Edwards vs. Piper?

[dfranks]

Greetings! I could really use some help from my great PuritanBoard brothers who know a thing or two about Edwards. My question comes from "Religious Affections" section 3 sign 2. (pg. 240 in the Yale edition)

My problem is trying to reconcile John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" and Edward's statement "The first objective ground of gracious affections, is the transcendently excellent and amiable nature of divine things, as they are in themselves; and not any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest." (emphasis mine)

Edward's point seems to be that our pursuit of God glory as a means to our own joy (self-interest) is always a "secondary and consequential influence" never primary.

Now Piper says that he has developed much of his understand of Christian Hedonism from Edwards (along with Lewis) but I have a problem seeing how Edwards statements can advocate Piper's claims.

A major theses of Piper's "Christian Hedonism" is that all people seek happiness (self-interest) and that it is right and natural for them to seek that in God. Sam Storms' chapter on Christian Hedonism in "For the Fame of God's Name" boldly phrases it like this "To come to God or to worship him or to yield to his moral will for any reason other than joy that is found in who he is, is sinful."

Am I reading Edwards or perhaps Piper wrong? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Parker234]

Well, it was Edwards who said that "So God glorifies Himself toward the creatures also in two ways: 1. By appearing to...their understanding. 2. In communicating Himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the manifestations which He makes of Himself...God is glorified not only by His glory's 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."

So your real question is, does Edwards contradict himself? I think a charitable reading says that no, he isn't contradicting himself. Well, then what is Edwards saying? How do the two notions fit together?

Quite simply, Edwards is saying in the quote you shared from RA, that we ought not to love that which we get from God - rather, we ought to love God for His own sake, on His own terms, and then our self-interest will be fulfilled as a secondary or corollary result. But that self-interest is not to be the core of our service to God - rather, worship to the Creator is.

Piper says, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." This IS Edwards. And Edwards is not at odds with himself.