005)

I have one question. Are you interpreting Piper correctly? Are you letting Piper define his teaching here. I am not a Piper fan, per se. I have only read three of his books. The biography series. I partially read Desiring God. We all use defined words and add twists to them to illustrate things sometimes. I believe he defined himself and what he meant. It is easy to correct someone we are not letting fully define what he is saying. I know in my heart he wouldn't want anyone to be a heathen or act like a hedonist. He was just showing the pursuit and vigor of the hedonist and the way they go whole heartedly toward pleasure. I believe Piper is saying we ought to be pursuing Christ as the hedonists pursues pleasure. And by doing so we would find true pleasure. 

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## JOwen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I have one question. Are you interpreting Piper correctly? Are you letting Piper define his teaching here. I am not a Piper fan, per se. I have only read three of his books. The biography series. I partially read Desiring God. We all use defined words and add twists to them to illustrate things sometimes. I believe he defined himself and what he meant. It is easy to correct someone we are not letting fully define what he is saying. I know in my heart he wouldn't want anyone to be a heathen or act like a hedonist. He was just showing the pursuit and vigor of the hedonist and the way they go whole heartedly toward pleasure. I believe Piper is saying we ought to be pursuing Christ as the hedonists pursues pleasure. And by doing so we would find true pleasure.
> 
> For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy
> ...




Hi Randy,

Thanks for taking the time for reading my thesis.
You asked me if I am interpreting Piper correctly. That is for you to decide. The thesis is meant to be a critical analisis. I happen to think Piper while a great author, is not untouchable when it comes to criticism, and that he has misrepresented what place enjoying God has in the life of the believer.

You said, "I believe Piper is saying we ought to be pursuing Christ as the hedonists pursues pleasure." I disagree brother. Any "ism" is a philosophy of life or a grid by which we interpret thought. Piper thinks that hedon[ism] is a good overarching theme for a believer. I disagree, and I think that my paper presents an arguement that demonstrates the Puritans do too.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 15, 2005)

I will have to go find a copy of his book. I'm not so sure he would say hedonism is a good thing. Like I said before I think he is comparing the attraction of the heart the hedonist has toward pursuing pleasure is what he is getting at. We ought to pursue God whole heartedly. I will examine it closer though. I just think he is speaking comparatively and you are not liking the imperfection of his comparison.

I am not criticizing your pursuit to clarify things. I would have chosen a better word than hedonism. I believe the old puritans did just fine in speaking of contentment, personal holiness, and seeking God's Kingdom with the whole heart., mind, and soul. The Psalms speak about delighting in the Lord. These are sufficient terms without using the word hedonism. Just don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

Be Encouraged brother. Just doing what you are doing, being a little critical in love for the truth. 

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy



[Edited on 4-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 15, 2005)

Piper is trying to make a point, at a popular level, and I will concede that he makes statements that are misguided, and definately open to criticism. (especially in suggesting that the Westminster Q#1 should be altered, which is silly) I agree with his basic point, "God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him", but this gets misinterpreted by his popularizing style. This is why he has had to write papers to deflect such criticisms, when if he had been more careful he would not have to.

If Piper is read only critically, to find fault, we can easily do so. We can do the same for any author. We are wise if we take the point he is making and subject it to Scripture, correct it where it is misguided, and strip it of unhelpful "slogans"---if they are unhelpful to us. "Christian Hedonism" is used by Piper for its shock value. The fact that it is an oxymoron is its intended irony. It's merely Piper's attempt to get across the point Jonathon Edwards makes in his first of seventy resolutions... _"Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God' s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure..."_ We could easily take this statement of Edwards and be misled, but since we know his theology in total, we are not. The same is true of Piper. Anyone who knows Piper's theology knows he does not advocate a type of secular hedonism.

A Response to Richard Mouw Here he addresses most of the main criticisms put forth in this paper.

