Christian Hedonism: Good or Bad?

[Barnpreacher]

Truly, the internet is a theater of dilettantes.

I don't want to say even "good guys" aren't immune from criticism here on the PB. You know, like JoelD'oh!steen and JackHugee take their lumps, so too the Pipers and Sprouls, right?

My personal feeling? I'm not worthy to polish Piper's shoes.

Subjecting him to withering criticism, when he has done more to bring people to sound, calvinistic soterioolgy than any 50 of us, or maybe 100; and this quibbling over terms, by so many who not only haven't a fraction the breadth of his earning, years of experience, or mantle of office.

Piper isn't a snake-oil salesman. He isn't a psychologist, charismaniac, or a professional eschatologist parading as a preacher.

Any man's public statements or published writings leave him open to legitimate critical responses. Although it's typically fair-play to let a man clarify or contextualize himself.

Those of you who know Piper by the title of a book, do everyone a favor and don't type anything, Prov. 17:28. As for others, just remember the standard of your measurement, Mt 7:2.

WOW!!!! WOW!!!! WOW!!!! And can I add a WOW!!!! End the thread now. Nothing better could be typed and nothing more should be added. WELL SAID with a capital WELL and a capital SAID!!!! You are not da wabbit in my book, Bruce, you are DA MAN!!!!

 

[Barnpreacher]

Let me just add another WOW!!!!

And in adding my last words to this thread, I would like to know where some of you critics were two weeks ago when Piper was pouring out his heart in an orthodox Gospel message to some 5,000 pastors in Louisville? Maybe you should have been there.

He's human, fallible, and is self-confessed full of faults, but as Bruce alluded too above, the name I kept hearing at T4G conference as having the greatest impact on bringing many of these pastor's to Calvinistic soteriology was John Piper.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

CalvinandHodges, you brought up some good points about Piper's "Desiring God." However, as I'm sure you can tell from my user name, I tend to disagree with you. The biggest point I disagree with is what you said about joy preceding faith.

First, if joy were to precede faith, it does not mean that we are justified by joy instead of faith. A lot of things precede Christ's sheep coming to faith, which are all means by which they are brought to faith. Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ. Thus, I don't see how it must logically follow that if something precedes faith then we are justified by that something instead of by faith.

Second, I am curious to know if you believe that regeneration precedes faith. Perhaps I am reading more into Piper than he actually explains, but it seems to me that the idea of a joy preceding our faith makes sense if our regeneration precedes our faith. What happens when we are regenerated? Doesn't the Holy Spirit awaken in our hearts a desire for God and for salvation through Jesus Christ, that immediately leads to our putting faith in Him? For who comes to faith in God unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them and gives them the desire to come to faith in God? It seems to me that Piper is calling this desire we are given "joy," and thus a joy in God is awakened in us when we are regenerated, which immediately leads us to having justifying faith in Christ.

In Christ,
Dan

Hello Dan:

I can see from your profile that you are a big fan of John Piper, and thus I would anticipate extreme difficulty in "converting" you. However, it is not my plan to do so. I have stated many times before that I believe Piper to be a Christian, but I have misgivings about the major thrust of his teachings - what he describes as "Christian Hedonism." To be warned about Piper's heterodoxy is a good thing. Whether you take the warning or not is your own decision. I can see, though, that there are many who swallow his teachings, and emotionally defend him when he is legitimately criticized.

To compare Piper with a man like George Whitfield, for example, would be a good thing. Thousands of people flocked to hear Whitfield preach the plain Gospel of Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin once measured the range of his voice and the number of people attending, and came to a figure of 10,000 - just in one day. What I have read of Whitfield's biographies and the sermons printed shows a man of eloquence, but he did not preach "new doctrines" or seek to package Biblical Christianity with philosophical language.

You say that "a lot of things preceed Christ's sheep coming to faith." You miss the point. Piper claims that "Joy is a root of saving faith." If faith has its "root" in joy, then joy is an integral part of saving faith. In other words, if you don't have the root (joy), then you don't have the fruit (faith). But, there is nothing in the Bible or in Reformed Orthodoxy that states that "Joy is the root of saving faith."

