# A Reformed Look At Christian Hedonism-1



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

KERUGMA


----------



## KenPierce (Sep 29, 2006)

He doesn't get it. These guys did: :Owen:

Maybe he just needs a !

Seriously, if one reads Piper's works, especially Desiring God and the Pleasures of God, one sees very quickly that the goal of those works is supremely theo-centric. That is, the highest aspiration of man is to live for God. And God, being the rewarder of those who diligently seek him, rewards that fealty with the highest of all blessings. 

In short, the reward we seek is God himself. We seek him because he is the best thing that is. By definition, since he made us for himself, we find our fulfillment in him, and in him alone.

Where am I wrong?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2006)

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

Articles Discussing Christian Hedonism

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

I don't think you are wrong brother. I do however disagree that Piper's thesis is "supremely theo-centric". By definition hedonism (of any stripe is anthropocentric). Hopefully posts 4 and 5 will demonstrate my criticism. There will be between 8 and 10 installments on this series.

Blessings!


----------



## KenPierce (Sep 29, 2006)

Mr Lewis,

YOu are defining hedonism differently than Piper does. Piper is very careful to deny pursuing pleasure for the sake of pleasure: indeed, one might argue his point is that we ought to desire God for the sake of God! And, in doing so, we find our God-shaped void filled. 

Piper wants to show that God does not profit by us --stressing his aseity. He is not served by human hands as if he needed anything. We do not add to his glory (WCF 2.2) when we glorify him.

Rather, he calls upon us to find our rest in him (Augustine). There can be no greater glory accorded to God than to seek him for who and what he is.

Piper's point is that we ought to take all our delight in glorifying God, and not for any extrinsic reward apart from him. I make this point to my people all the time: the reward of Christianity is not eternal life (that is a byproduct), but the grand covenantal promise that God has promised to be our God. In short, the reward of faith is God himself. That, I take it, is Piper's point.

But, he also goes to great lengths (indeed wrote a book about it) to stress that we ought to serve God wholly even when such does not delight us. Piper, who is himself a rather remarkable ascetic, certainly does not eschew self-denial. Far from it: he calls upon us to lose our lives that we might find it in Christ.

I don't think one can really understand Desiring God without reading The Pleasures of God.

What is so good about Piper is that he is able to take the theocentric nature of the Reformed faith and, like any good puritan, apply it to Christian experience. What Sproul has done for solid orthodox doctrine, Piper does for experimental puritan piety. Piper is not above critique, certainly. He thinks Future Grace is his best book; I fervently disagree. But, that is not to detract at all from the enormously beneficial character of his public ministry.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2006)

While I am not a "Piper-ite," he is a student of Jonathan Edwards and has spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours reading Edwards. If, as Piper maintains, he is simply following and applying Edwards, would the above critique apply to Edwards as well?


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by KenPierce_
> Mr Lewis,
> 
> YOu are defining hedonism differently than Piper does. Piper is very careful to deny pursuing pleasure for the sake of pleasure: indeed, one might argue his point is that we ought to desire God for the sake of God! And, in doing so, we find our God-shaped void filled.
> ...



Br. Pierce,

Thanks for your thoughts. I asure you I have read Piper. Perhaps once my complete arguement is set forth you will be able to better judge if I am misreading him or not. I apreciate your imput.

I would take exception to two of your points. First, you say that Piper is "able to take the theocentric nature of the Reformed faith and, like any good puritan, apply it to Christian experience." With this I can't agree. Piper is neither a Puritan nor Reformed, but is rather, a conservative, Calvinistic, evangelical who has some Edwardsian insights. One of my concerns about Piper is his ability to take shots at the WSC from outside the Confessional Reformed world and people actually listen from within. Piper runs parallel to the Reformed faith but does so as a Baptist- Clavinistic-Charismatic not a Reformer. If you have ever been to his Church, or one of his sister Churches, you will quickly find that their definition of reformed is somewhat wanting.

Who would deny his contributions to the evangelical world? Not I. In fact his book, "Brothers Weare Not Professionals" is a very helpful book in many ways. I do believe however, like Peter Masters and many others, that he is flawed in his perspective on "Christian Hedonism". I would be interested in hearing your thoughts after you have read the 8 or 10 instalments on my blog.

