Johnny Hunt on the Sovereignty of God

Several weeks back I had an interaction with Johnny Hunt regarding some comments he made at the Southern Baptist Pastors Convention. Since I am a former member of Hunt’s church, First Baptist Church Woodstock, our interaction created quite a stir among those associated with the church. I received many emails from Hunt supporters who were displeased with my comments. I also received harsh feedback from those still in the church who know me personally. Nevertheless, this past Sunday night (Oct 30), Hunt again addressed the issue of election during his message, and again the feedback from the Hunt camp has started coming my way. Supporters of Hunt have pointed me to this message to claim that Johnny’s doctrine is no different than mine (or that of John Macarthur), and that the criticism from the reformed community should end here. Therefore, I have spent the last few days reviewing this sermon and I plan to take a few posts to share my thoughts on his words.

Please understand that I do not wish to condemn or slander Johnny Hunt and his ministry. This is not a personal attack on his character or love for Christ. Only see that I wish to clarify how my position differs from Mr. Hunt’s. Let me make it clear that I do object to Johnny’s teaching on this subject, and I believe it permeates his ministry to the core. First Baptist Church of Woodstock (FBCW), like many other Southern Baptist mega-churches, is in desperate need of reform and I will not shy down from saying that. However, during these posts I intend to clarify where Hunt’s arguments concerning election and free will do not agree with scripture. I do not intend to discuss other areas of the church so that the conversation goes off topic. So please keep an attitude of love and respect if leaving a comment. Also understand that this is not an in-depth review of this sermon, as I will be short and concise with my words. If you want clarification on anything that I state please take the time to email me or leave a comment.

The passage specifically addressed was Acts 13:46-48: "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’” Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:46-48, NKJV)

Johnny Hunt said:[When commenting on Acts 13:46] “The word ‘reject’ is a present middle voice verb. What does it mean middle? It means that the rejecting is in and of yourself. It’s not that God created you where you couldn’t receive it; it’s where you of your own volition rejected it. You pushed it from yourself. It means that while I am preaching the message and Jesus is pressing in and the Spirit of God is dealing and the Word of God is being effective in their life - they push Him away. They reject Him.”

It means that the rejecting is in and of yourself.
Several times throughout this sermon there will be subtle implications. What Johnny actually says may be true (as in the comment above), but in actuality, Johnny is clearly implying interpretations that are incorrect when examined as a whole. Here for example, Johnny rightly affirms that these Jews in v46 rejected the gospel in and of themselves. Unfortunately however, Johnny implies that these Jews had the opportunity to exercise autonomous free will and could have decided not to reject the gospel. Johnny misses the deeper meaning which is that everyone rejects the gospel outside of the Holy Spirit enabling some to believe. As this passage clearly shows in verse 48, the Gentiles who did not reject the truth did so because of God's eternal decree, not because they autonomously chose not to reject the gospel. Everybody who goes the Hell goes because they spit in Gods face and adamantly reject His gospel. But, everybody will adamantly reject the gospel unless God decides –out of His mere pleasure- to deliver them from this hatred of Him.

It’s not that God created you where you couldn’t receive it
Correction, God did not originally create us dead in our sin; but unfortunately, Adam didn’t obey and brought the curse of sin upon all his children. We are now unable to receive the gospel without the Lord giving us a new heart of flesh. What Johnny is affirming here is semi-pelagianism. It is the belief that man is injured by sin, but not enough to where we cannot choose what is good. Essentially, though it is not stated explicitly, Johnny is saying that all men have the ability to receive Christ –and that is not scriptural.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. " (Jeremiah 13:23, NKJV)

Can a leopard decide to have stripes instead of spots?

“Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.” (John 8:34, NKJV)

Can slaves free themselves?

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8, NKJV)

Is faith pleasing to God? Is true repentance pleasing to God? Yes of course. So according to this passage, to do these things we are required to be in the Spirit.

John 6:44 (which Hunt quotes later on): “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Although Hunt doesn’t explicitly say it, Johnny is affirming that everybody can come to Christ instead of the words Jesus used: ‘no one’.

Without diving deep into the passage, Johnny’s view does not coincide with Romans 9:

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called…

Or even Proverbs 16:4:

”The Lord has made everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Prov 16:4)

”It means that while I am preaching the message and Jesus is pressing in and the Spirit of God is dealing and the Word of God is being effective in their life - they push Him away. They reject Him.”

Jesus is pressing in? In what way? Is He trying to save but is reliant on the creature? Is He doing all He can, pleading with their mind and emotions trying to get a response? What does that say about the power of Jesus if the person gets up and walks out? The Holy Spirit is dealing? How so? Is the Holy Spirit dealing as in common proclamation of the gospel? Is He dealing by setting favorable circumstances as to try and get positive synergy with the individual? Again, what does this say about the power of God if Jesus and the Spirit can try to get a favorable response out of this person to no avail? Of course it is possible to resist the common working of the Holy Spirit (natural revelation, scriptural revelation, common proclamation of the gospel), but what Hunt is really saying here is that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are trying to save specifically within the individual but are failing because the creature is rejecting the almighty God.

The grace of God that brings salvation never fails to accomplish its end. The effectual calling of God’s elect is clearly shown in Romans 8:

“Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Romans 8:30, NKJV)

All who are called are justified and glorified. There are none that are called by effectual grace that are not brought to glory. Hunt’s view that Jesus is trying to save but fails makes the power of the almighty God subject to the stubborn will of man.

Johnny Hunt said:“And then he says you judge yourselves unworthy. The word judge there means you decide. I noticed tonight that we’re going to sing I have decided to follow Jesus. I had a Calvinist pulled me aside not long ago and said you don’t decide anything. I beg your pardon! In Jesus’ name you listen carefully: you do decide something! He comes and speaks to you and you can reject Him and push Him away!…How in the world do you judge yourself unworthy? By refusing it. He says you have judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life…”

The argument that sinners judge themselves unworthy is only a half truth. Coupled with a proper understanding of Hunt’s view this becomes a non-truth. Yes, sinners judge themselves unworthy. Unless the grace of God intervenes in a life we would all judge ourselves unworthy, and we would all decide to stay in our sin. But what is implied is that these Jews could have exercised their autonomous free will and ‘decided’ not to judge themselves unworthy. Unfortunately, that is not what the passage is saying.

I had a Calvinist pulled me aside not long ago and said you don’t decide anything. I beg your pardon! In Jesus’ name you listen carefully: you do decide something!

Either this Calvinist didn’t explain himself properly or Hunt wasn’t paying attention. But given the resources that Hunt has access to we can be sure that he could’ve gotten clarification elsewhere. Or, Hunt may be purposely stating his personal opinion about what Calvinist believe and teach. Nevertheless, yes, we do decide something. Since Adam is our original father we are bound to his decision. His decision was to sin and thus we fell into a state where we could do nothing but sin (Rom 5). Today, men continue to choose sin and have no second thoughts about it. Only when God changes our will, when God intervenes in our life, when God grants us faith and repentance, only then we can choose to believe. Thus, John 6 again comes to mind when Jesus states: “All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and the one who comes I will by no means cast out. So yes, we choose evil by continuing in the sin of our father Adam, and we choose good when God changes our will and makes us desire His rest. Problem is Hunt isn’t saying that. He isn’t saying that we have a choice based on God’s eternal decision to ordain our will to His glory, he isn’t saying that man is helpless in sin and completely reliant on God to change our nature; he is saying that man is neutral to the point where we can choose any way we please.

Johnny Hunt said: “This passage teaches the important Biblical truth of human responsibility. Like all who will go to Hell the unbelieving Jews of Antioch judged themselves unworthy of eternal life by their unbelief…listen while your reading John 3:16 will you read a little further: [Cites John 3:18]. People perish because they choose to reject and refuse to believe and their choice shuts them out of eternal life. John 5:40 says [cited]…Jesus Christ says come unto Me (I preached it this morning) come unto Me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. John 8:24 says [cited]…Damnation is the result of the rejection and unbelief for which each faithless soul is responsible. So that truth that personal volition must be held in tandem with the equally biblical truth that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation.”

Here Johnny is actually reading word for word out of a John MacArthur commentary on Acts. I noticed this not because Johnny said so, but because I went to the commentary myself to look deeper into this passage. Nevertheless, the words of MacArthur are true, as humans are 100% responsible for their actions. Johnny does not understand that Calvinists completely agree with this biblical truth. Just because God is sovereign in salvation in no way means man is not responsible for his actions. Johnny, however, is implying that if we affirm complete sovereignty of God then we deny human responsibility. That is simply a misunderstanding of reformed teaching.

Furthermore, taking John 8:24 and reading further down we find words that contradict what Hunt is trying to say.

V42-43, 46-47 [addressing the unbelieving Pharisees] “If God were your Father you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God…Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My words…Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

These words directly contradict Hunt’s earlier statement when he refused to affirm that some men are born incapable of believing. Hunt implied that the unbelieving Jews in Antioch did not believe because of personal preference, not because they were incapable of believing. But here in John, the Pharisees did not hear the words of Jesus because they were not of God. They were incapable of believing because they were not ‘born of God’. Not because they decided to exercise libertarian free will and refuse the Christ. Man is dead in sin! There is no hope outside of relying on His grace! But Hunt continually swings the argument back to the sinner, essentially affirming that there is something they can do to become ‘born of God’.

