Piper's experiential pietism?

[arapahoepark]

Just looking at some old threads and posts on the Heidelblog spurred on by the Piper and Fuller discussion, I am curious as to people's take on Piper. I would occasionally visit his site but, it seems quite recycled and a number of his comments have sort of pushed me away. However, his views of Hedonism seem to have been taken on by a few and called too experiential by Clark, Hart, etc. I am not to sure what to think though what little I have read it does come across as really pietistic.
Discuss.

 

[Pilgrim]

Hart in particular has been batted around here a bit from time to time as well. I don't have a lot of time to put into it now, but you can search the forum. There have been several threads over the years.

Piper aside, in short, In my humble opinion too much of what Hart derides as "pietism" is genuine piety and would have been recognized as such by the Puritans, and other Reformed folk. He's often worth reading, but don't assume you're reading mainstream Reformed theology when you do so. If it can be said that Piper is too fixated on some of Edwards' teaching, it can be said that Hart throws the baby out with the bathwater. Calvinists typically reject the Second Great Awakening for its man centered methods, among other things. Hart rejects the First Great Awakening too.

There is plenty to criticize in Piper without resorting to Hart's idiosyncracies. Unless I've badly misunderstood him (and discussions here in the past have confirmed for me that I haven't) Hard's invective against "pietism" requires you to throw the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible into the rubbish bin marked "Charismatic, other" since the kind of experiential teaching there inevitably leads to TBN. High Church "Calvinism" indeed.

 

[MW]

Dr. Beeke's experimentalism upholds the practice and experience of the true faith. He is confessionally reformed and maintains the regulative principle of worship, among other things. The pietism of Dr. Piper makes experience itself to be authoritative. Whatever its doctrinal beliefs it is not reformed in practice.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Hart in particular has been batted around here a bit from time to time as well. I don't have a lot of time to put into it now, but you can search the forum. There have been several threads over the years.

Piper aside, in short, In my humble opinion too much of what Hart derides as "pietism" is genuine piety and would have been recognized as such by the Puritans, and other Reformed folk. He's often worth reading, but don't assume you're reading mainstream Reformed theology when you do so. If it can be said that Piper is too fixated on some of Edwards' teaching, it can be said that Hart throws the baby out with the bathwater. Calvinists typically reject the Second Great Awakening for its man centered methods, among other things. Hart rejects the First Great Awakening too.

There is plenty to criticize in Piper without resorting to Hart's idiosyncracies. Unless I've badly misunderstood him (and discussions here in the past have confirmed for me that I haven't) Hard's invective against "pietism" requires you to throw the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible into the rubbish bin marked "Charismatic, other" since the kind of experiential teaching there inevitably leads to TBN. High Church "Calvinism" indeed.

This doesn't seem like a fair portrayal of Dr. Hart. Hart certainly doesn't "reject" the first Great Awakening and indeed has recognized much good in it. What he rejects is the deficient ecclesiology that often accompanied it--the same thing that Seceders, Reformed Presbyterians, and other confessionally orthodox observers of the time criticized.

To the OP, contrast Fisher's treatment of WSC 1 to Piper's:

Q. 46. Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end?
A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isaiah 2:11. (Fisher's Catechism)

 

[KMK]

This doesn't seem like a fair portrayal of Dr. Hart. Hart certainly doesn't "reject" the first Great Awakening and indeed has recognized much good in it. What he rejects is the deficient ecclesiology that often accompanied it--the same thing that Seceders, Reformed Presbyterians, and other confessionally orthodox observers of the time criticized.

To the OP, contrast Fisher's treatment of WSC 1 to Piper's:

Q. 46. Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end?
A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isaiah 2:11. (Fisher's Catechism)

Thanks for that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pilgrim]

This doesn't seem like a fair portrayal of Dr. Hart. Hart certainly doesn't "reject" the first Great Awakening and indeed has recognized much good in it. What he rejects is the deficient ecclesiology that often accompanied it--the same thing that Seceders, Reformed Presbyterians, and other confessionally orthodox observers of the time criticized.

To the OP, contrast Fisher's treatment of WSC 1 to Piper's:

Q. 46. Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end?
A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isaiah 2:11. (Fisher's Catechism)

Maybe I'll have time to look up citations this weekend. But my recollection is that Hart questions the emphasis of Whitefield and other evangelists on the new birth (deemed a form of pietism--"Am I really saved?") and contrasts it with with the idea of being a member of the church in good standing formally affirming the confession. I was also thinking of things like Hart's denigration of prayer meetings and his advocacy of a prayer book.

I can't help but think that the kind of preaching you see in the churches like the HRC and FRCNA (and those heavily influenced by Puritan spirituality) and the experiential emphasis in the Reformation Heritage Study Bible (which is why I mentioned it) would make him uncomfortable and be seen as a sort of revivalism or pietism.

I seem to recall reading him asserting that the Old School Presbyterians were too tolerant of revivalism. They were certainly opposed to the Second Great Awakening, so what kind of revivalism were they too tolerant of?

EDIT: Much of what I was recalling is found in this article of his in which he argues for "High Church Presbyterianism" in contrast to certain aspects of Puritanism and Old School Presbyterianism.

 

[arapahoepark]

Dr. Beeke's experimentalism upholds the practice and experience of the true faith. He is confessionally reformed and maintains the regulative principle of worship, among other things. The pietism of Dr. Piper makes experience itself to be authoritative. Whatever its doctrinal beliefs it is not reformed in practice.

Makes sense. There was something that I could not just put my finger on aside from a few other really weird things from him. I am thankful for his Calvinism and imputed righteousness defense though.

 

[Pilgrim]

With regard to Piper, I've really never delved that deeply into his specific teaching, but many have pointed out that his Christian Hedonism is a departure from historic Calvinist teaching at certain points.

I think what turned the YRR on to Piper (as opposed to other Calvinistic teachers) was his passionate preaching, his tolerance of "contemporary worship" and his denunciation of complacency e.g. "Don't Waste Your Life" and the "seashell" sermon from which it originated. (in my opinion that's a healthy emphasis up to a point, and Sproul and others have also questioned the modern idea of retirement.) His continuationism and unwillingness to criticize the Vineyard/Third Wave of charismaticism and his association with others like Driscoll, Beth Moore, Wilson and Warren are well documented.

It has always seemed to me that he is a good example of the kind of teacher with which you have to be careful to spit out the bones if you are going to chew on the meat at all. in my opinion, among Calvinistic Baptistic conservative evangelicals, MacArthur is a sounder guide on many if not most issues even though he would be considered "farther" away from confessionalism due to his eschatology. But Piper isn't a covenantal Baptist himself although his eschatology would be deemed more acceptable by most Reformed people today.

 

[arapahoepark]

With regard to Piper, I've really never delved that deeply into his specific teaching, but many have pointed out that his Christian Hedonism is a departure from historic Calvinist teaching at certain points.

I think what turned the YRR on to Piper (as opposed to other Calvinistic teachers) was his passionate preaching, his tolerance of "contemporary worship" and his denunciation of complacency e.g. "Don't Waste Your Life" and the "seashell" sermon from which it originated. (in my opinion that's a healthy emphasis up to a point, and Sproul and others have also questioned the modern idea of retirement.) His continuationism and unwillingness to criticize the Vineyard/Third Wave of charismaticism and his association with others like Driscoll, Beth Moore, Wilson and Warren are well documented.

It has always seemed to me that he is a good example of the kind of teacher with which you have to be careful to spit out the bones if you are going to chew on the meat at all. in my opinion, among Calvinistic Baptistic conservative evangelicals, MacArthur is a sounder guide on many if not most issues even though he would be considered "farther" away from confessionalism due to his eschatology. But Piper isn't a covenantal Baptist himself although his eschatology would be deemed more acceptable by most Reformed people today.

I am drawn to Clark's and Hart's positions at times because in evangelicalism the two classes of Christians is cropping up again in the form of small groups. I only have time for the ordinary means of grace.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Maybe I'll have time to look up citations this weekend. But my recollection is that Hart questions the emphasis of Whitefield and other evangelists on the new birth (deemed a form of pietism--"Am I really saved?") and contrasts it with with the idea of being a member of the church in good standing formally affirming the confession. I was also thinking of things like Hart's denigration of prayer meetings and his advocacy of a prayer book.

