John MacArthur Booted Off Bible Broadcasting Network for Preaching Election

Monergism.com ^ | 08/23/2004

[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

[Alex Murphy]

Rev, you know that ctd has been steadfast in labeling GRPL FReepers (including myself) as hyperCalvinists. I'd like to use your list to ask ctd if he intends to continue to assert that the GRPL membership believes or advocates a belief in any of these things?

• that God is the author of sin and of evil
• that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
• that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
• that it is wrong to evangelize
• that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
• that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
• that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
• that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
• that God does not command everyone to repent
• that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
• that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
• that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
• that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
• that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
• that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
• that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)

[Corin Stormhands]

It's never too early for popcorn...

And besides, Corin is in a good mood this morning...he found the s.o.b. that backed into his truck and drove off yesterday...

[Gotterdammerung]

Too many know-it-all theologians.

[opus86]

Agreed. I never heard MacArthur teach any of that.

[topcat54]

While it is true that many Dispensationalists are not five-pointers (and vice-versa), there is nothing inherent in either construct which would exclude the other.

You might want to read Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner. I think he documents the incompatibilities, at least wilth classic dispensationalism. Since the modern progressives are more fluid in some of their thinking it's harder to nail them down.

[topcat54]

I think one must at least grant that D'ism is the result of a legitimate whole-Bible application of both of those principles, interpreting prophecy (and ecclesiological passages) in a normal-sense approach as one does didactic passages.

"Normal-sense" and grammatical-historical are not the same thing. This is where dispensationalism falls into a trap. E.g., the "normal-sense" approach, as advocated by dispensationalist, attempts to read apocalyptic/prophetic passages that same way one reads historical passages. Grammatical-historical denies that this can be done without making nonsense of the text.

[Revelation 911]

I pinged him in the original and await his response - IMO - you guys only hit a few of these - so does that make you a lukewarm, quasi, diet coke hyper calvinist?

[topcat54]

WAY too many Calvinists misrepresent Dispensationalism (which, I contend, is the natural otugrowth of applied Reformation principles), and then reject that misrepresentation.

That may be true, but it is not altogther unexpected.

Unlike Reformed/Covenant theology, dispensationalism has no official creeds. Reformed/Covenant theologians can point to any number of official church documents to describe what they believe, e.g., the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, Canons of Dordt. These documents have been adopted by many church bodies as reflecting an accurate summary of the teachings of Scripture.

Dispensationalism has no such documents. In fact, the irony is that many dispensational churches are also "no creed but Christ" churches, that is, they deny the place of creeds or confession in the church.

Who speaks for dispensationalism? Are Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye less authoritative that Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles Ryrie? Should we prefer the writings of Robert Saucy over Dwight Pentecost?

So what is a critic left to do by sample representatives of dispensational and fashion a common set of ideas for criticism?

[Revelation 911]

he found the s.o.b. that backed into his truck and drove off yesterday...

depending on the damage $ - consider involving the police -

In my old days Id have done my best to find out where he lives and systematically made him miserable by vaselining his wiper blades and putting fox urine on his exhaust manifold

[Corin Stormhands]

heh...had a friend on another thread suggest sand in the engine block...

none of that. had the police there yesterday and they filed a report. actually a witness called them. i found the car and showed it to them this morning.

person was stupid enough to park in the same parking garage, facing out, with a busted tail light.

i know these things happen, and the damage is minimal enough that i probably would just let it go...if they'd admitted it when it happened.

[Revelation 911]

person was stupid enough to park in the same parking garage, facing out, with a busted tail light.

Let me guess - young married female - probably blonde with a cell phone glued to her head

sounds like it worked out ok -

You stayin dry ?

[fishtank]

Speaking of Dr. Steve, are there people who have been FR banned in the past but who have been restored?

[Corin Stormhands]

No rain here yet. We had enough Monday (about 14 inches). If we hear from Frances, it'll be over the weekend.

[lockeliberty]

Interesting list.

In my current experience in the hyper-arminian culture I find that some teachers trend towards these teachings:

-that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do

-that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.

-that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.

Some of the others in that list do not necessarly arise from Biblical Calvinism but seem to be culturally dependent, such as:

-that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
-that God does not command everyone to repent
-that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
-that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority

Then there is that short list that is actually what the hyper-arminian, as we have seen countless times on this forum, have used in their attack on Calvinists. This list says more about the confusion of the Arminian than it does about the beliefs of the Calvinist:

-that God is the author of sin and of evil
-that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
-that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
-that it is wrong to evangelize

[harrycarey]

Speaking of Dr. Steve, are there people who have been FR banned in the past but who have been restored?

Apparently you don't believe in "once banned, always banned."

[Quix]

PRAISE THE LORD FOR THEIR COURAGE IN STANDING UP FOR THE BIBLICAL BALANCE OF SCRIPTURES.

Hyper-Calvinism, imho, is a perversion of the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD.

[BibChr]

Right. It makes a lot more exegetical sense to say that "Israel" REALLY MEANS "the Christian church" (as it does in the New Testament... NEVER) -- or at least, in the prophesied blessings passages. In the prophesied-judgments passages, it still means "Israel."

("New Age" cults do exactly the same thing. But I guess it's okay if you have a creed, eh?)

I'm not much interested in Gerstner's book, frankly. Thorough reviews I've read leave the impression that he's about as reliable a critic of Dispensationalism as Al Franken is of Rush Limbaugh.

Who's the spokesman? No clue. Best book I've read, thus far, is probably Ryrie's first edition of Dispensationalism Today. But it's odd you think that's a big point of criticism. I thought it was mostly Roman Catholics who tremble with terror at the thought of having to go back to the Bible for the only inerrant guide to faith. Odd to hear it from an apologist for a particular brand of "Reformed" thought.

Fair warning: I'm near capacity, in this discussion with you, of answering cliches. If you, like an RC, are just happy to be chained to a creed, then there really is no point talking further. I do not share many others' pleasure in endless and pointless verbal ping-pong games.

Dan

[Alex Murphy]

IMO - you guys only hit a few of these

Which ones do you believe we hit? Can you back your assertion with direct quotes from any of us? Feel free to move our conversation to FReepmail, if you don't want the risk of a flamewar erupting.

[sheltonmac]

Hyper-Calvinism, imho, is a perversion of the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD.

Fine, but anyone even remotely familiar with MacArthur knows he is not a hyper-Calvinist. That label is frequently used in an attempt to tarnish the reputations of ALL Calvinists.

[Tantumergo]

I find it interesting that in your list of Hyper-Calvinist tenets, the following is stated:

"that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone."

Does that mean that there are Calvinists out there who do think sacraments are means of grace? If so, what are considered to be sacraments, and what is the Calvinist view of how grace is mediated through them?

(I don't ask these questions to be polemical - I am genuinely interested to know as I have never seen Hyper-Calvinism defined in these terms before)