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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jesusslave

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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?

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

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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
 
Last edited:

sevenzedek

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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

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

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Professor
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?
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Goodcheer68

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.

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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 
Last edited:

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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?

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

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

Thank you!


Sent from the Vatican Archive
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
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.

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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 
Last edited:

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top