Was Jonathon Edwards a Christian Hedonist?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 15, 2005)

Thanks Rick.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Piper is trying to make a point, at a popular level, and I will concede that he makes statements that are misguided, and definitely open to criticism. (especially in suggesting that the Westminster Q#1 should be altered, which is silly) I agree with his basic point, "God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him", but this gets misinterpreted by his popularizing style. This is why he has had to write papers to deflect such criticisms, when if he had been more careful he would not have to.
> 
> If Piper is read only critically, to find fault, we can easily do so. We can do the same for any author. We are wise if we take the point he is making and subject it to Scripture, correct it where it is misguided, and strip it of unhelpful "slogans"---if they are unhelpful to us. "Christian Hedonism" is used by Piper for its shock value. The fact that it is an oxymoron is its intended irony. It's merely Piper's attempt to get across the point Jonathon Edwards makes in his first of seventy resolutions... _"Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God' s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure..."_ We could easily take this statement of Edwards and be misled, but since we know his theology in total, we are not. The same is true of Piper. Anyone who knows Piper's theology knows he does not advocate a type of secular hedonism.
> ...



Thank you Rick for your thoughts. I am not above criticism, and neither is Piper. The point of my paper was not that we should not seek pleasure in God, but that is should not be our "ism". Ism's have the great tendency to overismplify and create doctrines of imbalance. "Shock value" ought not to enter the fray (In my humble opinion) when it comes to the chief end of man. The Puritans believed that enjoying God was a subordinate result of glorifying God. Piper does not. I agree with the Puritans. 
I must admit that a mainline baptist, criticizing my Confession and Catechism in such a flippant way might have exercised me to investigate Piper's thesis in a critical way, but we should remember that in 40 pages, Piper is only mentioned in three places.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Solo Christo (Apr 15, 2005)

I've tried to read this thread three times now, but keep giggling at the title! Oh goodness!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> I've tried to read this thread three times now, but keep giggling at the title! Oh goodness!



 and it's my title. :bigsmile:


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 15, 2005)

I just finished reading the article, and I commend you for it. Although Piper has many good things to say, I do not agree with him on his use of hedonism, and he has a dangerous view of justification.

Our bible study is moving from a 2.5 year study on the WCF to the WLC/WSC, so this was helpful in understanding the first question.

Thanks!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I just finished reading the article, and I commend you for it. Although Piper has many good things to say, I do not agree with him on his use of hedonism, and he has a dangerous view of justification.
> 
> Our bible study is moving from a 2.5 year study on the WCF to the WLC/WSC, so this was helpful in understanding the first question.
> ...



Thanks Jeff. The study was an eye opener for me as well.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Send it to Piper.



Hmmm, do you have his email addy?

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I just finished reading the article, and I commend you for it. Although Piper has many good things to say, I do not agree with him on his use of hedonism, and he has a dangerous view of justification.




Dangerous?

.

.

.

Can you explain?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 15, 2005)

I don't want to speak for Jeff, but I suspect he means some of Dr. Piper's confusing and inconsistant language in defining Justification at times. I'm not certain if it is because he tends to go for shock value and in doing so has a loose rein on his language. Or if it is a momentary lapse of reason.

l


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Even though justification was mentioned in passing the article wasn't about justification. Piper is very solid on justification.


[Edited on 4-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



To follow up and secure the point - 

-have you ever heard of a Puritan creating a short catch phrase that sums up "the Christian life?" Catchy, pithy?

And the peanut gallery says - nope!


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



On another thread here in the Puritan Board, someone directed me to Vincent Cheung's blog where I read about Piper's "less than clear" termonology. I think they may have a point.

I think Vincent Cheung's blog will explain it better than I can! 

Click Here


----------



## JOwen (Apr 16, 2005)

[/quote]


Dangerous?

.

.

.

Can you explain? [/quote]

On another thread here in the Puritan Board, someone directed me to Vincent Cheung's blog where I read about Piper's "less than clear" termonology. I think they may have a point.

I think Vincent Cheung's blog will explain it better than I can! 

Click Here [/quote]

I thought Cheung's critique was spot on. Piper needs to be careful.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2005)

Just to let everyone know, my Piper paper was accepted, graded, and passed on to the Assembly for ordination requirements along with the other written requirements (Greek, Hebrew etc). Thanks for the interaction and feedback folks. Now, OFF TO SCOTLAND!!!

