No. I don't particularly like Piper's view, although I think it has some merit. But having Piper's Desiring God, The Pleasures of God, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, Let the Nations Be Glad, Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, God's Passion for His Glory, Future Grace, and several others, I think it is fair for me to say that what you described above is not what Piper describes in his books about this concept.
REally?? So you do write off the omnipresence of God due to this standard? What about the Trinity? That won't stand up to any logic anywhere. And I could go on and on. Formulations of ideas in rhetoric is substantively different than mathematics and science. We don't judge ideas by falsifiabiliy in all cases. That is one criteria (that you didn't even meet here).
God has not said this? Where has God told us this?</font>[/QUOTE]I would start with Psalm 37:4 where we are commanded to "Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart." That sounds a like like "find your pleasure in God so that he can satisfy you." I could list a number of passages here that would essentially back up the same idea.
Not actually. Having been chastened what seems like more than my fair share, I can testify that some of my greatest pleasures in God are during times of chastening. IN accordance with Hebrews 12, it reminds me that I am his son.
I don't think so. Read the Psalms, particularly 119. I think your concept of pleasure is messed up. You seem to think that "pleasure" means always being happy and comfortable. I don't think that, I don't think Scripture teaches that, and I don't think Piper does.
This, my friend, is pure unadulterated humanism.</font>[/QUOTE]No it's not. It is human nature. It does not go against the grain of self-sacrifice in the least. It is a part of it. Ask an athlete why he labors at the weights and running and discipline? It is because he sees a bigger goal that he is willing to sacrifice for. This is exactly what Christ taught when he talked of giving up all now in order to reap eternity. So if what I said is humanism, then Christ was a humanist.
You don't appear to understand Piper, and this post hasn't helped you.'
John Piper
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by tinytim, Nov 22, 2005.
Page 3 of 4
-
-
Psalm 16:11 indicates tjat seeking pleasure in God is biblical: You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.
And I could go on and on. But I won't. I have things I have to do today.
Having read a fair amount of Piper, I am not overly enthusiastic about him. He has developed a bit of a cult like following that is troublesome. I enjoy his preaching on occasions. His best works, to me, are The Pleasures of God (one of the best books I have ever read but not for the faint of heart) and The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Desiring God is actually down the list a ways for me. But it is certainly more than fair to say that you have not grasped the idea that Piper puts forth and dealt with the abundant Scripture he uses. -
-
But I can't quite get my mind around the idea of using a term like "Christian hedonism" to express it. Yes, God does receive glory when we are satisfied in him. It's called giving God glory and praise! It's called adoration and worship. Why can't we leave the center of attention God and not our "pleasure."[/QUOTE]
Perhaps this will help.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/christian_hedonism/chr_hed.html -
Thanks Larry for helping to clarify Piper's position.
-
-
But Paid, human reasoning in rhetoric is not the same as human reasoning in math. Your analogy was not applicable. Furthermore, you can challenge his view with rigorous logic and reasoning, and common sense, and you can use the Scriptures and see that Piper's view is very solidly based in Scripture.
Have you actually even read this book? -
What is your support for this? </font>[/QUOTE]I usually start with Psalm 73:25 5 Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the exaltation of God, not the pursuit of my pleasure and finding it in God. A simple exegesis will show a poetical expression of all earthly things becoming worthless in comparison to God. This is an exclamation of praise rather than a theological statement that desiring God is the greatest pleasure resulting in the greatest good. So, what are you saying?
-
-
Again, you are using a lot of generalities and connotative statements such as: ". . . . Piper's view is very solidly based in Scripture." True, he refers to Scripture passages but Scripture does not teach his view as stated in his writing. The JW's use Bible verses but they are not Biblical in their views. I've not read Piper exhaustively (meaning that I have not read everything the guy has written) but I have read enough, as I indicated in a previous post, to know his views and reject them. What is this twist of asking me if I have read Piper? It does not necessarily follow that I would agree with him if I read all his books and every article. You've said that I didn't understand him and then you said the same things that I attributed to Piper. Seems that you have proven that I do know what he teaches. If I’m wrong, expose me. I’m fair game in season. If you have something substantive, please trot it out.
