Piper on Exodus 33:13: "This verse prevents us from assuming is that, if God’s favor is conditional, it is therefore not unconditional."
I think the world of Piper, but I disagree with him on this one. The verse in question:
If I have found favor in your sight,
please show me now your ways,
that I may know you,
in order to find favor in your sight.
Piper comments:
Or to put it another way, the verse prevents us from assuming that, if God’s favor is unconditional, it is not therefore conditional.
Knowing God through knowing his ways is the condition of finding favor in his sight in the future. “Please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight.”
And finding favor in God’s sight is the unconditional ground of knowing God through knowing his ways. “If I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways.”
We may not assume that conditions of being in God’s favor in the future cancel out the truth that we are already in his favor, and that this is how we are able to meet the conditions of future favor.
A better way to understand this verse is as chiasmus, and A B ' B' A' arrangement. The idea is one of an increasing "grace unto grace," namely, If I have found favor.....that I may find MORE favor... That's how I would interpret it.
This is case in point why I am not a Piperite. He states things in incomprehensible formulas which are of no interest to me because they do not cast illumination on the text of Scripture, but appear rather to be framed so as to be cute or eye-catching.
For the moment, Piper is "the it guy" for lots of disenchanted fundamentalists, but I think there are lots better options out there for those folks to turn to.
Not sure if you receive the Frontline magazine (of the http://www.fbfi.org/ ). I just got my most recent copy yesterday in the mail.
Sam Horn of http://www.brooksidebaptist.org has an excellent article on missions where he commends (yes with the standard fundamentalist caveats) John Piper's missionary doctrinal emphasis. Don't have it in front of me so I cannot quote from it.
Point: I appreciate John Piper without worshiping him as a hero. Which he would not want us to do anyway! http://ow.ly/dlvM
Back to Sam Horn. I don't think anyone would call him a "disenchanted fundamentalist"! I'm not either but I do appreciate Piper!
A better way to understand this verse is as chiasmus, and A B ' B' A' arrangement. The idea is one of an increasing "grace unto grace," namely, If I have found favor.....that I may find MORE favor... That's how I would interpret it.
I fail to see how a chiasmus would favor one interpretation over the other, especially since the emphasized portion of a chiasmus is the central portion, which in this case is not finding favor but rather knowing God and his ways. Really, the interpretation you suggest seems quite similar to Piper's, except that yours is quantitative and his is temporal. These two do not seem to me to be mutually exclusive. The temporal element seems strong in the context, since Moses' request is for God to help him in the next phase of his task, and God answers by promising His continued presence. However, I can also see a quantitative element in that, a few verses later, Moses asks to see God's glory and God answers his request.
I don't see the problem with the Piper quote.
BTW, I'm not sure what a Piperite is, but it seems to be a mythical creature invoked by Fundamentalists who don't want other people to listen to John Piper. I'm fairly certain that every respectable minister has a few people who follow him more than he wishes they would, but I've never seen in John Piper the "cult of the pastor" that commonly existed in Fundamentalism a few decades ago and persists in a few corners to this day.
BTW, I'm not sure what a Piperite is, but it seems to be a mythical creature invoked by Fundamentalists who don't want other people to listen to John Piper. I'm fairly certain that every respectable minister has a few people who follow him more than he wishes they would, but I've never seen in John Piper the "cult of the pastor" that commonly existed in Fundamentalism a few decades ago and persists in a few corners to this day.
LOL.
Seriously, I don't understand why Fundies would knock Piper. We all know the standard Fundy caveats and apply them even to our own group and ministers [if there is such a thing as the Fundy group anymore]. Yes, we don't agree with him on everything. But that doesn't mean that he's our enemy, and frankly I think Fundyism would be better served if people spent more time reading his stuff and less time sniping at him. I also think, that we ought to be more discerning about some men in our own group than we are about some of the 'outsiders' at times.
About the article - frankly, I found what was written in the article confusing and re-read it several times to see if I could make sense of it. Piper does tend to write [and occasionally preach] in a way that is confusing [for me]. Personally, I've always understood that passage in the way that Ed explained it, although I am not sure I agree that it's a chiasm.
BTW, I'm not sure what a Piperite is, but it seems to be a mythical creature
No Charlie they aren't mythical but it is a convenient mechanism to for one to use so that they may not have to face the possibility that they are one. 
Piperites, likes most guru sycophants, are students who follow the teachings of Piper with an uncritical eye and refusal to admit when his theological/academic deficiencies are called to attention...but then I really didn't have to tell you this.
BTW, I'm not sure what a Piperite is, but it seems to be a mythical creature invoked by Fundamentalists who don't want other people to listen to John Piper.
Charlie,
I am not "that" kind of a fundamentalist, and by interjecting the term "Piperite" I was not trying to offend anyone. I use it because I know there are scores of young fundamentalists who are turning to Piper (and his Reformed Baptist theology) because he is popular right now and as a reaction against some of the vapidity they see in fundamentalism.
In a way I have to commend them because they are bold and intellectually curious to search for someone like Piper. It saddens me, however, both that they are forced to make such a search and that they end up landing with him -- often ditching dispensationalism in the process.
