# John Piper and Christian hedonism, does this bother anyone else?



## jesusslave (Feb 18, 2013)

Give your thoughts to me, good or bad, in simplistic terms. (So it's not over my head) I have issues with Piper. With his associations and endorsements of some preachers. As well as him swaying to the side of charismatic. 

Christian hedonism- is it scriptural? Is it just for the "shock" factor? And not that big a deal?

His associations and endorsements of preachers like Mark Driscoll- is this ok? Can/should be overlooked?


----------



## Herald (Feb 18, 2013)

Kimberly,

Whoa, sister! You're trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant here. 

The substance of Piper's Christian Hedonism is less radical than its name. In a nutshell, Piper is proposing that the Christian's greatest joy is found in serving God. That is why he starts off Desiring God with a change to the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach's Baptist Catechism: "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." The difficulty is in reconciling Piper's use of a word that is basically pejorative in nature. As far as to whether it is scriptural to enjoy God -- the answer is "yes" (Psalm 37:4). 

Piper's invitation of controversial figures to his Desiring God conferences is a separate matter. 

While I would not consider him a champion for the Reformed faith, I am grateful for his stalwart advocacy of the doctrines of grace; his eloquent defense of imputation; and his unwavering commitment to the preaching of the Gospel.


----------



## Andres (Feb 18, 2013)

Christian Hedonism, as Piper explains it, is good and I believe biblical. I have some other issues with him, but that teaching is not one of them.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 18, 2013)

Do a search for "Christian hedonism" on the board and you will have enough water for that fire hose. All I can say right now is that I have learned enough to make me second-guess the biblicity of Christian hedonism.


----------



## jandrusk (Feb 18, 2013)

I personally have had a problem with Piper since he started endorsing Rick Warren, let alone Mark Driscoll. I have pretty much dismissed him as not being relevant as I do most "shock jock" type of preachers.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 18, 2013)

jandrusk said:


> I personally have had a problem with Piper since he started endorsing Rick Warren, let alone Mark Driscoll. I have pretty much dismissed him as not being relevant as I do most "shock jock" type of preachers.



Do you believe Rick Warren is a Christian?


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 18, 2013)

Personally I found his description of "Christian hedonism" in _Desiring God_ to be overly focused on the fruit and not the cause. Some of it seems diametrically opposed to the Regulative Principle of Worship. I'm sure some have been genuinely edified by it, and others hurt.

His website contains a lot of articles, many of which can/have been helpful to some people.

As for his endorsements and associations, some seem less wise than others. As I am not his elder (lol), nor an acquaintance, it's not really relevant to think about whether I should overlook it. But it would effect my recommendations of his ministry, depending on whom I'm speaking to.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> > I personally have had a problem with Piper since he started endorsing Rick Warren, let alone Mark Driscoll. I have pretty much dismissed him as not being relevant as I do most "shock jock" type of preachers.
> ...



Objectively, a lot of Warren's older stuff really isn't that bad, but since he gave the invocation at The Beast From the Sea's inauguration five years ago, it's really hard to say anything good about him.

As to Piper--of course there is "shock" to his message--any good marketer knows that. Much of it is biblical. The problem is when many of his acolytes do nothing but parrot him in the pulpit.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 19, 2013)

There's nothing wrong with taking the idea that Christians are to _enjoy_ God and life with him and, to drive the point home, call it "Christian hedonism." Too many people think Christianity is about giving up pleasures when, in reality, it is about embracing the Source of greatest pleasures.

Surely there are particulars in some of Piper's books and articles that I and others will disagree with, but the basic principle behind what he calls "Christian hedonism" is both sound and helpful. As for associations, I try to judge a person by his own life rather than by that of those he stands next to. There are all sorts of reasons to befriend or even do some ministry alongside another person, and most of those reasons do not imply all-out endorsement.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 19, 2013)

Greetings:

I believe that Dr. John Piper is a Christian. I do not believe that his teaching on hedonism is Christian. There is a difference. Hedonism, as Dr. Piper defines it, runs like this: "Joy is the root of saving faith." That is, you must have the experience of joy in your life before you savingly believe in Jesus. This is not Biblical, and is just downright wrong.

