(Note: this list of quotes is nowhere close to exhaustive, and that is because I had no desire to reproduce the entirety of Desiring God's pages on my blog, as this would most assuredly lead to Carpel Tunnel, and also as my point is only to show that Piper has already answered the critics if one is willing to read what he says)
Craig Booth:
“Converts to this nouveau philosophy [Christian Hedonism] sincerely feel that the acquisition of personal pleasure (sensations of good feelings) is a higher order obligation and better pursuit than any other command or pursuit, such as pursuing love for others.”
John Piper:
“Christian Hedonism as I use the term does not mean God becomes a means to help us get worldly pleasures.”
“Our exceeding joy is He, the Lord”
“Christian Hedonism does not reduce God to a key that unlocks a treasure chest of gold and silver. Rather, it seeks to transform the heart so that “the Almighty will be your gold and your precious silver” (Job 22:25).”
“Christian Hedonism does not make a god out of pleasure. It says that one has already made a god out of whatever he finds most pleasure in (pg 24).”
Craig Booth:
“Among the most serious of the issues surrounding the "Christian Hedonism" movement is that salvation is no longer held to be fully dependent on faith in Jesus Christ alone, but also on whether a person adheres to this recently unveiled philosophy.”
John Piper:
“Conversion, then, is repentance (turning from sin and unbelief) and faith (trusting in Christ alone for salvation). They are really two sides of the same coin. One side is tails—turn tail on the fruits of unbelief. The other side is heads—head straight for Jesus and trust His promises. You can’t have the one without the other any more than you can face two ways at once or serve two masters (pg 64).”
Piper summarized the need for conversion (i.e. the gospel) in Chapter 2 pages 55 to 63 with four questions, which I will summarize here:
How have we failed?
1. God created us for His glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7)
2.Therefore, it is the duty of every person to live for the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)
How desperate is our condition?
3. Yet all of us have failed to glorify God as we ought. (Romans 3:23)
4. Therefore, all of us are subject to eternal condemnation by God. (Romans 6:23, 2 Thess 1:9)
What has God done to save us from his wrath?
5. Nevertheless, in His great mercy, God sent forth His Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners by dying in their place on the cross and rising bodily from the dead. (Romans 4:25)
What must we do to be saved?
6. The benefits purchased by the death of Christ belong to those who repent and trust in Him. (Acts 3:19; 16:31)
Craig Booth:
“Hedonism makes its ambition to receive pleasure. …Love seeks to give;”
“Regarding hedonism, this is perhaps the single most important understanding one can take away. Hedonism seeks to get pleasure for itself.”
John Piper:
“Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when we seek Him out of self-interest. A patient is not greater than his physician (pg 24).”
“Someone might object that in making the joy of worship an end in itself, we make God a means to our end rather than our being a means to His end. Thus, we seem to elevate ourselves above God. But consider this question: Which glorifies God more—that is, which reflects back to God more clearly the greatness of His glory—(1) a worship experience that comes to climax with joy in the wonder of God? Or (2) an experience that comes to climax in a noble attempt to free itself from rapture in order to make a contribution to the goal of God?
“This is a subtle thing. We strive against God’s all-sufficient glory if we think we can become a means to His end without making joy in Him our end. Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when it makes the joy of worship its goal. It is precisely in confessing our frustrated, hopeless condition without Him that we honor Him. A patient is not greater than his doctor because he longs to be made well. A child is not greater than his father when he wants the fun of playing with him.
“ On the contrary, the one who actually set himself above God is the person who presumes to come to God to give rather than get. With a pretense of self-denial, he positions himself as God’s benefactor—as if the world and all it contains were not already God’s (Psalm 50:12)!
“No, the hedonistic approach to God in worship is the only humble approach because it is the only one that comes with empty hands (pg 95).”
In Chapter 4 Piper defines the nature of genuine love through the Macedonian eagerness to give the poor saints in Jerusalem in 2 Cor 8:1-4, defending the statement “Love is the overflow of joy in God.” Piper goes verse by verse in his argumentation from page 118 to page 120.