I can't help but think that the kind of preaching you see in the churches like the HRC and FRCNA (and those heavily influenced by Puritan spirituality) and the experiential emphasis in the Reformation Heritage Study Bible (which is why I mentioned it) would make him uncomfortable and be seen as a sort of revivalism or pietism.

I seem to recall reading him asserting that the Old School Presbyterians were too tolerant of revivalism. They were certainly opposed to the Second Great Awakening, so what kind of revivalism were they too tolerant of?

EDIT: Much of what I was recalling is found in this article of his in which he argues for "High Church Presbyterianism" in contrast to certain aspects of Puritanism and Old School Presbyterianism.

I think you're mostly correct in your assessment, but also realize that Whitefield was heavily criticized "from the right" in his own time by Covenanters and other scrupulous defenders of Westminster orthodoxy. Hart, for the most part, is taking up those criticisms. When he criticizes the Old School for defending the revivalism he is indeed talking about the FGA. Old Princeton was founded on FGA revivalism (as a New Side institution). Charles Hodge does later come to see and criticize many flaws in FGA style revivalism and does move the seminary back towards a more Scots-Irish Presbyterianism but never all of the way. The Old/New School controversy was 2GA stuff, but there were older controversies with respect to the FGA: the Old Side-New Side controversy with the Old Side being highly critical of many aspects of the FGA.

So Hart isn't drawing his arguments out of thin air, the New Side won the day in many ways in North American Presbyterianism and Hart has tried to go back and bring to light what the Old Siders held to be so central to orthodox Presbyterianism that they saw New Siders as schismatic.

I won't defend everything Hart says--especially when he's playing the provocateur on his blog--but I do think he's been useful in showing ways in which American Presbyterianism has indeed diverged from its historical roots. At the very least he's a useful foil for the "progressive" evangelical Presbyterianism like you see in the PCA and, to a lesser extent, the OPC. I can't say whether he'd be uncomfortable with what you suggest particularly or not, but he is an elder in the OPC and there's little doubt that piety is preached there. I think Hart is less useful when he ceases being a historian, as he does in the article you posted. When he begins to eschew the principle of liberty of conscience in criticizing the Directory for Public Worship he and I will part ways. There you can see a little too much Nevin/Mercersburg showing through, even though I appreciated Hart's book on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I think you're mostly correct in your assessment, but also realize that Whitefield was heavily criticized "from the right" in his own time by Covenanters and other scrupulous defenders of Westminster orthodoxy. Hart, for the most part, is taking up those criticisms. When he criticizes the Old School for defending the revivalism he is indeed talking about the FGA. Old Princeton was founded on FGA revivalism (as a New Side institution). Charles Hodge does later come to see and criticize many flaws in FGA style revivalism and does move the seminary back towards a more Scots-Irish Presbyterianism but never all of the way. The Old/New School controversy was 2GA stuff, but there were older controversies with respect to the FGA: the Old Side-New Side controversy with the Old Side being highly critical of many aspects of the FGA.

So Hart isn't drawing his arguments out of thin air, the New Side won the day in many ways in North American Presbyterianism and Hart has tried to go back and bring to light what the Old Siders held to be so central to orthodox Presbyterianism that they saw New Siders as schismatic.

I won't defend everything Hart says--especially when he's playing the provocateur on his blog--but I do think he's been useful in showing ways in which American Presbyterianism has indeed diverged from its historical roots. At the very least he's a useful foil for the "progressive" evangelical Presbyterianism like you see in the PCA and, to a lesser extent, the OPC. I can't say whether he'd be uncomfortable with what you suggest particularly or not, but he is an elder in the OPC and there's little doubt that piety is preached there. I think Hart is less useful when he ceases being a historian, as he does in the article you posted. When he begins to eschew the principle of liberty of conscience in criticizing the Directory for Public Worship he and I will part ways. There you can see a little too much Nevin/Mercersburg showing through, even though I appreciated Hart's book on the subject.

