JACK HIBBS – “THE CHOICE, IS IT YOURS?” WELL, YES, BUT NOT REALLY!
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Chuck Smith, celebrated for his meticulous verse-by-verse exegesis of the Bible, Jack Hibbs has created a big collection of videos about the book of Romans.
In this article, we shall be investigating his exegetical (or possibly eisegetical) style to evaluate the authenticity of his claims. I invite you to watch this clip from the second part of his series “The Choice, is it Your?” and to listen carefully.
THE CORE OF HIS MESSAGE
The central theme of Jack Hibbs’ YouTube video series on the book of Romans is encapsulated in the phrase, “The Choice (faith), is it Yours?” It is essential to recognise from the outset that salvation is the primary focus of the Book of Romans, rendering it impossible to separate choice from faith.
Additionally, Jack Hibbs’ ongoing reference to choice as a gift from God further solidifies the idea that choice and faith are essentially the same in the realm of salvation. Some of his statements need to be carefully scrutinised to catch what he is actually saying.
For instance, he says,
He keeps His promises completely irrelevant of you and me. He has sworn by Himself to Himself to keep His promises . . . It wasn’t your brain or your wisdom that figured it out and added Jesus onto your life. You and I were lost without hope in this world.
When you put these statements together, his meaning becomes clear. He is implying that you don’t have faith of your own accord because we are all incapable of using our brain (“Totally Depraved,” the “T” in TULIP) and that faith must be given to you by God when you hear His Gospel preached, which is also a gift (“Irresistible Grace,” the “I” in TULIP, which Hibbs refers to as “favor”).
However, the fact that you and I were lost without hope in this world doesn’t mean we are incapable of using our brains to understand salvation. (We shall see how the Bible refutes this claim later in this article). This is why he used the Rothschild example to illustrate that the chosen or predestined ones, before time began, could not possibly have known, understood, or earned or received their vast inheritance, which was already bequeathed to them.
This interpretation clearly demonstrates that Jack Hibbs perceives faith as a divine gift, which in turn undermines the biblical concept of free will. Free will serves as the cornerstone for making decisions between love and hate, righteousness and unrighteousness, good and evil, blessing and curses, as well as God and Satan.
To illustrate how far off-track Jack Hibbs is on the issue of faith being a gift of God, which He allegedly endows only on those whom He predestines to salvation based on His foreknowledge, we will examine Jack Hibbs’ rendition and Jesus Christ’s description of faith. So, without any further ado, here’s Jack Hibbs’ explanation of faith.
Imagine if all of us found out that we were related to the Rothschilds, and you’re all a bunch of bazillionaires all of a sudden. We did nothing, we knew nothing, but we became benefits, or we received the benefits of. God did all the work, He did all the lifting,
He paid the price, He made an agreement to keep it empowered forever with Himself, and then turns around and gifts all those who’ll trust Christ with all that He’s gotten for us, and it’s all of God’s grace, and it’s all of God’s favor, it’s absolutely awesome.
What is he trying to express? His illustration using the Rothschilds as an example, when as children we “did nothing” to deserve and “knew nothing” about the immense inheritance that would be ours upon reaching adulthood, serves as Jack’s method of conveying the following:
In the distant past, before our existence, God, in His grace and favour, predestined our salvation based on His foreknowledge and bestowed upon us everything as a gift, including the ability to choose (faith), the chance to hear the Gospel, and the capacity to respond positively to it in accordance with His steadfast promises.
He praises God’s favouritism later when he says:
Has Romans 2:11 slipped his mind when he preached on Romans verse by verse? How does Jack’s garbage concerning children doing nothing and knowing or understanding nothing with regards to salvation compare with Jesus Christ’s approval of little children’s faith in Matthew 18:3?
Mark 10:15 KJV
I assure you and most solemnly say to you, whoever does not receive and welcome the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all. (AMP).
Here’s what children know what to do: BELIEVE AND RECEIVE THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A GIFT FROM GOD OF THEIR OWN ACCORD (FREE WILL).
In a serious declaration, Jesus elaborated on the truth found in Mark 10:14. Anyone who does not receive God’s kingdom as a gift now in this life, with the trusting disposition of a child, will never (emphatic negative, ou me, “by no means”) enter it. Such a person will be barred from its future blessings, particularly eternal life (cf. vv. 17, 23-26).
The kingdom of God cannot be attained through human effort or merit; it must be received as a divine gift through a childlike faith by those who recognise their inability to achieve it in any other manner. Jesus’ compassionate act (cf. 9:36) vividly demonstrated that His blessing is generously bestowed upon those who receive His Kingdom with childlike trust.
Jack Hibbs’ interpretation of this passage closely resembles the previous explanation regarding the gift (the Kingdom of God), yet he manipulates the meaning through a clever twist. He acknowledges that the Kingdom of God cannot be achieved through human effort or merit, as there is nothing mankind can do to earn it. Rather than clarifying that it can only be obtained through a childlike faith in Jesus, he contends that faith, the chance to hear the Gospel, and an individual’s positive reaction to it are all gifts from God, ensuring that God receives all the glory.
However, I must say that with this peculiar eisegesis, God receives no glory at all, for the Bible clearly states that no one can please God without faith originating from one’s own heart (Hebrews 11:6), rather than through something that has been given to you as a gift. (I aim to explain this later in terms of a marriage between a man and a woman).
The intensive compound verb “blessed” (kateulogei, imperf., uniquely appearing in the NT here) emphasises the profound warmth and genuine affection with which Jesus blessed each child who came to Him.
Jesus Christ clearly proclaims that his 1000-year Kingdom on earth and ultimately eternal life is the gift and not faith. If faith had been the gift, He would not have warned his audience to believe like a little child instead of taking “a deep dive” into the book of Romans to unravel its supposed “deep stuff”. If Jack tried to explain his “deep stuff” to a little child, he/she would tell him,
Do I need to know all the so-called deep concepts you emphasised in your sermons to be saved? All I needed was Romans 10:13: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” I believed Him, prayed, and asked for forgiveness for all my sins. In that moment, He forgave me because I believed in Him, and now I joyfully look forward to meeting Him personally in His Kingdom one day.
You are making it too hard for your congregation, Pastor Jack. Pipe down and tell them what Jesus told his disciples when He rebuked them for their harsh behaviour toward the parents who brought their little kids to Jesus.
And please don’t blame the little kids for not knowing or having done anything toward their salvation. Jesus Himself said, ‘He that believes in Him shall have eternal life’ He didn’t say, “Those who receive his gift of choice (faith) shall have eternal life.”
I simply believed in Him without the deep stuff you preached, and I was saved. And, by the way, I don’t like your Rothschild simile to explain God’s predestination based on his foreknowledge.
But of course, in your estimation, I’m not saved because, as you said, “He’s completely right all the time, and rooted and based in His love, that when He says something, [like your choice (faith), the opportunity to hear the Gospel, and your affirmative response are all his gifts to us] you need to ask yourself, are you actually a real believer or not? That might be the issue.”
Listen, as you often say but rarely practice, Jesus had already glorified His Father to the fullest even before going to the cross, having completed the work God the Father entrusted to Him on earth.
Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you... I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do (John 17:1-5).
If He intended to give us everything you mentioned as a gift, He would not have inspired John to write John 3:16-17. Why? Because it is impossible to please God without faith.
Hebrews 11:5-6 KJV
[5] By faith [that pleased God] Enoch was caught up and taken to heaven so that he would not have a glimpse of death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD HAD TAKEN HIM; for even before he was taken [to heaven], he received the testimony [still on record] that he had walked with God and pleased Him.
[6] But without faith it is impossible to [walk with God and] please Him, for whoever comes [near] to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He rewards those who [earnestly and diligently] seek Him. (AMP).
Jack Hibbs would rather have said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever receives the gift of an affirmative choice (faith), to believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For ‘Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it is always in the favour of God’s love toward those who have received the gift to believe.’”
Enoch’s faith was not a predetermined gift from God designed to please Him. Rather, it was Enoch’s own faith, cultivated within his heart through his free will, that brought delight to God. A faith that is imposed, even if considered a gift, as Jack Hibbs suggests, cannot truly please anyone, let alone God.
Hibbs highlights the crucial difference between humans and robots, and strongly claims that homo sapiens do not possess the intellect necessary for understanding salvation. Consequently, God must grant faith to the believing and predestined individuals.
Imagine someone saying to you, ‘I want you to trust me with all your heart, but don’t fret and reach out with trembling hands to your biorphen; I will give the trust you need in your heart to trust me.’ That’s not trust; it’s coercion; it’s compulsion.
Another one of Jack’s thoughtless remarks is this.
Responsible, listen, for those in heaven, they didn’t get to heaven because they were smart enough to figure out the gospel, and they honoured God by choosing God. That’s not how it works. God gave them the opportunity that when the gospel was presented, they responded.
The response to the gospel was given by God. Are you hearing me? Was it your brain or your wisdom that figured it out and added Jesus on to your life? You and I were lost without hope in this world.
But God gave the opportunity for you to hear the gospel. That’s a gift. And then to respond to the affirmative, yes, Lord, I want you in my life. That’s a gift. So that when you and I enter heaven, we’re going to be praising God for Him doing it all.
