And even as Wright's opponents concede, Wright is a communicator par excellent. And remember concerning Piper's Romans 9 book: Piper took off a whole year to write that book. He needs to do the same with this one. If he chooses to write on a popular, layman's level, then he will lose the intellectual debate. His popular-level books aren't that good, anyway. His scholarly ones usually are. He can go scholarly, perhaps, but it is going to be like Rocky vs. Drago.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Hey:

Your apology is accepted. My point concerning the nature of your question is that "tasting" is an act of faith - it is not an act of joy. Piper claims that "tasting" is an act of joy. Of this I challenge this statement.

Am I wrong? If so, then why?

Peace,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
B.B. Warfield's definition of Theological Students: "Angels preparing to sound the Trumpets."

Rocky vs. Drago was at least fun to watch. Way better than Rocky vs. Tommy "The Machine" Gunn.

Personally, I'd like to see D.A. Carson take 'em on...

Maybe we can set up some sort of international "brawl for it all" or something... Piper's little, but he's wiry.

__________________
B.C. Askins
Evangelical Church of Fairport, Member (Fairport, NY)
"If you eat a live frog in the morning, nothing worse will happen to either of you for the rest of the day."
-W.G.T. Shedd

What does it mean in Acts 2:41 when it says, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..."?

I take it to mean that our conversion experience is not neutral. I think that is all Piper is trying to say. We gladly receive Christ because the Spirit of God by regeneration has brought us out of darkness into light.

Granted, I can understand your complaint about Piper's use of the word taste in that context. It can be confusing, but to come out and be so adamant about him being unorthodox is a little off base, IMO.

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton

No please not Carson , I would rather John Piper than Carson...

__________________
Jaymin Jordan-Allen
Student, United Reformed Church
Ontario, CA

Is it the French-Canadian accent that bothers you?

CH,
This will be my last post in this regard (I'm leaving town for the weekend. 2nd anniversary!).

Let's see...

1.) You wrote:
"Would it be accurate from an Experiential perspective to say that Joy comes before saving faith? I do not think so. From an Experimental (or Experiential) perspective I would say that the blind eyes of my faith were first opened before I saw the beauty and majesty of God.

"I would refer you to C.H. Spurgeon's remarkable book, All of Grace for a full explication (and a much better one than I can do) of Experimental Christianity.

"As I mentioned above: One first has to see the Treasure in the Field before he/she can have joy in it. If one does not see the Treasure in the Field, then one is not going to have any "joy" in it. The Scriptures everywhere tell us that this "seeing" is an act of faith - not an act of Joy. But, then this ties in with your presentation of what Piper is saying concerning Matthew 13:44."

Spurgeon's book is outstanding, and I have actually recommended it to others on occasion, with regard to understanding their own conversions from a biblical standpoint.

Your contention is that Piper's position is "joy-saving faith-more joy," and I would interpret it as "joyful conversion unto saving faith, more joy" or something along those lines. I'm choosing to read Piper's statements benevolently (and I think there is warrant for this given by the preceding context, as I've already stated). You have chosen to read Piper's statements malevolently (though I won't presume to know your intentions), because you see problems with his interpretation of the parable.

Piper states (as you quoted): "But there is a different way of looking at the relationship of joy and faith."

You ask in response:
"What can this mean except that he is going to bring in some "new understanding" of the relationship between faith and joy?"

Well, it certainly doesn't have to be interpreted to mean "some 'new understanding' of the relationship of faith and joy," as though his statement necessarily means an introduction of "new heterodoxy." Your interpretation begs the question of the meaning of the statement.

I would understand the phrase "a different way of looking at _" to be a reference to simply looking at the same thing from a different perspective. For brevity's sake, if one is familiar with the language John Frame's "multiperspectivalism," then I would say Piper is simply shifting the discussion of conversion from a normative perspective to an existential perspective. Is there anything written therein that precludes this interpretation? I think not.

In fact, it seems your whole charge of heterdoxy hinges upon Piper's meaning in this phrase. Does "a different way of looking at _" mean simply "looking at it from a different perspective" or does it mean "there is an entirely different way of understanding _"? I know what you think. I'll leave it to others to adjudicate for themselves in this matter.

2.) You said:
"If Piper wants to define words according to his own views - how is such different from Arius, Pelagius, or the Federal Visionists? How then is this a sweeping generalization?"

I have to admit that this is just a bit comical to me, since you repeat the generalization, then immediately ask "how then is this a sweeping generalization?".

You're saying that something which may be true in some conditions, must be true in all conditions, in order to put Piper in with the heretics. (Some people who are heretics define words according to their own views. Therefore all people who define words according to their own views are heretics. Piper define words according to his own views, therefore he is a heretic.)
You offer three instances of evidence, make a sweeping generalization, then convict Piper based on this generalization.
I guess if Arius wore pants and Pelagius walked on his feet, then it would only be "orthodox" to wear skirts and walk on our hands (which would be quite embarrassing).

3.) I wrote:
"Please consider your earlier statements:
'He is falsely (and I think maliciously) misinterpreting the parable... Imagine, for example, if he stood up in his pulpit and admitted to his congregation that over the last 20 years he has been wrong about the fundamental nature of the gospel. That he has deceived millions of people because of his error. That this has been pointed out to him by brothers in Christ for over 10 years. He has built his huge ministry on a lie.'

I'd like to draw your attention to your signature, where it states 'In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity,' and simply ask if your think your charges in this regard have been charitable?"

You responded:
"You have my forgiveness for having misrepresented me once already. You now do not quote me in full, but edit out certain things in order to make a point.

If I am right, and I know that I am presenting Piper's views objectively and truthfully, then Piper is a false teacher in the Church. I would say that Jesus' statements in Scripture concerning false teachers was far less "charitable" than what I said of John Piper. I have carefully written what I wrote (unedited by you), and I think I am being too lenient on Piper."

I would like to know, by what Gnosticism you have managed to discern my "editorial intentions" as malicious "in order to make a point"?

I did not quote you "in full" because I was quoting your accusations, one of which occurred early in your post, the others at the close. The section between the first and second being quoted ("...") contained no accusations, and would include nearly your entire post. Quoting you "in full" would then mean quoting your entire post (the "certain things" I edited out), which I was unwilling to do for the sake of brevity, and since you already know what you wrote.

I haven't misrepresented you on this point in the slightest, which is made apparent by your ability to directly respond to the quote and question without any clarification. Your accusation against me in this respect is demonstrably unfounded, and could only be based upon some "special insight" you have into my intentions, or uncharitable conjecture on your part. Either way, I forgive you.

Enjoy your weekend. I know I will. [/quote]

Hey:

Congratulations on your anniversary! Enjoy.

As I have mentioned Heterodoxy is the most difficult thing to explicate because there is some truth attached to it. Those who hold to Heterodoxy only see the "positive" and refuse to look at the "negative" aspects of it. Since you like to avoid the major points of my posts I also do not see much fruit in our discussion.

You wrote:

No. I never said that - this again is a misinterpretation of what I have written. I did not use the phraseology "all" in my statements. I am applying it to a particular instance - that is Piper's view that "Joy preceeds faith" wherein, according to you, he wants to redefine words to fit his theology. Such is not a "Sweeping Generalization." What is comical is that by applying "all" in the fashion that you have done so - is a form of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy. You do not have a sufficient sample of my applying this particular argument to "all" or "every instance" wherein it occurs.

I will shrug off the ad hominen approach you are taking and continue on. I asked the simple question:


I do not find this a difficult thing to answer - yet it hits at the heart of Piper's heterodoxy. Those who think that I am wrong will have to answer this question rationally.

You wrote:

Your point being that I have not been "charitable" to John Piper. You then "edit" my presentation to fit your preconceived notion that I have not been charitable to John Piper. When a person "edits" another persons presentation in order to fit their own preconceived notion, then one can deduce that such an act is malicious.

This is like the third time you have misrepresented my points. In Baseball three strikes and you are out. I wonder how they are teaching you to think and argue at Whitfield Seminary? How did you even get into Seminary by doing things like this?

Though you insist that this is not a misrepresentation the fact is you are misrepresenting. When one makes an accusation one must have reasons for doing so - otherwise it is a violation of the commandment not to make false accusations. Because you "edited out" the reasons for making such an accusation you made it look like I was violating the Commandment.

Now, this may have been innocent on your part, but, given your history of misrepresentations and misinterpretations I am not so confident that it is. If these are blunders on your part, then I would question your ability to think straight.

What is most telling is that you never answer the points that I am making about John Piper's heterodoxy. You skim the surface to find only those points that you can reply to, and ignore the meat of the discussion.

You say you respect C.H. Spurgeon's book All of Grace ? Well, here is the portion that is unanswerable by "Piperism":

And, a little later on:

This is the experimental way of describing faith. Spurgeon was a master at it.

If Piper is simply trading the word "joy" for "regeneration" then how does it apply to the parable in Matt. 13:44?

Are the "finding" the treasure and the "hiding" of it done prior to "regeneration"? Not only do you misrepresent me, but, it seems, that you are misrepresenting Piper here as well.

I would hate to think that you are that incompetant.

The Lord's blessing to you on your anniversary.

-CH

Hey:

Well, Piper is centering on a vital area of Christianity: How does faith operate in Regeneration? This touches upon the experimental way in which we apprehend Christ and all of His benefits - including Joy. This touches upon the whole Christian life: Do we live by faith? or, Do we have to experience Joy first before living by faith?

Peter and the Apostles, in Acts 2:41, are simply baptizing all those who positively responded to the Word just preached by Peter. Faith is the instrument though which all of the blessings of Grace are received - including Joy.

Piper has reversed the whole teaching and has given to "joy" the instrumentality of faith. That is - if we do not experience "joy" in our lives, then we cannot have true saving faith. This makes our faith based on an emotion. If we are not experiencing "joy in Jesus" are we then without faith? Piper's view is the view of the Charismatics/Arminian position.

There is no Scripture anywhere that teaches that Joy is the instrument through which we receive saving faith. Piper has to misinterpret a parable in order to prove his point.

I think the problem is serious enough to label Piper a false teacher of the Gospel. If faith is dependent upon Joy - then what does that do to Justification? Are we then Justified by Joy? The logical end of his reasoning would inevitably bring one to this point.

As Francis Schaeffer once said, "Heterodoxy in one generation leads to heresy in the next."

Grace,

-CH

PS: I developed this criticism of Piper when I was a credo-baptist. When I brought this to the attention of my pastor he told me not to criticize a fellow credo.

-CH

CH,

I have great respect and admiration for John Piper, but I am not a blind follower of the man. (I know you didn't accuse me of being so, but I want to make that clear.) There are terms that Piper uses that I call into question, so I want you to know that I'm not being antagonistic in my responses. It seems as if your mind is already made up about Piper, so I'm not trying to change it either. I'm trying to see where you're coming from. It's late and I have been doing some reading on the matter, but I am too tired to post much more, so I will leave you with one question for now.

Do you agree with Packer in this instance, or do you think he is following the same unorthodox path as Piper?

REGENERATION by J.I. Packer

Packer seems to indicate that active faith in Christ is a result of regeneration. To this I would say we both agree. But Packer also says that in the act of regeneration the Holy Spirit implants a new principle of desire that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ.

This is the same thing that I have been saying all along - We're not neutral in our conversion to Christ. Our saving faith is a gift from God and a fruit of our regeneration, but there is a desire to positively (or gladly as Peter puts it in Acts 2) respond to Christ as a result of regeneration. Is there not?

I am more than willing to stand corrected on this issue if I'm off base because I would not want to go against the teaching of the Word of God. I would like to see some more guys weigh in on this point with their thoughts.

Hi:

You are a good man - better than me. I dislike being "negative" about things, but there are times when one has to be. Forgive me if I seem overly harsh.

Yes, as far as the J.I. Packer statement you made goes I agree with it. Regeneration affects the mind, heart, and will: the intellect, emotions, and will. The question is not whether or not Regeneration affects the person, but through what medium does it do so? I will requote Spurgeon because he says it better than myself:

We receive all the benefits of Christ through faith - including joy. I could quote a hundred passages from Scripture to prove this. But where in Scripture does it even imply that we receive all the benefits of Christ through joy - including faith?

Piper's "theology" that joy preceeds faith is a direct attack upon the Life, Walk, and Triumph of the Christian man. We walk by faith in the Son of God. The more you exercise faith in your life the more you will experience the work of the Spirit in changing your whole soul to be more like Jesus. But try to do the same thing with "joy" and you will find that you are experiencing something quite different - the "Charismatic" experience of an emotional frenzy.