Part of it is also their own fault, because the kinds of guys I am thinking of tend to be quite self-assured, and most of them are not seminary-trained to be able to distinguish the subtleties of difference, say, between Piper and MacArthur.
If someone wants to listen to Piper and gains motivation and edification from that, I say go for it -- as long as you use discernment.
Personally, I do not see the attraction. Maybe I am dumber than a roadbump, but I watched the "Christian Hedonism" series and sometimes had trouble getting the point enough to truly evaluate it in my own mind.
Thus, the confusing nature of the quote referenced in today's news item did not surprise me.
It's interesting that early in the Bible, God shows his dominion over creation in part by naming things. Adam names Eve and then the animals. Anyone familiar with ANE culture knows that naming = power. It's commonly known today that whoever defines the terms in a debate will win. I might go further and suggest that whoever defines the participants in a debate "wins." Often, when we label someone or a group of someones, especially with a label not of their choosing, it is a psychological power play. By naming this group, we quarantine whomever we think to belong in it. Then, we can relegate them as a class to a negative position in our minds, at which point we no longer need to give them much thought.
It's easy to do this with legitimate labels, and it only gets worse with inherently prejudicial ones. "I'm not going to listen to what that guy has to say about music; he's a hyper-Fundamentalist (or Type-A Fundamentalist)." "Don't read that book; he's a hyper-Calvinist." Many more examples could be drawn, and not necessarily from the theological realm. The point is, I can't imagine the term "Piperite" ever being useful in a conversation. It's obviously a prejudicial term. There is no group of people who owns that term and could speak in defense of themselves. What would you think if, the next time Kevin Bauder posted something I disagreed with, I said, "This is why I'm not a Bauderite"?
I know you just made a passing comment, but I think there is an atmosphere in parts of Fundamentalism that favors name-calling over genuine interaction, and it's really a weakness of the movement.
Point taken Charlie -- In the future I will try not to use the term "Piperite," but rather, "Those who follow Piper in a way which Piper himself would not approve of, without full knowledge of the implications of his theological position, because they have been disillusioned by some aspect of fundamentalism."
....which goes to show that labels are shorthand and sometimes extremely useful. But Charlie's absolutely right that there is a downside as well.
(Some days it's evident that my own biggest problem is being an Aaron Blumerite)
I know you just made a passing comment, but I think there is an atmosphere in parts of Fundamentalism that favors name-calling over genuine interaction, and it's really a weakness of the movement.
Unfortunately, it's easier to demonize someone or something by calling names than it is to actually interact or discern the merits of that thing.
Jay and Charlie -- You both make a great point. I do not want to be known for demonizing instead of interacting on a serious level.
It just seems like right now I am finding lots of people representing two extremes: either good ol' boy fightin' fundamentalism or else those who are reacting and turning to things like the teachings of Piper. I think there are far better alternatives.
Depends on which teachings they turn to... but I don't dispute your point. Perhaps one of the "better alternatives" is to glean what's of value from him--listening and reading with discernment--and chuck the rest. Just like I hope we'd read and listen to anybody (though, of course, at the other end of the spectrum there are some we could read and listen to that just don't reward the effort. Not enough of value to glean to justify the time. But I have never found this to be the case w/Piper. Always much worth thinking about even if, in the end, I decide I do not agree--which has been the case several times.)
Depends on which teachings they turn to... but I don't dispute your point. Perhaps one of the "better alternatives" is to glean what's of value from him--listening and reading with discernment--and chuck the rest. Just like I hope we'd read and listen to anybody (though, of course, at the other end of the spectrum there are some we could read and listen to that just don't reward the effort. Not enough of value to glean to justify the time. But I have never found this to be the case w/Piper. Always much worth thinking about even if, in the end, I decide I do not agree--which has been the case several times.)
Amen, Aaron.
If I limited my reading / listening to guys with whom I agree 100%...well...I'd have a lot more shelf (and MP3 player) space! Few books have impacted me more than Desiring God...and yet some of things he says (even in the book) I simply see differently. As I've stated before in other threads, we like labels and boxes. Label something bad and it ALL goes into the bad box. IMO, 2 Tim. 2:15 would demand a little more diligence than that. Read, discern, learn, and grow from a myriad of sources...always bringing things back to a diligent study of "the Word of truth." It's not as quick and easy as the label and box method, but I believe it pleases God more.
Funny that you mentioned Desiring God. Finally got around to reading that a few months ago (haven't quite finished yet though... it's audio and awaits a road trip!), and it's a prime example of what I mean. I disagreed with him emphatically in several places but there is no denying that first I had to think about some things I had never really thought about before. Which is why I wasn't able to finish the book on that trip. Had to turn it off and chew on things for an hour or two.
To me, this is the mark of a great read, even if I buy 0% of the ideas in the end. Not only am I challenged to deal with questions I haven't dealt with before, but they are very important questions.