Blessings!



[Edited on 9-29-2006 by JOwen]


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> While I am not a "Piper-ite," he is a student of Jonathan Edwards and has spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours reading Edwards. If, as Piper maintains, he is simply following and applying Edwards, would the above critique apply to Edwards as well?[/quote
> 
> Here I would need to plead ignorance. I'm still wading through the monumental mountain of Edwardsian material I began to collect 10 years ago. It is a good question.
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2006)

Sure. I am not really a defender of either (but have profited from both). I guess my question is more broad as to the direct influence of Edwards on Piper.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2006)

R. L. Dabney's Sensualistic Philiosophy, chapter 12, provides a refutation of all utilitarian schemes of ethics, including Edwards' "least obnoxious" Benevolence scheme. Dabney argues that it makes man himself a part of his chief end, and hence "a part of his own God." Edwards' view is brought out clearly by his disciple, Samuel Hopkins, who concluded that self-interest must remain practically each man's immediate guide. A Holy Spirit guided reading of Deuteronomy will serve as a useful medicine to counteract this poison.


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Sure. I am not really a defender of either (but have profited from both). I guess my question is more broad as to the direct influence of Edwards on Piper.




I'm not sure about the "direct influence", as Piper is a baptist, and an unconfessional one at that. His Church has a 12 point "affirmation" much like most mainline Churches. I would suggest that someone like Dr. J Gerstner's theology was much more directly influenced by Edwards than Piper.

Blessings,


JL


----------



## JOwen (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> R. L. Dabney's Sensualistic Philiosophy, chapter 12, provides a refutation of all utilitarian schemes of ethics, including Edwards' "least obnoxious" Benevolence scheme. Dabney argues that it makes man himself a part of his chief end, and hence "a part of his own God." Edwards' view is brought out clearly by his disciple, Samuel Hopkins, who concluded that self-interest must remain practically each man's immediate guide. A Holy Spirit guided reading of Deuteronomy will serve as a useful medicine to counteract this poison.



Yes, it is a good chapter for sure. It ws you post a while back that prompted me to purchase the book form Naphtali. Dabney's is a great reftation of hedonism.

Blessings!

JL


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> While I am not a "Piper-ite," he is a student of Jonathan Edwards and has spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours reading Edwards. If, as Piper maintains, he is simply following and applying Edwards, would the above critique apply to Edwards as well?



It would, but it doesn't.

Piper is trying to place the Christian "life" into a jingle - a 30 second commercial. Edwards, nor the puritans or reformers, ever summarized the Christian life with a cliche.

Is a 30-second commercial appealing to contemporary Christendom?

_Desiring God_, "Over 1,000,000 books sold."


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2006)

Consider much of his audience: most of these people have 30 second attn spans. All of a sudden dropping four volumes of Calvin and the Puritans might not resonate with them. Now me, for example. After I read Desiring God, I read 2000 pages of Augustine, Edwards, and Calvin in the next 3 months (that's not a lot, I know, but for someone who had never read that heavily).

Sure, don't finish with Piper but he is not a bad way to start off. He can do what many of us struggle to do: bridge communication gaps without watering down the gospel. Also, worst of all, Ligon Duncan had no problem doing a conference with him.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Yes, it is a good chapter for sure. It ws you post a while back that prompted me to purchase the book form Naphtali. Dabney's is a great reftation of hedonism.



I found it to be a solid biblical-rationalist presentation of the Christian worldview. Blessings, Jerrold.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 30, 2006)

OK with all due respect Dr. McMahon and Mr. Aitken, if you are saying that every Christian needs to read Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards in order to understand Christianity I think you are wrong. They are very helpful but certainly not something that is needed.

I understand this might not be exactly what you are trying to say but it seems like Reformed believers have a tendency to look down on those who are un-educated as if we are more spiritual because simply by virtue of reading the Reformers.

I think that Piper does a very good job of giving people good, concise theology. Does it need to be expanded upon, YES! We need to be relational in the way that we interact with other believers and non-believers. Not all Christians are academic and Piper is excellent at speaking theological truths to them. He certainly isn't perfect and I would agree that he is not as close of a disciple of Edward's as he would like to think (though he has read Edwards MUCH more than I have), but I think that Piper does something that many Reformed people do not do and that is make theology understandable for the laity.

I understand that theology is vitally important but when pastors are verbose and too deeply theological, it turns off the people who are not academic. For example, my girlfriend and her family are from Egypt. Her mother is a believer but she feels so uncomfortable in a Reformed church because they all use lofty words and theological concepts and she is just not there yet (and her English is not perfect either). Should the pastor encourage study outside the church, YES! Should pastors seek the stretch and grow their congregations by giving good, Biblical, systematized theology like the Purtians, absolutely. But if your criticism of Piper is that he is not academic enough, I think your idea of academic is beyond what it ought to be.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 30, 2006)

And Piper gives more than just a 30 second commercial. He does give substantial theology. Some people are ready for meat, others for milk......


----------



## KenPierce (Sep 30, 2006)

Jerrold,

I will read your blog as it becomes available. I am curious as to Piper's "pot-shots" at the Standards --I haven't seen them. His suggested "improvement" to WSC 1 is not a contradiction of its original intent, but rather an expansion of it.

As to those who imply that Piper (PhD, U Munich) is not scholarly, I would suggest reading The Justification of God. We could debate, ad infinitum, the status of Piper's puritan card. For those who are interested in so doing, I would encourage the reading of Wm. Still's The Work of the Pastor, especially the chapter on being contemporary. And, to say that Piper gives 30 second sound bites for the Reformed faith, this is what is known as a cheap shot, and has no place in Christian discussion.

Sproul is easy-to-read, and most of his books are very concise. He, like all men, has feet of clay, too. For instance, some of his book, Chosen By God, is very inadequate, especially the chapter on Double Predestination. Yet, very few, if any, would doubt his contribution to the Reformed faith. But, Piper is different than Sproul. Sproul is more of an objective theologian, in the vein of Dabney or Hodge. Piper is more of an experiential preacher, in the vain of Lloyd-Jones. Frankly, I am thankful for both.

We ought to take seriously the Biblical command, "who are you to judge another man's work? To his own master, he stands or falls." If Piper is serving the Lord, and bringing many to an appreciation for the whole counsel of God, and the sovereignty of God in salvation, then we ought to be grateful for him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

Um, Brandon, I was actually defending Piper.



> OK with all due respect Dr. McMahon and Mr. Aitken, if you are saying that every Christian needs to read Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards in order to understand Christianity I think you are wrong. They are very helpful but certainly not something that is needed.



I didn't say that. I said that Piper got me reading these people.


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Also, worst of all, Ligon Duncan had no problem doing a conference with him.



Well John Piper is hosting his desiring God conferance with "MARK DRISCOLL" speaking....  and 

I, who am a Reformed Baptist never really liked John Piper that much due to his Charismatic Ways but I have now lost ALL respect for the man... 

Michael


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 30, 2006)

Ok Jacob, I am sorry then, I thought you were saying that one ought to read those people rather than Piper. I thought you were saying you were glad you were set free from Piper and finally got to read all the other Puritans. I am sorry that I misunderstood you, but that is also why I said that at the beginning of the post as well  Sorry for the mistake


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

No prob. I still get Piper's podcasting but I don't read his stuff anymore. After Future Grace and Pleasures of God, his latest stuff seems to be collated from his website. But I still enjoy his preaching and every now and then I will glance over his sermons.


----------



## JOwen (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by KenPierce_
> Jerrold,
> 
> I will read your blog as it becomes available. I am curious as to Piper's "pot-shots" at the Standards --I haven't seen them. His suggested "improvement" to WSC 1 is not a contradiction of its original intent, but rather an expansion of it.



Thanks brother, who could ask for more?



> As to those who imply that Piper (PhD, U Munich) is not scholarly, I would suggest reading The Justification of God. We could debate, ad infinitum, the status of Piper's puritan card. For those who are interested in so doing, I would encourage the reading of Wm. Still's The Work of the Pastor, especially the chapter on being contemporary. And, to say that Piper gives 30 second sound bites for the Reformed faith, this is what is known as a cheap shot, and has no place in Christian
> discussion.



