Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.
Click to expand...