On the Ministry of John Piper - Mike Riley

[Aaron Blumer] Well, we have Dr. Payne’s opinion in the mix.

My own view—and it’s been a topic of interest for a very long time (as much as “long” means much for a 44 yr old)—is that the relationship between thought, believe and emotion is more complex.

I would be surprised to learn that you read the rather complex treatment Dr. Payne gave to the subject in reading that you have come away with a comment like this. I would also consider it unfortunate to refer to Payne’s presentation as an “opinion” seeing that it was much more than just an “opinion”. This kind of description seems to have a purpose other than informing.

Nevertheless, if you feel up to the challenge, his complex response with numerously qualified points and professional considerations awaits your critique and rebuttal. It would be quite interesting to learn where you believe Dr. Payne is missing a grasp on the topic, for that matter, John MacArthur as well.

And let me be clear. Simply because Dr. Payne’s views come from someone with extensive training and research does not make him defacto right. I am not so naive. Many medical personnel have been wrong on many things. Nor do I believe one has to have his credentials, clearly I do not. But I certainly don’t consider ignoring a complex treatment and qualified analysis and calling them “opinions” and then simply by-passing any critique of specific points or rebuttal to be any kind of convincing response.

Nevertheless thank you for the exchange thus far (I am considering contacting Dr. Payne independent of this discussion on the matter via email and solicit from him any additional resources for a more comprehensive investigation on my part and would be glad to share them if I do so).

I would be surprised to learn that you read the rather complex treatment Dr. Payne gave to the subject in reading that you have come away with a comment like this.

I was going with your summary of his views. I should not consider that reliable? ;) You’re right though. I should read him. I’ll add it to my already long and growing reading list.

Of course his views are his opinion. My point was just that his view—whatever it actually is—is one among many. “So and so says” is not very persuasive unless we’ve got some kind of summary of his argument or he is someone we have reason to be impressed with. Since I don’t know him, it would only be the strength of his argument that matters to me.

[Aaron Blumer]

I would be surprised to learn that you read the rather complex treatment Dr. Payne gave to the subject in reading that you have come away with a comment like this.

I was going with your summary of his views. I should not consider that reliable? ;) You’re right though. I should read him. I’ll add it to my already long and growing reading list.

Your honesty in revealing that you had not read the article is sincerely appreciated. As to my own reliability on representing Payne’s ideas, that can only be determined by each reader as a result of their own study. However, I do not believe I provided enough information in the few quotes to justify an adjudication on its complexity or lack thereof. That would still require the comprehensive reading of his article.

[Aaron Blumer] Of course his views are his opinion. My point was just that his view—whatever it actually is—is one among many. “So and so says” is not very persuasive unless we’ve got some kind of summary of his argument or he is someone we have reason to be impressed with. Since I don’t know him, it would only be the strength of his argument that matters to me.

It just so happens there is not just a summary but the article itself available at a click. It awaits your investigation and exploration.

As to a reason to be impressed with Dr. Payne. Well, first I would say that if his argument fails then there is no reason to be impressed. But if one accepts the premise that his assertion, agreed to or not, is reasonable, then what about him should we know that might provide further impetus or as you say, is he “someone we have reason to be impressed with”, thereby giving greater immediately attention to what he says?

The fact that he has over 40 years of medical experience built upon his formal medical training is one cause. But beyond that you are invited to read his large body of work found at his organization’s website and some of the acknowledgments made by published seminary professors and leaders.

Again, thank for the exchange on the matter. I look forward to your eventual analysis and rebuttal.

If his view is as complex as you say, it’s unlikely that I’d be rebutting it in any way relevant to this thread. What I’m mainly opposed to is reducing all emotion to a one-way product of thought. If he doesn’t do that, I don’t really care what else he might have to say at present (might get interested later at some pt.)

I’m persuaded that Scripture does enjoin us to feel particular things in certain situations, that felt experiences are sometimes (often?) an expression of our affections/desires, and that sometimes thought is the result of emotion and not always vice versa.

[Aaron Blumer] What I’m mainly opposed to is reducing all emotion to a one-way product of thought.

You have quite a ways to go in providing arguments, both theological and anthropological, for your premise(s). But of course one is quite free to take a position as you have without building a case (which of course would include response to other positions).

[Aaron Blumer] If he doesn’t do that, I don’t really care what else he might have to say at present (might get interested later at some pt.)

Well let’s hope at some point you become interested in discovering all arguments and their thoroughness on the matter. BTW Dr. Payne is far from alone on the matter.

[Aaron Blumer] I’m persuaded that Scripture does enjoin us to feel particular things in certain situations, that felt experiences are sometimes (often?) an expression of our affections/desires, and that sometimes thought is the result of emotion and not always vice versa.

Again, while you maintain a position you also remain very far removed from developed and substantive theological and anthropological arguments for such a position. Best wishes in your hopeful and eventual investigation.

I’m a bit further along than you’re suggesting.

a) I’ve scattered several arguments and Scripture passages throughout this thread

b) I’ve got about 35 years of hands on study of the inner workings of one human being (myself… I’m guessing I didn’t really pay much attention the first 10 years)

c) Another human being or two has crossed my path and given me opportunities to reflect on how they think and what they feel and the relationship between the two

d) I have read a few books and sat through a few classes where these questions were either the focus or a major component

All of that to say that I think I can justify a claim to having a “considered opinion.” But would putting together a case that might be somewhat persuasive to skeptics be a worthwhile project? Yes, I think probably so.

(And I think I’ve been clearm, too that there are parts of the puzzle I have nothing like a solution for at this point. Other parts, though, are quite clear. I could write about those.)

Well, when time permits and if your interest is high and you deem it a good use of your time, I look forward to reading what you believe are substantive responses/arguments, both anthropological and theological.