I think the point is the reductionism found present in Piper's attempt to "bring forward" the old paths. 



> Sproul is easy-to-read, and most of his books are very concise. He, like all men, has feet of clay, too. For instance, some of his book, Chosen By God, is very inadequate, especially the chapter on Double Predestination. Yet, very few, if any, would doubt his contribution to the Reformed faith. But, Piper is different than Sproul. Sproul is more of an objective theologian, in the vein of Dabney or Hodge. Piper is more of an experiential preacher, in the vain of Lloyd-Jones. Frankly, I am thankful for both.
> 
> We ought to take seriously the Biblical command, "who are you to judge another man's work? To his own master, he stands or falls." If Piper is serving the Lord, and bringing many to an appreciation for the whole counsel of God, and the sovereignty of God in salvation, then we ought to be grateful for him.



Brother, with all due respect, this passage does not apply to the discussion. We are not talking about things indifferent as to days and seasons. Could you imagine how little interaction there would be on this list (and) the Warfield list if we were not to allow ourselves constructive criticism?! If Piper is willing to call himself a teacher of the body of Christ by publishing books on the Christian life, he should also be able to face the same scrutiny that you and I do in the pulpit every Sabbath. And so should his followers.

Blessings!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

> Anyone who accuses Piper of reducing sound theology into a Thirty Second Jingle are performing a character assasination on him and a slander against him.



Having heard Piper in person, I can remember when he quoted about a 2 minute long passage from Edwards on the Trinity *from memory*. He does't do soundbites. I and some slappy-clappy Baptists went to here him preach, his sermon went over all but one's (mine) head. Not the style of one who is into soundbites.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> OK with all due respect Dr. McMahon and Mr. Aitken, if you are saying that every Christian needs to read Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards in order to understand Christianity I think you are wrong. They are very helpful but certainly not something that is needed.
> 
> I understand this might not be exactly what you are trying to say but it seems like Reformed believers have a tendency to look down on those who are un-educated as if we are more spiritual because simply by virtue of reading the Reformers.
> ...



It has absolutely nothing to do with academics.

If God wanted us to think about the Christian life inside of a jingle, he would have given us the written worrd on a fortune cookie.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by KenPierce_
> Piper is more of an experiential preacher, in the vain of Lloyd-Jones. Frankly, I am thankful for both.
> quote]


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 30, 2006)

Dr. McMahon

Piper does not give the gospel in a thirty second jingle. I don't think that you could document that. If you can I will retract what I have said but all of the the things I have heard from Piper are deep and thoughtful. Though I am certainly not on the same level as spirituality or academcially, it appears that your statements about Piper are straw-men. I only say that because I have not seen any documentation concerning Piper giving the Christian life and a little jingle. I do not want to seem arrogant Dr. McMahon so please do not take my statements as a harsh rebuke. I just do not think you have documented your point, simply asserted it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

Plus, Packer's Knowing God has sold googles and googles of copies, and it is MUCH EASIER to read than Piper's stuff. Is Packer too, among the "soundbytes?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

and, none of the proceeds from Piper's works go to Piper. They all go to Missions.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 30, 2006)

> If God wanted us to think about the Christian life inside of a jingle, he would have given us the written worrd on a fortune cookie.



Matt, I don't agree with you about Piper, but that was a  funny quotable quote!!


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Oct 1, 2006)

Agreed. Well said.

My issue with Piper is that he seems to be pushing a sanctified selfishness. Should we enjoy God? You betcha. That is an outgrowth of coming to Him for salvation and living before Him each moment though. Not pursuing "...my joy" for its own sake.

When I read the gospels, I don't read Jesus perpetually pushing people's lack of joy. That is what I hear when I listen to Piper. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus seems to be indicating that people's motivation for coming to Him is their burden of sin.



