"Piper is Down. Repeat, We Have a Piper Down"
- Thread starter JOwen
- Start date
- Status
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
hmmmm,
Exceeds forum quota by 1.22 MB. I'll try and post it on another site.
Try here for the thesis.
Exceeds forum quota by 1.22 MB. I'll try and post it on another site.
Try here for the thesis.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
I don't believe that Piper is above criticism, but I also don't believe you have accurately reflected his thoughts in certain areas.
You said in your thesis, "Piper has missed the point not only in degree but in kind by making man the center of the Christian experience instead of Christ."
That's just not an accurate assessment of what Piper teaches. Anybody that has spent any amount of time studying him would know that he stresses Christ-centeredness above all else. That's the foundation of Christian Hedonism.
You said in your thesis, "The Puritan Richard Sibbes on the other hand, understood that sanctification is the great bulwark of our preparation for heaven when he insists, "Those that look to be happy must first look to be holy." This is a glaring weakness in Piper's thesis that should not go unnoticed."
Again, it's obvious that you've spent very little time listening to Piper's sermons and reading much of his other material. Sanctification is not something that is missing from Piper's doctrine.
I don't have time to expound more because I have to prepare for this coming Lord's day. From what I've read of your thesis it was well written and you argued your points well. However, I think you've misrepresented what Piper teaches.
God Bless!
You said in your thesis, "Piper has missed the point not only in degree but in kind by making man the center of the Christian experience instead of Christ."
That's just not an accurate assessment of what Piper teaches. Anybody that has spent any amount of time studying him would know that he stresses Christ-centeredness above all else. That's the foundation of Christian Hedonism.
You said in your thesis, "The Puritan Richard Sibbes on the other hand, understood that sanctification is the great bulwark of our preparation for heaven when he insists, "Those that look to be happy must first look to be holy." This is a glaring weakness in Piper's thesis that should not go unnoticed."
Again, it's obvious that you've spent very little time listening to Piper's sermons and reading much of his other material. Sanctification is not something that is missing from Piper's doctrine.
I don't have time to expound more because I have to prepare for this coming Lord's day. From what I've read of your thesis it was well written and you argued your points well. However, I think you've misrepresented what Piper teaches.
God Bless!
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
I haven't read "Desiring God" however, I have l read a book by Piper entitled, "God's Passion for His Glory," which is an expose of a writing by Jonathan Edwards, "The End for Which God Created the World." In this Piper states, "God's is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him." He states it is not about stuff but having such a relationship with God and being so content in Him that no matter what happens to us in this life, we are not shaken, due to our satisfaction in our relationship with God. Then when God's people are unshaken by the events of life, and in the world, due to their relationship with God, God gets the glory.
It is based on a striving after contentment in God, not in stuff or pleasure. True contentment comes from our relationship with God and our standing with Him, not in the accumulation of stuff or striving after pleasure. When we get to the place of this contentment, God gets the glory. It is like Paul being imprisoned but still having a good attitude about it, it is all part of God's plan, he still had a good attitude about it and was able to witness to the guards out of that true contentment which did not come from stuff but from a relationship derived from being secure in God.
I have a audio recording where Piper expounds on this. I don't believe it is on his website. If I can figure out how to post it from my computer I will, if anyone is interested.
It is based on a striving after contentment in God, not in stuff or pleasure. True contentment comes from our relationship with God and our standing with Him, not in the accumulation of stuff or striving after pleasure. When we get to the place of this contentment, God gets the glory. It is like Paul being imprisoned but still having a good attitude about it, it is all part of God's plan, he still had a good attitude about it and was able to witness to the guards out of that true contentment which did not come from stuff but from a relationship derived from being secure in God.
I have a audio recording where Piper expounds on this. I don't believe it is on his website. If I can figure out how to post it from my computer I will, if anyone is interested.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I don't believe that Piper is above criticism, but I also don't believe you have accurately reflected his thoughts in certain areas.
You said in your thesis, "Piper has missed the point not only in degree but in kind by making man the center of the Christian experience instead of Christ."
That's just not an accurate assessment of what Piper teaches. Anybody that has spent any amount of time studying him would know that he stresses Christ-centeredness above all else. That's the foundation of Christian Hedonism.
You said in your thesis, "The Puritan Richard Sibbes on the other hand, understood that sanctification is the great bulwark of our preparation for heaven when he insists, "Those that look to be happy must first look to be holy." This is a glaring weakness in Piper's thesis that should not go unnoticed."