I haven't read much of anything from Hart (I've long been aware of him, but somehow I've kind of missed him in my studies), but I have been thinking over the Old Side-New Side controversy recently. The more I look into it, the more I see that I agree very much with the Old Side group, although I may be more of a moderate Old Sider (I think it is important to remember that there was a spectrum of views and emphases within each party).

The trouble historiographically, I think, lies in forcing oneself (or others, for that matter) to choose between Presbyterian principles and experimental religion. I have heard sympathizers of each party draw the line in that very way. I expressed this to a minister from another congregation within my presbytery, and he was in agreement. For what it's worth, he cited Hart as an example of this tendency.

What we need to realize is that Presbyterian ecclesiology and experiential piety are not at all opposed to one another. I'd hate to insert a plug for my own denomination (or would I?), but the Free Church (Continuing) has been remarkably consistent in holding forth both of these.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I haven't read much of anything from Hart (I've long been aware of him, but somehow I've kind of missed him in my studies), but I have been thinking over the Old Side-New Side controversy recently. The more I look into it, the more I see that I agree very much with the Old Side group, although I may be more of a moderate Old Sider (I think it is important to remember that there was a spectrum of views and emphases within each party).

The trouble historiographically, I think, lies in forcing oneself (or others, for that matter) between Presbyterian principles and experimental religion. I have heard sympathizers of each party draw the line in that very way. I expressed this to a minister from another congregation within my presbytery, and he was in agreement. For what it's worth, he cited Hart as an example of this tendency.

What we need to realize is that Presbyterian ecclesiology and experiential piety are not at all opposed to one another. I'd hate to insert a plug for my own denomination (or would I?), but the Free Church (Continuing) has been remarkably consistent in holding forth both of these.

Yep, I agree, and I think Hart can be justly criticized on this point. His criticisms of New Side, American Presbyterianism are mostly on target, but in his effort to really press that home (and to be intentionally provocative at times) he underplays the role of orthodox experimental piety of the sort that I would agree holds forth in the FCC admirably from my experience with it. Hart's value is as a historian demonstrating the ways that historical Presbyterianism differs from contemporary American Presbyterianism. When he tries to be more constructive or prescriptive in his theological musings I think he's less valuable.

 

[Matthew1344]

Do you have a link to the conversation? I would love to watch it

 

[Von]

Can I throw in a quick question, while we are talking about Piper's take on things:
Is his "Faith in Future Grace" the same as Christian hope?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Do you have a link to the conversation? I would love to watch it

Does who have a link to what conversation?

 

[Matthew1344]

Piper and Fuller discussion

 

[arapahoepark]

To revive this thread again, this time on the topic of DG Hart; do you think is arguing for the pretty much only the ordinary means of grace is going too far in the other direction from Piper and revivalism?

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

Hart in particular has been batted around here a bit from time to time as well. I don't have a lot of time to put into it now, but you can search the forum. There have been several threads over the years.

Piper aside, in short, In my humble opinion too much of what Hart derides as "pietism" is genuine piety and would have been recognized as such by the Puritans, and other Reformed folk. He's often worth reading, but don't assume you're reading mainstream Reformed theology when you do so. If it can be said that Piper is too fixated on some of Edwards' teaching, it can be said that Hart throws the baby out with the bathwater. Calvinists typically reject the Second Great Awakening for its man centered methods, among other things. Hart rejects the First Great Awakening too.

There is plenty to criticize in Piper without resorting to Hart's idiosyncracies. Unless I've badly misunderstood him (and discussions here in the past have confirmed for me that I haven't) Hard's invective against "pietism" requires you to throw the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible into the rubbish bin marked "Charismatic, other" since the kind of experiential teaching there inevitably leads to TBN. High Church "Calvinism" indeed.

Hart is loved by the "Theocast" guys, who, in my opinion, are R2K. I think that pietism is being correctly criticized, but I think many people are going to the other extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

Hart in particular has been batted around here a bit from time to time as well. I don't have a lot of time to put into it now, but you can search the forum. There have been several threads over the years.