Dr. Piper confuses the issue by also promoting the truth: Joy is a fruit of saving faith. Such is the true and Orthodox/Calvinist view of the relation between faith and joy. You must first savingly believe in Jesus Christ before you can experience the joy of salvation.

Thus, the whole of Dr. Piper's teaching is this, "Joy is the root and fruit of saving faith." You can find this exact quote in the first edition of his book, _Desiring God_. If you have the updated version you will find the same teaching in his (what I would call) eisegesis of the parable of the treasure in the field in Matthew 13:44. The seeing of the treasure in the field is saving faith, and that saving faith brings about joy, and the joy causes us to forsake all and follow Jesus. That is, in short, the Orthodox understanding of the parable. Piper interprets the parable much differently than the Orthodox.

Piper's "Christian Hedonism" is contrary to a basic understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As I said before - I believe that John Piper is a Christian. Nevertheless, I am afraid that his teaching may fall in line with what Jesus says here, Matthew 7:22. In the book of James we are told that the demons acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and give Him the honor due his name, but we are not to believe the doctrine of demons. *I am not saying that John Piper is a demon*. However, the doctrine of Christian Hedonism is not Biblical.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 19, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> I believe that Dr. John Piper is a Christian. I do not believe that his teaching on hedonism is Christian. There is a difference. Hedonism, as Dr. Piper defines it, runs like this: "Joy is the root of saving faith." That is, you must have the experience of joy in your life before you savingly believe in Jesus. This is not Biblical, and is just downright wrong.
> 
> ...



Can you think if some bad things that might come about as a result of buying into Piper's theology?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 19, 2013)

Greetings:

Piper's Hedonism undermines Reformed Experimental Christianity. Faith is not based on knowledge, assent, and trust, but upon an emotional experience necessary to produce faith. I think you can see where that is leading to - Charismania. I was not surprised when Piper joined with John Wimber's "Wind of the Spirit" movement. Nor am I surprised by his affinity with other such popular movements.

Hedonism replaces the Spirit of God with the emotions of man. Such is the exact view of the Charismatics.

Can one be saved and hold to Christian Hedonism - yes - but *in spite of it*, not because of it.

Hope this helps,

Rob


----------



## Jack K (Feb 19, 2013)

Rob, your take is interesting. It sounds like you've read more of Piper, or read more closely, than I have. He doesn't really do much for me. But what I have read along these lines I've always interpreted as akin to Edwards... that true conversion is inevitably accompanied by some measure of delight in God and in godliness—or it isn't really a work of the Spirit. What you're describing goes beyond that, right?


----------



## JOwen (Feb 19, 2013)

Here is my paper on Piper's book. I wrote in in 2005. A Reformed Look at Christian Hedonism.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 19, 2013)

JOwen said:


> Here is my paper on Piper's book. I wrote in in 2005. A Reformed Look at Christian Hedonism.



A good read.

I particularly like this part,



> Christianizing hedonism for the sake of a pure pursuit of pleasure over against an impure pursuit, has not alleviated the problem rife in Western culture---the pursuit of pleasure itself. All we have done is sanctify selfishness and exchange one kind of self absorption for another. Contemporary Christian culture is a copycat culture. Instead of being the enlightening leaders of the world, the modern Church is trying to see how close she can get to the edge
> of worldliness and still remain “Christian”. In effect, this encourages the world to run after pleasure the more.



The setup for analysis between Piper's view and the Puritan view of what it means to enjoy God is expressed here:



> Piper begins his book by quoting the Westminster Shorter Catechism which states, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”16 He then proceeds without any analysis of what the Westminster Divines meant by “glorify God and enjoy him forever”, and takes the reader through a series of *personal eisegetical* (biblical) principles that are intended to aid the reader in finding pleasure in God. Piper would have done well to investigate what the seventeenth century Puritans meant by the phrase in question as it would have had a profound effect on his thesis. As we shall see later, the Puritans and Piper have very different understandings of what it means to enjoy God forever.



