I hesistate to post the following without also including some detailed arguments and examples, especially to back up the several negative points that I raise about Edwards and Piper. Nevertheless, some of you might still know what I am talking about and might even agree with me.

But if you don't know what I am talking about, or if you disagree with anything, please just try to ignore this post. Please don't email me about this; I don't want to take time to say more at this time.

(The following is an edited response to an inquiry on the topic.)

I think that Edwards and Piper are good in general, definitely above average (although the average is pretty bad). And this is especially true regarding Edwards. However, I do disagree with them on a number of points, some comparatively minor (but still important and thus "major" in themselves).

For example, Edwards is sometimes imprecise, and he often makes unbiblical and unncessary distinctions in his theology. I also disagree with his view on freedom, which is a compatibilist freedom (I reject all kinds of freedom relative to God). However, one of his strong points is his generally theo-centric theology, and he tries to be biblical and consistent when applying this.

He correctly teaches that we should give glory to that which alone inherently deserves glory, which is God; therefore, the highest purpose for both God and man is to glorify God. This is biblical, consistent, and theo-centric. The same is true when he addresses the question of whether we will rejoice in heaven about hell, even though some of our relatives might be there. We will perfectly rejoice in God's honor and justice by then, and therefore we will not grieve, but glorify God for hell.

I probably have more disagreements with Piper than I have with Edwards. For example, I disagree with him on some of the points concerning his "Christian Hedonism." One problem with it is that it argues for a theo-centric view on life in a way that really makes life anthropo-centric again. There are also other problems that make his view short of wholly biblical, precise, and theo-centric.

He makes some good points in his writings regarding the doctrine of justification, but he also says some things about this doctrine that might be questionable (these might be too subtle for many readers to notice). That said, I think that Piper has done some good work in writing against feminism and open theism.

So, again, in general I have a positive opinion toward both, but Edwards more than Piper.

Related:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)

Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
John Robbins, "Pied Piper" (PDF)
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)

John Piper, Countered Righteous in Christ
John Piper, The Justification of God
Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (2 vols.)
(See www.monergismbooks.com)

John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching
Richard Mouw, The God Who Commands
(See www.amazon.com)

Posted in Theology | Permanent Link