A Non-Calvinistic Interpretation of Hebrews 3:12-14

Recently I received an e-mail in which I was asked what my thoughts are on Hebrews 3:12-14. The inquirer was not satisfied with the Calvinistic interpretation, nor with the Arminian interpretation, nor even with the GES interpretation. The inquirer felt that even the GES interpretation was not truly a “free grace” interpretation of the passage.

What follows is the response that I wrote to the inquirer, although in this blog post I have expanded on a few more points in greater detail than in my original response, and I have also added more Scripture references; it is my Free Grace understanding of Hebrews 3:12-14.

Let me preface my response by saying that I took a class on the book of Hebrews in Bible school (it was a Free Grace school) and the textbook that we used (besides the Bible of course) was J. Dwight Pentecost's commentary on Hebrews titled: A Faith That Endures (Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992). I would suggest purchasing that book, as I think it is a good commentary on Hebrews and it will be a helpful resource. Also see my Free Grace library for more commentaries on Hebrews that are written from a Free Grace perspective (for example, see the devotional commentary on the book of Hebrews by W. H. Griffith-Thomas). As far as my thoughts on Hebrews 3:12-14, I would say the following:

In Hebrews 3:12, the writer is addressing Jewish believers ("brethren", v. 12). Remember that believers can be "unbelieving" (v. 12). For example, see Numbers 20:12 where Moses is described as an unbelieving believer. Also see Mark 16:14 where Jesus reproaches the disciples "for their unbelief and hardness of heart." Although believers can fall away from the living God (Heb. 3:12) in the sense of fellowship and loss of intimacy, we can never be completely separated from Him (cf. Rom. 8:35-39). As someone has said, "we can fall in the boat but never out of the boat." We may fall away from Him, but He will never forsake us! (See Hebrews 13:5; cf. Deuteronomy 31:8.)

For Hebrews 3:13, see Hebrews 10:26-31. The writer to the Hebrews is warning his readers (the Jewish Christians) that there are severe consequences for going back to Judaism. These consequences do not include loss of salvation, but rather loss of fellowship with Christ. There will be “judgment” (Heb. 10:27) in the sense of chastisement (cf. 1 Cor. 11:32). In other words, the “fire” (Heb. 10:27) that will purge believers is the same fire that will destroy unbelievers (cf. Heb. 12:29; 1 Pet. 4:17). Hebrews 10:31 says, "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." The writer doesn't say "fall out of the hands of the living God", but instead he's talking about falling "into the hands of the living God." This highlights our eternal security in Christ (cf. John 10:28-29).

In Hebrews 3:12-14, the writer to the Hebrews is telling these saved Jews that if they go back to Judaism and don't persevere to the end, their fellowship with Christ would cease. They would not lose their salvation, but they would lose their fellowship and their intimacy with Christ. The word "parktakers" (Greek metochoi) in verse 14 simply means: a sharer, an associate, fellow, companion; the word "partakers" is a synonym for fellowship, "fellows" (Heb. 1:9, KJV). We partake of Christ daily as we fellowship with Him. In other words, when the writer to the Hebrews says "we have become partakers of Christ if..." (v. 14), that is to be understood in terms of fellowship, not salvation.

This understanding of Hebrews 3:12-14 keeps salvation by grace completely free, and it also rightly distinguishes between the believer's oftentimes faltering condition in this world, versus his or her perfect and unchanging position in Christ.

Does Philippians 1:29 Say Faith is a Gift of God?

A Bible verse that Calvinists twist trying to show that faith is a gift of God is Philippians 1:29: "For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf".