The quote you provided from Dr. Peter Masters brought to remembrance the following verses from Isaiah 58,



> [SUP]13[/SUP]¶ If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, _from_ doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking _thine own_ words: [SUP]14[/SUP]Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken _it_.



Scripture seems to define the prerequisites for what is necessary for us to delight ourselves in the LORD.

Good article and thank you for sharing.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 19, 2013)

JOwen said:


> Here is my paper on Piper's book. I wrote in in 2005. A Reformed Look at Christian Hedonism.



Thanks. You are now on my reading list. I don't whether I should ask you to pray for me or not. I am at a fork in the road.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Feb 19, 2013)

I don't necessarily agree that God is *most* glorified over against everything else that brings glory to Him, but to seek to be most satisfied in God is a good thing. I think it would be better to say that God is most reflected in us when we are most satisfied in Him.
However, I see the following quote reading way too much into what Piper is at least trying to get at.


JohnGill said:


> All we have done is sanctify selfishness and exchange one kind of self absorption for another


Based on this quote then the most Holy person shouldn't lay up treasures in heaven because he would at the very least be doing it with some intent for gain. I think to desire things that are Holy is good. God did not create us to be completely impartial.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 19, 2013)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I don't necessarily agree that God is *most* glorified over against everything else that brings glory to Him, but to seek to be most satisfied in God is a good thing. I think it would be better to say that God is most reflected in us when we are most satisfied in Him.
> However, I see the following quote reading way too much into what Piper is at least trying to get at.
> 
> 
> ...



The problem with your assessment of Pastor Lewis' comment about Piper is that you have erroneously equated "laying up treasures in heaven" with a form of selfish absorption. All forms of selfish absorption are wrong as they put the focus on man and rob glory from God.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 19, 2013)

I disagree with Piper on a lot of issues but refuse to throw rocks at him. He is miles ahead of me in intellect, scholarship, and experiential Christianity.

The Christian Hedonism always seems like a lightning rod with Piper. I wished he had never proffered it. However, it hardly means what some of you think it means -- I think.

Piper is a Dan Fuller/C.S. Lewis/Jonathan Edwards fanatic. His Christian hedonism is an attempt to reframe Edwardsian Calvinism for a new generation. You can fault him for selecting Edwards or for his execution of the translation of Edwards into our context. But, asking whether of not he is a Christian is beyond the pale, in my opinion. 

Piper did his B.A. at Wheaton, his M.Div. at the school which must not be named in Pasadena, and his doctorate under Leonhard Goppelt in Munich. His work on the sovereignty of God (Romans 9), his advocacy of imputation, his upholding of justification against N.T. Wright, his willingness to speak up to Rob Bell, and many more controversial positions have exemplified standing on the side of God and the angels and against the grain of the culture. Yes, he is a Baptist with charismatic leanings. No, he would not qualify to be on the PB and (to my knowledge) does not hold to any of the major Reformed Confessions. However, the last time I checked that does not disqualify him from heaven.

Why is it we are so willing to excoriate persons with whom we have relatively small theological disagreements? Some on this board are willing to call anything but 6 day creation a heresy. Yet, our own PB historical theologian, Dr. Clark, wrote a book bemoaning what he calls the quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC) = "the movement to make six day, twenty-four interpretation (hereafter 6/24) of Genesis 1 a mark of Reformed orthodoxy, theonomy, and covenant moralism" (41). Does that make Dr. Clark a heretic?

Come on folks! Disagree with Piper, Grudem, Westminster E or W, theonomy, baptism, the specific interpretation of Gen 1-2, charismatic leanings, CT vs. TR, John Frame, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, the Three Forms of Unity vs. the Westminster Standards vs. the 1689 LBCF, Exclusive Psalmody, the North Galatian vs. the South Galatian theory, Marcan priority, supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism, the PCA vs. the OPC, etc. Hey, you can even write a book about it. 

But, PLEASE don't play the "do you think that he is saved" card at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Herald (Feb 19, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I disagree with Piper on a lot of issues but refuse to throw rocks at him. He is miles ahead of me in intellect, scholarship, and experiential Christianity.



Brother, you're miles ahead of me and I would never think of throwing rocks at you. Nerf balls, maybe. 