This is why John Piper has to interpret a parable (Mt 13:44) in order to prove his "Christian hedonism." Jesus gave us parables for a specific purpose:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, Mt 13:10,11

What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.

You wrote:

Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ.

This is not entirely accurate. The Bible tells us:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, Eph 2:8.

We are saved "by grace through faith." We are not saved "by grace through love" (though without love we have no true faith). Nor are we saved "by grace through peace" nor are we saved "by grace through joy."

"Love," "Joy," and "Peace" are all operatives in our life with Christ, but they are not operative in our salvation. The cause of our Justification is the Mercy of God - which grants us regenerating grace - which grants us faith - which converts our soul - which then gives us all the "fruits of the Spirit" one of which is "joy."

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom 3:22-24.

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Rom 4:16

Many an aesthete are impressed with numbers. They even argue that way, and live a comfortable life thinking of all the people that have come to Christ because of their ministry. Certainly, they themselves must be teaching the way truly, and can claim a chief seat in heaven?

I hope not, but I will leave it to your judgment. You will find that bombastic conduct is their only recourse.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.

I find this judgment (along with a number of other things you have written) highly uncharitable. How do you know that Dr. Piper did not just honestly misinterpret the parable?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.

I find this judgment (along with a number of other things you have written) highly uncharitable. How do you know that Dr. Piper did not just honestly misinterpret the parable?

Hi:

I am sorry that you find it so. Do you think that Piper just jotted down what he thought without referring to commentaries, the Greek, etc? If he "honestly" misinterprets the parable, then, in light of what Jesus said (which I take it was not "uncharitable") what does that mean?

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, Mt 13:10,11

I am not criticizing you, but I am asking you to use your own judgment.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[JonathanHunt]

You might like to listen to the following mp3, which is a message that Dr. Peter Masters (of Spurgeon's Tabernacle) gave at a fairly recent School of Theology:

Christian Hedonism - is it right?

I read an article by Peter Masters against John Piper some time ago, and I did not think that he fairly represented him when I read it.

Daniel

I have not read the article you refer to and cannot therefore comment on that. All I can say is that in Dr Masters' message, to which I referred earlier, he deals with the central thesis of Christian Hedonism and having read Desiring God etc. I cannot see that he is unfair in his criticisms of Piper. Do listen to the message for yourself. I would be interested to hear how fair or otherwise others think this is.

Satch

The article IS the audio recording distilled. PM never wastes anything he does. Things tend to go like this: Wednesday Bible Study, Seminary Lecture, School of Theology Lecture, Sword and Trowel Article, Book (or part thereof).

I do think that on this matter Dr Masters and many others have got hung up too much about Dr Piper's poor choice of words.

I used to be very anti-piper. Until one day I realised that I had never read much of him at all. So now I have five books to work through, and even then I shall be very slow to voice an opinion regarding such an instrument of God whose shoes I am not even worthy to buy polish for, let alone actually polish them.

 

[Galatians220]

A "position paper" John Piper wrote a long time ago with which I agree: Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library.

His views on the topic are rather strange - and he flies in the face of the WCF. I hope he still holds to this position, if not to those strange conclusions.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What does it say then about Piper when he falsely interprets a parable in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis? I will leave it to your own judgment, but when I read this back in 1986 all the red flags were flying, and for good reason.

I find this judgment (along with a number of other things you have written) highly uncharitable. How do you know that Dr. Piper did not just honestly misinterpret the parable?

Hi:

I am sorry that you find it so. Do you think that Piper just jotted down what he thought without referring to commentaries, the Greek, etc? If he "honestly" misinterprets the parable, then, in light of what Jesus said (which I take it was not "uncharitable") what does that mean?

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, Mt 13:10,11

I am not criticizing you, but I am asking you to use your own judgment.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Robert

I just don't think it is a good idea to accuse Dr. Piper of deliberately distorting the meaning of a text due to a preconceived idea. He may have just made a mistake in his interpretation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I read an article by Peter Masters against John Piper some time ago, and I did not think that he fairly represented him when I read it.

Daniel

I have not read the article you refer to and cannot therefore comment on that. All I can say is that in Dr Masters' message, to which I referred earlier, he deals with the central thesis of Christian Hedonism and having read Desiring God etc. I cannot see that he is unfair in his criticisms of Piper. Do listen to the message for yourself. I would be interested to hear how fair or otherwise others think this is.

Satch

The article IS the audio recording distilled. PM never wastes anything he does. Things tend to go like this: Wednesday Bible Study, Seminary Lecture, School of Theology Lecture, Sword and Trowel Article, Book (or part thereof).

I do think that on this matter Dr Masters and many others have got hung up too much about Dr Piper's poor choice of words.

I used to be very anti-piper. Until one day I realised that I had never read much of him at all. So now I have five books to work through, and even then I shall be very slow to voice an opinion regarding such an instrument of God whose shoes I am not even worthy to buy polish for, let alone actually polish them.

My concerns about PM's critique are probably just what Jonathan said; he seems to get too hung up about terms which John Piper would have been better not using.

It is good to hear PM does not waste his work; one of our ministers once told me "the reward for good work is more work."

 

[Galatians220]

A "position paper" John Piper wrote a long time ago with which I agree: Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library.

His views on the topic are rather strange - and he flies in the face of the WCF. I hope he still holds to this position, if not to those strange conclusions.

You just confused me (Sorry! I'm a bit dense at times) You do agree with his position paper or don't? If so, but you're calling the views strange? His position on divorce and remarriage also flies in the face of WCF.

CHAPTER XXIV.
​

Of Marriage and Divorce.


...



VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

​

So I believe it would follow that if the framers recognized these exceptions "dissolving the bond of marriage," the "innocent" party is free to remarry per 1 Cor. 7.



Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

I think Piper confuses me when he adopts the "no remarriage after divorce" (NRAD) position, but then unctuously sanctions second marriages already in existence. As far as I know, the PRCA is the only Reformed church at present that holds to the NRAD stance for both the innocent and guilty (adulterous, for that would be the only ground for dissolving the marriage bond) parties. Dr. David Engelsma and Rev. Kenneth Koole have written some wonderful articles on the subject; they're on the PRCA web site... (I've got to get going; I'd write more on this now if I had more time.)

I don't know where Piper is coming from on this. I'm open to being educated. I just think that when you say "till death us do part," in front of God and His people -- that's it. Second marriages - after what Piper said initially? And, BTW, nobody's marriage is paradise, regardless of how it appears to others. Next Monday, we'll have our 35th wedding anniversary, Lord willing, and I know of what I speak in that area... (Although my husband knows better! )

Margaret

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here is Paul Helm digressing on a recent work by John Piper, The Future of Justification (Crossway, 2007):
Helm's Deep: Analysis 14 - Which Comes First?

(HT to JT @ Ref21 blog)

 

[greenbaggins]

I really appreciated Bruce's post. I don't want to gild a lily like that, only to put out my own thoughts. To my mind, a great deal can be forgiven Piper when he has justification so incredibly right. Read his critique of N.T. Wright, and his book on imputation. That is the Gospel. And, as Calvin himself said (still trying to track down the source of this quotation!), any theologian can be at most %80 correct. I would chalk up his "Christian Hedonism" to that %20, and also his future grace idea. And he is a stalwart Calvinist. Furthermore, he seems completely free of the sectarian tendencies of some among Baptist circles in his views on baptism. So I am quite willing to forgive him his oddities (as if I were more right than him!).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I really appreciated Bruce's post. I don't want to gild a lily like that, only to put out my own thoughts. To my mind, a great deal can be forgiven Piper when he has justification so incredibly right. Read his critique of N.T. Wright, and his book on imputation. That is the Gospel. And, as Calvin himself said (still trying to track down the source of this quotation!), any theologian can be at most %80 correct. I would chalk up his "Christian Hedonism" to that %20, and also his future grace idea. And he is a stalwart Calvinist. Furthermore, he seems completely free of the sectarian tendencies of some among Baptist circles in his views on baptism. So I am quite willing to forgive him his oddities (as if I were more right than him!).

I would chalk up "%20" to your 20% Lane.