But I’ve noticed a few things about Philippians 1:29 which argue against the Calvinistic interpretation that faith is a gift of God:

(1) Paul doesn't use the noun faith, but instead he uses the infinitive verb "to believe". What’s the difference? If we substitute other nouns and their corresponding infinitive verbs, the distinction becomes more clear. For example, if I said (using the noun), "I gave you food" — that's actually me giving you a gift. But if I use the infinitive verb instead of the noun, notice how the meaning is changed: "You have been granted the privilege to eat." Wow! That's a completely different meaning, right? By using the infinitive verb, now it doesn't necessarily mean that I gave you food at all, but rather that you have been given the privilege "to eat". So it changes the meaning from an outright gift, to something (a privilege) that you now have to choose to do and are involved in: eating! So that's one thing I noticed about Philippians 1:29 that argues against the Calvinistic interpretation.

(2) I looked up the Greek word for "granted" in the BDAG lexicon, and the Greek word is echaristhe (from charizomai), meaning, "to give freely as a favor, give graciously".[1] But what's interesting is that in the example that BDAG gives for the use of the word in Philippians 1:29, BDAG actually explains it using the word "privilege". BDAG says: "you have (graciously) been granted the privilege of suffering for Christ Phil. 1:29".[2] Why I think this is important is because I've seen a Calvinist trying to disprove Norman Geisler's non-Calvinistic interpretation of Philippians 1:29 because Geisler uses the word "opportunity" to explain what the Philippians were given: they were given the opportunity to believe.[3] Geisler interprets Philippians 1:29 to mean that the Philippians were given, not faith as a gift, but the opportunity "to believe". In response, the Calvinist said something like: "The text doesn't say 'opportunity'. That's Geisler reading it into the text."[4] But not true, because according to BDAG, the meaning of Philippians 1:29 is indeed that the Philippians were given/granted the "privilege" to believe. So it's the same idea: "privilege" is a synonym of "opportunity", or at least it has a similar meaning.[5]

(3) Whatever is said in Philippians 1:29 about the infinitive "to believe" must also be true of the other infinitive in the sentence, "to suffer". I like how the Weymouth New Testament translates this verse: "For you have had the privilege granted you on behalf of Christ—not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf". The New Living Translation puts it like this: "For you have been given not only the privilege of trusting in Christ but also the privilege of suffering for him." So, this raises the question: does God give "suffering" like the Calvinists say that God unconditionally gives "faith"?[6] Well, no. People choose "to suffer". People have a choice in it. What is given is the privilege "to suffer". Paul says to Timothy: "Join me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:3). So Timothy had a choice in it. So this gets us back to my first point, that God has given us the "privilege" (Phil. 1:29, NLT) "to believe" and "to suffer". It's a choice we make, not an unconditional gift of God as the Calvinists try to twist it to mean.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, Editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021), p. 960.

[2] Ibid, p. 960, emphasis original.

[3] See Norman Geisler's book Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999), page 183 in the 1st edition; page 190, 2nd edition. Commenting on Philippians 1:29, Geiser writes the following: "'For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him....' This is taken to mean [by Calvinists] that faith is a gift of God to certain persons, namely, the ones who are elect. Response: There are several indications here that Paul had no such thing in mind. First, the point is simply that God has not only provided us with the opportunity [i.e. the privilege] to trust Him but also to suffer for Him. The word 'granted' (Greek: echaristhe) means 'grace' or 'favor.' That is, both the opportunity to suffer for Him and to believe on Him are favors with which God has graced us. Further, Paul is not speaking here of initial faith that brings salvation but of the daily faith and daily suffering of someone who is already Christian. Finally, it is noteworthy that both the suffering and the believing are presented as things that we are to do. He says it is granted for 'you' to do this. It was not something God did for them. Both were simply an opportunity God gave them to use 'on the behalf of Christ' by their free choice."