Kind regards,

Jerrold H. Lewis
Soon to be ex-student of the Scottish Presbytery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Just to let everyone know, my Piper paper was accepted, graded, and passed on to the Assembly for ordination requirements along with the other written requirements (Greek, Hebrew etc). Thanks for the interaction and feedback folks. Now, OFF TO SCOTLAND!!!
> 
> Kind regards,
> ...


You mean off to the fatherland? Congrats!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JOwen_
> ...



Yep. I'll be preaching in Inverness, Dundee, Dingwall, Stornoway, and Harris. I plan on visiting M'Cheyne's church and memorabilia (library);
Willison's Church in Dundee; Andrew Bonar's church at Collace; Wishart's
Arch; St Andrews Catherdral with Rutherford and Halliburton's graves, etc; Archbishop Sharp's Magus Moor field of death in Fife; Thomas Chalmer's 1st parish Kilmeny. Digital cam in hand!

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2005)

Congrats!


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 27, 2005)

Do you need a caddie or porter? I'll be glad to tote you bags. I could drop in on my cousins and get you a fine home cooked meal to boot! Dinna ya ker lad. Weel be takin yoo roun'


----------



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Do you need a caddie or porter? I'll be glad to tote you bags. I could drop in on my cousins and get you a fine home cooked meal to boot! Dinna ya ker lad. Weel be takin yoo roun'





Presbytery is paying for my wife and one child to come along and that is all we can afford. Thanks for asking however!

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## mrclm (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



John Stepen Piper
720 13th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612 3387653
[email protected]

Just FYI, don't know if you are still interested or if anyone else responded.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mrclm_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JOwen_
> ...



Thank you for the addresses.

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## caddy (Sep 29, 2006)

I cannot access it from the site. Do you have to have membership to that website?



> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ivan_
> ...


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

No, the site is now down. I have moved the whole thing to my blog. 
http://kerugma.solideogloria.com/

Blessings,

JL


----------



## shackleton (Apr 12, 2007)

*Thesis*

When I clicked on the link it said, "page not found." I would be interested in reading your thesis.


----------



## JM (Apr 12, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> On another thread here in the Puritan Board, someone directed me to Vincent Cheung's blog where I read about Piper's "less than clear" termonology. I think they may have a point.
> 
> I think Vincent Cheung's blog will explain it better than I can!
> 
> Click Here



Cheung


----------



## Davidius (Apr 12, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Love the thread title!



I thought it was a little uncharitable and immature. We're not out to "shoot down" our brothers, are we?


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 12, 2007)

Rev. Lewis,

Can you post the link to the article in your blog? I can't find the article there. Thanks!


As for the thread title, I liked it, thought it was funny. I saw it more as tongue in cheek than a shot at Piper. In any case, I don't think there are many people that last more than 6 or 7 posts without being called a heretic by someone.  

I'm not really into the Christian Hedonism idea myself (nor the pithy one-liners that attempt to sum up 10 volumes of doctrine).


----------



## Davidius (Apr 12, 2007)

kvanlaan said:


> Rev. Lewis,
> 
> As for the thread title, I liked it, thought it was funny. I saw it more as tongue in cheek than a shot at Piper. In any case, I don't think there are many people that last more than 6 or 7 posts without being called a heretic by someone.



I have to admit that I found it funny too, but that doesn't make it okay. Perhaps that tells us something if not many can last 6 or 7 posts without being called a heretic. I just would've felt better laughing if the title were saying that the doctrine had been cast down instead of the person, since I'm assuming that's what the paper is about. 

Or maybe I'm just sensitive because I'm in the Reformed church because of _Desiring God_. Sorry if I overreacted.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 12, 2007)

I should send this to all my old friends at Moody Bible. Though they don't agree with everything, I had a lot of discussions about Piper. A lot of the guys there said that Piper was the greatest thelogian of our time!!!

I said respectfully, you better go and expand your reading then!!! Anyway thanks for the paper, I hope to get around to reading it soon!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 12, 2007)

I think Robbins misinterpreted Piper on justification. Then Cheung blogs about it while confessing he is "no expert on Piper." Perhaps Cheung should have found out firsthand what Piper's views on justification were before blogging about it.

Piper teaches faith without works is dead, and if I'm not mistaken that's what N.T. writers such as James taught as well. Anybody that thinks Piper believes we're justified by our subsequent acts of obedience has seriously misrepresented the man. He has written a book entitled _Counted Righteous in Christ _that deals with the imputation of Christ's righteousness.


----------



## Herald (Apr 12, 2007)

I may be late in offering this comment, by the term "Christian Hedonism" accomplished Piper's intent which was to cause Christian's to deal with the issue of the "chief end of man."


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 13, 2007)

Found the article, Rev Lewis (the search box comes up in Chinese here and I couldn't read it). No need to post the link.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2007)

I'll see if I can put it up on PB as an attachment.

Cheers!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2007)

hmmmm, 
Exceeds forum quota by 1.22 MB. I'll try and post it on another site.

Try here for the thesis.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 13, 2007)

I don't believe that Piper is above criticism, but I also don't believe you have accurately reflected his thoughts in certain areas.


You said in your thesis, "_Piper has missed the point not only in degree but in kind by making man the center of the Christian experience instead of Christ_."

That's just not an accurate assessment of what Piper teaches. Anybody that has spent any amount of time studying him would know that he stresses Christ-centeredness above all else. That's the foundation of Christian Hedonism. 


You said in your thesis, "_The Puritan Richard Sibbes on the other hand, understood that sanctification is the great bulwark of our preparation for heaven when he insists, "Those that look to be happy must first look to be holy." This is a glaring weakness in Piper's thesis that should not go unnoticed_."

Again, it's obvious that you've spent very little time listening to Piper's sermons and reading much of his other material. Sanctification is not something that is missing from Piper's doctrine.


I don't have time to expound more because I have to prepare for this coming Lord's day. From what I've read of your thesis it was well written and you argued your points well. However, I think you've misrepresented what Piper teaches. 

God Bless!


----------



## shackleton (Apr 13, 2007)

I haven't read "Desiring God" however, I have l read a book by Piper entitled, "God's Passion for His Glory," which is an expose of a writing by Jonathan Edwards, "The End for Which God Created the World." In this Piper states, "God's is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him." He states it is not about _stuff_ but having such a relationship with God and being so content _in_ Him that no matter what happens to us in this life, we are not shaken, due to our satisfaction in our relationship with God. Then when God's people are unshaken by the events of life, and in the world, due to their relationship with God, God gets the glory. 

It is based on a striving after contentment in God, not in stuff or pleasure. True contentment comes from our relationship with God and our standing with Him, not in the accumulation of stuff or striving after pleasure. When we get to the place of this contentment, God gets the glory. It is like Paul being imprisoned but still having a good attitude about it, it is all part of God's plan, he still had a good attitude about it and was able to witness to the guards out of that true contentment which did not come from _stuff_ but from a relationship derived from being secure in God. 

I have a audio recording where Piper expounds on this. I don't believe it is on his website. If I can figure out how to post it from my computer I will, if anyone is interested.


----------



## Theogenes (Apr 13, 2007)

Jerrod,
I can't find your article. When I click on the link you posted it says,"Sorry....
Help! I want to read it!
Jim


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 13, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> I don't believe that Piper is above criticism, but I also don't believe you have accurately reflected his thoughts in certain areas.
> 
> 
> You said in your thesis, "_Piper has missed the point not only in degree but in kind by making man the center of the Christian experience instead of Christ_."
> ...



I don't think Jerrod is representing Piper, but representing Piper's work, _Desiring God_. If Piper is not really saying what is found in this book, then he needs to be more clear. Directing people to the rest of Piper's works is not so helpful, when his point on this matter should be stated in a complete and clear way within the work that is specific to the topic that is being addressed.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 14, 2007)

"In Desiring God, Piper has missed the mark of what should be a very profound point. By making pleasure the overarching theme of the Christian life,, Piper has oversimplified the Christian experience and jettisoned the equally profound duties of self-denial, sanctification and obedience to the law."

That's a REAL misrepresentation of Piper if I ever heard one.

In a sermon on Romans 8:
How to Kill Sin Part 1
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/83_How_to_Kill_Sin_Part_1/


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2007)

I always kind of liked Piper. I mean I have heard some sermons and read some of his stuff, it seemed solid.......but I make no claims to be a Theologian!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 14, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> "In Desiring God, Piper has missed the mark of what should be a very profound point. By making pleasure the overarching theme of the Christian life,, Piper has oversimplified the Christian experience and jettisoned the equally profound duties of self-denial, sanctification and obedience to the law."
> 
> That's a REAL misrepresentation of Piper if I ever heard one.
> 
> ...



Then please show how Piper is misrepresented based on Piper's book _Desiring God_.


----------



## Davidius (Apr 14, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I don't think Jerrod is representing Piper, but representing Piper's work, _Desiring God_. If Piper is not really saying what is found in this book, then he needs to be more clear. Directing people to the rest of Piper's works is not so helpful, when his point on this matter should be stated in a complete and clear way within the work that is specific to the topic that is being addressed.





ChristopherPaul said:


> Then please show how Piper is misrepresented based on Piper's book _Desiring God_.



Chris,

This is one reason why I was commenting earlier on the inappropriateness of the thread title. It doesn't say "_Desiring God_ is down." It says "John Piper is down." I would imagine that may be why several people have assumed the shots are being taken at Piper himself, not just the book. Aside from being a shot at his person, it's a confusing and provocative title.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 14, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Chris,
> 
> This is one reason why I was commenting earlier on the inappropriateness of the thread title. It doesn't say "_Desiring God_ is down." It says "John Piper is down." I would imagine that may be why several people have assumed the shots are being taken at Piper himself, not just the book. Aside from being a shot at his person, it's a confusing and provocative title.



I'll keep flying "Air" Piper.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 14, 2007)

Regardless of the title being appropriate or not, what is being critiqued is Piper's exposition on the first catechism question which Piper expounds in detail within his book _Desiring God_. By referring Jerrold to the plethora of sermons and articles by Piper is not addressing the point. Is Piper's work on this issue clear enough as it should be within his very book that is dedicated to matter at hand?

Sure Piper may have got it right when expounding Romans, but was he careless when addressing the topic as a whole with his book? If not, show how Desiring God is being misrepresented? If Piper is being misrepresented, then he is his own accuser with his book. I would like to see how Jerrod is misrepresenting Piper based on a misunderstanding of Piper's book on Christian hedonism. Or does Jerrold understand the book all too well and Piper needs to be more careful?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 14, 2007)

It was tongue in cheek, it was humourous, men throughout history have poked at eachother in a chummy way through eachother to make points on the other's writings, and personally I doubt Piper would act like a five year old over it...he'd probably laugh.

Let's notice also, gentlemen, that this thread is ANCIENT for the world of the internet. Ideals may or may not have changed. Ppl may have change in how they phrase things and may not say the same things they did two years ago. It's old hat...have grace and move on.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 14, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Sure Piper may have got it right when expounding Romans, but was he careless when addressing the topic as a whole with his book?



You know.... there is the fact that his book was not the only thing in print when this thread first began. 

Responsible scholarship checks multiple sources by an author, not just zoom in on what one author considers to be ungaurded statements in one book. This is how you find out whether someone is consistent in their teaching or not.

We don't appreciate it when people zoom in on one statement by Calvin regarding Servetus without appreciating other statements where Calvin sought to reconcile with the man and then even tried to get him a 'nicer death'. 

The fact that Future Grace (which deals with sanctification) was published and available makes the original statement by the author erroneous. The fact that when the author's original article was published, all of Piper's sermons back to 96 were available on the internet for free - including those on sanctification, the necessity of the law for the believer (Piper even has a baptist catechism based on the 1689 on his site which reinforces this).

Eh.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 14, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> You know.... there is the fact that his book was not the only thing in print when this thread first began.
> 
> Responsible scholarship checks multiple sources by an author, not just zoom in on what one author considers to be ungaurded statements in one book. This is how you find out whether someone is consistent in their teaching or not.
> 
> ...



If Calvin dedicated an entire volume to the Servetus issue then you would not need to digest every bit of available material by Calvin before offering an opposing critique on THAT issue.

If you are trying to defend Piper, show where his dedicated volume on the matter is indeed comprehensive and a stand alone defense of the doctrine he is advocating. 

This is kind of like telling an Arminian they cannot understand Owen's view of the atonement through _The Death of Death..._ alone but must digests every work he published first before criticizing Owen's view on the atonement.

I see no need for Jerold to be criticized for not listening to every sermon or reading every work by Piper before he offers a critique on Christian Hedonism.

It is a simple point that I don't think I need to reiterate anymore in this thread.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 14, 2007)

Hello Gentlemen,

Can someone lay out in a concise manner the argument against Piper's _Christian Hedonism_? I am not looking for a full blown argument, but rather just a brief synopsis of the main points. I suspect the criticism will miss Piper's key point that man's satisfaction and God's glory are ends that are intricately tied together - going for one is necessarily going for the other. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## shackleton (Apr 14, 2007)

I wonder if Jerrold Lewis was asked these poinient questions by his prebytery review board, and how he answered them. Since in writing a thesis one is forced to defend it against any such criticisms?


----------



## etexas (Apr 14, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> *We got a world of enemies and once again the Reformed have aimed their guns at their friends.*
> 
> ...


As I earlier stated, I have always liked Piper. He has been on good terms with Traditional Anglicans. I might not agree with everything he teaches, but he has a deep love for Christ and a heart for the lost and hurting. To me this counts for a lot. Grace and Peace MBC


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 14, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> Can someone lay out in a concise manner the argument against Piper's _Christian Hedonism_? I am not looking for a full blown argument, but rather just a brief synopsis of the main points. I suspect the criticism will miss Piper's key point that man's satisfaction and God's glory are ends that are intricately tied together - going for one is necessarily going for the other.
> 
> ...



The problem is that going for one does not necessarily mean going after the other. Matthew 6:33 cannot be reversed and mean the same thing.

Now no one is trying to say that Piper wants people or does not care if people get the order wrong, however he does not properly protect against it.

CT


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> *We got a world of enemies and once again the Reformed have aimed their guns at their friends.*
> 
> ...



First, the topic was given to me by my Presbytery, I did not choose it. Would not have chosen it.
Second, every public author including Piper is not above reproach nor criticism.

The thread title is a spoof of of a line in a movie. People who recognize it find it funny. 

Slander?! That's a new one. Even my harshest critics never came clost to that kind of statement. Come on!


----------



## turmeric (Apr 14, 2007)

It seems like we can disagree with someone's theology, even say it is dangerous, or takes a bad direction, without it being slander. No one's calling names, or even attributing bad motives here, just saying it didn't work, it's too man-centered.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 14, 2007)

Hello CT,



> The problem is that going for one does not necessarily mean going after the other.



This is true, but that is not what _Christian hedonism_ means according to Piper.



> Matthew 6:33 cannot be reversed and mean the same thing.



One could formalize Matthew 6:33 as follows: If you seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, then all these things will be added to you. I believe it was your point to say that this verse is somehow inconsistent with Piper's concept of _Christian Hedonism_. As it stands, I do not see it. Can you make it explicit? 



> Now no one is trying to say that Piper wants people or does not care if people get the order wrong, however he does not properly protect against it.



Let me see if I understand your argument. 

*(1)* Piper's teaching could be construed improperly.
*(2)* Piper does not properly protect against people misconstruing his teaching. 
*(3)* Therefore, in some sense Piper has been negligent. 

Is this really what you are saying? If so, could one argue that James failed to properly protect against misconstrual regarding James 2? Could one argue that the writer of Hebrews failed to properly protect against the misconstrual of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? Don't mistake any of this. I am not Piper's bull dog here. However, I still am waiting to see what the criticism really amounts to. Is Piper, when properly understood, wrong? 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

Jim Snyder said:


> Jerrod,
> I can't find your article. When I click on the link you posted it says,"Sorry....
> Help! I want to read it!
> Jim



Here it is again.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Chris,
> 
> This is one reason why I was commenting earlier on the inappropriateness of the thread title. It doesn't say "_Desiring God_ is down." It says "John Piper is down."



It was wordplay, people, on a line in a movie in the 1990's! THAT is why some find it funny. It was not the title of my thesis. Sheesh!


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

shackleton said:


> I wonder if Jerrold Lewis was asked these poinient questions by his prebytery review board, and how he answered them. Since in writing a thesis one is forced to defend it against any such criticisms?



Yes shackleton, questions were asked, I defended the thesis at the general assembly, and I was licensed the same day in Inverness Scotland, 2005. 
By the way, so far all I have seen is a bunch of pro Piperites who think I've committed some high crime by offering criticism from one (meaning Piper) who stands _outside_ the Reformed tradition and pokes a stick at our creedal language. I think I have set forth the Puritan/Piper disjunction on the emphasis of Shorter Catechism Q&A 1 by contrasting the Puritans with Piper. What's unbelievable to me is Piper can challenge one of the greatest creedal statements of all time (SC1), and pontificate on its _improvement_, but when someone who's actually bound himself to that document says his emphasis is wrong, he get's it in the ear. Breathtaking!


----------



## turmeric (Apr 14, 2007)

Rev. Lewis,
If you could just shorten this for me, where do Piper and Edwards part company? He claims to be re-introducing us to Edwards.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Rev. Lewis,
> If you could just shorten this for me, where do Piper and Edwards part company? He claims to be re-introducing us to Edwards.



Not being an Edwardsian scholar, I can't say one way or the other. My criticism of Piper on this subject has everything to do with his spin on the first question and answer of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. From that perspective I can speak with some conviction and, I hope, some kind of authority. 

Piper says point blank in his book, “Not that I care too much about the intention of seventeenth century theologians”. This is the _height of arrogance_ when you consider that _intention_ is the whole message.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 14, 2007)

Hello Jerrold,

I do not wish to be ungracious here, but I find places in your paper where you do misrepresent him. For example, on page 7 of your paper you state...



> In his book Desiring God, Piper contends that the chief end of man’s existence is to enjoy the God of our creation.



But this is not to tell the whole story. Piper contends that the chief end of man is to glorify God! The means of this is by enjoying Him forever. My point here is not to necessarily endorse _Christian Hedonism_, but rather to make sure Piper is being fairly represented. In fact, as I pick areas of the paper to read, I continue to find such misrepresentations. Consider this...



> In Desiring God, Piper has missed the mark of what should be a very profound point. By making pleasure the overarching theme of the Christian life, Piper has oversimplified the Christian experience and jettisoned the equally profound duties of self denial, sanctification, and obedience to the law.



Once again, this misrepresents Piper. Chapter 10 of his book is about the suffering of the Christian. He calls it the "Sacrifice of Christian Hedonism." He explains the seeming dicotomy of being able to rejoice even in our sufferings. He speaks of persecution and discipleship. He has not jetisoned the things you say he has, but rather has showed the basis for joy in our afflictions, obedience, etc...In fact, he has a whole section devoted to Christianity being a "life of chosen suffering." He speaks of giving our all to gain Christ. If you will look in the back index of his book you will find many references to every topic you listed such as "self denial," "sanctification," and "obedience". 

It sure would help me if you were to just lay out your key points in your argument against Piper. Is your whole beef that Piper was wrong to change the word 'and' into 'by' in the WMSC Q#1? Are you saying that this is bad theology? 

Brian
P.S. Have you actually read cover to cover his book _Desiring God_?


----------



## JOwen (Apr 14, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Jerrold,
> 
> I do not wish to be ungracious here, but I find places in your paper where you do misrepresent him. For example, on page 7 of your paper you state...
> 
> ...



