Tom,

1. It appears that your login problem has been resolved, yes? Since you didn't get back to me and you have offered a reply, then it appears to be the case. grin

2. Yes, Peter Masters does a fairly good job in taking Piper's heretical doctrine of "Christian Hedonism" to task by examining some of the fundamental passages of Scripture Piper bases his view upon and shows that he wrests them out of context, etc. BigThumbUp

3. However, you began this other thread focusing upon Piper's claim and his sheeple's echoing of that claim that Jonathan Edwards taught "Christian Hedonism" long before he did, i.e., greatly recognized men of the past, hundreds of years ago were teaching and preaching this doctrine. And you asked if this claim was true or false. I responded that the claim had no basis whatsoever and that anyone who REALLY read Edwards' writings would find no such teaching in them. It appears that Peter Masters agrees with my assessment of Piper's claim in this article. Hopefully, people will listen to what Peter Masters says even after turning a deaf ear to the rebuttals of one like myself who is but a lowly commoner. giggle Here are a couple of relevant quotes in regard to Piper's fallacious doctrine of "Christian Hedonism" and Jonathan Edwards:

Quote
Dr. Piper often quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said much about delighting in God and Christian joy. By reference to Jonathan Edwards, Dr. Piper effectively says, ‘Look, this is as old as the hills. This is the way our forebears thought.’ Certainly Jonathan Edwards provides choice passages about delighting in God, as did the English Puritan writers, but at no time does he frame a system in which this becomes the key principle of Christian living. Joy in God always sits alongside other equal duties.

Although Dr. Piper seeks to root his system in the past, he seems at the same time well aware that it is a brand new idea. Frequently, he virtually admits it by using the language of innovation, and saying, in so many words, ‘This is explosive’; ‘This is stunning’; ‘This is radical’; ‘This is dangerous’; ‘This is not safe’; ‘This is surprising’. Dr. Piper really knows that he is promoting something novel. He even uses the term, ‘my vision’, and that is what it is, for however well intended, it is Dr. Piper’s personal vision. He also calls it ‘my theology’.

Dr. Piper’s publisher calls his book a ‘paradigm-shattering work’, and bids the reader join Dr. Piper ‘as he stuns you again and again with life impacting truths you saw in the Bible, but never dared to believe.’ The reality is that no one ever saw them like this in the Bible until Dr. Piper pointed them out in the 1980s.
And again,

Quote
Or take Dr. Piper’s quoting of Jonathan Edwards, when he wrote - ‘God is glorified not only by His glory being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it, delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it.’ Is Jonathan Edwards saying that delight in God is the channel and organising principle for all Christian activity and progress?

No, for we take account of the environment in which he ministered. His language was always influenced by the sickness of the society in which he lived. It was a church-going age. Practically everyone was theoretically a biblically enlightened, well-instructed Christian. Yet he was anxious to distinguish between those who had real spiritual life, and those who did not. His language here cuts between those two groups. It reflects the burden of his message: that you can be a merely theoretical Christian, or you can be a spiritually alive Christian. The former will only see, whereas the latter will be filled with passion. Equally, his words challenge a cold or backslidden believer to resume a fervent walk with the Lord. There is no implied endorsement of Dr. Piper’s unique system of sanctification.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]