Seriously though; the trajectory of Piper's ministry has consistently been towards God's glory. He misses the mark in some areas, and that warrants genuine critique. But let that critique be in love about a faithful minister of the Gospel.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Feb 19, 2013)

JohnGill said:


> The problem with your assessment of Pastor Lewis' comment about Piper is that you have erroneously equated "laying up treasures in heaven" with a form of selfish absorption



Its not erroneous at all. His quote implies that if one were to have any self motivation in pleasure than whether that pursuit was a righteous one it is wrong. Is there no pleasure in knowing our treasures will be everlasting? Its not self absorption to seek after that which we were created to do knowing that it will be where we find the most pleasure. God never says seek me just because. He says in Him you will have life abundantly.


----------



## jandrusk (Feb 20, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> > I personally have had a problem with Piper since he started endorsing Rick Warren, let alone Mark Driscoll. I have pretty much dismissed him as not being relevant as I do most "shock jock" type of preachers.
> ...



Only the Lord knows the answer to that question, but based on the data that I have derived from his teachings, I would say he is not preaching the gospel of Christ if the bible is your standard for that definition. I do not believe I have heard him once convey original sin as being inherited from Adam or for that matter actually defining what sin is. To me, his teachings remind me of Tony Robbins clothed in evangelical attire without any gospel substance.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 20, 2013)

Just for clarity... I've taken a look back at this thread and can't find that anyone's actually suggested that any of the pastors mentioned here are not believers. That's good. That sort of discussion is one I would not want to be part of in any way. May I suggest we move on from that question before any of us regret having participated in this thread.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 20, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Piper's Hedonism undermines Reformed Experimental Christianity. Faith is not based on knowledge, assent, and trust, but upon an emotional experience necessary to produce faith. I think you can see where that is leading to - Charismania. I was not surprised when Piper joined with John Wimber's "Wind of the Spirit" movement. Nor am I surprised by his affinity with other such popular movements.
> 
> ...


He is slightly charismatic as you say. He believes being indwelt with the Holy Spirit at conversion is different than being baptized by the Holy Spirit. The latter he believes is only to those who are called to ministry and it HAS to be experiential. I read so on Desiring God.

Of course it doesn't make him a false teacher at all but, this is his epistemology that he follows to a degree.


----------



## tman (Feb 20, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I disagree with Piper on a lot of issues but refuse to throw rocks at him. He is miles ahead of me in intellect, scholarship, and experiential Christianity.
> 
> The Christian Hedonism always seems like a lightning rod with Piper. I wished he had never proffered it. However, it hardly means what some of you think it means -- I think.
> 
> ...



Thank you! 


Sent from the Vatican Archive


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 20, 2013)

Though the article doesn't deal with Piper exclusively, it does show how Desiring God is not Reformed: This is why charismatics are simply not Reformed « Reformed Baptist Fellowship


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 20, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I disagree with Piper on a lot of issues but refuse to throw rocks at him. He is miles ahead of me in intellect, scholarship, and experiential Christianity.
> 
> The Christian Hedonism always seems like a lightning rod with Piper. I wished he had never proffered it. However, it hardly means what some of you think it means -- I think.
> 
> ...



Who has said that Piper or Clark isn't saved or questioned their salvation?

I agree that Piper should never have joined the terms Christian & hedonism. Redefining an autonomous philosophy does not negate the negative connotations of that word. To see the danger in this practice, consider affixing Christian to either the term "adultery" or "bestiality". It is very easy to redefine both terms to mean something Christian. And in doing so it becomes impossible to obey Phil 4:8 when hearing either term with the prefix Christian attached.

I'm not sure we can call charismatic leanings/denial of literal days a "relatively small theological disagreement". Both have logical implications.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 20, 2013)

JohnGill said:


> Who has said that Piper or Clark isn't saved or questioned their salvation?
> 
> I agree that Piper should never have joined the terms Christian & hedonism. Redefining an autonomous philosophy does not negate the negative connotations of that word. To see the danger in this practice, consider affixing Christian to either the term "adultery" or "bestiality". It is very easy to redefine both terms to mean something Christian. And in doing so it becomes impossible to obey Phil 4:8 when hearing either term with the prefix Christian attached.
> 
> I'm not sure we can call charismatic leanings/denial of literal days a "relatively small theological disagreement". Both have logical implications.



As to people saying things about people's salvation . . . 



> Do you believe Rick Warren is a Christian?(post #6)





> I believe that Dr. John Piper is a Christian. I do not believe that his teaching on hedonism is Christian. (post #10)



And, frankly, there are a pretty good stable of names of senior leaders in the Christian movement on the conservative side of the aisle who get slammed whenever their names come up in discussion on the PB.

Chris, if I say that "I believe that Chris is a Christian, but . . . " in the context of a theological disagreement, it comes off as damning with faint praise OR raising a needless suspicion (cf. "I do not believe that Chris is guilty of X,Y,Z - [fill in the blank with some heinous sin or crime]; it is as effective as the "have you quit beating your wife?" question), either way, the very mention of it squirrels the discussion. 

The reaction to the denial of literal days is exactly why I brought in Clark into the example. As an esteemed professor at Westminster Seminary, even raising the question of his salvation would look pretty lame. Yet, judging by some of the rhetoric in threads over the years, more than a few on the PB would be happy to consign *all* "non 6 dayers" to the nether regions (BTW, I am a 6 day creationist and that is the reason for using that illustration). My point was that while we have strong differences of opinion on something as basic as the creation of the world and the proper interpretation of Holy Scripture on a point crucial for the rest of the Bible's narrative, it would be pretty nuts to challenge Dr. Clark's salvation. 

Yet, whenever Piper or Warren (btw - not one of my favorite people) get mentioned, you can count on somebody playing the "Do you think he is a Christian" card. And, even when the salvation card doesn't get played, amazingly productive servants like Grudem or R.C. Sproul get reamed for any number of faults of theology or practice. Yes, there are lots of things to disagree with about Grudem and R.C. But, man, can't we at least admit that they have impacted hundreds/thousands of times more people for Christian truth than most of us will ever even meet? 

After 9,519+ posts, maybe I'm just getting cranky. But listening to more than a few "overly confident" young theologs carping about people who are by any rational basis of measurement, their "betters," (intellectually, educationally, spiritually, being used by God, etc.) gets kind of tedious. Paul admonished his young protege to follow a practical set of guidance: "Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father." Maybe it just seems unseemly to go after some of the senior leaders in the conservative Christian community so disrespectfully in a public forum.

A few years ago, I waxed cocky on the PB about a subject well known to me (my alma mater). My evaluations were true, fervent, humorous . . . and biting. It is easy to talk big in an email or on a message board, don't you know? But, when the President of that institution wrote me an email, protesting my unchristian tone and unbiblical willingness to speak out so boldly in print without having first spoken to the person against whom I was being so censorious, OUCH! My fanny is still stinging from that spanking!

The nature of email and message boards tends to bring out the foolish bravado of most of us. That is why it is especially important to honor in writing what we would insist upon in any other context: basic Christian decency and respect.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 21, 2013)

Greetings:

Mr. McFadden:

I fail to see how my statement questions Dr. John Piper's salvation. In fact my statement says just the opposite:



> I believe that Dr. John Piper is a Christian.


Would you mind presenting your thinking on this matter?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 21, 2013)

I have learned a lot from Piper and have read most of his books throughout these last 7 years in my youth and listened to probably thousands of his sermons. I don't agree with him on everything. But what it comes down to him I think is that he has much more American-Fundamentalist/evangelical tendencies when it comes to explaining his thoughts as opposed to a more traditionally Reformed one of looking at it through the classic 17th century Loci of theology. I think that has its advantages and disadvantages. But at the end of the day on 95% of issues Piper comes down on the right side. The language of "hedonism" is more to draw attention and shock than anything else and that is a legitimate teaching method... though not always be wise. But within the wider context of his classic work Desiring God, I think it's safe.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 21, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Mr. McFadden:
> 
> ...



Rob, 

As I said, maybe I'm just getting cranky in my old age. My thinking is that when someone decades younger with far less credentials and proven track record for ministry effectiveness utters the words, "I think that X is a Christian," it hits me as terribly offputting. Sortof like "I think that Calvin was an "adequate" exegete." Who am I to sit in judgment of any of these guys?

