Quote
2. Re: "...it has nothing to do with who said it." Well, Tom, I hope this is another instance of you not phrasing your thoughts as you ought. But you had BETTER take into account who said what. In this particular case, Piper makes claim that his "Christian Hedonism" was at least partly due to Jonathan Edwards, i.e., things Edwards wrote. Thus, searching the Scriptures will avail nothing. You have to consult the alleged source. Piper also claims that this view is mentioned in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. But when one reads the original phrase, it says nothing about Christian Hedonism.
Perhaps the way I phrased it didn’t communicate what was on my mind effectively. Of course I agree with you that who said something matters. However, that was not what I was talking about.
What I was trying to say, is that I don’t want who said something (other than Scripture authors) affect the way I view truth. I may have a lot of respect for certain authors, however although I might want to take special notice to authors that have earned my trust. I should remember that they are human and as such are prone to error. In John Piper’s case, in the last few years I believe he has errored a little too much for my liking and has lost a lot of my respect.

Quote
1. And those who can't get past the word "hedonism" as being of negative connotation just might have a point. Look up the word in any reputable dictionary and they have a good reason to reject the word as Piper has used it, i.e., to mate it to "Christian". It's another one of those instances where something of this world; sin is "baptized" and brought into the church. There is no such thing as Christian murder, a Christian meth lab, a Christian brothel nor a Christian hedonist. What you wrote below shows that even you know in your heart that this is totally unbiblical and antithetical to Christ's teaching concerning "self", e.g., Matt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23 (interesting how the Holy Spirit thought it good to record this statement of the Lord Christ not once, not twice but three times). And, the Lord Christ summarized the moral law as FIRST loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. And secondly, to love your neighbor as yourself. It is clear that the assumption is that all men already love themselves more than anything else, which is sin. The 'you must first learn to love yourself' error has been around for ages in myriad forms. The popular form in our day is building up your "self esteem". It's all the Devil's lie and psycho mumbo-jumbo.
I agree with this and don’t want to make light of it, because it should be mentioned in a good critique. However, when we are so focused on that aspect that we fail to understand how the words are being used we fail to deal with the author’s actual teaching. I am not saying all of John Piper’s critiques are guilty of this, but some are.

Quote
2. And a regenerate man is given to see in small part what God sees within himself. The result of that is a painful experience called conviction of sin and a consequent turning FROM SELF to Christ. For as the apostle Paul confessed, "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing:" (Rom 7:18). So, pray tell, what is there to love about yourself IF one, like Paul, has come to see that they are the "chief of sinners" (1Tim 1:15)?
Very well put.

Quote
And don't you think that this in and of itself is a serious contradiction of Scripture, which is your sole and final authority in all matters of faith (doctrine) and life? Too many are given to downplay the seriousness of his Christian Hedonism. It isn't just a matter of a poor choice of words and trying to justify its use through clever sophistry, which Tim Keller also was guilty of with his book, The Prodigal God.

I think what I said should be enough to show that I agree.

Tom