John Piper

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.'

 

Here again, you demonstrate a misunderstanding of Piper (whether he is right or wrong). We have faith in God because we are seeking pleasure in God. That doesn't mean that all is rosy. Just read Piper. He says that. Read his little biographical sketches in "The Swans Are Not Silent." It is worth your time. It seems to me that he directly answers this charge.

What is a false satisfaction? Satisfaction is a perception upon the part of the one experiencing it.</font>[/QUOTE]False satisfaction is like illicit sex. IT satisfies for the moment and then it is gone. It wasn't true satisfaction. It is the cotton candy of life. Real pretty and fluffy, but not substance and it quickly dies away.

Perhaps that is due to your lack of study and thought. I don't know.

Exactly. And fortunately for us, Piper addresses the very issue on p 110 (among other places) where he talks of being "too easily pleased." The whole point of Christian Hedonism to Piper seeking God because only in God is there true joy and happiness found (p. 23).

This is because you don't understand the whole concept of Piper. I recommend reading him. It is hard to imagine that you have read him given your thoughts here.

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. I also like Psalm 27:4 One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple.

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.

I don't think they have. I think Piper merely popularized it.

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.

 

This was an objection that he does address in the book (2nd edition on I think).

 

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.

 

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). </font>[/QUOTE]Your analogy is invalid; my analogy was applicable. You are referring to things beyond human experience and understanding (i.e. the Trinity, God’s omnipresence, etc.) whereas I was critiquing Piper’s idea. Since Piper is a man, this puts him on my level and I can challenge anything he says with rigorous logic. His reasoning is human reasoning which is subject to the rules of human logic. God has reserved things to Himself that are beyond you, John Piper, and myself (Deuteronomy 29:29, Isaiah 55:9, Romans 11:33). God’s thoughts cannot be bound by human logic or reasoning. So, you are right that we cannot apply the rules of human logic to God but you are wrong in saying that we cannot apply logic to Piper—we can judge Piper by careful reasoning and common sense.

 

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?

 

Paidagogos asked:
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, this is glorification of God. I think that I stipulated in one of my early posts on this thread that there is joy, delight, and pleasure in the presence of God. Since I am not arguing against this, this passage does not militate against my critique of Piper’s Christian hedonism. This is a non-issue—I’ve said as much.

This is part of a Messianic prophecy speaking of Christ as well as David. It describes the blissful state in God’s presence but it does not teach desiring God as the ultimate object of pleasure.

It is just as well that you didn’t go on because nothing that you have said supports your radical statement: “Desiring God is the highest aim of life.” Desiring God may be a worthy aim—no one has suggested otherwise--but I take issue with your use of the superlative—“the highest aim.” Perhaps you didn’t really mean “the highest aim.” If not, you are being careless with your words and it reflects on your arguments. If you did, you are exalting our desire for pleasure, even though God is the object of that pleasure, above the glory of God. My understanding is that we ought to desire the glory of God beyond our own pleasure. This has been the heartthrob of all the missionaries, prophets and martyrs throughout the ages. (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.) 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.

 

God's glory is shown more clearly when we delight in obedience to Him than when we grit our teeth and obey. That's why God loves a cheerful giver. What is the highest purpose of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That is one purpose, not two.

 

Larry, what do you know about logic and reasoning? Mathematical reasoning is nothing more than symbolic logic. I’m talking about the process, not mathematical axioms or theorems, but the way one reasons to arrive at good conclusions.

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.

 

God's glory is shown more clearly when we delight in obedience to Him than when we grit our teeth and obey. That's why God loves a cheerful giver. What is the highest purpose of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That is one purpose, not two. </font>[/QUOTE]No argument. However, Piper tries to derive this position from the pleasure principle (i.e. hedonism) which is a humanism concept. He gives a little different spin to it although he tries very hard to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. Piper's spin is modern and appealing. It sounds like the truth but it is slightly altered especially in the way it is derived.

 

Read Piper’s article in full at: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/christian_hedonism/chr_hed.html

To this, we agree.

 

God's glory is shown more clearly when we delight in obedience to Him than when we grit our teeth and obey. That's why God loves a cheerful giver. What is the highest purpose of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That is one purpose, not two. </font>[/QUOTE]Piper means more than "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" in the sense of a catechism. He means that the pursuit of pleasure in God is necessary to please God. Read the synopsis of his view on Christian hedonism.

 

Please tell me that you are joking and did not intend this as a serious response

Perhaps, since you disagree with me, you could tell us what aim is higher in life.

And Piper's point is that this is wrong because it is duty for the sake of duty. He uses the example of showing up with flowers for your wife, and when she thanks you profusely, you say, "I was just doing my duty." His point is that we should delight in her and find pleasure in her, and delight in God and find pleasure in God. The more you comment, the less it seems you have have read.

Actually, it what Jesus did (Heb 12:1-2); it was what Paul did (2 Cor 4:18; etc); it is what Hebrew Christian did (Heb 10:32); it is what Abraham did (Heb 11:8-14); it is what Moses did (Heb 11:26); etc.

The "song and dance" you mock is what the Bible teaches.

And how are these different? Are you not pleased when God's glory is shown? You know what is particularly humorous about this ... then again, not so much ... is that Piper addresses these things in his book. That is why I say, the longer you comment the less it seems you have read the book.

Yes, but not the same as rhetoric. In math, a statement is always true or false. In rhetoric, a statement may be true for one purpose and not for another. It is clearly different.

He makes a very good case for much of it. The burden of proof would be on you to show why we should find pleasure in something else. It is now your responsibility to show what our highest aim in life should be.

Having read Piper apparenlty more than you, and having read you here, I am not convinced that you are rejecting his views.

Because your comments indicate a vast unfamiliarity with his defense of Christian hedonism.

No, but it should follow that in civil debate you would rightly represent his position and then disagree with that. It doesn't seem that you have.

Um, I think you need to go back and reread. What you have attributed to Piper and what I said about Piper are two different things. You may have gotten some words right, but your intent with them clearly misrepresents his view.

I have. I could certainly do more, if I had the time or interest. I would simply encourage everyone here to read for yourself and draw your own conclusions on this matter. Having read a fair amount of Piper, it is my contention that Paid has not fairly represented Piper's view.

I have done all three, with the added advantage of having used Piper's point in Piper's way.

I haven't tried to necessarily. That would take far more time than I have, a far longer post than would be allowed, and I certainly can't improve on him.

Because there are some things I agree with and some things I don't. But I don't misrepresent him, and that is what I feel you have done.

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.

 

Is this the way that we establish truth? Is it a personal, experiential thing? Unfortunately, this is indeed the basis of many teachings in Charismatic circles (I am not saying you are Charismatic but I am pointing out the similarity in means of establishing a teaching.).

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.

Larry, you completely missed my point! I am not arguing about quoting men but I am saying it is not right to quote men in such a way (i.e. out of context, etc.) to say something other than what they originally intended. IMHO, most of the men quoted by Piper in support of his arguments would not have agreed with his conception of Christian hedonism.

On the contrary, Piper reads his conjecture into passages that are superficially similar. Only through Piper’s spectacles of Christian hedonism do we find Christian hedonism in delight, hunger, thirst, seek, etc. Christian hedonism is a new philosophy of ethical egoism or ethical hedonism, if you wish. It is similar in appearance but an entirely different animal from an orthodox, Biblical understanding of desire for God and joy in the Lord.

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).