But the reverse is also true in this sense. For those who wind up waking up in hell, having rejected Jesus all their lives, blowing Him off, rejecting Him, they wind up in a Christless eternity because that’s what they wanted. That’s what they chose. God didn’t send them there. Friends, you cannot find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that God sends them there.
Isn’t it peculiar? Those who desire Jesus in their lives cannot actively choose Him on their own because they lack the capacity to do so. Instead, they must be granted the gift of choice (faith) by God to attain salvation. On the other hand, those who reject Him are seemingly more intellectually independent. They possess free will, make their own decisions, and ultimately choose to go to hell because that is their preference. Only Jack Hibbs fully understands how he reached such a silly conclusion.
God engages both your intellect and reasoning when sharing the Gospel. The avoidance of intellectual engagement is often associated with occult practices and contemplative mysticism, which raises some questions about Jack Hibbs’ potential links to such practices. Contrary to Jack Hibbs’ claim that the brain is inactive during the process of salvation, Scripture emphasises the importance of engaging the mind.
Isaiah 1:18 KJV
[18] Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. (AMP).
The intellect, a faculty of the mind (brain), is the primary means through which one reasons. In philosophical and theological contexts, particularly in Christian thought, the human faculties are often identified as:
- Intellect – the ability to understand, think, and reason.
- Will – the capacity to choose or decide.
- Emotions (or affections) – the ability to feel and respond emotionally.
- Conscience – the moral awareness or sense of right and wrong.
When someone reasons, they engage their intellect—analysing information, assessing arguments, and forming conclusions. This ability is often regarded as separate from, yet complementary to, the will and emotions.
When God invites someone to reason with Him, He encourages them to use their intellect, free will, emotions, and conscience to deeply understand how their sins affect their relationship with Him and, importantly, their eternal fate if His warnings are disregarded (verse 20).
It seems that God is so eager to reveal the blessings He would grant them if they properly utilised all their intellectual faculties that He wasted no time. He immediately highlighted the blessings in the phrase, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool,” only addressing His judgments on those who refuse to act positively at the very end (verse 20)..
The teachings of Jack Hibbs on the book of Romans suggest he is promoting a different gospel, centred around another Jesus and influenced by another spirit (2 Corinthians 11:4). The message he advocates appears to be a watered-down version of Calvinism, which, in reality, represents one of its most dangerous forms.
TAKE HEED THAT NO ONE DECEIVES YOU
To continue, I want to establish the tone of this article by sharing a quote from the Lighthouse Trails Research site. This quote pertains to their criticism of Hibbs’ support for the LDS Church’s production of the TV series “The Chosen” directed by Dallas Jenkins.
Sadly, this is just another example of how lackadaisical today’s Christian leaders and many pastors are when it comes to guarding and protecting the saints from spiritual deception in these last days. This is tragically reminiscent of what the prophet Jeremiah said regarding the children of Israel:
My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place. (Jeremiah 50: 6).
Jack Hibbs’ wavering between truth and error creates a situation where one may agree with him on some points while disagreeing on others. His unfortunate inconsistency becomes more pronounced when he tries to group ability, choice, and faith together as divine gifts in his discussion of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
The ability to make choices and the concept of faith can be compared to two horses pulling the same cart. Choice and faith work together seamlessly, complementing each other. Whether one’s faith in Allah arises from a conscious decision to serve Him, or faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is born from a deliberate choice to love and follow Him, both illustrate the harmony between choice and belief.
This demonstrates that both choice and faith are gifts that God has generously granted to all humanity. Every individual has the ability to place their faith in whomever they choose because they possess the free will to decide whom they wish to serve (Joshua 24:15-16). Jack Hibbs acknowledges this in part 1 of his series on Romans chapters 9, 10, and 11, titled “The Choice, Is it Yours?”
What about choice? Does man have a choice? Is God involved? Is God sovereign? Is there intentional some sort of sovereignty given to man? Is there really the ability to choose? Or did God make a bunch of robots?
Did God make predetermined . . . listen, preloaded in advance, pre- . . ., what’s the word, teleonomic would be the science word, where there has been data put into something in advance and that all that you and I are living out right now is just something that you have no control over, you have no input in, you have no decision making.
In essence, he acknowledges that the ability to believe and choose has been granted to all humanity since the dawn of time. There is no inconsistency in this truth. Humanity is not merely a collection of machines manipulated by God through levers or buttons to align with His sovereign will. However, Jack Hibbs’ interpretation of salvation appears distinctly mechanical, devoid of free will, and rooted in God’s foreknowledge.
He compares salvation to a significant Rothschild inheritance—one that the heirs neither comprehend nor know how to claim. How can anyone claim an inheritance they are unaware of? Only upon reaching adulthood, after the passing of the Rothschilds, are the heirs informed by a legal representative about their inheritance and formally granted access to it.
Similarly, God, through His sovereign will, grants those He has predestined for salvation—according to His foreknowledge—the opportunity to hear the Gospel, the gift of faith to make a deliberate choice, and the ability to respond positively to the Gospel for salvation.
This approach is crucial because the predestined individuals lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend the Gospel and choose God. Jack Gibbs’ explanation closely aligns with Calvinism’s TULIP doctrine, where the “T” stands for “Total Depravity.” As noted, a significant issue emerges when these elements—described by Jack Hibbs as the opportunity to hear the Gospel, respond affirmatively, and accept it through faith—are interpreted as divine gifts.
The immediate question arises: If God has endowed all of humanity with the ability to believe in whomever they choose and to serve the one they select, why does He not extend this gift to everyone? The answer lies in this: while all humanity possesses the capacity, not everyone receives the gift. Does this not seem to suggest favouritism? (Romans 2:11)
As we will see later, Jack Hibbs attributes this not to the “U,” “L,” and “I” in TULIP (Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace), but rather to the predestination of all believers (the elect) grounded in God’s foreknowledge and His love.
It is clear from Scripture that God desires the salvation of all humanity, as evidenced by passages like “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 18:32) and “The Lord is patient… not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
The paradox or tension, as Calvinists often describe it, between this concept and the Calvinistic interpretation of God’s sovereignty is frequently dismissed under the guise of “mystery” or explained using the analogy: “The Potter has the right to shape the clay in His hands as He pleases, whether for glorification or destruction.” Charles Spurgeon illuminated this paradox or tension by likening it to two parallel train tracks running side by side.
The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.
The main issue is that when you focus your gaze on two lines appearing to converge on the distant horizon, your eyes start to squint, leading to significant confusion. This makes it difficult to see clearly, particularly when it comes to understanding biblical doctrine.
The metaphor illustrates that divine sovereignty and human responsibility progress in parallel to each other, never crossing paths in this life, yet seemingly merging in eternity—much like train tracks meeting at the horizon. Jack Hibbs captures this concept succinctly with his one-liner.
For those who wind up waking up in hell, having rejected Jesus all their lives, blowing Him off, rejecting Him, they wind up in a Christless eternity because that’s what they wanted. That’s what they chose. God didn’t send them there. Friends, you cannot find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that God sends them there.
We shall examine this rather hilarious quip a bit later.
WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS: SPREADING OUTRIGHT LIES OR BLENDING TRUTH WITH FALSEHOOD?
I have been an avid listener of Jack Hibbs through his podcast “Real Life with Jack Hibbs” and his YouTube channel for a considerable time. However, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the apparent decline in the consistency of his teachings.
Although he consistently delivers solid biblical teachings, especially on eschatology and Israel, his messages have started to falter. There is a concerning trend of forming compromising associations with dubious individuals, of him embracing elements of mysticism, and displaying a noticeable shift toward a more Calvinistic perspective on soteriology.
The most frustrating aspect of his inconsistent approach to evangelism is that in one video, he may deliver a message perfectly aligned with God’s Word, while in another, he might express something that blatantly contradicts his earlier statements.
To delve into this puzzling enigma, I analysed excerpts from four of his videos on the topics “The Choice: Is It Yours?” and “God’s Good-Good Sovereignty,” rooted in Romans 9:1-13, to explore his semi-Calvinistic tendencies.
One of the most frequently referenced verses by Calvinists is Romans 9:13, which declares, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” The title, “The Choice, Is It Yours?” itself sparks some controversy, as it seeks to address Calvinistic doctrines on God’s sovereignty from a distinctive angle, emphasising what the author describes as the scope or extent of God’s sovereignty.
When God urged Israel to choose life over death, He did not grant them the automatic ability to act in accordance with His will. While He emphasised the importance of making the right choice, He did not bestow the gift of a guaranteed positive response to some while denying others the opportunity for a reciprocal decision (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Jack Hibbs’ statement presents a contrast: while he asserts that the choice is yours, he also emphasises that the ability to respond affirmatively is a divine gift. (We will examine how he addresses this concept when discussing the choice of unbelievers.) His idea—that the decision is yours, yet an affirmative response to the Gospel (faith) is a gift from God—aligns closely with the principles of Calvinism.