Again, it's obvious that you've spent very little time listening to Piper's sermons and reading much of his other material. Sanctification is not something that is missing from Piper's doctrine.
I don't have time to expound more because I have to prepare for this coming Lord's day. From what I've read of your thesis it was well written and you argued your points well. However, I think you've misrepresented what Piper teaches.
God Bless!
I don't think Jerrod is representing Piper, but representing Piper's work, Desiring God. If Piper is not really saying what is found in this book, then he needs to be more clear. Directing people to the rest of Piper's works is not so helpful, when his point on this matter should be stated in a complete and clear way within the work that is specific to the topic that is being addressed.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
"In Desiring God, Piper has missed the mark of what should be a very profound point. By making pleasure the overarching theme of the Christian life,, Piper has oversimplified the Christian experience and jettisoned the equally profound duties of self-denial, sanctification and obedience to the law."
That's a REAL misrepresentation of Piper if I ever heard one.
In a sermon on Romans 8:
How to Kill Sin Part 1
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/83_How_to_Kill_Sin_Part_1/
That's a REAL misrepresentation of Piper if I ever heard one.
In a sermon on Romans 8:
How to Kill Sin Part 1
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/83_How_to_Kill_Sin_Part_1/
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Then please show how Piper is misrepresented based on Piper's book Desiring God.
Davidius
Inactive User
Chris,
This is one reason why I was commenting earlier on the inappropriateness of the thread title. It doesn't say "Desiring God is down." It says "John Piper is down." I would imagine that may be why several people have assumed the shots are being taken at Piper himself, not just the book. Aside from being a shot at his person, it's a confusing and provocative title.
Last edited:
Ivan
Pastor
I'll keep flying "Air" Piper.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Regardless of the title being appropriate or not, what is being critiqued is Piper's exposition on the first catechism question which Piper expounds in detail within his book Desiring God. By referring Jerrold to the plethora of sermons and articles by Piper is not addressing the point. Is Piper's work on this issue clear enough as it should be within his very book that is dedicated to matter at hand?
Sure Piper may have got it right when expounding Romans, but was he careless when addressing the topic as a whole with his book? If not, show how Desiring God is being misrepresented? If Piper is being misrepresented, then he is his own accuser with his book. I would like to see how Jerrod is misrepresenting Piper based on a misunderstanding of Piper's book on Christian hedonism. Or does Jerrold understand the book all too well and Piper needs to be more careful?
Sure Piper may have got it right when expounding Romans, but was he careless when addressing the topic as a whole with his book? If not, show how Desiring God is being misrepresented? If Piper is being misrepresented, then he is his own accuser with his book. I would like to see how Jerrod is misrepresenting Piper based on a misunderstanding of Piper's book on Christian hedonism. Or does Jerrold understand the book all too well and Piper needs to be more careful?
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
It was tongue in cheek, it was humourous, men throughout history have poked at eachother in a chummy way through eachother to make points on the other's writings, and personally I doubt Piper would act like a five year old over it...he'd probably laugh.
Let's notice also, gentlemen, that this thread is ANCIENT for the world of the internet. Ideals may or may not have changed. Ppl may have change in how they phrase things and may not say the same things they did two years ago. It's old hat...have grace and move on.
Let's notice also, gentlemen, that this thread is ANCIENT for the world of the internet. Ideals may or may not have changed. Ppl may have change in how they phrase things and may not say the same things they did two years ago. It's old hat...have grace and move on.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
You know.... there is the fact that his book was not the only thing in print when this thread first began.
Responsible scholarship checks multiple sources by an author, not just zoom in on what one author considers to be ungaurded statements in one book. This is how you find out whether someone is consistent in their teaching or not.
We don't appreciate it when people zoom in on one statement by Calvin regarding Servetus without appreciating other statements where Calvin sought to reconcile with the man and then even tried to get him a 'nicer death'.
The fact that Future Grace (which deals with sanctification) was published and available makes the original statement by the author erroneous. The fact that when the author's original article was published, all of Piper's sermons back to 96 were available on the internet for free - including those on sanctification, the necessity of the law for the believer (Piper even has a baptist catechism based on the 1689 on his site which reinforces this).
Eh.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
You know.... there is the fact that his book was not the only thing in print when this thread first began.
Responsible scholarship checks multiple sources by an author, not just zoom in on what one author considers to be ungaurded statements in one book. This is how you find out whether someone is consistent in their teaching or not.
We don't appreciate it when people zoom in on one statement by Calvin regarding Servetus without appreciating other statements where Calvin sought to reconcile with the man and then even tried to get him a 'nicer death'.
The fact that Future Grace (which deals with sanctification) was published and available makes the original statement by the author erroneous. The fact that when the author's original article was published, all of Piper's sermons back to 96 were available on the internet for free - including those on sanctification, the necessity of the law for the believer (Piper even has a baptist catechism based on the 1689 on his site which reinforces this).
Eh.
If Calvin dedicated an entire volume to the Servetus issue then you would not need to digest every bit of available material by Calvin before offering an opposing critique on THAT issue.
If you are trying to defend Piper, show where his dedicated volume on the matter is indeed comprehensive and a stand alone defense of the doctrine he is advocating.
This is kind of like telling an Arminian they cannot understand Owen's view of the atonement through The Death of Death... alone but must digests every work he published first before criticizing Owen's view on the atonement.
I see no need for Jerold to be criticized for not listening to every sermon or reading every work by Piper before he offers a critique on Christian Hedonism.
It is a simple point that I don't think I need to reiterate anymore in this thread.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Gentlemen,
Can someone lay out in a concise manner the argument against Piper's Christian Hedonism? I am not looking for a full blown argument, but rather just a brief synopsis of the main points. I suspect the criticism will miss Piper's key point that man's satisfaction and God's glory are ends that are intricately tied together - going for one is necessarily going for the other.
Sincerely,
Brian
Can someone lay out in a concise manner the argument against Piper's Christian Hedonism? I am not looking for a full blown argument, but rather just a brief synopsis of the main points. I suspect the criticism will miss Piper's key point that man's satisfaction and God's glory are ends that are intricately tied together - going for one is necessarily going for the other.
Sincerely,
Brian
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
I wonder if Jerrold Lewis was asked these poinient questions by his prebytery review board, and how he answered them. Since in writing a thesis one is forced to defend it against any such criticisms?
As I earlier stated, I have always liked Piper. He has been on good terms with Traditional Anglicans. I might not agree with everything he teaches, but he has a deep love for Christ and a heart for the lost and hurting. To me this counts for a lot. Grace and Peace MBC
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
The problem is that going for one does not necessarily mean going after the other. Matthew 6:33 cannot be reversed and mean the same thing.
Now no one is trying to say that Piper wants people or does not care if people get the order wrong, however he does not properly protect against it.
CT
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
First, the topic was given to me by my Presbytery, I did not choose it. Would not have chosen it.
Second, every public author including Piper is not above reproach nor criticism.
The thread title is a spoof of of a line in a movie. People who recognize it find it funny.
Slander?! That's a new one. Even my harshest critics never came clost to that kind of statement. Come on!
Last edited:
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello CT,
This is true, but that is not what Christian hedonism means according to Piper.
One could formalize Matthew 6:33 as follows: If you seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, then all these things will be added to you. I believe it was your point to say that this verse is somehow inconsistent with Piper's concept of Christian Hedonism. As it stands, I do not see it. Can you make it explicit?
Let me see if I understand your argument.
(1) Piper's teaching could be construed improperly.
(2) Piper does not properly protect against people misconstruing his teaching.
(3) Therefore, in some sense Piper has been negligent.
Is this really what you are saying? If so, could one argue that James failed to properly protect against misconstrual regarding James 2? Could one argue that the writer of Hebrews failed to properly protect against the misconstrual of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? Don't mistake any of this. I am not Piper's bull dog here. However, I still am waiting to see what the criticism really amounts to. Is Piper, when properly understood, wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
This is true, but that is not what Christian hedonism means according to Piper.
One could formalize Matthew 6:33 as follows: If you seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, then all these things will be added to you. I believe it was your point to say that this verse is somehow inconsistent with Piper's concept of Christian Hedonism. As it stands, I do not see it. Can you make it explicit?
Let me see if I understand your argument.
(1) Piper's teaching could be construed improperly.
(2) Piper does not properly protect against people misconstruing his teaching.
(3) Therefore, in some sense Piper has been negligent.
Is this really what you are saying? If so, could one argue that James failed to properly protect against misconstrual regarding James 2? Could one argue that the writer of Hebrews failed to properly protect against the misconstrual of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? Don't mistake any of this. I am not Piper's bull dog here. However, I still am waiting to see what the criticism really amounts to. Is Piper, when properly understood, wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
It was wordplay, people, on a line in a movie in the 1990's! THAT is why some find it funny. It was not the title of my thesis. Sheesh!
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
Yes shackleton, questions were asked, I defended the thesis at the general assembly, and I was licensed the same day in Inverness Scotland, 2005.
By the way, so far all I have seen is a bunch of pro Piperites who think I've committed some high crime by offering criticism from one (meaning Piper) who stands outside the Reformed tradition and pokes a stick at our creedal language. I think I have set forth the Puritan/Piper disjunction on the emphasis of Shorter Catechism Q&A 1 by contrasting the Puritans with Piper. What's unbelievable to me is Piper can challenge one of the greatest creedal statements of all time (SC1), and pontificate on its improvement, but when someone who's actually bound himself to that document says his emphasis is wrong, he get's it in the ear. Breathtaking!
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
Not being an Edwardsian scholar, I can't say one way or the other. My criticism of Piper on this subject has everything to do with his spin on the first question and answer of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. From that perspective I can speak with some conviction and, I hope, some kind of authority.
Piper says point blank in his book, “Not that I care too much about the intention of seventeenth century theologians”. This is the height of arrogance when you consider that intention is the whole message.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Jerrold,
I do not wish to be ungracious here, but I find places in your paper where you do misrepresent him. For example, on page 7 of your paper you state...
But this is not to tell the whole story. Piper contends that the chief end of man is to glorify God! The means of this is by enjoying Him forever. My point here is not to necessarily endorse Christian Hedonism, but rather to make sure Piper is being fairly represented. In fact, as I pick areas of the paper to read, I continue to find such misrepresentations. Consider this...
Once again, this misrepresents Piper. Chapter 10 of his book is about the suffering of the Christian. He calls it the "Sacrifice of Christian Hedonism." He explains the seeming dicotomy of being able to rejoice even in our sufferings. He speaks of persecution and discipleship. He has not jetisoned the things you say he has, but rather has showed the basis for joy in our afflictions, obedience, etc...In fact, he has a whole section devoted to Christianity being a "life of chosen suffering." He speaks of giving our all to gain Christ. If you will look in the back index of his book you will find many references to every topic you listed such as "self denial," "sanctification," and "obedience".
It sure would help me if you were to just lay out your key points in your argument against Piper. Is your whole beef that Piper was wrong to change the word 'and' into 'by' in the WMSC Q#1? Are you saying that this is bad theology?
Brian
P.S. Have you actually read cover to cover his book Desiring God?
I do not wish to be ungracious here, but I find places in your paper where you do misrepresent him. For example, on page 7 of your paper you state...
But this is not to tell the whole story. Piper contends that the chief end of man is to glorify God! The means of this is by enjoying Him forever. My point here is not to necessarily endorse Christian Hedonism, but rather to make sure Piper is being fairly represented. In fact, as I pick areas of the paper to read, I continue to find such misrepresentations. Consider this...
Once again, this misrepresents Piper. Chapter 10 of his book is about the suffering of the Christian. He calls it the "Sacrifice of Christian Hedonism." He explains the seeming dicotomy of being able to rejoice even in our sufferings. He speaks of persecution and discipleship. He has not jetisoned the things you say he has, but rather has showed the basis for joy in our afflictions, obedience, etc...In fact, he has a whole section devoted to Christianity being a "life of chosen suffering." He speaks of giving our all to gain Christ. If you will look in the back index of his book you will find many references to every topic you listed such as "self denial," "sanctification," and "obedience".
It sure would help me if you were to just lay out your key points in your argument against Piper. Is your whole beef that Piper was wrong to change the word 'and' into 'by' in the WMSC Q#1? Are you saying that this is bad theology?
Brian
P.S. Have you actually read cover to cover his book Desiring God?
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
The paper is what it is. You think it misrepresents, others think it is spot on. Luk 6:26 "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!" As for your P.S, well, I'll let it speak for itself...
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Brother Jerrold,
Trevor is spot on. In reading over your thesis and then reading your posts in this thread I have tried to see your side of things. However, your use of Luke 6:26 leads me to believe there is more to all of this than meets the eye. The context of Luke 6:26 is in reference to false prophets. I'm not sure I follow why you used that in reference to Piper.
It's one thing to say that no man is above criticism. I agree with you about that. And even though I am "pro Piper" there are things that I don't agree with him about.
But it's entirely different to start comparing him to a false prophet. Makes me think your problem is not so much with Christian Hedonism as it is with a Christian brother.
Piper places great emphasis in regards to our Church Fathers. He meant no disrespect toward them with his statement, though he never really should have said it. He would probably admit to as much.
God bless!
- Status