Piper aside, in short, In my humble opinion too much of what Hart derides as "pietism" is genuine piety and would have been recognized as such by the Puritans, and other Reformed folk. He's often worth reading, but don't assume you're reading mainstream Reformed theology when you do so. If it can be said that Piper is too fixated on some of Edwards' teaching, it can be said that Hart throws the baby out with the bathwater. Calvinists typically reject the Second Great Awakening for its man centered methods, among other things. Hart rejects the First Great Awakening too.

There is plenty to criticize in Piper without resorting to Hart's idiosyncracies. Unless I've badly misunderstood him (and discussions here in the past have confirmed for me that I haven't) Hard's invective against "pietism" requires you to throw the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible into the rubbish bin marked "Charismatic, other" since the kind of experiential teaching there inevitably leads to TBN. High Church "Calvinism" indeed.

Also, I've never heard of Reformed folk rejection of the Second Great Awakening. I know some people deride it but most of the Calvinists I know and follow are believers in the SGA, with critiques of course. I have studied it and the controversies pretty extensively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

I haven't read much of anything from Hart (I've long been aware of him, but somehow I've kind of missed him in my studies), but I have been thinking over the Old Side-New Side controversy recently. The more I look into it, the more I see that I agree very much with the Old Side group, although I may be more of a moderate Old Sider (I think it is important to remember that there was a spectrum of views and emphases within each party).

The trouble historiographically, I think, lies in forcing oneself (or others, for that matter) to choose between Presbyterian principles and experimental religion. I have heard sympathizers of each party draw the line in that very way. I expressed this to a minister from another congregation within my presbytery, and he was in agreement. For what it's worth, he cited Hart as an example of this tendency.

What we need to realize is that Presbyterian ecclesiology and experiential piety are not at all opposed to one another. I'd hate to insert a plug for my own denomination (or would I?), but the Free Church (Continuing) has been remarkably consistent in holding forth both of these.

I've been eyeing the Free Church (Continuing) thanks to R. Andrew Myers for a bit but I live in the boonies [emoji17]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pilgrim]

Also, I've never heard of Reformed folk rejection of the Second Great Awakening. I know some people deride it but most of the Calvinists I know and follow are believers in the SGA, with critiques of course. I have studied it and the controversies pretty extensively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nettleton and maybe a few others are admired, but otherwise it is generally associated with Finney and his "new measures" and other things that had deleterious effects on evangelicalism. I haven't read much in this area in many years, but my recollection is that Calvinistic men like Iain Murray (a "pietist" by Hart's definition) who are very positive toward the First Great Awakening are much less so toward the Second. It is also, broadly speaking, associated with the Restoration movement and other sects and theologies that the Reformed view as aberrant at best and heretical at worst. (In other words, everything from Campbellism to Mormonism and SDA.) Nettleton is the main Calvinistic figure I can think of. The other leaders tended to be Arminian at best. (The Arminian Cumberland Presbyterian Church was formed during this era.) Historians have often noted that it was during this era that the decline of Calvinism began.

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

Nettleton and maybe a few others are admired, but otherwise it is generally associated with Finney and his "new measures" and other things that had deleterious effects on evangelicalism. I haven't read much in this area in many years, but my recollection is that Calvinistic men like Iain Murray (a "pietist" by Hart's definition) who are very positive toward the First Great Awakening are much less so toward the Second. It is also, broadly speaking, associated with the Restoration movement and other sects and theologies that the Reformed view as aberrant at best and heretical at worst. (In other words, everything from Campbellism to Mormonism and SDA.) Nettleton is the main Calvinistic figure I can think of. The other leaders tended to be Arminian at best. (The Arminian Cumberland Presbyterian Church was formed during this era.) Historians have often noted that it was during this era that the decline of Calvinism began.

I tend to separate Finney from the SGA. I first learned about him in "A Puritan Hope" and was greatly dismayed at his influence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I've been eyeing the Free Church (Continuing) thanks to R. Andrew Myers for a bit but I live in the boonies [emoji17]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, unfortunately it looks like our closest congregation (Columbia) is a little over four hours away.