On the other hand, there are some I would not recommend DG to. They are not ready to deal with it. And there are some books that lots of believers will never be "ready" to read. So, like with so many things, there are those who can and should dig into it personally with the primary sources, and there are those who are better off getting the "low down" second hand. The labeling and boxing is really little more than second evaluation in compressed form.
Sadly, there are some in the first group (who should go to the source and check it out) who settle for the second behavior instead.
Jay and Charlie -- You both make a great point. I do not want to be known for demonizing instead of interacting on a serious level.
It just seems like right now I am finding lots of people representing two extremes: either good ol' boy fightin' fundamentalism or else those who are reacting and turning to things like the teachings of Piper. I think there are far better alternatives.
Paul, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't throwing stones at you personally - just commenting on the way things have typically operated in the IFB realm. I think that it's an aspect of the IFB kingdom that needs to die.
Aaron, what you just said reminds me a lot of Hebrews 5:11-14 and I Cor. 3:1-4. Piper's definitely not for new Christians, but he was what I needed back in 2000 [?] to provoke me to take my faith more seriously.
If I limited my reading / listening to guys with whom I agree 100%...well...I'd have a lot more shelf (and MP3 player) space!
Jamie,
This is very true, however, time and resources are limited. I listen to many sermons every week on the radio, on CD/cassette and online. Some of them are from people I disagree with. For instance, I have listened to hundreds of hours worth of James Kennedy in my lifetime. But I generally limit my listening and reading to "the best of the best," simply because time and resources are limited.
From what I have seen of Piper, I would not personally put him in the category where he deserves that kind of attention. Obviously, you and many other good men would disagree with that -- which is fine.
Lately, it just seems that everyone who wants to be a "cool" fundamentalist has to find a place to say, "John Piper said..." I was stating a counter opinion why I am not ready to "join the movement."
Funny that you mentioned Desiring God. Finally got around to reading that a few months ago (haven't quite finished yet though... it's audio and awaits a road trip!), and it's a prime example of what I mean. I disagreed with him emphatically in several places but there is no denying that first I had to think about some things I had never really thought about before. Which is why I wasn't able to finish the book on that trip. Had to turn it off and chew on things for an hour or two.
To me, this is the mark of a great read, even if I buy 0% of the ideas in the end. Not only am I challenged to deal with questions I haven't dealt with before, but they are very important questions.
Totally agree, Aaron. There's a great value in thinking in new ways and if one stays in his "box" he will never be challenged. I too disagreed with Piper in some areas...but the premise of the book was, for me, life-changing. God meant for us to ENJOY Him! What a great truth!
On the other hand, there are some I would not recommend DG to. They are not ready to deal with it. And there are some books that lots of believers will never be "ready" to read. So, like with so many things, there are those who can and should dig into it personally with the primary sources, and there are those who are better off getting the "low down" second hand. The labeling and boxing is really little more than second evaluation in compressed form.
Sadly, there are some in the first group (who should go to the source and check it out) who settle for the second behavior instead.
With you here as well...with some slight explanations. There are some truths that I just can't explain as well as Piper...or Paul Tripp...or David Powlison...etc. Try as I might, I can't encapsulate that nugget of truth as well as they did. I don't mind pointing people to them...as long as I am also there to help them along the way with some differences they may have missed. Also, I have been pleasantly surprised at how discerning some of my men are! There is, obviously, a careful balance....don't sell people too short...but don't expect to much either!
If I limited my reading / listening to guys with whom I agree 100%...well...I'd have a lot more shelf (and MP3 player) space!
Jamie,
This is very true, however, time and resources are limited. I listen to many sermons every week on the radio, on CD/cassette and online. Some of them are from people I disagree with. For instance, I have listened to hundreds of hours worth of James Kennedy in my lifetime. But I generally limit my listening and reading to "the best of the best," simply because time and resources are limited.
From what I have seen of Piper, I would not personally put him in the category where he deserves that kind of attention. Obviously, you and many other good men would disagree with that -- which is fine.
Lately, it just seems that everyone who wants to be a "cool" fundamentalist has to find a place to say, "John Piper said..." I was stating a counter opinion why I am not ready to "join the movement."
Yeah...good point, Paul.
I don't podcast Piper. I enjoy his Tweets...and catch an occasional message...but he's not at the top of my list either.
Also, for me, I have the tendency to be in awe of great men of God...instead of the great God of men! I have to guard this carefully. With that in mind, I "move" around quite a bit in my reading / listening. Right now I'm on a David Powlison kick...and I just got off a Matt Chandler binge...right after James MacDonald...who came after David Jeremiah! Great men all...but the God they serve is the only One worthy of ANY worship. Each one has, as Aaron put it well, "made me think about things I have never thought about before." Each has an interesting look at theology...and I have disagreements (some are pretty sharp) with each of these guys (with the possible exception of David Jeremiah). But each of them has challenged my thinking about my God...and helped me to love and enjoy Him more.
I also like the statement, "There are no great men here -- only a great God!"
But God does use men. Since you brought up Jeremiah, I will bear testimony that God has used his teaching in my life in a radical way over many years -- and I listen to him many times each week, within a mix of others, which is so important (as you point out).