On the PB (in my opinion), Grudem, Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, et. al., frequently get treated with less than the adequate respect due them for their age, experience, and productivity. It always amazes me that some of us who have never penned a book in our lives, whose claim to fame consists of a bunch of postings on the PB or our own blog, deign to wax so omnicompetent in dismissing the work of people who have actually DONE something for the kingdom and done it faithfully with records over three, four, or more decades of service!

I will disagree with Grudem on a host of issues. But, man, how many hundreds of thousands of copies of his Sys Theo are there now anyway? Does any modern writer have numbers to compare with the impact he has had on college and seminary generations through his writing? And, while many of us on the PB can show our litany of doctrinal complaints with him, who has done as much for the cause of complementarianism and against egalitarianism on this kind of scale? Similarly, Piper holds to a 5pt. soteriology and has helped win young people to the cause in droves. Sproul has been cited by David Murray at PRTS as the one person, along with Pink, who caused more people to turn to Reformed theology than anyone else. Yet, he is often treated to dismissive postings on the PB.

Am I arguing for a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach? Not at all! My spiritual gift, it would seem, is criticism. There is nothing wrong with respectful analysis. However, when I read the umpteenth thread with a question, "Is X even a Christian," or "I think that so and so is a Christian," my meltdown begins.

Rob, part of it relates to my just finishing a course on historical theology and realizing the amazing breadth of convictions that have been characteristic of those who have named the name "Christian" over the last two millennia. In the larger picture, Piper, Grudem, Sproul, Keller, and even MacArthur are part of a very conservative Calvinistic camp that represent an exceedingly small slice of the Christian movement. To treat any of them as if we need to vouch for their salvation by our own judgment, strikes me as impertinent, arrogant, and bizarre in its ignoring of the larger picture of the Christian movement. To me, and in the broader context, ALL of them are the good guys, not the enemy.

If any of us were in the evangelistic "foxhole" up against a smart agnostic, Islamist, Hindu, or Buddhist, we would be blessed beyond measure to have any of these guys in the "foxhole" with us.

Rob, please don't take my rant too personally. My complaint is a generic one about how we treat those on our side when we register disagreements with them. And, it relates to the issue mentioned yesterday about the need to show some respect for those who are not only older than us, but who have actually forged impressive records of service (much of it sacrificial) for the cause of Christ.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 21, 2013)

As for whether Piper's writings are "Christian," this also falls under the rubric of my general complaints in the last post. How are we using the term "Christian." Like the famous Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride, I protest: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Since when is a popularization of Edwardsian Calvinism, arguably the greatest Christian philosopher/theologian ever born on American soil, not "Christian"? I'm reminded of the arguments with the pro-abort crowd on the meaning of the "product of conception" in the womb. If not a baby, what is it, a frog? 

Can we stipulate that confessional Calvinists may take exception to the writings of dispensationalists, old earthers, charismatic-leaners, supralapsarians, sublapsarians, theonomists, Kyperians, Klineans, Van Tillians, non observers of the RPW, etc. without questioning either their salvation or whether their writings are "Christian"? What are they, Buddhist? Jewish? Hindu? Animist?

It is one thing to challenge the Christianity of non-supernaturalist liberals; it is quite another to turn our heavy artillery on those who hold to inerrancy, orthodox Christology, 5 pt. Calvinist soteriology, etc.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 21, 2013)

I really, really appreciate your posts in this thread, brother Dennis. Thank you for them.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 21, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I disagree with Piper on a lot of issues but refuse to throw rocks at him. He is miles ahead of me in intellect, scholarship, and experiential Christianity.
> 
> The Christian Hedonism always seems like a lightning rod with Piper. I wished he had never proffered it. However, it hardly means what some of you think it means -- I think.
> 
> ...