[4] For example, in an article titled "Philippians 1:29 and the Gift of Faith (Part Five): A Look At The Interpretation Of Norman Geisler," James Swan (a Calvinist) says: "Dr. Geisler though has read in a word not explicit in the text: the word 'opportunity.'" Mr. Swan goes on to say: "Contrary to Dr. Geisler, Paul’s point is not that 'God provided us with the opportunity to trust Him' and 'suffer for him.' The word 'granted' does not imply a choice to embrace an opportunity or reject an opportunity. Rather, the believing on Christ is something given to man as a demonstration of the grace of God." (James Swan, "Philippians 1:29 and the Gift of Faith (Part Five): A Look At The Interpretation Of Norman Geisler" [January 16, 2006], Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics blog, https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/01/philippians-129-and-gift-of-faith-part_16.html [accessed August 20, 2022].) So basically Mr. Swan is denying what the BDAG lexicon and more than a few Bible translations have affirmed, namely that God has given us the "privilege" (i.e. the opportunity) "to believe" in Christ and "to suffer" for His sake. (Some of the Bible translations that use the word "privilege" in Philippians 1:29 include the Amplified Bible, the God's Word Translation, the New Living Translation, and the Weymouth New Testament.) And furthermore, in regards to Mr. Swan's statement about how "believing on Christ is something given to man as a demonstration of the grace of God", the words of D. L. Moody are worth repeating when he says: "But some say, Faith is the gift of God. So is the air; but you have to breathe it. So is bread; but you have to eat it. So is water; but you have to drink it. Some are wanting a miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. x. 17). That is whence faith comes. It is not for me to sit down and wait for faith to come stealing over me with a strange sensation; but it is for me to take God at His Word." (Moody, The Way to God [Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1884], p. 51.)

[5] For example, the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition as one of the meanings of the word "privilege": "Something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing particular pleasure: I have the privilege of awarding you this grant." (Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words [Oxford University Press, 2004], p. 342.) Also see the following definition of the word "privilege" on the encyclopedia.com website: "something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing particular pleasure: I have the privilege of awarding you this scholarship." (www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/privilege) Similarly, the Cambridge English Dictionary gives as one of the meanings of the word "privilege" this definition: "an opportunity to do something special or enjoyable: I had the privilege of interviewing Picasso in the 1960s." And furthermore, the yourdictionary.com website lists in their thesaurus that the word "opportunity" is a synonym of the word "privilege". (https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/privilege)

[6] For example, in regards to what the apostle Paul says about suffering in Philippians 1:29, the Calvinist says, "Suffering and persecution are not opportunities to choose one way or the other. They are external forces that come upon us. Generally, one does not seize the opportunity to suffer. Suffering seizes us." (James Swan, "Philippians 1:29 and the Gift of Faith (Part Five): A Look At The Interpretation Of Norman Geisler".) But of course this is not true in light of what the apostle Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:3. Paul indicates that suffering is a choice; he says to Timothy: "Join me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:3). Paul goes on to make it crystal clear that suffering is a choice when he says, "Yes, and all those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution"  (2 Tim. 3:12, NKJV). So obviously a choice is involved (based on a person's "desire to live godly"), contrary to what the Calvinist says.

Beware of Calvin's "Tulip Sniffers"

In a recent sermon on YouTube, Pastor John Ricci warns us to watch out for the modern-day Pharisees who preach the philosophy of John Calvin instead of the simple gospel of grace. Pastor Ricci says:

“Is this a free grace gospel? ‘Follow Christ and be saved!’ Is that a free grace gospel? You better say no after all the preaching I've done....Salvation is free! We’ve lost the simplicity of the gospel! These people are being told that they don’t know [the truth], the promise is not enough, you got to live a life that what? Lines up. That’s MacArthur, that’s Piper, that’s Washer. That’s hyper-Calvinism. The problem is they sniff too many tulips! You know that TULIP theology? They’re a bunch of TULIP sniffers! They’re so stuck in TULIP, they can’t understand the what? Bible! When you get your nose stuck in some man’s philosophy of religion like Calvin, God closes what? The Book! So go around sniffin’ Calvin’s tulips, you won’t know what the Bible says. And that’s why they’re all messed up. We’ve lost the simplicity of the gospel today.”[1] 

The apostle Paul gives a similar warning in the Bible when he says, “Don’t let others spoil your faith and joy with their philosophies, their wrong and shallow answers built on men’s thoughts and ideas, instead of on what Christ has said” (Col. 2:8, The Living Bible).

ENDNOTE:

[1] Pastor John Ricci, “Assurance of Salvation: False Gospels” (November 1, 2013), Grace Christian Fellowship, YouTube video, https://youtu.be/KxDnhYJh1Uc (time stamp: 37:50 minutes - 50:57 minutes). Editor's note: The link to the YouTube video has been updated since the time when I first wrote this article. The link that I had originally used was from a video posted on Onorato Diamante's Good Hope channel, the video was titled: "Free Grace Preacher vs. Modern Day Pharisees" (June 14, 2022). This is why I said at the beginning of the article: "In a recent sermon on YouTube". I was referring to the video posted on the Good Hope channel from June 14, 2022.

The Dangers of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism"

 

Commenting on the YouTube video for my article “John Piper’s New Religion: ‘Christian Hedonism’,” a viewer asked the following question: “[You said] ‘Christian hedonism is all about your own personal pleasure’[.] this is your claim not John pipers[.] can you provide further evidence for this?” Following is my response, which I hope will open the eyes of many to the dangers of “Christian Hedonism”.

 

That Is the Question!

First of all, in the statement you quoted, if you look at it, I was actually asking a question. What I said was this (to give it some context): 

“Remember Paul told the Philippian jailer when the jailer asked, ‘What must I do to be saved?,’ and Paul simply said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ [Acts 16:30-31]. But now after two thousand years of church history, Piper comes along with this new idea and says, “Why don’t we change that to ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” Why does Piper say that? Well, because Christian Hedonism is all about your own personal pleasure, right? ‘Believe in the Lord’, that’s an objective truth. I am looking to someone outside of myself to be saved, namely Jesus Christ. What Piper wants to do is twist that to this personal subjective feeling of delight and it becomes all about his personal delight for salvation. That is Hedonism. That is apparently Christian Hedonism according to John Piper.”

The part you quoted is from when I said, “Christian Hedonism is all about your own personal pleasure, right?” So that’s the question I was asking. That’s my understanding of Piper’s position, and that’s why I said at the end, “right?” But still, it’s a question; rhetorical, maybe, but still a question. I’m providing my understanding of Piper’s position, and welcoming feedback. If you see it differently, please share why you disagree. 

 

Piper’s Cosmic “Sugar Daddy”

But as far as why I said what I did, here’s an extended quote from an article titled: A Critical Examination of John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism” (the bracketed words and numbers are from the original article):

“From this one would expect Piper to conclude that the highest thing man should seek after is to make ‘glorifying God’ the end and ‘enjoying him forever’ the means thereof. And indeed, here [it] becomes apparent that Piper carries two faces. For sometimes, this is indeed his view: ‘I must [sic.: emphasis Piper’s] pursue joy in God if I am to glorify Him as the surpassingly valuable Reality in the universe.’[11]

However, this is not ‘Christian Hedonism’. Several paragraphs later, Piper shows his other face: ‘Christian Hedonism as I use the term does not mean God becomes a means to help us get worldly pleasures [notice the qualification - MK]. The pleasure Christian Hedonism seeks is the pleasure that is in God Himself. He is the end of our search, not the means to some further end... Christian Hedonism does not reduce God to a key that unlocks a treasure chest of gold and silver. Rather, it seeks to transform the heart so that ‘the Almighty will be your gold and your precious silver’ (Job 22:25).’[12] 

God is not the means toward ‘worldly pleasures’ - why qualify it with ‘worldly’? Because ‘worldly’ pleasure wouldn't satisfy us; rather, He is the means toward ‘the pleasure that is in God Himself’. God is not ‘reduced’ to a ‘key that unlocks a treasure chest of gold and silver’ - again, such a treasure wouldn’t satisfy us; rather, this god is exalted to a key that unlocks the treasure chest of joy that is found in him. As Piper says later on, ‘Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy’[13]. Notice: God is a means for man to attain pleasure. Piper continues: ‘Christian Hedonism does not make a god out of pleasure. It says that one has already made a god out of whatever he finds most pleasure in. The goal of Christian Hedonism is to find most pleasure in the one and only God and thus avoid the sin of covetousness, that is, idolatry (Colossians 3:5).’[14] 

That it is idolatry to find pleasure in anything apart from God we do not deny, and that therefore we should seek pleasure in God we do not deny either; but what we do deny, and what makes ‘Christian Hedonism’ turn pleasure into a god, is its claim that the pleasure received from worshiping God should be the highest motivation for that worship (remember Piper’s definition of ‘hedonism’). It is notable that even in this paragraph Piper presents finding ‘most pleasure’ (in God) as the ‘goal of Christian Hedonism’.

This is (supposedly) acceptable because God also gets what He wants: glory. As Piper summarizes, ‘we get the happiness in Him; He gets the honour from us’[15]. A splendid business deal indeed! Piper explains the relationship between us seeking pleasure in Him and He being glorified in this way: ‘Consider the analogy of a wedding anniversary... Suppose on this day I bring home a dozen long-stemmed roses for [my wife]. When she meets me at the door, I hold out the roses, and she says, ‘O Johnny, they’re beautiful; thank you’ and gives me a big hug. Then suppose I hold up my hand and say matter-of-factly, ‘Don't mention it; it’s my duty.’ ... If... she asks me, ‘Why do you do this?’... the answer that honors her most is ‘Because nothing makes me happier tonight than to be with you’. ‘It’s my duty’ is a dishonour to her. ‘It’s my joy’ is an honour. There it is! The feast of Christian Hedonism.’[16]

Which one critic has succinctly summarized thus: ‘Let us use the earthly analogy of marriage to address this question. I have two possible options of what to say to my wife... Option 1) I love you; therefore I will live to please you alone [and try to find pleasure in you], even sacrificing my life and my earthly pleasures if need be, so as to ensure you are cared for and all your needs are met. Option 2) I love pleasure; and I have chosen you as the vehicle through which all my pleasure will be derived, and only through you will I pursue any pleasure, and you will satisfy my every desire so as to give me the pleasure for which I live, and any loving or beneficial thing that I do for you will only be done contingent on the expectation that I will somehow benefit from that action by experiencing pleasure from it. If your wife thinks that Option 2 is as selfish as my wife thinks that it is and if she thinks that Option 1 is the truly loving position to take (in fact she is still waiting for me to get down on one knee, gaze up into her eyes and reread Option 1) then imagine praying Option 2 to a jealous God. If a wife wants to hear you say, ‘I love you and will live to please you’ do you not think that God Himself wishes to hear the same? Do you really believe that God wants you to pray to Him and say, ‘Dear God, I love pleasure, therefore I only worship You to get pleasure in You, so please me in all that I do’?’[17]

It does not glorify God when we ultimately make Him the means whereby we receive pleasure and try to keep Him happy with this by claiming that this glorifies Him the most! The greatest commandment is to love God Himself, not pleasure in God (Mat. 22:36-38). The highest thing we are to seek after is God Himself and His glory and not pleasure in God. If a ‘Christian Hedonist’ will only do something ‘if, and only if’ he receives pleasure from it, then it follows that he will obey God ‘if, and only if’ this gives him pleasure. In other words, the Christian Hedonist’s chief motivation in all things is his own pleasure. That is, the Christian Hedonist is – a hedonist. Piper even admits it: ‘all genuine emotion is an end in itself’[18] and, ‘Happiness in God is the end of all our seeking. Nothing beyond it can be sought as a higher goal’[19].”

 

Piper’s Sermon: “It’s My Pleasure!”

