tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post3761225999615491198..comments2024-03-27T20:28:38.015-04:00Comments on Reasonable Christian: A Critical Examination of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism"Charlie J. Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-3690394330153491032014-11-10T00:38:33.942-05:002014-11-10T00:38:33.942-05:00It should be pointed out that Jonathan Edwards def...It should be pointed out that Jonathan Edwards defined the affections as inclusive of the intellect, the will, and the emotions. So when Edwards refers to the "affections" he is not emphasizing emotional responses but rather the rational thoughts of the mind and the volitional choices engendered by the mind.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-17651505078683719392011-01-23T12:10:15.188-05:002011-01-23T12:10:15.188-05:00In fact, it's worse than Arminianism. At leas...In fact, it's worse than Arminianism. At least the Arminian can still stand for justification by faith alone as a present reality.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-71103008650700995832011-01-23T12:09:24.951-05:002011-01-23T12:09:24.951-05:00Piper's view is not reformed for several reaso...Piper's view is not reformed for several reasons. First off, glorifying God is directly opposed to "hedonism". Hedonism is exactly what it sounds like: self centeredness. The fact is Piper's view is man-centered, sinful, and deplorable. The Reformed faith embraces difficulty, hardship, suffering, self-denial, and a looking forward to our reward in heaven--not rewards in the Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-89764422217066833612011-01-23T11:17:20.637-05:002011-01-23T11:17:20.637-05:00Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the author.:-)
Whe...Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the author.:-)<br /><br />When did I contradict myself? When did I say we glorify God to get pleasure? In fact, Piper's modification says the other way around: we glorify God [that's our end] by enjoying Him forever [that's the means]. And like I said, the author failed to sufficiently substantiate that Piper teach the other way around.<br /><br />The Donnie Manuelhttp://watchdogofgod.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-87969704451445796242011-01-22T13:04:16.301-05:002011-01-22T13:04:16.301-05:00First off, I didn't write the article. It is b...First off, I didn't write the article. It is by Manuel Kuhs. Second of all, you basically just contradicted yourself. Are we to glorify God because He is God or to get pleasure? That's the question. If the affections are the basis of Christian faith we are in deep trouble. That's liberalism.<br /><br />The basis of the Christian faith is right doctrine, not pleasure, feeling goodCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-43873893823507626202011-01-22T12:52:00.397-05:002011-01-22T12:52:00.397-05:00It appears to me that you misunderstood Piper in m...It appears to me that you misunderstood Piper in many points. His usage of the word "joy" was more philosophical than biblical (Edwards and Lewis being His greatest influence). Moreover, you accused Him of utilatarianism because of using worship for our pleasure (which I believe you failed to substantiate) But if you read "The Dangerous Duty of Delight", he explicitly said Donnie Manuelhttp://watchdogofgod.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-46393770463337758312011-01-15T15:27:52.644-05:002011-01-15T15:27:52.644-05:00Eric, I don't know you. However, it is obviou...Eric, I don't know you. However, it is obvious that you do not understand the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. That does not mean, however, that secondary authority does not exist. The fact that you want to play the Lone Ranger proves that you have more in common with the Anabaptists than with the magisterial Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-16685697235922737052011-01-15T15:05:07.365-05:002011-01-15T15:05:07.365-05:00Hi Mr. Ray,
Thanks for taking time to answer! I ...Hi Mr. Ray,<br /><br />Thanks for taking time to answer! I enjoy your Blog and hope to learn a lot.<br /><br />I was not aware that I don't believe Scripture, which I understand to convey God's thoughts and words, to have more than one meaning. You must be seeing an inconsistency in my theology. On the conscious level, I acknowledge that God is One, and His thoughts never change. The Eric Stampherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126735930530967933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-66398336868244507472011-01-12T07:09:33.350-05:002011-01-12T07:09:33.350-05:00The 39 Articles of Religion are indeed authoritati...The 39 Articles of Religion are indeed authoritative. They are an authoritative summary of what the Reformed Anglican church believes the Scriptures teach. Of course, the 39 Articles are a fallible document. Scripture alone is the infallible, inerrant and inspired revelation of God.<br /><br />Confessional documents provide a means of sorting out true believers from heretics promoting divisionCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-24669644464399028282011-01-12T07:06:04.704-05:002011-01-12T07:06:04.704-05:00Eric, you're obviously some sort of theologica...Eric, you're obviously some sort of theological liberal since you do not believe that Scripture has one and only one correct meaning. Piper has erred in more than one area. However, his worst error is his doctrine of "future grace" which teaches that sanctification will be part of the basis for our "final vindication" at the last judgment. That is nothing short of Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-55648450093792161392011-01-11T23:50:06.441-05:002011-01-11T23:50:06.441-05:00Hi Mr. Ray,
I'm still stuck at the top, where...Hi Mr. Ray,<br /><br />I'm still stuck at the top, where you say the Thirty-Nine Articles are "binding" on all Anglicans. Am I an Anglican because I've agreed to be so bound? Nobody told me. Who made the rules? I'd like to be an Anglican in the sense that I use & find many of the forms Biblical and helpful. And I'd agree to be bound by all things Biblical. I Eric Stampherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18126735930530967933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-68915634684972888912010-12-20T07:01:42.819-05:002010-12-20T07:01:42.819-05:00The Heidelberg Catechism
LORD'S DAY 1
Questi...The Heidelberg Catechism<br /><br />LORD'S DAY 1<br /><br />Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?<br /><br />Answer: That I with 1body and soul, both in life and death, 2am not my own, but belong 3unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with His precious 4blood, hath fully 5satisfied for all my sins, and delivered 6me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-39448191694645243502010-12-20T06:55:19.630-05:002010-12-20T06:55:19.630-05:00Your objection is a logical fallacy called "n...Your objection is a logical fallacy called "non sequitur" or "excluded middle". It does not follow that simply because Piper's view is motivated by seeking pleasure in God rather than seeking to glorify God that therefore all Reformed theology is motivated by pleasure. You have simply jumped to the conclusion without providing the necessary evidence in the middle or the Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-68874388451340604282010-12-20T00:13:10.087-05:002010-12-20T00:13:10.087-05:00There is a philosophical problem with this objecti...There is a philosophical problem with this objection, which is all the more acute for those in the reformed tradition. Let's say you reject Piper's notion that Christian men should be motivated by pleasure in God, and instead should simply be motivated by seeking God's glory. OK, so why is the Christian man going to be motivated by that? Simply because it is "right"? OK, Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10424715768406800028noreply@blogger.com