Review of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" - some key things to keep in mind and that reveal his sources

***UPDATE***

Piper continues his false gospel and false love and false God at Passion 2020:



****

Very good review of Piper's "Christian Hedonism" by Michael Butler reprinted by The Real John Piper website.  If you only read two of the six articles, I would suggest the first and the third.

Here is where you can read all six:

Part 1: how Piper wrote his book and how to evaluate it; things to keep in mind. 

Part 3: where Piper got his notion of "love" and is it biblical? **

Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6


Of interest regarding Part 3 and Piper's source and definition of love:

Quote:

First, Piper seeks to gain his reader’s acceptance of his idea by way of philosophy. Piper states that Agape and Eros love are both actively involved in the Godhead. Eros is the Greek word from which the English word ‘Erotic’ originated. Erotic love is sexually driven, man-centred, and Eros contains the same self-centred motives. Rather than citing the Bible as proof for the existence of Eros within the activity of God, Piper cites our human weakness as the reason why we cannot understand that God possesses Eros. In other words, Piper is saying, the reason why we do not ascribe Eros to God is because our weakness as fallen human beings gets in the way of imagining and understanding God’s love. Therefore, the argument goes, Eros must exist in God because we possess some form of Eros in our fallen nature, whether good or bad, and all of this must have come from God.

Second, once Piper has captured the mind of the audience, he denounces the biblical understanding of Agape and replaces it with a perverted love; namely, an Agape mixed with the human concept Eros. Once again, Piper cites his fallen human capability as his authority when he says about the biblical notion of pure Agape, ‘I do not think that such disinterested love exists’ (ibid). Piper’s authority comes strictly from the bedrock of his own thoughts, which are isolated in the sinful psyche processes of the human mind in a fallen world.

Third, in the footnotes on page 124 of Piper’s book Desiring God, Piper makes plain that his concept of love is an admixture of Eros with Agape that forms ‘one kind of love at the root’. Once again, Piper does not turn to the Bible as his sole authority on what he calls ‘a holy Eros’. Instead, Piper tears down the literal-grammatical understanding of Agape in Scripture by saying there is ‘no linguistic basis for such a distinction’ between Eros and Agape in the Bible (DG, p124, endnote).

Fourth, if Piper’s statement is true that there is no linguistic basis to make a distinction between Eros and Agape love, then the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is at risk of being lost. The Bible only speaks of God as having Agape love. In order for Piper to insert any idea of Eros into the love of God, he must philosophically develop it and then read it into the text (eisegesis). On the other hand, since the Bible only identifies God’s love as Agape, then the clarity of Scripture makes the point that there is no other love known in the Godhead other than Agape.

The Big Deal

Piper’s view of Agape love as a love united with a so-called heavenly Eros is nothing new. In its most refined form, a heavenly Eros is a Platonic idea. In other words, Piper is headed down the path of resurrecting Christian Platonism and bringing it into mainstream Evangelical Christianity....

The point is that the idea of a heavenly Eros is completely philosophical, not theological or biblical. In other words, Piper is using philosophy to prove the existence of his so-called ‘one kind of love at the root’. Piper is not at all interested in a biblical understanding of Agape love. The Eros love Piper promotes is, as Nygren states, ‘man’s way to God [whereas biblical] Agape is God’s way to man. Eros is egocentric, Agape is theocentric fellowship with God.’ (see footnote) Piper is interested in promoting a philosophy that has its roots in Christian Platonism, which is also the foundation of Catholicism and Arminianism.

John Piper’s ‘Christianized’ Eros is an old philosophical idea that originated with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine’s version of Agape love was also united with a heavenly Eros. The union eventually developed into what is called the Caritas synthesis (Nygren). Piper’s heavenly Eros is the same formulation as Augustine’s Caritas synthesis. During the Reformation, Martin Luther considered the Caritas synthesis to be one of the most important doctrines to correct in the Church.

End quote.

You can see the Neo-Platonic Augustinianism being resurrected. Piper is demonstrating Post-Modernism by redefining words and distinctions, thereby creating confusion and concealment of error by reusing biblical words to mask literal pagan ideas and practices. It is also worth noting that Snedes was a professor at Piper's seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary at the same time he was there.

** My only issue so far is that Butler's view is that God's love is not His "highest" attribute. All His perfections work simultaneously together and full capacity at all times (Ps 136 has examples). Not one is less than another. So God's wrath and love and justice for example, all work together in full capacity. We cannot triage God's attributes any more than we can triage doctrine or the Trinity. So just keep that in mind.