Also check out Piper’s article titled “It’s My Pleasure!” on the Desiring God website. The first three sentences are pretty clear at describing Piper’s beliefs. He writes: “Those who know me best know that I am a Christian hedonist. That means that I think my desire to be happy is a proper motive for everything I do. I do what I do because I think it will make me happier in the long run.” So these statements by Piper are also why I said that “Christian Hedonism is all about your own personal pleasure, right?” In the first three sentences of his sermon, Piper makes it clear that it’s “all about” him: not Him as in God, but him as in Piper! Piper refers to himself almost ten times, and that’s not counting the title! Notice the personal pronouns Piper uses: “me”, “I”, “I”, “my”, “I”, “I”, “I”, “I”, “me”. So in the first three sentences of his sermon, Piper refers to himself almost ten times! And that’s not counting the title of the sermon, which is, remember, “It’s MY Pleasure!”

Just to clarify, when I said that Christian Hedonism (CH) is “all about your own personal pleasure,” I did not mean that other things are not involved. Of course they are. Of course Piper puts God in there somewhere. That’s obvious. I don’t deny that. But what I meant when I said that CH is “all about” your own personal pleasure, is that, in other words, one’s own pleasure is “the be-all and end-all of the Christian experience”. (The phrase “be-all and end-all” simply means the most important part or the reason for something.) In CH, glorifying God is not the highest goal of the individual; it is merely a means to an end: that end being the pleasure of the worshiper.

 

Piper Is a Hedonist

I also think it’s important to remember that at the end of the day, Piper is a hedonist. Being a Christian hedonist doesn't mean he’s not a hedonist, it just means that he’s supposedly getting his pleasure not from wrong things or places, but from Christian sources: from God Himself. But that doesn’t erase the fact that Piper is a hedonist. So what about Christian Hedonism? In Christian hedonism, God is exploited as a means to an end: that end being the pleasure of the worshiper, the pleasure of the individual. So who’s the real god in Christian hedonism? What is the highest aim, the highest end, the highest goal? It is one’s own personal pleasure.

Is it wrong to be happy? No, of course not. But it is wrong to elevate happiness to a higher position than God Himself, which is exactly what CH is doing by relegating God to a cosmic “sugar daddy” who exists to give me what I really want: “My Pleasure!” (so says Piper). In CH, God is simply a means to an end, a way to get what the worshiper really wants as most important: their own personal happiness. Yes, God is thrown into the mix, that’s what makes it “Christian hedonism”. But God is not the highest motivation, aim, goal, end, pursuit, nor thing. The most important thing is the pleasure of the individual.

So let’s be honest and just recognize that Piper is a hedonist. 

What is a “hedonist”? A “hedonist” is someone who believes:

• “the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.” (Oxford Languages)

• “The pursuit of one's own pleasure as an end in itself; in ethics, the view that such a pursuit is the proper aim of all action. Since there are different conceptions of pleasure there are correspondingly different varieties of hedonism.” (Oxford English Dictionary)

• “living and behaving in ways that mean you have as much pleasure as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself” (Cambridge Dictionary)

• “hedonist: a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification” (Collins Online Dictionary)

 

That’s what Piper believes, if he’s a hedonist, which he is. So Piper believes that “[his own] pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of the human life”. That’s just the definition of hedonism. Anybody going to say that Piper doesn’t believe in hedonism anymore?

 

Christian Hedonism Is a Philosophy

Christian Hedonism (CH) is a philosophy, that’s what makes it appealing to a lot of people. It’s this new thing, and Piper is like one of the gnostic elites who has this deeper knowledge. And so people look up to him and they want that deeper knowledge. For example, in his article “Christian Hedonism: Forgive the Label, Don’t Miss the Truth,” Piper tells us what the “truth” is that we’ve all apparently missed for two thousand years thinking that the Bible is all we need! So Piper is here to give us the full understanding apparently, and this is what he says, “Christian Hedonism says...that we should pursue happiness, and pursue it with all our might.” Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen! That’s the truth according to John Piper, according to Christian Hedonism.

But what do the Scriptures say? That’s the real question, isn’t it? “For what does the Scripture say?” (Rom. 4:3). Now this is interesting, because my Bible doesn’t say to pursue my own personal happiness with all might, but rather it says: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5).

So John Piper, this gnostic elite, says to pursue happiness with all your might. That’s the truth according to CH. But the real truth, the truth that we find in the Bible, says something quite different. It’s not about pursuing my happiness, but instead what am I instructed to do? What am I to do with all my might? Pursue happiness? No! But rather, “love the LORD your God” with all your might! Notice the difference: Piper’s ultimate focus is on himself and pursuing his own happiness with all his might, whereas the Bible instructs us to “love the LORD your God” with all your might! This is the great and the foremost commandment (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:36-40). In other words, Piper has replaced loving God with all his might (the greatest commandment), with pursuing his (Piper’s) own personal happiness with all his might! Sadly, Piper’s “truth” is nothing more than the idolatry of happiness. Dress that up with a little “psuedo-intellectual babble” (Col. 2:8, Amplified Bible) and slap a fancy label on it (“Christian Hedonism”) and now you've got something! Now enrolling gnostic elites!

What Do You Really Want?

Is it wrong to pursue happiness? No, of course not. But CH in effect “puts the cart before the horse” by using God as a means to an end, and that end or goal is the happiness of the worshiper. (In other words, instead of God being the highest goal or aim or most important thing, happiness is put in that place and God is simply the means by which the worshiper gets what he or she really wants, which is their own personal happiness. So CH has it backwards!) By way of contrast, Jesus said that the main thing is love: loving God and loving others, not personal happiness. Personal happiness will follow (see John 13:17), but it’s not the goal, it’s not the aim, it’s not the most important thing, rather, it’s a by-product that results from the main thing. Years ago, A. W. Tozer wrote a book titled “The Pursuit of God”. Well, to put a title on Christian Hedonism, we could call it: “The Pursuit of Happiness”. So, you see the difference? It’s a different focus, a different aim. In CH, God is merely the means to an end, and that end is one’s own pleasure or happiness. CH basically exploits God for what the worshiper really wants, which is their own personal happiness. CH basically uses God for what the worshiper can get out of Him (what the worshiper really wants), which is their own pleasure, happiness, delight, and satisfaction. Those things are not wrong, but when they usurp the place of God as the main thing, the most important thing, the goal, the aim, then they take the rightful place of God and they become idols set up in the place which is reserved for God alone. And that is idolatry.

 

“Christian” or “Christian Hedonist”?

The followers of Jesus in the New Testament were simply called “Christians” (Acts 11:26), and they adopted this title because it was an accurate description: they were Christ-ones or Christ-followers, followers of Christ. Remember that hedonism was a pagan (or at least a secular) philosophy at that time, but interestingly the Christians did not call themselves Christian hedonists! This is significant. They simply called themselves “Christians”. Why? Because they were follows of Christ, not Christ plus the philosophy of hedonism, but simply followers of Christ: followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is HIM that we pursue with a single focus (regardless of how we feel about it in the moment), it is CHRIST ALONE that we follow! We do not follow Christ plus hedonism, we follow Christ alone. So you see the difference? Anything added to Christ alone as the Highest or most important or main thing is idolatry, not Christ plus, but Christ ALONE: “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything” (Col. 1:17-18, NASB). 

Why weren’t the early Christians called “Christian hedonists”? The reason the early Christians weren’t called “Christian hedonists” is clearly because they weren’t Christian hedonists!

What’s the Main Thing?

Back in Bible school a fellow classmate had this slogan on his desk, and I always remember what it said: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” The main thing is not your personal happiness, the main thing is Jesus Christ alone. He is our single focus, the lover of our soul. Not my happiness, but His holiness! “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of Hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory!” (Isa. 6:3). 

I love Him for Who He is, not for what I can get out of it.