1. You have not contradicted my arguments.
2. You have not shown where I am in error of my understanding or knowledge regarding Piper.
3. You have not given persuasive Scriptures supporting Piper's positions.
4. You have presented no compelling case in support of Piper's Christian hedonism.
So, please simply, clearly and plainly tell me where I am wrong instead of just telling me that I am wrong and have not read John Piper. Larry, your position is one that I really don’t understand. You seem to cater to Piper In some posts and you seem to rebuff him in others. -
-
Read Piper’s article in full at: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/christian_hedonism/chr_hed.html
This is the heresy. I state emphatically that there is no Biblical or rational basis supporting the idea that we cannot love man or please God without pursuing our own happiness. This is akin to the foolishness that we must learn to love ourselves before loving others.
Piper uses a couple of slick tricks to build his case. First, he labels the idea that glorifying God results in our greatest good and pleasure as Kantian. He makes much out of this. Although Kant may have subscribed to this or similar view, it is a sleight of hand to give the concept a negative connotation by associating it with a secular out-of-vogue philosopher. The concept was around long before Kant dating back to Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, et. al. David Livingstone strongly believed in glorifying God through self-sacrifice, which resulted in the believer’s ultimate happiness, but I doubt he came to this belief via Kant. So, this is not uniquely a Kantian concept and Piper’s argument falls flat.
Second, he builds his case by quoting men such as C.S. Lewis. Piper said, “C. S. Lewis put it like this in a letter to Sheldon Vanauken: ‘It is a Christian duty, as you know, for everyone to be as happy as he can.’" He quoted Flannery O’Connor as saying, "Always you renounce a lesser good for a greater; the opposite is sin. Picture me with my ground teeth stalking joy - fully armed too, as it's a highly dangerous quest." I hardly think Lewis, who thought Charles Williams was the greatest theologian and believed aberrant doctrine, and O’Connor are trustworthy guides in building Christian doctrine. He further quotes Pascal and Jonathan Edwards. Although, Piper quotes some Scripture verses, the texts do not support his view over the traditional view.
Third, John begs the question by an implicit assumption that the traditional view holds to a begrudging obedience. This is not true. For centuries, believers have joyfully faced deprivation and death for the sake of Christ. They have delighted themselves in God and His presence during times of adversity. So, you ask what’s the difference? It is simply that duty prevails over pleasure. Do we serve God only because we will derive a reward from it? Or, do we do it out of love and duty?Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
In the final analysis, you have shown nothing indicating our desire for God is the greatest or highest aim in life. It is the glory of God, not our desire for God. Our very existence is for God’s glory, not our pleasure.
Click to expand... -
Please tell me that you are joking and did not intend this as a serious response
...nothing that you have said supports your radical statement: “Desiring God is the highest aim of life.”Click to expand...
My understanding is that we ought to desire the glory of God beyond our own pleasure.Click to expand...
(Now, I know the song and dance that they were scorning a lesser pleasure for a greater pleasure but it just doesn’t play well with Scripture.)Click to expand...
The "song and dance" you mock is what the Bible teaches.
In the final analysis, you have shown nothing indicating our desire for God is the greatest or highest aim in life. It is the glory of God, not our desire for God. Our very existence is for God’s glory, not our pleasure.Click to expand...
Mathematical reasoning is nothing more than symbolic logic.Click to expand...
True, he refers to Scripture passages but Scripture does not teach his view as stated in his writing.Click to expand...
I've not read Piper exhaustively (meaning that I have not read everything the guy has written) but I have read enough, as I indicated in a previous post, to know his views and reject them.Click to expand...
What is this twist of asking me if I have read Piper?Click to expand...
It does not necessarily follow that I would agree with him if I read all his books and every article.Click to expand...
You've said that I didn't understand him and then you said the same things that I attributed to Piper.Click to expand...
If I’m wrong, expose me.Click to expand...
1. You have not contradicted my arguments.
2. You have not shown where I am in error of my understanding or knowledge regarding Piper.
3. You have not given persuasive Scriptures supporting Piper's positions.Click to expand...
4. You have presented no compelling case in support of Piper's Christian hedonism.Click to expand...
Larry, your position is one that I really don’t understand. You seem to cater to Piper In some posts and you seem to rebuff him in others.Click to expand...
Piper's main point in most of his writing that is it is part of man's natural instinct (not sinful) to seek pleasure. He quotes Henry Scougal who said "The worth and excellency of a soul can be measured by the things it delights in." (I may have missed a word or two there.) His whole premise is that man should seek pleasure in God because God is glorified when we acknowledge him as the sole source of real and deep and lasting pleasure. God does not desire obedience out of duty, but rather out of delight. He says that "God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in him." He says "Man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying him forever." Piper's main focus is on the relationship of delight and pleasure in God.
What is wrong with seeking pleasure in God? Isn't that what God created us for? His glory? To glorify him by showing him to be the sole source of pleasure and life?
I really don't know how you argue with that. -
Over the years, I have developed a habit of reading and correlating what I have read elsewhere with what I am presently reading. It is interesting to compare thoughts in later works gleaned from earlier sources. When I first began reading John Piper, many ideas were vaguely reminisce of things read elsewhere. C. S. Lewis, Ayn Rand, and Charles Williams immediately came to mind. Voila! Piper is soon quoting and attributing his thinking to this trio. (I believe a quote from Williams’s Descent into Hell is in the front piece of Desiring God.) Now, how can we put much stock in an aberrant concept deriving from this unreliable trinity—Rand was an agnostic, Williams was a heretical mystic and Lewis was a liberal Christian at best. Finding inspiration for truth and Scripturally sound ideas in these three is sparse pickings indeed. The influence is there and it is undeniable. What say ye?
Furthermore, I don’t like the way Piper handles some of the quotes he uses to support his Christian hedonism. His uses of Scriptures are slightly skewed from the orthodox understanding. He uses quotes from men who would have been in obvious disagreement with his proposal of Christian hedonism. Many of these writers and theologians are long dead and cannot defend their statements being used against their purposes. IMHO, there is a great difference in joy of the Lord, delighting in the Lord, hungering and thirsting for God, etc. and Piper’s new found Christian hedonism concept. Piper even employs one individual, Ralph Winter, who would admittedly object to Piper’s term Christian hedonism. IMHO, this is inaccurate and shady use of people, their statements and their ideas to one’s own ends. Such techniques show the real lack of merit and support of the idea.
In sum, John Piper’s Christian hedonism is the outgrowth of his reading and assimilating the philosophies of Ayn Rand, C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, not a Scripturally compelled principle. He even describes his intellectual and spiritual quest until this impression satisfied his personal search. Thus, we have a predisposed investigation fulfilled in a personal scheme instead of a revealed truth from Scripture. Much like Bill Gothard, John Piper went searching for Scriptural props after he received the self-satisfying notion from other sources. One can easily discern elements of Rand’s rational egoism as well as blended strains of ethical egoism in his Christian hedonism. Lewis’s footprints are all over the place and Williams’s fainter trail is there as well. How can we call this orthodox theology? -
Obviously you read Piper quite differently than I do, and quite differently than most do. The idea of Christian hedonism (though I don't like the name) has been used of God to change my thinking about God's greatness and glory. I know that it has for others.
I am not greatly concerned by quotes of others. After all, Paul quoted some secular people. If wha they say is true, then quote away.
In short, Piper's handling of Scripture is mostly solid. A discerning read can benefit greatly from it. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Obviously you read Piper quite differently than I do, and quite differently than most do. The idea of Christian hedonism (though I don't like the name) has been used of God to change my thinking about God's greatness and glory. I know that it has for others.Click to expand...
Larry, do you ever wonder why you don’t like the term? Could it be that everything you have been taught and believe about Christianity and hedonism is in tension here. Yet, John claims that he is proposing nothing new. He is redefining and reshaping both concepts to make them fit together.
If you think that I am wrong about the Ayn Rand, C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams influences on Piper, I challenge you to sit down and do a quick reading of the three in comparison to Piper. John will point the way if you look careful at his references, especially in Desiring God Some of the references will be in text allusions to ideas. If you think I am wrong, put me to the test.
My life is too busy and hectic for me to give an in-depth point-by-point analysis and comparison. I suggested the idea but you will have to pursue it yourself. It would, IMHO, be worthy of a small book and perhaps a dissertation if properly delimited. As you may surmise from my posts and interests, I am a curious and omnivorous reader. It comes in handy for relating ideas and people. However, my intellectual range is ten miles wide and a half-inch deep. In other words, I may know a little about most things but I don’t know much about anything. I’m not enough of a scholar to fill in the gaps—you can do that.I am not greatly concerned by quotes of others. After all, Paul quoted some secular people. If wha they say is true, then quote away.Click to expand...In short, Piper's handling of Scripture is mostly solid. A discerning read can benefit greatly from it.Click to expand...
Have you noticed that Piper is playing with superficial similarities? He is making words take on added meaning that does not exist in the Biblical context. John Piper glosses over differences in meanings and usages to prove his point—he shaves words to fit his idea. John fails to differentiate between joy and happiness even when there is clear contextual reason to do so. There are even contextual differences between joy and joy. Also, he never adequately differentiates the parallel ideas and words referring to peace and rest in the Lord. Suffering and sacrifice is never adequately explained and he fails to correlate many important and relevant passages and ideas such as the profaneness of Esau or self-mortification. Or, I don’t recall John meditating upon why Paul would wish himself accursed for Israel’s sake. Piper’s Christian hedonism is a new theology and he does not cover all the bases. Give me a sabbatical with peace and quiet so I can write a book.
;) -
Even your response, Paid, shows again my contention that you are not fairly interacting.
First, experience is not truth. I never said any such thing. But the fact taht there is biblical truth in this book that I have experienced. The truth is biblical, not experiential.
Second, I am not a big fan of the term because of the connotation. But a word means only what someone intends it to mean. Piper hurt his communication by using the term, but it certainly means exactly what he intends it to mean. The fact that you or I don't understand it is not the point.
Third, I am not particularly concerned with whether Rand, Lewis, or a monkey have influenced Piper. I am concerned with whether a book (any book) is biblical. Having read Desiring God twice, I asser that, in the main, it is a biblical book.
Lastly, I assert that your last paragraph is a continued misreading of Piper, the Bible, or both. I am not sure. If you think Piper has never dealt with suffering and sacrifice, then you are unfamiliar with his writing and preaching. He deals with it many places, even in Desiring God. He has a whole chapter on suffering. He recently preached through Romans, so if you are interested in his meditations on why Paul wished himself accursed for Israel's sake, you can certainly find out why. But that was not, as I recall, the point of Desiring God. He does address self-denial, or self-mortification. As I recall, he does distinguish between joy and happiness. It is not intended to address every single issue of life and Scripture.
So it seems to me that your complaints are based on not really being familiar with his book.
This book is valuable to those who are critical readers. It will give some great insight as to how we should live our lives for the glory of God, not for self. -
Piper also deals with suffering in "Let the Nations be Glad!".
-
His three book series (so far) on "The Swans are Silent" deals much with suffering as well, as does Future Grace (as I recall).
Page 3 of 4