THE TWO GIFTS OF AN INNOCUOUS CALVINISM
In the first part of his series, “The Choice, is it Yours?” Jack Hibbs says the following:
“So, my argument is this. If there’s no choice; then how can God punish them? If you’ve got this worked out to why God punishes people who have no ability to choose you’ve got a bad God, and I don’t want anything to do with him.”
His remark is an evident critique of the TULIP doctrine of Calvinism. However, Jack Hibbs has successfully pursued his personal mission to reconcile God’s sovereignty—rooted in love, compassion, and mercy—with what he refers to as the inherent sovereignty of human choice. To achieve and maintain this profound balance, he has introduced two gifts designed to uphold God’s supreme authority in matters of salvation.
Ironically, to stay true to his motto, “He did it all,” one must set aside personal faith from the equation (since making an affirmative choice is merely another expression of faith). The two gifts Hibbs presented are:
- The gift to hear the Gospel preached to those whom He foreknew. Jack Hibbs must include this as a gift because the Bible says, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Romans 10:17). This gift is for all people and not just those who would believe. Even Genghis Khan was presented with the Gospel.
- The gift of making a positive or affirmative choice. If faith is the primary goal of hearing the Gospel, then faith and an affirmative choice become synonymous. Thus, in Jack’s view, faith is a gift, aligning closely with the principles of pure Calvinism.
WHAT ABOUT NINEVEH?
Perhaps Jack Hibbs could provide insight into his two gifts in relation to the foretold fate of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, as described by the prophets Jonah and Nahum. This is especially relevant considering his statement: “Whenever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it always reflects God’s love toward those who believe.”
In the Book of Jonah, there is no evidence suggesting that the Gospel was proclaimed to foster belief and salvation for its listeners (Romans 10:17). Therefore, it seems unlikely that God granted the Ninevites the opportunity as a gift to hear and respond affirmatively to the Gospel.
The Gospel was not explicitly conveyed to the Gentiles in the Old Testament as it was in the New Testament. However, there are notable instances in the Old Testament where Gentiles turned to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), often through impending judgment or disaster.
One such example is Rahab, a harlot who demonstrated remarkable faith by sheltering the Israelite spies from their pursuers. Once it was safe, she helped them escape by lowering them through a window of her house, which was built against the wall of Jericho.
She pleaded with the spies to spare her and her family during the Israelites’ attack. The spies agreed, instructing her to tie a scarlet cord in her window as a sign and to gather her family inside her house for protection.
Her faith in the God of Israel was sparked when she heard of His miraculous parting of the Red Sea to deliver His people from Egypt and His triumph over the kings of the Amorites. This moment echoes the sentiment of Isaiah 26:9: “When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.”
There is no indication that God specifically granted Rahab the gift of hearing the Gospel, the gift of faith, or the ability to respond affirmatively to the Gospel. Rahab was saved through her personal faith.
Has faith since become a divine gift, granted only to those whom God, in His eternal foresight, knew would believe—so that, when the moment came for them to believe, He endowed them with the faith necessary to choose belief?
God instructed Jonah to journey through the vast and mighty city of Nineveh, proclaiming with all his might, “In forty days, Nineveh will be overthrown!” Overwhelmed with fear, the king of Nineveh rose from his throne, cast aside his royal robes, donned sackcloth, and sat among the ashes.
He also ordered it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, stating, “Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not eat or drink water.” Incredible, as Jack Hibbs might exclaim—or perhaps not, since it doesn’t align with the two divine gifts he claims God bestows upon those who respond favorably to the Gospel, based on His foreknowledge.
Practices of contrition were not exclusive to Israelite tradition. Comparable mourning expressions were prevalent in Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and broader Semitic cultures, often intertwined with funerary rites and religious rituals. These gestures were more than symbolic—they served as profound, physical manifestations of grief and repentance.
The highlight of this narrative is when God observed their actions and saw that they turned away from their evil ways. He refrained from the punishment He had planned for them. Remarkably, as Jack might put it, God changed His mind upon witnessing their deeds (3:10). But doesn’t this seem to challenge Jack’s claim that you can do absolutely nothing—zero—toward your salvation?
Keep in mind that the king and his subordinates already believed in God when they heard Jonah’s stern warning: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:5). The entire city was spared because they carried out the singular work of God, rather than relying on their own works rooted in religious rituals, such as fasting or marking their faces with ashes. As mentioned earlier, many pagan cultures practised similar rituals during times of contrition and sorrow.
This time, the Ninevites did it to express their sorrow for their sins against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). What is the work of God? Jesus mentioned the work (singular) of God in John 6, verses 28 and 29.
John 6:28-29 Then they asked Him, “What are we to do, so that we may habitually be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.” (AMP).
The question they were truly asking was, “What actions does God require from us to earn eternal life?” Jesus’ response rejected their focus on multiple deeds and emphasised that God requires only one work (act): to have faith in the One He has sent.
In essence, the responsibility for attaining eternal life rests with you. God has already done everything necessary for your salvation, proclaiming triumphantly on the cross, “Tetelestai” – It is finished. All that remains is for you to place your complete trust in Him with all your heart, mind, and soul. He did not tell them,
“Don’t worry, God knew from the beginning of time who among you would believe. When the moment comes for His gifts to take effect—such as the gift of hearing the Gospel and the ability to choose by faith—you will be saved. As Jack Hibbs aptly puts it, ‘Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it always reflects God’s love toward those who believe.’
On the other hand, for those who reject Him and choose a path leading to hell, the term ‘predestination’ doesn’t truly apply, as God’s love is not extended to those who refuse it. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing I can do to change that. All I can offer is a sovereign sense of pity for your decision.”
JESUS WEPT
Matthew 23:37 KJV
[37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who murders the prophets and stones [to death] those [messengers] who are sent to her [by God]! How often I wanted to gather your children together [around Me], as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Listen carefully: your house is being left to you desolate [completely abandoned by God and destitute of His protection]! (AMP)
Jack Hibbs reminds his church:
Remember church, He wept, but He foreknew in eternity those who would believe in Him.
He undoubtedly foreknew in eternity those who would believe in Him. Yet, such a notion seems paradoxical. Why would He grieve and weep over Jerusalem (representing the nation of Israel at that time) if He already knew they would reject His invitation to be gathered under His care, like chicks under a hen’s wings? According to Jack Hibbs, they chose and desired to go to hell. (Matthew 23:37-39).
Did He weep because they stubbornly refused to believe, or because He foresaw that they were hopelessly lost, unable to receive the gift of faith and an affirmative choice, which would bring glory to Him and His Father? If so, it raises the question: why did He repeatedly send numerous prophets to warn them, fully aware that Jerusalem (and the entire nation of Israel) would resist accepting salvation?
Paul addresses this enigmatic series of events in Romans 9:6-7, “Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
Jerusalem, the capital city, represented the essence of the nation, yet its people rejected the prophets and stoned those sent to guide them (cf. Matthew 23:34; 21:35). The Lord longed to redeem the nation, much like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings. Yet, unlike chicks that instinctively seek their mother in times of danger, the nation willfully refused to turn to Him. Their deliberate rejection made them accountable for their choices, ultimately leading to their condemnation.
As a result, their house was left desolate or abandoned. The term “house” likely refers to their city, which is the most widely accepted interpretation. However, Jesus may have been alluding to the temple or even the Davidic dynasty. All these elements may be interconnected.
If Jerusalem symbolises the entire nation of Israel, as previously mentioned, and not all are considered part of Israel or descendants of Abraham, then who within the nation of Israel can truly be regarded as “true Israel,” given that the entire nation rejected Jesus? Such a notion is music in the ears of anti-Semites and Replacement Theologians.
Did Jesus rebuke and weep over all of Israel because she was not truly Israel? To resolve this seeming paradox, we must examine the consequences of Israel’s refusal to seek refuge under the wings of her Messiah. The answer lies in Matthew 23:36-38.
The judgment that befell the nation of Israel did not stem from God denying them the gift of a positive choice regarding the Gospel, as Jack Hibbs suggests, and because they allegedly wanted to go to hell; her judgment involved her displacement throughout the world after 70AD when the Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem and their temple (Matthew 24:2).
Jesus recognised this through his foreknowledge and denounced their obstinacy, which resulted in their loss of his divine protection. It is not directly related to salvation, but solely to their banishment from their land and their dispersion throughout the world.
Listen, in these last days, Jesus is gathering his chosen people from the four corners of the world back to their promised land, despite their stubborn unbelief. He is doing it for his Name’s sake (Isaiah 48:1-11).
From that moment onward, David’s lament echoed: “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever” (Romans 11:9-10). Yet, their apostasy brought significant benefits to the Gentiles, granting them the chance to be grafted into the Olive tree through faith (Romans 11:17, 24).
This challenges Jack Hibbs’ interpretation that the term “unwilling” in this context implies a preference for going to hell rather than heaven. His argument hinges on the theory that the Bible never explicitly states that God sends or commands anyone to hell. However, there is a nuanced distinction between the terms “unwilling” and “not wanting.”
When someone expresses a desire to go to hell, it reflects a deeply personal and intense longing or preference to be there. It’s akin to declaring, “I want to go to hell, and no one can stop me.” This represents an unwavering decision, firmly made, with no intention of being persuaded otherwise.
To be unwilling to do something does not mean that you want to do something opposite to what you believe. It is imperative to bear in mind that the nation of Israel already believed that they were heaven-bound because they kept the Law, based on the fact that those who did not keep the Law were cursed (John 7:49).
Of course, in this discourse between the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees, who were sent to arrest Jesus, the latter interpreted this as “you must keep the Law lest you be cursed.” Hence, Jesus’ serious reprimand in Matthew 23:4, “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”
The Pharisees exerted a nefarious influence over the nation by promoting the belief that adherence to the Law was essential for receiving blessings and entering the Kingdom of God. Consequently, the people of Israel, who refused to take refuge under Jesus’ guidance, did not reject Him out of a desire to go to hell. Instead, they believed they had already secured their place in the Kingdom of God through their strict observance of the Law and their identity as descendants of Abraham.
Jack Hibbs’ claim that unbelievers willingly choose hell and that God does not send them there is deeply flawed. His perspective implies that God’s sovereignty is subordinate to the unbeliever’s decision to embrace hell, as if God merely honours their choice. This interpretation starkly contradicts the teachings of the Word of God.
Luke 12:4-5 KJV I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will point out to you whom you should fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority and power to hurl [you] into hell; yes, I say to you, [stand in great awe of God and] fear Him! (AMP).
God alone has the power to send unbelievers to hell. You can want to, yearn, desire, and long to go to hell until the cows come home. It won’t work until God sends you there. Because He alone has the power to do so.
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action and to act in ways that are not predetermined by past events, biology, or divine foreknowledge. A good example from Scripture would be Deuteronomy 30:9:
Deuteronomy 30:19 KJV
I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore, you shall choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants. (AMP).
Yes, He urged and pleaded with them to choose His blessing. However, this excerpt does not imply in any way that God sovereignly bestowed upon some Israelites the power or gift to decisively choose His blessing when they heard Him proclaim it, while leaving others to their own devices to bring curses upon themselves, as if they desired to be accursed based on His foreknowledge.
It must be firmly reiterated that free will is not contingent upon foreknowledge, and neither is faith a gift; salvation is the gift through faith. Any form of coercion, no matter how subtle, such as an irresistible gift of grace, would constitute a gross violation of the free will bestowed upon humanity by God, thereby tarnishing the greatest gift of all, which is the creation of man in His image.
Human creation in the likeness of God forms the foundation of the ability to love or not to love, to accept or to reject. A marriage between a man and a woman cannot truly be considered successful if the woman says “yes” solely because the man gave her a gift to elicit her agreement.
That’s not love, as Jack Hibbs might say. While it may seem improbable, the idea of a divine gift enabling someone to say, “Yes, Lord, I desire You in my life,” to those He foreknew would respond positively, is equally irrational.
Why is this so? As previously mentioned, it would fundamentally undermine the greatest gift granted to humanity—the creation of mankind in His image. There is no requirement to present a gift to God to receive a favourable response, just as God cannot offer a gift to compel acceptance of His Gospel. Doing so would hinder free will and contradict humanity’s creation in the image of God.
Jesus Christ did not send the Holy Spirit with a collection of gifts reserved solely for those whom God foresaw would respond positively to the Gospel for their salvation. Instead, He sent the Holy Spirit to convict the entire world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
The individual who cried out, “Oh God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” did not do so because of any special gift enabling him to make such a declaration. Instead, it stemmed from a profound awareness of his sinfulness and an overwhelming sense of despair.
Jack Hibbs argues that faith and the ability to respond must be granted as divine gifts for redemption to occur. It raises questions about how individuals perceive sermons that present faith as a gift from God, rather than a personal choice.
Some may wonder, “Will God grant me His gift before I die? Am I worthy of receiving it I feel lost, which leaves me uncertain and powerless to fully believe. Yet, I do believe—but I can’t discern whether my belief stems from myself or from God. If it originates from me, it might be a false faith, for James says, “You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19). This leaves me deeply confused.”
Some might reflect, “I really want this gift, so I will say, ‘Yes, Lord, I want You in my life.’” Others might affirm, “I have already received His gift, for as Pastor Jack explained, ‘Whenever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it always reflects God’s love for those who believe.’ Since John 3:16 reveals that He loves the whole world, and I am part of this world, it is clear He loves me too and has predestined me for salvation.”
Their focus remains on the supposed gifts rather than addressing their spiritual lostness, which ultimately leads to eternal separation unless they repent and believe the Gospel. As Paul states in Romans 10:17, faith comes by hearing, not through gifting. None of these individuals is pursuing the true gift—there is no such thing as the “right gift.” Instead, they should seek the gift of salvation, which is being obscured by Jack Hibbs’ critical errors.
Matthew 7:13-14 KJV Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad and easy to travel is the path that leads the way to destruction and eternal loss, and there are many who enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow and difficult to travel is the path that leads the way to [everlasting] life, and there are few who find it. (AMP).
How can anyone respond favorably to the Gospel when the genuine Gospel is not preached, when another gospel is preached? Pastors and teachers who preach that faith is a gift of God for those who would believe are preaching another Gospel.
Galatians 1:8-9 KJV But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction! As we have said before, so I now say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel different from that which you received [from us], let him be condemned to destruction!
IS IT REASONABLE TO DEVELOP A COMPLETE SERIES FOCUSED ON THE IDEA OF CHOICE?
The term “choice” is notably missing from the New Testament, and the word “choose” is mentioned only once, in Philippians 1:22. In this passage, Paul shares his internal struggle regarding whether to remain alive to fulfil God’s purposes or to leave this world and be with the Lord, which he recognises as far superior.
Meanwhile, the term “faith” is mentioned 40 times in the book of Romans—a remarkable concentration, especially when compared to its total occurrences in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts combined.
It is more fitting to emphasise the significant role of faith in Romans rather than focusing on choice. Building an entire series around the concept of choice, which is notably absent in Romans, can be considered misleading.
This is particularly evident as Jack Hibbs seemingly avoids including the word “faith” in his title. A title like “Faith: Is It Yours?” would frame faith as a gift, aligning more closely with a traditional Calvinistic viewpoint.
Jack Hibbs prayed that the Holy Spirit would lead him to speak the truth, and then continued with something the Holy Spirit never inspired. Although Jack Hibbs mentions faith 19 times in part 1, 6 times in part 2, and 11 times in part 3, which gives you a total of 36 times, he chose to call his series “The Choice, is it Yours?”
The immediate effect this could have on audiences who were advised to put on their thinking caps is “How do I choose Jesus Christ? Do I go to Him and say, “Yes, Lord, I choose you?” Nope, says Jack Hibbs, that would make you a partner in salvation and rob God of his glory and sovereignty.
God must do everything from A to Z in salvation so that He may get all the glory. Oh, and according to Jack Hibbs, you have an inbuilt sovereignty of your own, which is limited to the ability (note carefully, ability only and not a salvific ability), which is an attribute everyone received when God created man.
But calm down, for there is no injustice in God, as Jack said. This prevenient ability always comes to fruition when the appointed time arrives for those whom God foreknew would believe.
At that time, when they hear the Gospel, which is a gift from God, they are granted the gift of choice to respond to the Gospel affirmatively so that they may cry out, “Yes Lord, I want you in my life.” Take note: They shouldn’t say “Jesus, please save me, a sinner, from eternal damnation and destruction in hell.” Instead, he encourages them to say, “Yes, Lord, I want you in my life.”
Anything short of this is viewed as robbing God of all the glory. Hibbs’ perspective on everything being a gift is based on the principle that “Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge is referenced in the Bible, it is always in support of God’s love for those who would believe.” By expressing this view, he distances himself from the Calvinistic belief that God has destined the reprobate for everlasting suffering in hell. Reflect on this; if he held such a terrible belief, most of his non-denominational followers would quickly abandon his church.
Then again, who are we to question God’s sovereignty because there is no injustice in Him, as Jack persistently affirms. Doesn’t the Bible declare that there is no favouritism or partiality with God, especially considering Him having loved, lived, died, and risen again from the dead for all people? (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9).
Jack Hibbs would never dare to apply his “wherever predestination based on foreknowledge is referenced in the Bible, it is always in support of God’s love for those who believe” to unbelievers who persist in their unbelief.
Had he done so he would have had to retract his statement that the Bible never says that God sends or orders people to hell. Such an idea would force him to admit Calvinism’s view that God sovereignly predestined the elect to eternal bliss and the reprobate to eternal destruction.
However, is it not true that predestination grounded in foreknowledge is also relevant to those who do not believe, or has God, in accordance with His foreknowledge, sovereignly decided to withhold the gifts He bestows upon the foreknown elect?
We will examine Jack’s unusual assertion that God does not send or command individuals to hell merely because they choose to go there of their own volition later in this article. In essence, it is their own desire that leads them to hell, rather than God’s unique omnipotence.
Is this not somewhat of an oxymoron? The foreknown elect do not have the ability to respond in the affirmative to God’s Gospel unless God grants them the gift of volitional choice. Yet, when unbelievers are in view, they happily hop, skip and jump off to hell triggered by their own choice, because they want to enjoy being “tormented in this flame”. (Luke 16:25).
How does that work for Jack Hibbs, bearing in mind that he asked the Holy Spirit to lead him to speak only the truth? If God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and wants all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), why doesn’t He give everyone those gifts?
Ah, I see, everything is based and depends on God’s foreknowledge; Those whom He foreknew would not believe. He sovereignly withheld those gifts, not because He personally sends them to hell but because they want to go to hell.
Not even Satanists want to go to hell. They have no desire to go to hell, because they don’t believe in it, nor do they believe in heaven or God. Hopefully, Jack Hibbs will see that it’s not a case of wanting to but one of believing or not believing.
Those who reject Jesus Christ do not end up in hell because they want to. Jack Hibbs should know that such a notion is completely at odds with what the Bible teaches. Surely, he must know John 3:16-18 off by heart by now,
John 3:16-18 KJV
“For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge and condemn the world [that is, to initiate the final judgment of the world], but that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him]. (AMP).
There is no mention of the words “wanted,” “desired,” or “wished” in this passage of Scripture. The opposite of “believe” is “unbelief” and not “wanted” or “desired.” Paul makes this crystal clear when he wrote:
Romans 11:32 KJV
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all [Jew and Gentile alike]. (AMP).
Should God’s mercy be encapsulated in a divine gift of choice, and the opportunity to hear and respond affirmatively in faith to the Gospel, then He would have been compelled to grant this very same gift to all individuals, as Paul succinctly asserts in Romans 11:32, “that He might have mercy upon all.”
Unless, of course, Jack Hibbs believes the Calvinistic interpretation of biblical phrases like “God desires all people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) or “Christ died for all” as referring to all categories or types of people—Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, male and female, rulers and servants—not necessarily every single person individually.
As Jack Hibbs said, “Because in God, there is no injustice. He’s completely right all the time, and rooted and based in His love, that when He says something, you need to ask yourself, are you actually a real believer or not?” Accordingly, what does He express? Reread Romans 11:32 to capture the entire depth of its interpretation to see whether you are genuinely saved.
In part 3 of his series, at about 07:11, he says,
Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it is always in favour of God’s love towards those who believe.
Let us unpack this rather weird and wonderful statement. According to Jack Hibbs, God in His magnanimous foreknowledge foresaw those who would accept His Gospel because He had endowed them with the ability to choose aeons ago.
However, when the time came for them to respond to the Gospel, which He had anticipated ages ago, their ability to choose was insufficient to actualise that potential. Therefore, God monergistically bestowed on them, as a gift, the opportunity to hear the Gospel, to respond positively, and ultimately the faith to choose Him, ensuring that He receives all the glory.
Jack Hibb’s interpretation of John 6:44 as evidence that certain individuals are saved through God’s predestination based on foreknowledge resembles Roman Catholic theology, which views John 6:44 as God’s prevenient grace that arranges events for the soul to respond freely.
GOD’S INEXORABLE PROMISES ABOUT HEIRSHIP ACCORDING TO HIBBS
Jack Hibbs most likely knew from the beginning that his series on Romans 9:1-13 would cause some controversy and cautioned that it was not intended for the faint-hearted. In this clip of his series, he emphasises that anyone who harbours any kind of disdain or the slightest dislike for Romans 9:1-13 is probably not saved because there is no injustice in God, for God is sovereign to do whatever He likes.
Reading between the lines, he actually said, “If you do not believe what I’m telling you, you are probably not saved, and what I am bringing to your attention in ‘The Choice, is it Yours?” is nothing else but genuine salvation.
To engage his audience’s attention, he captures their focus by stressing that every promise made by God is irrevocable. What could have motivated him to undergird God’s promises when his sermon revolves around choice, faith, and an affirmative response in the context of salvation?
Undoubtedly, the promises of God pertaining to salvation are clearly articulated in the Scriptures. Some of the most prominent and better-known promises are the following.
Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favour drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God; not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation].
Romans 6:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God [that is, His remarkable, overwhelming gift of grace to believers] is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The book of Romans, which Jack Hibbs and his church members diligently studied, clearly indicates that eternal life through Jesus Christ is the gift from God, and not faith or personal choice, as Jack Hibbs and Calvinists in general like to think.
Instead of centring his praises on God’s steadfast promises in at least the two previously cited passages from Scripture, he resorts to an example that seriously derides common sense.
He keeps His promises completely irrelevant of you and me. He has sworn by Himself to Himself to keep His promises. You and I, like kids who maybe have grown up, I’m making it up right now.
Imagine if all of us found out that we were related to the Rothschilds, and you’re all a bunch of bazillionaires, all of a sudden.
We did nothing, we knew nothing, but we became benefits, or we received the benefits of. God did all the work, He did all the lifting, He paid the price,
He made an agreement to keep it empowered forever with Himself, and then turns around and gifts all those who’ll trust Christ with all that He’s gotten for us, and it’s all of God’s grace, and it’s all of God’s favour, it’s absolutely awesome.
What is the rationale behind Jack Hibbs’ utilization of inheritance (heirship) as a representation for salvation, given his statement that “We did nothing, [and] we knew nothing, but we became beneficiaries”?
In Jack’s perspective on salvation as inscrutable (lacking knowledge) and humanly unattainable (failing to do anything), God’s beneficence can solely be grasped through the lens of God’s omnipotent foreknowledge.
The price was paid, but some reject. Many reject, according to Jesus, that offer. And by way of introduction to this again, Romans chapter 8, verses 29 to 30 tells us, For whom He foreknew, and I tell you over and over again, circle the word foreknew.
You want to circle that in your Bible, highlight it, draw arrows to it, everything. It’s all based on God’s foreknowledge that He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn or preeminent one or prototype among many brethren. Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called, and oh by the way, they all go together. This is a package deal. You don’t have three of these and are missing the others. It’s all one.
Whom He predestined, these He also called. Whom He called, these He also justified. Whom He justified, these He also glorified.
The best part about of that last closing statement is that for those of us, listen, we’ve been glorified in Christ Jesus. I know you don’t feel like it. I know you lost an hour of sleep last night.
Maybe you got up and you needed Ibuprofen. That’s because, listen, positionally we’ve been glorified in Christ, but practically you and I are waiting to experience that. Here’s some good news.
All the trimmings of Classic Calvinism, which Jack Hibbs calls a complete package deal, are entrenched in the above statement. This leads to an inevitable error if the word “predestination” is not differentiated from salvation, which is enclosed within the terms “call,” “justification,” and “glorification.”
Only the last three terms are connected to salvation, and not to predestination. The term “predestined” in Romans 8:29 refers to “being conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brethren,” which, of course, can only be applied to believers. “It challenges the notion that Jack Hibbs’ comprehensive package—encompassing conformity to the image of His Son, being called, being justified, and being glorified—is an inseparable whole.”
How do we know? The Greek expression “kai”[1] signifies that a distinction is being drawn; predestination is not equivalent to calling, justification, or glorification. The plain meaning of the text is clear. Contrastingly, Hibbs observes,
Predestination…simply means that God has predetermined that those who respond affirmatively to His call…will be justified…and will be glorified. All of this is ‘according to His purpose’….
Jack Hibbs not only needs Ibuprofen to straighten out his mixed-up dictum, “This is a package deal. You don’t have three of these and are missing the others. It’s all one.” What he needs most is a good dose of common sense.
Common sense concludes that those whom He foreknew would believe He also predestined to be redeemed by granting them the gifts of hearing the Gospel, the right choice (faith), and an affirmative response is nonsensical. Future events do not occur because God decreed them to come about before the foundation of the world, as the Westminster Confession of Reformed Theology asserts. No wonder Jack Hibbs repeatedly urges his interdenominational audiences to emphasize the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29.
If God’s foreknowledge depended on what He had predetermined from past eternity, then His foreknowledge would be meaningless and an insult to His omniscience, which is, to be frank, one of the attributes that establishes Him as the one true God (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Jack Hibbs has a funky habit of reminding his audiences to put on their thinking caps. Perhaps he should start listening to and obeying his own instructions.
Calvinists speak of believers as heirs of grace, chosen by God and adopted into His family—not because of bloodline, but because of divine election. So, while Calvinism offers a hopeful framework for children of believers—seeing them as covenantly privileged—it stops short of guaranteeing their salvation.
Jack Hibbs acknowledges that there is no such thing as a biological (hereditary) covenantal redemption. However, his belief that every aspect of salvation, i.e. choice, faith, and an affirmative response to the Gospel are all gifted by God to those whom He foreknew as heirs of his grace, is pertinently flawed. We shall dive deeper into this Hibbs-phenomenon in our discussion on the true nature of God, a goal Hibbs tried to achieve but dismally failed, at the end of this article.
IS FAITH (CHOICE) A GIFT?
In chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews, often referred to as the faith chapter, the author states that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (verse 6). Anyone with sound judgment would promptly understand that faith, which must first be granted as a gift before a sinner can affirmatively and positively respond to the Gospel, does not honor or please God.
Anything remotely akin to such a view would sound something like this: “Listen, I want you to please me but you are wholly incapable of such a lofty thing. But, don’t be discouraged, I will give to you a pleasant gift which would enable you to honor and please me the way I want you to do it,”
It makes Jack’s claim that “We are going to praise God for Him doing it all,” which includes granting certain people the choice and the faith to respond positively to the Gospel as a gift, sound whacky. He is not honouring God for having done everything; rather, he is dishonouring Him due to his disobedience of Hebrews 11:6.
If I were to require obedience from my children, I would not grant them the ability to obey me by giving it to them as a gift, if that were even possible. Such an act would at the very least be coercive, and any shape or form of coercion excludes love (John 14:15; John 15:10).
What do you think was the reason God gave Adam and Eve such an easy command? They simply had to choose whether to eat or not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He did not say to them, “I want you to understand why I am commanding you not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That’s the only way to test your love for me. However, We have chosen not to endow you with the capacity to love us in return when we created you, as we have opted not to create you in our likeness. Rest assured, I will provide you with the gift of love, which will allow you to follow my command the moment you reach out to take and partake of that tree.”
God, who is the essence of love, had to, by necessity, test the love of His creatures, who were made in His image (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Did He know beforehand they would disobey Him? Certainly, He knew this in advance, even prior to their creation. Yet, His ineffable love constrained Him to offer them the opportunity to show their love for Him in return. This is precisely what defines a relationship. It is a voluntary, non-coercive reciprocal love between two entities.
Jack Hibbs and his huge congregation should be aware of this. Anything less than this is not love. Jack Hibbs recognises that God did not design people to function like robots, having only a few controls for Him to activate to achieve His will in salvation.
Yet he egregiously renames the “control buttons” to “God’s gifts,” throws his arms in the air, and says, “God did it all,” when He gifted some with the ability to believe and positively respond to his Gospel, while He deprived others of this wondrous gift because “they want to go to hell.”
The notion that faith is a gift of God is a key foundational tenet of Calvinism. The preferred scripture referenced as evidence is Ephesians 2:8-10. According to Gordon H. Clark:
A dead man cannot…exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is an activity of spiritual life, and without the life, there can be no activity. Furthermore, faith…does not come by any independent decision. The Scripture is explicit, plain, and unmistakable: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). Look at the words again, “It is the gift of God.” If God does not give a man faith, no amount of willpower and decision can manufacture it for him.[3]
Jack Hibbs expresses it in a more subdued manner than Gordon Clarke, yet the essence remains unchanged.
God keeps his promises not because you are so sweet. He keeps his promises completely irrelevant of you and me. He has sworn by Himself, to Himself, to keep his promises. You and I, like kids who maybe have grown up – I’m making it up right now.
Imagine if all of us found out that we were related to the Rothschilds, and you’re all a bunch of braziillionaires, all of a sudden. We did nothing, we knew nothing, but we became benefits, or we received the benefits of.
God did all the work, all the lifting, He paid the price. He made an agreement to keep it empowered forever with Himself, and He turns around and gifts all those who trust Christ, with all that He’s gotten for us. And it’s all of God’s grace, and it’s all of God’s favour.
Indeed, believers are the only ones who benefit from everything that God has reserved for them in His Kingdom through the death and resurrection of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, some of the remarks He made about hearing the Gospel, responding affirmatively to it, and choosing it by faith as a divine gift (“God did all the work, all the lifting,” which encompasses choice and faith) can be considered deceptive.
If placing trust in Christ serves as the means to obtain all of God’s gifts that He has prepared for us, from where does this trust originate when it is meant to be one of the gifts included in the entire package, such as the gift of choice, the gift of hearing the Gospel, and the gift of responding positively to the Gospel through faith? (Romans 10:17).
Jack Hibbs’ explanation of faith suggests that one must trust Christ prior to receiving the gift of faith (choice). Does Jack Hibbs differentiate between trust and faith? Choice inherently involves a disposition of being in favour of or opposed to something. Choice always requires trust (faith) in others, in oneself, or in something or someone greater.
Consider, for instance, his use of God’s grace alongside God’s favour. One of the meanings of “favour” is to show preference or goodwill toward someone or something, of which the opposite would naturally be not to show preference or goodwill to others or something else.
Having listened to Jack Hibbs asserting that God, in His awesome foreknowledge, was aware beforehand of those who would respond favourably to His Gospel and sovereignly chose to give them His gifts of choice, affirmative response, and faith, one starts to comprehend his expression of ‘favour’ together with God’s grace.
DOES GOD SEND PEOPLE TO HELL?
See video here: https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2025/12/25/jack-hibbs-they-want-go-to-hell/
Arguably, one of Jack Hibbs’ weirdest statements is that there is not a single instance in the Bible where it says God sends people to hell. They end up in hell because they want to be there.
In his pursuit to alleviate the ramifications of God’s sovereign choice and favour regarding predestination, and to render his teaching on Romans un-Calvinistic, he contends that those who find themselves in hell will be there because they always wanted to be there. Whereas Calvinism says that God sends the reprobate to hell because He decreed to do so before the foundation of the world, Jack Hibbs asserts that God sends none one to hell. He endeavors to establish that God does not cast anyone into hell; they are there purely due to their own desire to be there.
Needless to say, this notion is completely at odds with God’s Word. If it were true that sinners go to hell because they want to, there would never have been such a vast variety of religions and denominations, each of which has created its own means to reach heaven in their attempts to evade the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.
Even Islam has formulated a doctrine that its adherents believe will grant them entrance into heaven, so as to escape hell. They argue that Christians are the actual infidels who will end up in hell for rejecting Islam’s pathway to paradise. The Quran proclaims: “Those who have faith and carry out righteous deeds are the companions of the Garden [Paradise]” (Quran 2:82).
Their righteous deeds, according to their thinking, is to kill the infidels, such as Christians and Jews in the name of Allah and then to be martyred (killed) themselves, which grants them immediate entrance into paradise where 72 houris (eternal virgins) await them on 72 beds.
Some groups throughout history have held extreme beliefs that led to mass suicides, often under the influence of charismatic leaders and apocalyptic ideologies. One of the most well-known examples is the Heaven’s Gate group in the United States. In 1997, members of Heaven’s Gate believed that by leaving their earthly bodies through suicide, they would ascend to a higher level of existence (a place of blissful happiness) aboard a spacecraft they believed was following the Hale-Bopp comet.
This tragic event resulted in the deaths of 39 people. No one wants to go to hell. Jack Hibbs’ statement that those who end up in hell, want to be in hell and that the Bible never states that God sends people to hell, is a lie from the pit of hell.
Jesus Himself stated that most individuals are heading towards hell, not because they want to, but because they fail to find the strait gate and narrow way. In other words, their failure is solely based on their search for different routes to access the Kingdom of God, and even routes that have signs such as the “Jesus + something else” is the way.
Jack Hibbs continually urges his non-denominational church to thoroughly explore the Word of God. I would like to recommend that Jack Hibbs takes his own guidance to heart and carefully studies the following Scripture passage:
Luke 12:4-5 KJV “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will point out to you whom you should fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority and power to hurl [you] into hell; yes, I say to you, [stand in great awe of God and] fear Him! (AMP).
G1849
ἐξουσία
exousia
ex-oo-see’-ah
From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: – authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
The Strong Dictionary referenced above clearly indicates that the interpretation of the word “exousia” is definitive proof that God alone wields the power to send or cast nonbelievers into hell. No personal inclination to go to hell, if it were to exist, can result in anyone being cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. Not even one’s own sincere desire to go to hell can cast him/her into hell. It is rather perplexing how Jack Hibbs can maintain that his sermons are entirely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only he knows the reasoning behind this conviction.
Matthew 8:11-12 KJV I say to you that many [Gentiles] will come from east and west, and will sit down [to feast at the table, and enjoy God’s promises] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [because they accepted Me as Savior], while the sons and heirs of the kingdom [the descendants of Abraham who will not recognize Me as Messiah] will be thrown out into the outer darkness; in that place [which is farthest removed from the kingdom] there will be weeping [in sorrow and pain] and grinding of teeth [in distress and anger].”
Revelation 19:20 KJV And the beast (Antichrist) was seized and overpowered, and with him the false prophet who, in his presence, had performed [amazing] signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were hurled alive into the lake of fire which blazes
Revelation 20:10 KJV And the devil who had deceived them was hurled into the lake of fire and burning brimstone (sulfur), where the beast (Antichrist) and false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night, forever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 KJV Then death and Hades [the realm of the dead] were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire [the eternal separation from God].
The only manner in which Jack Hibbs can prove that the Bible does not state that God sends or orders individuals to hell, is to change the above verse to infer that someone else other than God has the power to cast death and Hades (the place where unbelievers are kept until after Christ’s 1000 reign of peace on earth and the White Throne judgment) into hell. It may even be to Jack’s advantage to remove his analytical thinking cap and hurl his reasoning faculties into the Lake of Fire, where they genuinely belong. He is greatly deceiving his church and his YouTube followers. However, he is unable to do so since he lacks the authority to cast even his foolish thoughts or wisecracks into hell.
PARADOXICAL INCONSISTENCIES
Some Christians’ minds grind to a halt when apparent paradoxes in the Bible cloud their thought processes. This typically occurs when individuals fail to consider the entirety of the Bible, despite their claims of doing so consistently. They tend to focus on specific verses without striving to clarify the meaning of those passages in relation to other verses that convey the same theme.
In the third part of his series, Jack Hibbs elaborates on the sovereignty of God as it relates to His foreknowledge, placing particular emphasis on various passages that illustrate God’s invitation to come to Him. Before we go into that, a quick reminder of why it is so important to come to Him for salvation.
John 5:39 KJV You search and keep on searching and examining the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and yet it is those [very Scriptures] that testify about Me; and still you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
Verse 40 is among the excerpts that Jack Hibbs employs to affirm his stance that their unwillingness to come to Jesus is rooted in God’s sovereignty, which is based on His foreknowledge.
They were unwilling by their own choice; However, their unwillingness was a result of His knowledge, established before time began, that they would not seek Him for salvation. Therefore, on the grounds of this foreknowledge, He chose not to provide them with the gift of a positive response to His Gospel, even though they had extensively explored the Scriptures that testify of Him.
Jack is quick to substantiate his pro-Calvinistic stance by quoting the very same verse Calvinists use to substantiate their abhorrent TULIP doctrine.
John 6:65 KJV And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father. (AMP).
Jack Hibbs would immediately draw attention to the part that says “unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so], and say,. “See, I told you. No one can be saved unless a person is given the gift to believe and granted the will to come to Jesus, based on God’s foreknowledge”. Unfortunately, this is one of the Ampflied Bible’s most horrid mistranslations. It equals that of the ESV (English Standard Version), a translation favoured by Reformed Theologians (Calvinists).
John 6:65 ESV And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
It is somewhat similar to a large group of individuals waiting in line, hoping to receive permission to approach Jesus for salvation, while God the Father informs one, “You are permitted to go,” and to another, “I am sorry, but you cannot go, as I have seen in eternity past that you would be unwilling. So, off you go, seeing that you want to go to hell.”
The Amplified Bible was primarily the work of Frances E. Siewert (1881–1967), who conceived and developed the idea of using “amplifications” to bring out the full meaning of biblical texts. She worked under the sponsorship of The Lockman Foundation, and her work was later supported and published by Zondervan Publishing House.
She was the widow of a minister of the Presbyterian Church, which is historically and doctrinally Calvinistic. She had limited formal training in biblical languages but used scholarly sources like Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, who was also a patron of the Presbyterian fraternity. She produced the Amplified New Testament (1958) and Old Testament volumes (1962, 1964).
ελκω ελκυω (helkuō helkō)
The verb ελκυω (helkuo) or ελκω (helko) means to drag or draw: to force to follow by some leading power, mostly against the natural resistance of whatever is drawn. This verb stems from the Proto-Indo-European root “selk-“, to pull or drag, mostly of a plough through a field: making furrows. This PIE root comes with a leading ‘s’, which is missing in our Greek word. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in Greek, although it mostly happens in reverse: see our article on the noun σειρα (seira), cord, for a brief look at some examples.
In the Greek classics, our verb was used to describe the dragging along of some heavy object (of a warrior a dead victim, a prisoner his chain, of mules a chariot, of a plough through a field). But it could also describe a drawing out of ships from port, a sword from its sheath, or a bow ready to shoot an arrow. Our verb could tell of sails hoisted, oars pulled or nets drawn.
Most notably, our verb could describe the dragging of someone to court, which immediately implies that the dragger, somehow, has availed the strength to do so. Only a stronger person can overwhelm the resistance of any suspect, which in turn implies that justice can only begin to be administered when first the righteous have become stronger than the unrighteous.
Our verb occurs 8 times in the New Testament, see full concordance, and from it comes:
- Together with the preposition εκ (ek), meaning out, from or of: the verb εξελκω (exelko), meaning to draw out or away from some intended course (James 1:14 only) – (source: https://www.abarim-publications.com/DictionaryG/e/e-l-k-om.html
From the previously mentioned document regarding the term “draw” in John 6:44 and 12:31-32, it is evident that God does not force His will upon anyone, nor does He bestow (gift or grant) the ability to approach His Son to some individuals while excluding others.
When this is examined in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 1:18, which states that the cross represents the power of God, it becomes apparent that it urges everyone towards salvation, and to reflect upon it and to decide whether to accept or reject it.
Henceforth, the statement “to those who perish the cross of Christ is foolishness, but to those who are saved it is the power and wisdom of God,” holds true. No one can evade the cross of Jesus Christ; every individual must make a choice.
An Old Testament parallel to the drawing power of God through the cross of Christ can be found in Numbers 21:4-9 (KJV).
Then they set out from Mount Hor by the way of the [branch of the] Red Sea [called the Gulf of Aqabah], to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient, because [of the challenges] of the journey. So the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no bread, nor is there any water, and we loathe this miserable food.” Then the Lord sent fiery (burning) serpents among the people; and they bit the people, and many Israelites died. So the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord, so that He will remove the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent [of bronze] and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten will live when he looks at it.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it on the pole, and it happened that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (Amp)
God did not force them to look or grant them the gift of looking at the bronze snake. They looked at it willingly and of their own accord. Obviously, Jack Hibbs’ rendition of this verse accommodates his view on predestination, which, in his own words, is perfectly mirrored in his following statement:
“Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it is always in favour of God’s love towards those who believe.”
His objective is to subtly support the idea of God’s predestination to hell for those whom He does not love, as Jesus did not offer Himself as a sacrifice for them. Although he does not explicitly state this, the above quote innocuously supports Calvinism to such an extent that it becomes impossible to interpret it in any other way — It is Calvinism par excellence. And this brings us to the inconsistent interpretation of the apparent paradox between John 6:65 and Isaiah 1:18.
Isaiah 1:18 KJV
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Jesus states precisely the same thing in John 6:44 as He does in John 8:65. (AMP).
John 6:44 KJV No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day. (AMP).
Should Jack Hibbs follow Chuck Smith’s approach of verse-by-verse interpretation of the Bible, he would undoubtedly have encountered the verse that sheds light on John 6:44 and 6:65.
John 12:31-32 KJV Now judgment is upon this world [the sentence is being passed]. Now the ruler of this world (Satan) will be cast out. And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all people to Myself [Gentiles, as well as Jews].” (AMP).
The cross of Christ is the power of God that draws all people to Him. However, to some his cross is foolishness but to those who believe it is the power and knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). John 6:44 does not imply that God, in the ages past, made a sovereign decision to draw to Christ those whom He foreknew would have faith in Him, while neglecting to draw those who want to go to hell. It was for this reason that Paul exclaimed:
1 Corinthians 2:1-2 KJV And when I came to you, brothers and sisters, proclaiming to you the testimony of God [concerning salvation through Christ], I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom [no lofty words of eloquence or of philosophy as a Greek orator might do]; for I made the decision to know nothing [that is, to forego philosophical or theological discussions regarding inconsequential things and opinions while] among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified [and the meaning of His redemptive, substitutionary death and His resurrection].
There is nothing inherently so difficult about the cross of Christ that requires “a deep dive” simply because we are dealing with “some deep stuff”. Even a child is capable of comprehending the significance of the cross and can receive eternal life as a gift through faith alone. Certainly, there are elements in Paul’s writings that can be challenging to grasp, yet Peter firmly cautions individuals who, through their misunderstanding of God’s Word, manipulate Scripture for their own whimsical agendas.
2 Peter 3:16 KJV Speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
HALF TRUTHS ARE ESSENTIALLY VEILED DECEPTIONS
A frequently cited mantra when the primary objective is to sustain unity among the brethren is, “All teachers will never see everything the same in the Scriptures; however, their doctrine is the same and is very biblically sound. Everyone has his own opinion,” particularly in discussions regarding so-called “secondary biblical doctrines.”
Doctrines which are noted to have no bearing on one’s salvation and sanctification are usually dubbed “secondary doctrines.” For instance, the Nephilim narrative in Genesis 6 is deemed a secondary doctrine.
Another subject of dispute is adult water baptism by immersion. The reality is that the Bible does not employ the terms primary and secondary doctrines. Instead, the Bible draws the dividing line between truth and lies.
The truth will grant you freedom, not subjective opinions. The irony is that the label “secondary” is a contemporary term that surfaced alongside the efforts to encourage tolerance and ecumenical conversations in theological and academic settings. In short, the term is a manmade doctrine, if you will.
Baptism by immersion, for instance, is widely considered among pastors to be a secondary doctrine with no implications for salvation. It is merely an act of obedience to Christ, they say. However, this is not true when you consider who was given the mandate to baptise Jews in the Jordan River. John the Baptist distinctly said, “I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”
Should repentance in John’s baptism be seen as unrelated to salvation, we would have to reckon Jesus’ instruction to repent in the gospels as irrelevant for salvation as well.
John the Baptist’s baptism could not save, but it surely was the precursor to a baptism that could. In this sense, it was an important element for the Jews at that time who had been waiting for their Messiah to show up and to be baptised by the Holy Ghost after his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into HIMSELF (Romans 6:3).
Consequently, many disciples who followed John began to follow Jesus when they heard John say, “There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Who are you following, John the Baptist and his water baptism or Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit baptism?
You can’t have it both ways. The notion that water baptism is a sign that a born-again person has died and risen again with Christ holds no water (no pun intended). Hence, water baptism must be conducted for a saint after his or her salvation and not prior to it, as they say.
If it were true that water baptism instructed by John the Baptist was indicative of being crucified, buried, and resurrected to a new life with Christ, then John the Baptist’s baptism in water was not a baptism unto repentance (a change of mind, as he said) but a baptism for salvation. Once again, it must be reiterated that this idea is a manmade invention.
A similar approach to spreading half-truths is to omit certain passages within a relevant context. In part 1 of his series, he commends the smouldering flax-like faith of the one thief on the cross who, according to Hibbs, did nothing for his salvation because God did everything from A to Z, and only said to Jesus, “Will you remember me?”
Of course, he could do nothing because his hands and feet were nailed to a cross. However, and here’s where Jack Hibbs fails to put the whole truth on the table, the thief did something with his mouth and his heart.
He was remorseful and admitted that he and the other thief were guilty and deserved to die, while Jesus did nothing wrong and was innocent. Why did Jack Hibbs omit this extremely poignant scene?
He did it for one reason only, and that is to prove that God “did it all” for the thief’s redemption. Did God first grant the thief an affirmative choice and then a smouldering flax-like faith to say, “Remember me when you come into your Kingdom?”
Certainly, if the faith-gift phenomenon from God were genuine, then it follows that He would never bestow upon anyone a faith that resembles smouldering flax. He never acts in a half-hearted manner.
Yes, the thief, like any other human being who was created in the image of God, received the ability to choose and show forth faith when God created man, but the thief himself activated this ability when he asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his Kingdom.
With these words, he acknowledged that he was a lost sinner and deserved to be cast into hell. The other thief next to Jesus had the very same ability but chose to deny that he deserved to be crucified and said, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.” Or did Jesus, based on his foreknowledge, withhold the gift of an affirmative choice and faith from him so that he could be damned to eternal perdition in hell?
A FEW FINAL THOUGHTS
- Should choice, faith, and affirmative responses be considered gifts from God to be saved? What then is the reason for Jesus Christ sending the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment?
- Additionally, why did Jesus declare, “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Mark 2:17 KEV).
- Both attributes, choice and faith, were given to humanity when God created Adam and Eve. They were instilled in humanity when God breathed into man the breath of life, and he became a living soul.
- The soul represents the essence of both the ability to choose and the capacity to believe or trust in something or someone. Neither of these should be viewed as gifts in the sense that God provides the ability to respond positively to the Gospel to some individuals while withholding it from others, as they have chosen or desired (wanted as Hibbs claims) to pursue hell.
- Indeed, this is one of the main traits of Calvinism. Dave Hunt writes in his book “What Love is This?”
Why should Calvinism be such a complex and apparently esoteric subject that it would require years to comprehend? Such an attitude could very well intimidate many into accepting this belief simply because such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders espouse it.
- Jack Hibbs is in league with Calvinists as far as their braggadocio is concerned. What reasons could Jack Hibbs have for declaring that “Romans 9, 10, and 11 are not for the faint of heart?” Spiritually speaking, this serves as a warning or a way to weed out people who can’t handle the deeper biblical concepts, like the sovereignty of God.
- Is this an allusion to TULIP of the Calvinist confession of faith, or is he trying to find a compromise that combines strict Calvinism with his own understanding of God’s sovereignty, which he calls “the scope of God’s sovereignty”?
- His “scope of God’s sovereignty” establishes that everything within the ambit of salvation is a gift from the Lord. It includes your faith, your choice, and even your response in the affirmative to the Gospel.
- Nothing stems from your cleverness in grasping or figuring out the Gospel. These are all gifts of God that give all the glory to God and humble one into admitting that you cannot boast in having chosen God. Such a notion dishonours God and allegedly robs him of his glory.
- This serves as yet another proof from the Calvinists that salvation can solely be validated through God bestowing upon the elect every aspect of redemption – namely, predestined choice, faith, and glorification.
- Those who go to heaven did not make it in accordance with their own choosing, faith and affirmative response to the Gospel. They were never smart enough to understand the Gospel for themselves and, therefore, did not opt for God of their own free will.
- Thus, God had to intervene in a sovereign and monergistic fashion (which denotes that salvation is fulfilled solely by God without any human assistance). In short, they have no free will or the faith of their own to believe in God and could only comply with these requirements the moment God chose to gift them with all these salvific and monergistic prerequisites.
- It is one of the subtler versions of raw Calvinism, which asserts that a man who is dead in his trespasses cannot understand, hear or react positively to the Gospel. Therefore, God needs to regenerate his chosen people first before He gifts them with the faith they need to believe in Him.
- God in his awesome omniscience, knew before the foundation of the world who would respond favourably to his Gospel and waits until the appropriate time in their lives to grant them the gift of hearing the good news, the gift of faith and finally the affirmative response to the Gospel. Hence, God has done everything so that He alone may get all the honour and the glory. As Jack Hibbs said, “HE GETS ALL THE GLORY.”
- With respect to Jack Hibbs’ claim that God honours all His promises. Indeed, God is faithful to each promise, as they are all confirmed in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 2:20). Yet, what does Hibbs genuinely intend? Is he indicating that God’s promises are connected to His call for repentance and belief in the Gospel, and that all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved?
- Hardly, because his view of predestination and salvation hinges on God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, God’s promises are only reserved for those whom He loved before the foundation of the world, for “Wherever predestination based on foreknowledge appears in the Bible, it is always in favour of God’s love toward those who believe.” To them only He promised, “I shall save you by granting you the gifts of making the right choice, by granting you the gift of an opportunity to hear the Gospel, and by granting you an irresistible response to accept my calling, and to finally grant you the faith so that you may believe in Me.”
IS JACK HIBBS’s PRESENTATION OF GOD’s NATURE BIBLICALLY CORRECT?
You may recall how Jack Hibbs introduced his church to his sermon series on “The Choice, is it Yours”?
Listen, if you’re not into Bible study, you need to skip the next few months. You can go whatever you’re going to do, come back later. This is deep stuff, but I tell you what, jokingly of course, if you stick this out and come to the end of chapter 11, it’s going to be remarkable how you see the nature of God and what God has promised us, He cannot fail you.
God who is the essence of love (1 John 4:8) cannot and will not impose Himself on any individual. Had He done so it would have tarnished his nature. Imagine Jack having said to Lisa his wife before their marriage, “Lisa, you will marry me because I have noticed that you loved me way before we actually met. I watched you closely and saw how you smiled at me. I decided from that moment onwards that you will marry me.” Coercion, force, imposed love? You bet.
God knew before He created the heavens and the earth, as well as Adam and Eve, that they would disobey his command not to eat of the fruit of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. Any shape or form of Him having gifted them the trust they needed to obey Him would have tarnished the essence of his nature, which, of course, is love. What is the essence of love itself? What makes love true love?
The answer to the question would obviously be a reciprocal, a willing love that springs from the heart and mind (soul) of the individual himself. This is how God fashioned mankind. He took the dust from the earth, breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and he became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7). The soul comprises the will, personality, conscience, and consciousness inherent in every human being.
Should God have granted the prospective believers the faith (choice) necessary for salvation, it would represent a considerable infringement upon the intrinsic nature embedded in their souls, a nature that God Himself has created. Indeed, this would be a profound misrepresentation of God’s own character. This is simply not possible. Here is the explanation.
The concept of God as the essence of love is incompatible with the idea of a singular divine person, as proposed by some Islamic traditions and certain Christian denominations, such as Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals. Within the Godhead, the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, and a single entity cannot simultaneously embody all three. This perspective undermines the notion of reciprocal love, favouring a form of self-love expressed in three distinct manifestations. Only a triune Godhead, consisting of three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—can truly exemplify mutual, reciprocal, and perfect love.
Therefore, it behoves us to remember that we were made in his image, which includes the ability to love Him and believe in Him reciprocally from within and without our own mind, soul, and spirit. Jack’s representation of God’s nature is not biblical.
False teachers often incorporate references to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the cross of Christ, His resurrection, His ascension, prayer, God’s sovereignty, His love, His holiness, and other attributes of the Godhead in their sermons. However, when they address soteriology—the doctrine of salvation—their teachings frequently deviate from the truth.
SATAN SHOWS NO CONCERN FOR HOW MANY TIMES YOU USE ALL THESE MENTIONED SACRED WORDS IN YOUR SERMONS. HIS MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO INFLUENCE SO-CALLED MEN OF GOD TO EVER SO SLIGHTLY DISTORT THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. AND OH MY, IS HE EFFECTIVE.
Please read: https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/02/27/calvinism-greatest-delusion/
[1] Herschel H. Hobbs, Fundamentals of our Faith (Nashville: Broadman, 1960), 94–99.
[2] God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
[3] Gordon H. Clark, Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1987), 102; cited in Vance, Other Side, 515–16.