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> R. L. Dabney's Sensualistic Philiosophy, chapter 12, provides a refutation of all utilitarian schemes of ethics, including Edwards' "least obnoxious" Benevolence scheme. Dabney argues that it makes man himself a part of his chief end, and hence "a part of his own God." Edwards' view is brought out clearly by his disciple, Samuel Hopkins, who concluded that self-interest must remain practically each man's immediate guide. A Holy Spirit guided reading of Deuteronomy will serve as a useful medicine to counteract this poison.


----------



## Presbyrino (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > If God wanted us to think about the Christian life inside of a jingle, he would have given us the written worrd on a fortune cookie.
> ...



I don't agree with Matt either and I don't think his comments were funny either 

But maybe I'm just when one of those "dumb", "not so truly reformed" evangelicals with a short attention span who needs to have theology spoon-fed to me in "thirty-second jingles". 

I thank God daily for his grace and mercy, for blessing me with patient pastors who are willing to condescend to my level and bear with me and feed me the milk of the word.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Oct 2, 2006)

AMEN STEVE!


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Oct 2, 2006)

I think Matt is being misunderstand. I think he's saying that Piper is trying to boil the Christian life down to one statement and it's not possible.

I think the other thing that is at issue here, is Piper's views "...the pure milk of the Word"?



> _Originally posted by Presbyrino_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2006)

> I think he's saying that Piper is trying to boil the Christian life down to one statement and it's not possible.



And I just don't see how this assertion flies. Sure, we can take issue with his statement on other grounds, but given the nature of his sermons (he goes over my head--and I look for intellectual stuff) and the length and depth of his books (his main three are well over 275 pages and are heavily footnoted) show that he is not into soundbyutes.

Now I am going to hit close to home: RC Sproul and Jim Packer are infinitely easier to read than Piper. Packer's book, while superb, would more eaisly fit the charge of soundbyte.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2006)

Btw, I am not endorsing Piper's system en toto. I am just disputing the claim that he is soundbyte. I see a few problems in his Christian hedonism. Anyway, I would more closely be in the ethical train of Dabney and Bahnsen.


----------



## 3John2 (Oct 12, 2006)

I have to agree with Draught Horse & Prespyrino. I'm no theologian far from it but I am doing my best to grow in the Word. I went from a Roman Catholic to a Charismatic/WOF believer. It was LARGELY because of Piper & Sproul that I came to be a Reformed believer. Pipers "Desiring God" (the expanded edition) was & continues to be a pivotal book in my life. I came across it when I was going through a tough time accepting TULIP & other Reformed points. God used Piper to change my life. The magnitude of what he wrote made a lasting imprint on my life. It continues to impact me to this day. 
I fully agree with his view on Christian Hedonism & apart from that has further pushed me to study Edwards & has turned me on to other people such as Ligon Duncan & Mark Dever (well basically the TOgether 4 The Gospel bunch). 
I will be forever indebted to this man for what he is doing in spreading the Reformed faith. 
I don't feel "adequate" enough to get into the deeper aspects on his views & methods but I will say that have arrive to the point of being Reformed largely because of him. I'm sure there are others out there as well.


----------



## 3John2 (Oct 13, 2006)

I have to agree with Draught Horse & Prespyrino. I'm no theologian far from it but I am doing my best to grow in the Word. I went from a Roman Catholic to a Charismatic/WOF believer. It was LARGELY because of Piper & Sproul that I came to be a Reformed believer. Pipers "Desiring God" (the expanded edition) was & continues to be a pivotal book in my life. I came across it when I was going through a tough time accepting TULIP & other Reformed points. God used Piper to change my life. The magnitude of what he wrote made a lasting imprint on my life. It continues to impact me to this day. 
I fully agree with his view on Christian Hedonism & apart from that has further pushed me to study Edwards & has turned me on to other people such as Ligon Duncan & Mark Dever (well basically the TOgether 4 The Gospel bunch). 
I will be forever indebted to this man for what he is doing in spreading the Reformed faith. 
I don't feel "adequate" enough to get into the deeper aspects on his views & methods but I will say that have arrive to the point of being Reformed largely because of him. I'm sure there are others out there as well.


----------



## caddy (Oct 13, 2006)

^^^

Well said

...and I am a Piper Fan


----------

