Posted on 09/02/2004 5:19:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Eariler this month John MacArthur was ejected from Bible Broadcasting Network for teaching what they call "Election/Hyper-Calvinism" which they claim has brought much confusion to their listeners. The network asserts that there is no human answer to the sovereignty of God and the "free will of man". Both, they claim, are clear biblical teachings but beyond our human comprehension. Their evidence is to claim that for every verse which says, "God chose" there is one that says, "Whosoever will may come".
While it is universally agreed among Christians that "whosoever will may come" is Scriptural truth, yet this text does not imply that the man without the Spirit has the desire and moral ability to take heed to these words. To clarify what I mean, consider that God holds us responsible to perfectly obey such things as the Ten Commandments ... but we all know that this does not imply that fallen man has the moral capacity to do so. Likewise, we all know that if God left men to their free wills, apart from grace, then there would be no hope for anyone. This is because no one is naturally willing to submit themselves to the humbling terms of the gospel. Leaving people to themselves is actually the greatest judgment which God Himself can, in this present life, inflict upon a man because man cannot save himself (see Rom 1 where God gives people over to what they want). God could, of course, justly judge all of humanity by withholding such grace, but what should amaze us is that, in spite of their rebellious obstinance, He still sets His affection on a vast number that no man may number and brings them to saving faith (but not because they naturally had some moral insight that others did not). BBN's rejection of MacArthur's teaching on God's sovereignty in salvation is based on their dispensational position (soteriologically) which they claim "rightly divides the word of truth". While it is true that MacArthur is also a Dispensationalist with regard to eschatology, he rejects any and all "dispensational" soteriological innovations, holding to classic Reformed (i.e., Calvinistic, not "covenantal") soteriology.
But before BBN goes around calling John MacArthur names such as "hypercalvinist", they should take the time to really learn what the word means. Hypercalvinism is a real danger, I would agree, but MacArthur's teaching is not even close to it. BBN appears to be using the terms "hypercalvinist" and "Calvinist" interchangeably which is a most regrettable historical inaccuracy. (To learn more about hypercalvinism click here). It is an insult to say that those who are teaching that God chooses us, are hypercalvinists since the fact that God saves us by GRACE ALONE, is plainly taught in Scripture. We can contribute nothing to the price of our salvation. In the man-centered theology of the radio network one could consistently pray "thank you God that I made better use of your grace than my neighbor." This is boasting and the reason for much moralistic arrogance among modern-day Christians over unbelievers. We often begin to think God saved us because of something we did better -- and thus something unbelievers didn't have the wherewithal or moral impulse to do (believe) - rather than give glory to God alone for every aspect of who we are. The Text asserts,"By the grace of God I am what I am" In missing this, we make the same mistake of ancient Israel as God's warning in Deut 9 shows:
4 "Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. 5 "It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 "Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people.
God saved us because he was merciful to us. He gave us the new birth unto faith but not because of our faith. God set aside Abraham as His own, not because He saw something good in Him. God set his covenant love on him and promised he and his descendants blessing. The reason was in God Himself (Eph 1, 4, 5). Abraham believed, yes, but even that was by God's graciousness, not because his flesh naturally had more excellent and worthy thoughts about God than his neighbor. Are men and women naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel?. Can a person naturally have spiritual understanding apart from a work of the Holy Spirit? Why do some people submit to the gospel and not others? If it isn't because God sovereignly chose some then you must look to the flesh and moral capacity of some over others.
The BBN is obviously woefully confused about grace. Listeners may indeed be confused about MacArthur's teaching about election because, from the start, they have been erroneously taught synergism from their church traditions and their own radio station (rather than Scripture). What a tragedy that they are willing to embrace an inconsistent theology which ultimately brings glory to man. But man, of himself, is not capable by reason or strength alone to produce faith, apart from the grace of regeneration. To assume that man can choose apart from an effectual work of the Holy Spirit in him is to give to much credit to those who do choose God, as if they did it apart from grace. These dispensationalists will answer "but God did give grace." Yeah? Then why do some make use of it and not others?... That is my question.
The dispensational reason for some having faith and not others comes from within man himself. Of course, along with them we agree that the Scripture teaches, "whosoever will may come ..." All Christians believe this. But have they forgotten, men love darkness and hate the light and WILL NOT COME INTO THE LIGHT (John 3:19, 20). That means man's affections are for the darkness. He does not naturally love God and does not understand spiritual things without illumination, spiritual eyes and circumcised ears (1 Cor 2:14). Jesus said the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit..."the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive..." (John 14:17) When Peter admitted that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus said to Him, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven." Likewise. "No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." The Scriptures further teach to believers, "knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" (1 thess 1 :4, 5) Does the Bible teach that we cannot understand God's sovereignty in our salvation? Such is a man invented doctrine. We agree that it is a mystery to ask why He chooses anyone, rather than none, and we glorify God that He would have mercy on miserable broken sinners like us, but it is no mystery that He does, in fact, choose us, and not we him (John 15:16). Yes we must have faith in Christ, but even the desire for faith is a work of God's grace (Phil 1:29, 2 Tim 2:25, Eph 2:8).
Jesus plainly teaches the same:
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." (John 5:21)
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." (Matt 11:27)
""All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ...It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life... "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:37, 63-65)
When the Scripture says "come to me" it is equivalent to "believe in him" IN other words no one can believe in Jesus unless it has been granted of the Father...further vs. 37 says that "ALL THE FATHER GIVES TO CHRIST WILL COME TO HIM." This isn't hypercalvinism but is the plain text of Scripture and those fighting against it, while they may be brothers, are kicking against the goads. We agree man is responsible for his sin and for choosing God. The problem is that no one is naturally willing to come to Christ (Rom 3:11, 12; 1 Cor 2:14, ROM 8:7). God is merciful still. Part of the work of Christ was the redemptive blessing of delivering men from their unregenerate state (Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). To say that we have the power to believe, apart from the work of Christ "is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect," as John Owen once said.
The action taken to remove MacArthur from the station for preaching a biblical doctrine is an ominous development. Let us pray the Lord open the eyes of our dispensational brothers who are bringing confusing and inconsistent theology into the Church. Let us be patient and gentle as we speak with them about this ... for our life demonstrates the grace of God just as much as the truth.
With this in mind, I would encourage you to go to the Website of the Bible Broadcasting Network to write them that they would reconsider their unbiblical stance on election and their overly harsh reaction to John MacArthur.
Related Articles
The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended and Documented Afterward by John MacArthur
Responsibility, Inability and Monergistic Grace (Chart With Paradoxical Texts Reconciled)
What Do Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism Share in Common?
Beautiful Biblical Balance by John G. Reisinger
The Guilt of Giving Part of God's Counsel by John Piper
Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved by John Piper
What God Requires, Christ Provides By John Piper, With Justin Taylor
God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility by A.W. Pink
The Perfect Balance of God's Truth by Geoff Thomas
The Holy Spirit in the Ministry of the Word Dangers of an Unbalanced View by Pastor Bob Burridge
The entire article at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/methodist/ch14.htm
Miss Wesley adds, "The letters in question were satisfactorily proved to be mutilated, and no scandal resulted from his trust in God." Richard Watson records that in his day some of these letters, mutilated, interpolated, or forged by this unhappy woman, had got into different hands, and were still preserved. There were other Calvinists besides Charles Wesley's friend who protested against the attempt on the part of Rowland Hill, Toplady, and others to defame Wesley's personal character.
Rowland Hill, however, lived to lament the bitter spirit of the controversy, and he said of his own writings, "A softer style and spirit would have better become me." He also suppressed one of his most violent publications. The smoke of the controversy must not conceal from us his noble work as an impressive, witty, warm-hearted preacher.
Within a year of the close of the controversy Toplady died. He had removed from the country parish of Broad Henbury to London, and two months before his death a strange scene occurred in his chapel in Orange Street. He had heard a report that he had expressed a desire to recant his opinions in the presence of John Wesley. His combative but honest soul was greatly stirred. He resolved to appear Before his congregation once more and publicly deny the rumor. His physician and family remonstrated in vain. He replied that he "would rather die in harness than die in the stall." He was carried to the pulpit, and there made his "dying avowal" that he was satisfied of the truth of all that he had ever written. He was carried from his pulpit and soon after borne to his grave. He was only thirty-eight when he died; and Bishop Ryle says: "If he had lived longer, written more hymns, and handled fewer controversies, his memory would have been held in greater honor .... Toplady's undeniable faults should never make us forget his equally undeniable excellencies." Wesleyan Methodists to-day agree with the evangelical bishop. One of them writes of the sturdy polemic: "He was honest in his errors, and had a stout English heart, which commands our wonder, if not our admiration, in spite of his faults
And that's cool... I'd be more disappointed in you, as a Covenantalist, if you didn't feel that way.
Dan here has seized upon a problem there is within some elements of the Reformed community: dispensationalism is viewed as some sort of heresy by some Reformed types. Heck, I remember a certian poster here who used to say explicitly that.
I find that claim almost comical, and certainly ironic, given that I have heard the exact same viewpoint used to describe covenantal amillenialists.
Dispensationalism may be many things, but it certainly is not heresy. There certainly are heretic dispensationalists -- some of the ones on TBN are a good example -- and I have no use for Hal Lindsey, with his utterly botched Gog and Magog analysis. But for every Hal Lindsey, there is a Gary North (Y2K, anyone????). Now, I must give credit to whom credit is due. Gary North has taken his lumps and moved on, and as far as I know, doesn't do any of the prophecy stuff any more, while Hal Lindsey is still the darling of the dispensational elements of the Religious Right.
Similarly, just as the Reformed community has some amazing gravitas behind it, so does the Dispensationalist commmunity. Darby, for instance, gave the Plymouth Brethren their heavily Biblical background that, to this day, even though it is now mostly Arminian with only a few pockets of resistance, still claims the most Biblically literate laity of any denomination I have ever seen. I don't think the Reformed community should underestimate the contributions of Chafer or Ryrie. And the Covenantalists definately should give some serious examination of Dr. Bock and Dr. Blasing's proposed Progressive Dispensational viewpoint.
There is one verse that clearly denounces Calvinistic teaching. Paul said, "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to the knowledge of the truth."
That verse, 1 Timothy 2:4, does not denounce Calvinism. Neither does 2 Peter 3:9. If Paul is indeed saying that God wills all to be saved, then all people would be saved. The very fact that not all people are saved disproves your interpretation.
If it is truly God's will for every single person to receive salvation, but not everyone does, then He would not be sovereign, omniscient or omnipotent. In short, He would not be God.
But all of the elect are saved. All those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world come to the knowledge of the truth.
A great Spurgeon quote. It's difficult to imagine a better summary of Calvinist thought on this matter.
If only we were as good or as smart as the Arminian folks, we wouldn't have to have such a humble attitude about this. Obviously, they must be much smarter or much more moral people than what we wicked and stupid Calvinists are.
Interesting quote. Do you happen to know the title of the sermon from which it comes, or the sermon number?
best, op
Indeed it is....
Yes.
b'shem Y'shua
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.