This also touches upon his view of the Westminster Catechism. He rewrites the answer by saying:

At the outset this looks innocent. However, it is not the teaching that the Westminster Divines are setting forth. Piper is constrained by his "hedonism" to look for a human motivation to glorify God. If we seek our pleasure in God, he says, we will be glorifying him. But the catechism says something different:

The Divines are saying that our end is to glorify God in our lives, and by doing so we will enjoy Him forever. The difference between the two is the matter of motivation:

Piper - we are to seek our pleasure in God.

Divines - we are to glorify God in our lives, and then we will enjoy Him.

The Christian man, like Job, should not be seeking his pleasure in God - as his chief end, but should be committed to the glorification of God nomatter what:

Though He slay me, yet I will trust in Him, Job 13:15.

Piper's "Hedonism" says our end is to seek pleasure in God, and then we will glorify Him. The Christian, on the other hand, is to glorify God, and then you will receive pleasure from Him.

Commit yourself body and soul to the glory of God, and you will not be dissappointed. I have never been. Neither has Paul, Peter nor Christ Himself.

Piper's "Desiring God" ministry is deceiving a whole host of people.

In Jesus,

-CH

A "three strikes" baseball reference? How simultaneously fun and novel! Let's run with it. Since apparently I'm "out," I guess I need to take the field, so batter up!

1.) You started your posts in this thread with a link to an article by John Robbins. Need I say more? Strike one.

2.) You accused me of misrepresenting you when, in point of fact, I merely quoted you. This one is so ridiculous, it should require no explanation. Strike two.

3.) You have accused me of misrepresenting you three times. One of those times you were correct and I admitted it, however, you seem to think that this is some "weak spot" which you can capitalize on by declaring everything you don't like to be a misrepresentation, without need of demonstration. It's like you think you'll get a free throw every time you call a foul, just because you missed a lay-up (oops, basketball analogy, sorry about that, back to the diamond...).
I admitted it the first time because you demonstrated it to be true the first time. You didn't demonstrate it the other two times. Because you can't. Because I didn't. Stee-rike three!

New batter, new batter!

1.) I demonstrated your use of a generalization fallacy, to which you responded by declaring that it was I who had, in fact, committed a generalization fallacy in demonstrating your generalization fallacy. In this you effectively commit the tu quoque fallacy, and down-grade the conversation to within one step of typing "nuh uh" and "you too" in all caps. Strike one.
(FYI, since I took the only statements you made in this regard as my "sample" of occurrences, I'm actually using 100% of available data in making my conclusions. As soon as more data becomes available, the conclusion may change; but until then the statement is inductively valid. So your charge of a "hasty generalization" is statistically naive.)

2.) You accuse me of "avoiding the major points" of your posts and say that I "skim the surface to find only those points that (I) can reply to, and ignore the meat of the discussion."
Simply, my issue thus far has been with whether or not your interpretation of Piper is accurate. I have stated from the outset and throughout that this was my main point of contention with your statements. This fact makes your "major points" technically irrelevant, since your main question ("How can you have joy in something that you do not believe in?") assumes the truth of your interpretation, which is of course the actual point at issue. Assuming the truth of the point at issue in arguing for it is, as I'm sure you know, begging the question. Begging the question is like watching a big fat one go right down the middle, strike two.

3.) Not only do you seem to be unaware of your own statements (as evidenced by declaring a quote to be a misrepresentation) you also seem to be a bit unfamiliar with your own presuppositions and the implications of the statements you make. This appears to be part of why you repreatedly think others on this board are misinterpreting or misrepresenting you. To demonstrate that I am wrong in certain instances, you simply have to show that you have different presuppositions than I am criticizing or that your statements do not imply what I say they do. Instead, you continue to point out that you "didn't say" an implication or presupposition. This is true, since in the nature of the case a presupposition or implication is generally unstated; however, this makes your objection that you "didn't say" them thoroughly irrelevant. Irrelevant = "Swing and a miss!" = Strike Three.

Two down, new batter.

1.) You continue to refer to a statement in an out of print edition of Desiring God, saying that whether or not the statement is there any more doesn't matter so long as the "underlying theology" is still present. You then move on to ask your "main questions" without demonstrating that this "underlying theology" is present, simply declaring that it is and hoping nobody notices that it's not. That's called ipse dixit, which is a Strike.

2.) I made the obsevation that your whole position seems to hinge upon the proper interpretation of Piper's segue phrase "But there is a different way of looking at the relationship of joy and faith." You do not interact with my statements about this at all, which seems odd, since it's so central to your arguments. I offered that this phrase probably means looking at the relationship from a different perspective (since, really, that's all that it says), while you seem to assert that it must mean that Piper is giving an "altogether new and different (i.e. heterdox) way of understanding the relationship." This interpretation doesn't seem at all warranted by the phrase or its context, and it seems that one would only come to this conclusion as the result of an a priori commitment to interpreting Piper in this way. Begging the same question from a different perspective gets you a Strike Two.

3.) You say that you "will shrug off the ad hominen approach (I am) taking and continue on." To imagine that someone is attacking you, and to declare so forthrightly that you are "shrugging it off," generally might mean that you can at least pretend to have the ability to avoid using inflamatory rhetorical statements immediately afterward. You know, like: "I wonder how they are teaching you to think and argue at Whitfield Seminary? How did you even get into Seminary by doing things like this?... If these are blunders on your part, then I would question your ability to think straight... I would hate to think that you are that incompetant."
I know by now that you are just being "charitable" in making such statements, but these contradictions in tone and language within a single post make the initial "shrugging it off" statement seem disingenuous at best, delusional at worst. It gets you a foul-tip for being mildly amusing, but, unfortunately, the catcher snagged it. Strike three! You're out!

Boy, what a fun inning! I haven't played ball in a long time. Well, I guess maybe I'll catch you next year for spring training. Have a good one, I'm gonna go ice my pitching arm...

Greetings:

Sorry, you are throwing all balls dude.

1) You accused me of Sweeping Generalization:

What did I say in order to receive such a accusation?

1) That you claimed John Piiper to be using words in a special sense.

2) That I pointed out that heretics and those involved in heterodoxy use terms in a special sence.

3) That John Piper in using terms in a special sense is following the lead of those who are heretics and heterodox.

4) You then accused me of "Sweeping Generalization." When I challenged you on this you made the claim that I said "ALL" who use terms in a special sense.

5) I responded by pointing out that I never used the term "ALL" - that was an interpretation on your part (and a false one to be precise). In doing so you are engaging in the Hasty Generalization fallacy:

Do you actually have, in evidece, every single time I used #2 above? If not, then your accusation is a Hasty Generalization.

In order to avoid this you write:

Sorry, dude that does not cut it - and a good try at a cop out. Am I arguing with a child?

To quote you again concerning this matter:

No. I never said that. I said that this particular example applies here. By placing the word "all" in you are committing the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

For a guy who throws around logical fallacies I would hope you would know what you are talking about!

Ball One

Next, you wrote:

So? You say you are interested in whether or not I am interpreting Piper correctly? You then say that ONE of my major points is "technically irrelevant" you have never interracted with any of the quotes I made from John Piper nor the interpretations set forth.

You interpret Piper's meaning as "Joy" replacing the word "regeneration" in which I responed in two fashions. One with the challenge concerning changing words without proper explanation - i.e. "heretics using their own special definitions." and the second here:

A guy who says he is interested in whether or not I am interpreting John Piper rightly, and then says that he will not interract with my major points? Hmmmm

Ball Two

Next,

You mean to tell me that a person cannot misrepreent another by misquotation? This is truly the icing on the cake! I know what I said - it is plain for anyone to read. You now say that I say "others on this board are misinterpreting or misrepresenting" Where do you get that from?

Now, I will make a deal with you - we will clean the slate and look at what I am saying about John Piper without throwing around logical fallacise - unless we can so prove them? I am more interested in talking about Piper's "theology" rather than logical fallacies. If you want to continue talking about this, then we should do so privately or on another thread.
Agreed?

Now you write:

Post #24 on this thread does not at all substantiate your statement above. Especially when I wrote:

I will quote Spurgeon, again, since you seem to admire him:

To remind you of Piper's view:

Tasting the goodness of the Lord has never been used as a matter of "Joy." The emotion of "joy" is something you experience when you taste something sweet.

And in Post #34 here:

In both of these posts, and in a few others, I do not refer to his original formulation "Joy is the Root and Fruit of Saving Faith." I show that the theology still remains.

In this post you point out that my last question, "How can you have joy in something that you do not believe in?" was unsubstantiated - thus irrelevant. I am sorry, but the whole post runs against your thesis. I carefully showed that Piper is still holding to the view that Joy preceeds faith in regeneration. Thus my question is very relevant.

Next, you wrote: