Q. Some weeks ago, you published a critique of John Piper’s axiom: ‘the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him’ [see NTIAGQ, PCC Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 8, dated 24 Aug 2003]. In that article you seem to suggest that Piper is not the reliable teacher that many have made him out to be. Could you tell us more?

A. [Yes, although I found some of what Dr Piper wrote to be useful, I would be personally uncomfortable to recommend his books. Nevertheless, I do not think I can do better than to reproduce here a paper written by Mr Peter Best of Eketahuna, New Zealand, who is a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This paper was originally entitled, "John Piper: An examination of his doctrine as expressed in his Baptist Catechism." An abridged version was published in the Free Presbyterian Magazine in May this year, but Mr Best has kindly forwarded the complete paper to me after reading our earlier answer. He has also given permission for this reprint. All emphasises are his; though most abbreviations are mine]

John Piper is the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A gifted writer and powerful preacher, he has acquired the reputation of being one of the leading Evangelicals of our day. He has spoken at a Banner of Truth Conference and is the author of a number of books sold worldwide — notably Future Grace, Desiring God, and Counted Righteous in Christ.

An academic with a BD from Fuller Theological Seminary and a Doctorate in Theology from the University of Munich, Germany, he demonstrates in his writings an informed interest in the writings of those we would call ‘Reformed’ in doctrine, quoting liberally from their works. Jonathan Edwards he holds in particularly high esteem. In fact, Piper appears to be a Calvinist and professes to be one. But is he?

In the introduction to his catechism Piper describes it as:

One would, therefore, expect that any alterations made would be few and, coming from a Calvinist, would not attempt to convey any substantially new teaching. But this is not the case. Piper’s alterations and additional comments reveal that, rather than following in the orthodox Reformed tradition, he is a revisionist.

The first notable alteration is an omission. WSC 9 asks, "What is the work of creation?" The answer given is: ‘The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.’ Piper’s answer leaves out "in the space of six days" without any explanation being given. This places him amongst those professedly Reformed theologians who regard the ‘day’ as an ‘age’ rather than as a literal twenty-four hours. One of the proof texts given by the Westminster Divines for their answer is "Genesis 1 throughout." Piper gives Genesis 1 verses 1 and 31, the first and last verses. Is what goes between these verses irrelevant or allegorical? It would seem so to Piper.

The next significant alteration is his answer to WSC 12,—"What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate in which he was created?" The Westminster Divines wrote, "When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death." Piper tries to improve on this by giving as his answer, "When God had created man, he made a covenant with him that he should live and enjoy all the benefits of creation, but that he would die if he forsook the obedience that comes from faith. God commands him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thus forsake his childlike dependence upon God for all things."

For Piper this change is necessary since in his scheme of theology there is no place for a Covenant of Works, or Law/Gospel antithesis. Mark Karlberg points out in his John Piper on the Christian Life, which reviews Piper’s Future Grace, that Piper does not see Adam as being on probation in the Garden of Eden to perform duties, but rather to act in ‘faith’ in a gracious heavenly provider. According to Piper it was a Covenant of Grace which God made with Adam, not one of Works. Hence, in his Future Grace, he writes against the traditional Reformed doctrine by saying that it "implies a relationship with God that is more like an employee receiving earned wages than like a Son trusting a Father’s generosity" (p. 413, endnote 4). According to Piper, grace is, "the basis of God’s relationship with Adam and Eve", and he goes on, "I see Christ, the Second Adam, fulfilling the covenant of grace (not works) perfectly by trusting his Father’s provision at every moment and obeying all his commandments by faith." Elsewhere in Future Grace he writes,

James Buchanan, the renowned Disruption Free Church of Scotland theologian would be one of these "erroneous" theologians according to Piper since he wrote in his, ‘The Doctrine of Justification’:

However, what Piper calls ‘erroneous’ is, in fact, the position taken by the Westminster Divines. They put it this way in WCF 7.2,—"The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." Adam, having breached this Covenant of Works, Christ, the Second Adam, came to fulfil this Covenant by His perfect active obedience, and paying also the penalty of a broken law on behalf of His own dear people, thereby satisfied divine justice. All mankind are in breach of this covenant through Adam’s sin, and all, out of Christ, still in a state of nature, are duty-bound to keep this covenant.

Peter Masters has written an article entitled "Christian Hedonism: is it right?" in the Sword and Trowel, No. 3, 2002. This questions Piper’s scheme for sanctification and advancement in the Christian life. Piper likes to call himself a Christian Hedonist and his own favourite catchy definition is, "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him." He would have it that the pursuit of joy in God must be our principle aim and amounts to the same thing as glorifying God.

Chris Hand has written a critique on Piper published in the Christian Research Network Journal. This highlights Piper’s charismatic leanings, with his endorsement of the Toronto Blessing.

Mark Karlberg, ThD has also looked closely at Piper’s theology in his "John Piper on the Christian life" referred to above. This is also published by the Christian Research Network and is an examination of Piper’s controversial view of ‘faith alone’ in Future Grace."