I am glad you said this. All of it. So, the reason I even brought up the issue of Warren's salvation is because I was going to use it as a platform from which to launch a gripe about all that you clarified better than I could frame in own words. I believe it is okay to disagree the likes of Piper and Warren, but to dismiss them as irrelevant is not right! Heretics we dismiss. With Christians we fellowship. Don't get me wrong. I will probably never read a book by Warren. But I am not going to through him under the bus.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 21, 2013)

Jon,

I owe you an apology and tender it here. You were correct; I jumped the gun on analysis, defaulting to my "pet peeve" about overly broad criticisms of conservative Christian leaders. It was wrong of me to misread your intention, incorrectly lumping you into that class. I saw the question, combined it with all too many past aspersions against Christian leaders posted here on the PB, and over-reacted.

Please forgive me for this hurtful stupidity on my part. 

You were very gracious to write me a PM. However, since I wrote in the light of day, you deserve a public apology for a public offense. Thank you for your Christian graciousness.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 21, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> Jon,
> 
> I owe you an apology and tender it here. You were correct; I jumped the gun on analysis, defaulting to my "pet peeve" about overly broad criticisms of conservative Christian leaders. It was wrong of me to misread your intention, incorrectly lumping you into that class. I saw the question, combined it with all too many past aspersions against Christian leaders posted here on the PB, and over-reacted.
> 
> ...



No offense taken, brutha-man.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 22, 2013)

Greetings:

Thank you, Mr. McFadden, for your clarification. If you will allow me the same courtesy in replying? If you investigate my post above, then you will see that I heavily criticize Dr. Piper's *doctrine*. In no way was I seeking to question his faith in Jesus Christ. The statement was also an expression of respect which you seem to think that he deserved. Which is why I made the statement which you are so offended by. I did not wish for this discussion to boil down to personalities - which it appears to me that is precisely what you want to do:

"John Piper has done much good for the Kingdom of God, therefore who are you to criticize him?" Is how you are coming across. If Piper is teaching the truth, then he has nothing to fear from criticism, and those who follow him should have no fear of criticism of his *doctrines* either. There is a very real Biblical example that soundly addresses your concern:



> And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so, Acts 17:10,11.


The Bereans did not accept Paul's word simply because he was an apostle, "and has done much good for the Kingdom." But they searched the Scriptures to verify if the words spoken by Paul were true. Luke, Paul, and the Scriptures all call the Bereans "noble" because they searched the Scriptures.

The right response to my post would be to investigate what I have written and ask two questions: 1) Did I rightly and fairly represent Dr. Piper's doctrine on the matters presented, and, 2) Did I rightly interpret and apply Scripture to these doctrines?

If I am right on both points, then I am doing a service to the Kingdom of God by pointing out false doctrine taught by a popular personality. I am certainly open to any criticism of the post above, but to criticize me based on personality and, "who has done more for the Kingdom of God" argument is not right. It may turn out that my "widow's mite" may be more profitable to the Kingdom than all of Piper's books. I will let God be the judge of that. The point is that we should not be making such judgments at all, and the argument you make comes straight from Rome.

Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Edwards, and others have had their problems, and that it true. But they never made the sustained and serious blunders concerning the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Piper has made. Piper does not even interpret Edwards rightly! So, I am not impressed by your "historical theology" argument. (By the way, did you guys use Cunningham?)

Anyway, your post(s) have done more to deflect the discussion away from doctrine to personalities, and, in that, I believe you have done a great disservice to the Board.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 22, 2013)

Rob,

1. no
2. no
I don't feel a need to impress you. You speculate that your criticism "may be more profitable to the Kingdom than all of Piper's books"? Wow! That is breathtaking.
I'm content leaving it to our Master to decide if you are doing His kingdom a service.
I'm sorry you consider my efforts a disservice. I'll just have to live with it.

[Note to Admins: I'm opting out of this discussion now lest I only add heat rather than light and create problems for you all later.]


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 22, 2013)

jandrusk said:


> I personally have had a problem with Piper since he started endorsing Rick Warren, let alone Mark Driscoll. I have pretty much dismissed him as not being relevant as I do most "shock jock" type of preachers.



Don't forget Doug Wilson, and Shepherdites like Daniel Fuller (whom he calls the most influential person in his life, after his father).


----------



## py3ak (Feb 22, 2013)

Thread sufficiently derailed.


----------