Here’s a quick summary:
“First, it [genuine love] is a work of divine grace …
Second, this experience of God’s grace filled the Macedonians with joy…
Third, their joy in God’s grace overflowed in generosity to meet the needs of others…
Fourth, the Macedonians begged for the opportunity to sacrifice their meager possessions for the saints in Jerusalem… They wanted to give. It was their joy! (pg 118-119)”
That is all for now. I may decide to post more on this topic. I hope that all will give Piper a fair hearing of what he argues from Scripture, and only after seeing and meditating on his argumentation decide to accept or reject it. Only let the clear teaching of the Word of God stand.
10/14/08 - Ok, I found another quote from another article by Craig Booth that raised my ire.
Craig Booth:
"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."
Dr. John Piper, author of Desiring God--Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, wrote this creed (page 50) and now uses it on some of his published material much as one would use a logo or a motto.
Having a logo or a motto is of no concern. But in recent years many pastors and churches have adopted this expression in much the same way a doctrinal creed is embraced. The problem? This creed is not biblical, it is not scriptural, it is not traditional, in fact, it is not even logical. It is nothing more than a newly invented precept of men. (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7)
This is a bad argument. Booth says that it is not logical to say that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." Booth says that statement is not true. Apparently, he believes "God is not most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." May I present a little bit of logic here, since Booth is concerned about being logical?
Let's turn Piper's statement into an if-then:
IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is most glorified in us.
Booth disagrees with this, that is he believes the premise (IF) does not lead to the conclusion (THEN). This can also be written as an if-then.
IF We are most satisfied in HimIn if then statements it can be shown that if you exchange the IF for the THEN and negate them both, the statement is still true.
THEN God is not most glorified in us.
Thus:
IF There is a hurricaneis the same as:
THEN School is closed
IF School is not closedLet's apply this principle then to the above statement:
THEN There is not a hurricane
IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is not most glorified in us
is logically the same as:
IF God is most glorified in us
THEN We are not most satisfied in Him
That is to say that if you believe that the statement "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" is not true, you must logically believe then that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in anything other than Him," which is utterly ridiculous.
Posts
3 comments:
amen
Well I think those would be good points except I do not think Booth is making that point... check FAQ http://www.thefaithfulword.org/chfaqs.html Question 5... it is not the argument you are saying he is having... he is just saying that Joy and lack of joy still need to be treated for the glory of God... just a balance verses an extreme of pursuing joy or avoiding joy.
I hope this response is on target. I'm not sure what you meant by "that point," but I assume you mean my "if -then" stuff at the end. Admittedly, Booth never says "if God is most glorified in us then we are not most satisfied in him." But really my point wasn't to put words into Booth's mouth. The point was to show that the denial of Piper's main proposition is (for the Christian) really ridiculous.
The Question you point to is more proof that Booth and Piper are in fundamental agreement, and that Booth just misunderstands, being tripped up by the term "hedonism"
Take, for example, when Booth says, "If a person were truly incapable of experiencing any joy in God at all, doubtless they have yet to repent of their sins." In saying that, Booth basically says that it is an effect of sin to lack joy in God. Piper's point is essentially similar. Joy in God is the fuel for a life for God.
But this was exactly my main point in the article. My point wasn't that Booth was teaching anything wrong, but that he "[defines] 'Christian Hedonism' in a way Piper strictly forbids." In other words, Booth can't say "Piper's teaching says 'see God as a vehicle for your own pleasure merely' (see Question 6 on the same link)" when Piper himself says, "Christian Hedonism is not making God merely a vehicle for your own pleasure!"
Does that make sense? It would be like if you were to explain to your friend: "God is our Father, but in a way that he is totally transcendent of humans." Then your friend responds to you, "God can't be our Father! He's not human!" It's not that your friend is wrong in saying God's not human. It's just that what he said is not a valid response to what you told him, because you already excluded his objection by saying "It's not that."
(I know the analogy isn't perfect but I think it conveys the situation well enough.)
Post a Comment