Johnny Hunt said “…[cited Acts 13:48]. There it is. So your hyper-calvinist in particular he can read the whole book of Acts and all he sees is verse 48. He almost erases every time the Bible says ‘whosoever will’.”

Oh how awesome verse 48 is! How could you not focus on it? How could you not read it in amazement and praise God that he ordains some to eternal life?! The issue isn’t that God doesn’t ordain some people to life, it’s the fact that He even chooses to do so at all! For if God didn’t do the saving there wouldn’t be anyone being brought to life. How wonderful! How glorious! How humbling! Why not get stuck on this verse and praise God for HIS work? But because Hunt places salvation within the autonomous will of the man, ordaining is no longer that special. For the man is supreme, man’s will deserves all the attention and focus, and God doing His thing is degraded to the point of something we 'cannot fully understand'. How sad it is to NOT get stuck on this verse and revel in the humbling power and mercy of God!

Also, the Calvinist do not in the slightest manner erase ‘whosoever will’. Problem is Hunt does not properly understand the true meaning of the term. Hunt’s tradition demands that ‘whosoever will’ actually means everyone has autonomous ability to choose Christ. In actuality, ‘whosoever will’ simply means “all the ones believing”. It has nothing to do with Hunt’s belief that ‘whosever’ actually means anybody who wants to make a free will decision. To get a proper understanding, every time your Bible says 'whosoever will' insert 'those who believe' in place of the whosoever. That way, you get a literal interpretation of the term and you will see that 'whosoever' is not some magic word that proves Calvinism wrong.

Johnny Hunt said “There’s a balance here and I want to treat it as fair as I can. What does it mean to appoint to eternal life? It means to enroll. It means to inscribe. It means God put our name in the Lambs Book of Life before the foundation of the world. Ah ha you see (sarcastic)! [But] Adrian Rodgers says He chose us so we could choose Him. Some people have trouble with the fact of foreknowledge to say that when He chose us, God foreknew who would be saved and who wouldn’t be saved. I’m not even going to debate that for you.

There is a proper balance between human responsibility and sovereign election. But that's not what we get from Hunt. What we get is just more affirmations of free will which in turn contradict everything he says on sovereign election. He chose us so we could choose Him? We could choose Him? So, both God and the devil voted for us but we cast the deciding vote? Sounds like it to me. But what does Hunt really mean here? Does he mean that God chose everybody? He has certainly said so in the past. But if Hunt means that God chose some but not all, doesn’t that contradict what he said earlier about not being condemned because of nature but because of choice? Nevertheless, I will spend but a moment on foreknowledge since Hunt himself obviously understands that this trump card is weak:

John 6:37-44 clearly say that the giving of the Father precedes and determines the coming of those given to Christ. Johnny and Adrian Rodgers, however, are implying that foreknowledge makes the result of being given the grounds for being given. Instead of coming to Christ because the Father has given us to His Son, they say that the Father foresees (how autonomous free actions can be foreseen is beside the fact) our autonomous faith and on this basis gives us to the Son. This completely reverses the order of Jesus’ own words. Those who come are those who are given; those who are given are raised up by Christ (6:38-39). Those who are drawn are raised up by Christ.

To be Continued…
That’s all I will address for today. The next few minutes of Johnny’s message is just more argumentation for what he has already stated. However, so that I am not accused of slander of any kind, I will address these things later this week. I will attempt to give as much context as possible so Johnny is not misrepresented in any way. In addition, I encourage you to check out the sermon for yourself, in its entirety, if you have any questions as to whether I am providing the entire context.

For now though it is clear, Johnny affirms the neutral state of man’s nature. He affirms the libertarian free will of man to save himself if he deems God worthy of his attention. Where is God’s free will? Where is the complete reliance on God for salvation? It has been subtle, and lip-service has been given to God’s sovereignty, but man clearly reigns in Johnny’s doctrine of election. What’s the big deal? Why is this so devastating? I will let Martin Luther close with that answer:

Martin Luther said:
"If [natural] Man does possess a ‘free-will,’ and this will can freely choose to follow the commands of God, “repent,” and “come to faith in Christ,” then this will is the most important part of Man, as it is decisive in his eternal salvation. If the most important part of Man is sound, then it does not need Christ as its Redeemer. If it does not need Christ, then Man triumphs above Christ in a glory greater than His; for Man takes care of his most valuable part, whereas Christ only cares for his less valuable part. And then the sovereignty of Satan will prove nothing, for Satan will rule Man’s less valuable part only, and Man will rule Satan instead in respect to his better part! So, those who believe in ‘free-will’ exalt Man above both God and Satan, making Man to be god of god and lord of lords!"

SDG