The paper is what it is. You think it misrepresents, others think it is spot on. Luk 6:26 "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!" As for your P.S, well, I'll let it speak for itself...


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 15, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Finally, I notice that your language is not at all unbiased and objective. You refer to those who disagree with you as "Pro-Piperites". You refer to Piper as "pontificating."



 

Brother Jerrold,

Trevor is spot on. In reading over your thesis and then reading your posts in this thread I have tried to see your side of things. However, your use of Luke 6:26 leads me to believe there is more to all of this than meets the eye. The context of Luke 6:26 is in reference to false prophets. I'm not sure I follow why you used that in reference to Piper.

It's one thing to say that no man is above criticism. I agree with you about that. And even though I am "pro Piper" there are things that I don't agree with him about.

But it's entirely different to start comparing him to a false prophet. Makes me think your problem is not so much with Christian Hedonism as it is with a Christian brother.





JOwen said:


> My criticism of Piper on this subject has everything to do with his spin on the first question and answer of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. From that perspective I can speak with some conviction and, I hope, some kind of authority.
> 
> Piper says point blank in his book, “Not that I care too much about the intention of seventeenth century theologians”. This is the _height of arrogance_ when you consider that _intention_ is the whole message.



Piper places great emphasis in regards to our Church Fathers. He meant no disrespect toward them with his statement, though he never really should have said it. He would probably admit to as much.

God bless!


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 15, 2007)

I thought the quote was from "So I Married an Axe Murderer" and there would then be NO gravity/improper levity (remember? Wedding party, father is drunk, man playing bag pipes, piper is playing a Rod Stewart song and passes out...) It was funny. So I laughed when I saw the title. I don't think Piper (if he read this thread) would be crying about it. If he is, he needs to loosen up a bit, though I am happy to give him a hug if he needs one.

Also, I don't think Rev. Lewis is challenging Piper to a throw-down here, I think he fulfilled the task appointed to him. Yes, there may be more pertinent things to write on, but it was an assignment by the Presbytery. As for biased language, let's remember that it is a different denomination from Piper's and that any and all of us do this both intentionally and unintentionally all the time. Find me a paedo/credo baptism thread that doesn't come with biased language or thinking. 

I have not read _Desiring God_ but do think that the quote about 17th century theologians was stepping over a line. We all make mistakes (if indeed it was a mistake, I cannot speak for the man) but he does not address it as such that I know of.

As for Piper's alleged neglect being compared to that of James, one is the codification of the irrefutable word of God and the other is a Baptist preacher. No comparison. None.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 15, 2007)

Heard at a conference:

Mark Dever @ a table with Lig Duncan, Piper, J.I. Packer and others.....

"Would the Westminster divines have a problem with how John Piper has reworded the WLC Q1 ? J. I., since you were there, can you tell us ?"

entire table laughs.

Packer essentially says no, from his reading and study and says that the conclusion that Piper comes to is _essentially_ the same as they imply in their statement, just with different language.

I'll take Dever and Packer's word at it.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 15, 2007)

Hello Jerrold,



> As for your P.S, well, I'll let it speak for itself...



It was a simple question, and I hope you choose to answer the question. The reason I asked it is two-fold...

*(1)* I have written opinions about books that I have not read cover-to-cover. I read major portions that I thought were the pertinent sections, and went from there. It is possible you did the same. 

*(2)* Some of the representations in your paper give the impression that you may have not read his book entirely in that he deals with some of the objections you raised. Again, I do not think you have fairly represented Piper. 

One thing I really appreciated about Greg Bahnsen was that he demonstrated by example the ideal of trying to read people in the best possible light - whether this was an atheist like Michael Martin, or a fellow Christian like Schaffer. In fact, Bahnsen's example spoke more to me than anything else I learned from him regarding apologetics. 

In short, I was not casting dispursions on your character, although I can see how you might take it that way. (Maybe you did not take it that way?) Nevertheless, it was not intended, and please forgive me for the misunderstanding. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 16, 2007)

I think ^^ is a good place to lock this thread on.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> I think ^^ is a good place to lock this thread on.



Agreed and at the behest of one of the Mods...closed.


----------

