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. [… Continuing from last issue]

Having ruled out a Covenant of Works, it becomes necessary for Piper to re-define Sin, which he does in answer to WSC 14, "What is sin?" His answer is, "Sin is transgression of the revealed will of God which teaches that we are to act in perfect holiness from a heart of faith to the glory of God." This is a far cry from the Westminster Divines’ definition, which states, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." The proof text given is 1 John 3:4—"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." Adam broke the law of God written upon his heart, the same law which was later promulgated on Mt Sinai in the form of the Ten Commandments. Without law there is no sin. For Piper, Adam’s sin was that he "forsook the obedience of faith". He was in no breach of a moral law, and mankind, fallen in Adam, are in no breach of a moral law; they simply are not acting "from a heart of faith to the glory of God" – something quite different from the Scriptural definition of Sin. J.C Ryle had this to say when writing on the subject of Sin in his volume on Holiness:

With Sin re-defined Piper is obliged to explain the Moral Law in a different light. Hence, in answer to WSC 39, "What is the duty which God requires of man?" Piper, instead of giving the Westminster answer, "The duty which God requireth of man is obedience to His revealed will," replies, "The duty which God requires of man is the obedience that comes from faith." This is consistent with his understanding of the covenant made with Adam being one of grace exclusively and not of works. Clearly, this is no "slight" revision but a radical change in emphasis, implying that obedience to a moral law is not required on the part of man before faith, and that those out of Christ are not under an obligation to fulfil the demands of the moral law. Yet the Westminster Confession of Faith states: "The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof" (WCF 19.5). Piper obviously does not like the expression the Moral Law since he rephrases it the obedience of faith in his version of WSC 41. Instead of, "Where is the Moral Law summarily comprehended?" he writes, "Where is the obedience of faith given in summary form?" It is true the Ten Commandments are a rule of life for believers, but they are much more than that.

Piper also finds it necessary to change the wording to the answer of WSC 51, which states, "The Second Commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, —or any other way not appointed in his Word." Piper’s version is "The second commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images, or any other way that draws the heart away from his glory rather than towards his glory." This is an unwarranted alteration since in answer to question 2 of the Shorter Catechism, "What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?" we are told, "The Word of God,—which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,—is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him." Moreover, his answer reflects his disregard for the Regulative Principle that, in worship, we are to be guided only by what is prescribed in Scripture. Piper takes the Lutheran and Anglican position that, what is not contrary to Scripture is allowed. His answer supports this viewpoint.

In regard to the Fourth Commandment Piper in his answer to WSC 60, "How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?" focuses on how Christians should use the day for their benefit rather than on the requirements of Sabbath keeping. He writes, "One day in seven should be especially devoted to corporate worship and other spiritual exercises that restore the soul’s rest in God and zeal for his name. It should provide physical refreshment and fit one for a week of devoted service to Christ." Our Westminster Divines gave an explanation which implies, and correctly so, a universal obligation to the keeping of the Sabbath. They wrote, "The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy." There is a similar emphasis revealed in Piper’s answer to the next question, "What is forbidden in the Fourth Commandment?" He states, "The Fourth Commandment forbids the dishonoring of the Lord’s Day by actions or thoughts that divert the soul from spiritual refreshment, or deprive the body of renewed energy or distract the mind from its special Sabbath focus on the Lord." Again, the Westminster Divines focused more on the universal obligations of Sabbath keeping. After all, it is a Law or Commandment! They wrote, "The Fourth Commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations." Piper’s views on the Sabbath are not in accord with our Puritan forebears.

The Baptists of 1689 added a question to the Westminster catechism after those pertaining to the Commandments, which Piper also includes in his version. It reads, "What then is the purpose of the law since the fall?’ The 1689 version gives, correctly, this answer, ‘The purpose of the law since the fall is to reveal the perfect righteousness of God, that His people may know His will for their lives and, the ungodly, being convicted of their sin, may be restrained therein and brought to Christ for salvation’. Piper has changed the words, "that His people may know His will for their lives to," "that his people may know the path of faith that leads to life." This is not the same but, then, it is consistent with Piper’s emphasis in his theology on the ‘obedience of faith.’ In his scheme of things Works being the evidence of Faith are important to our ‘final’ salvation. So strong is he in this emphasis that we are constantly being drawn away from considering the obedience and satisfaction of Christ for our Justification to the consideration of our own obedience which, in effect, amounts to a revision of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone.