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
*ping*
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/sbgrace.htm
A good link explaining why some have "problems" with his Lordship Theology.
Ah, that old slander again. Just when you'd think someone would have learned something.
And there's the old false division, from the other side of the fence. Some Dispensationalists misrepresent Calvinism, and then reject that misrepresentation. WAY too many Calvinists misrepresent Dispensationalism (which, I contend, is the natural otugrowth of applied Reformation principles), and then reject that misrepresentation.
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.
Yes, it's true. I get really, really tired of hearing this. Open up your ears and mind, bro. Listen, and learn something — as you (correctly) want your Dispensational brothers to do.
from the hyperlink in the article - I'd like to ask the Calvinists here if this is accurate
_________________________________________________
Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:
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)
http://wisdomonline.org/
Well, this was the only article I could find on the BBN's decision to give MacArthur the boot. I know where you're coming from, though. One of the strongest Calvinists I've ever met was a Bible professor I had in college. He was also one of the strongest dispensationalists I have ever known. Even one of my favorite pastors, John Piper, is a staunch Calvinist/dispensationalist.
Other than trading wool for woven rugs and spices, they swapped theological principals.
The rest is history.
"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."
I wonder if the BBN would be so willing to remove Billy Graham, Pat Robinson, or Jerry Falwell for preaching that man can choose to accept or reject God? The church has lost its "sovereignty of God" perspective and in turn we no longer fear the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom. An ominous development indeed.
Thanks, sincerely, for the irenic and friendly response.
It's a pity from both sides. The Covenant theology person sees salvation or redemption as the central theme of the Bible and history; the Dispensationalist says it is the glory of God. Now, standing back a moment, which sounds more Reformed? That principle should make the D more open to Calvinism -- and the R more open to D'ism.
The Reformed guy says Sola Scriptura, and he argues for the grammatico-historical approach to Scripture. 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. That should make R's more open to D's.
But equally, a g-h approach to passages like John 6 and Romans 9-11 (among MANY others) arguably best yields a Calvinistic understanding of salvation. That should make D's more open to C'ism.
That there is still not merely disagreement, but actual animosity and recriminations and charges of heresy from both directions, is a real tragedy, and serves no one. No one we should want to serve, anyway.
Pardon the haste and abbreviations; in a bit of a hurry.
Dan
To be honest, until a few years ago I had never even heard the term "hyper-Calvinist." Those beliefs as stated above, however, would be dangerous if taught in the church. In fact, they seem to be in line with white supremists/separatists who put on the facade of being Reformed believers.
I came to like John MacArthur. A few years ago I had no appreciation for him. Then the premill debate on FR broke out, and he became a real resource.
In short, I came to believe he was a man with biblical integrity.
Despite my disagreements with him on calvinism, I'm very certain that he has biblically come to his positions with integrity. Likewise, I don't think calvinism is heresy. I see it as one of the prime scriptural interpretations.
It's wrong for MacArthur to be censored because of his views on this subject.
History DOES teach us, as OP has so carefully taught, that a calvinist-style election WAS one of the foremost REFORMATION doctrines. I think that's irrefutable, historical fact.
Should have pinged you to #12.
The only dispensationalists I have a problem with are those who profit from preying on the fears people have regarding the "end times," or whose "ministries" center ENTIRELY around preaching from newspaper headlines.
HyperCalvinism: a newer, more virulent form of the old heresy?
he he he - man you're definitely going to need a flamesuit
Corin - is 9am too early for popcorn?
Search as I may, I've never seen a list like this and it was always difficult for me to figure out just what made up a "Hyper-Calvinist" except one who had too much coffee. I can't verify whether this list is accurate or not. However, assuming this list accurately reflects the Hyper-Calvinist beliefs, I have no idea what scriptures they base these ideas on. They sound like a Calvinistic cult as opposed to an Arminian cult. (I would name a few but the RM might not like it.)
That's a shame. I'm not really sure what a hyper-Calvinist is, but I used to listen to MacArthur regularly and found him to be very sound doctrinally. Even in matters where I disagreed with him, I could see the reasoning behind his views. I hope they reconsider.
Assuming the list of hyper-Calvinist beliefs in post #5 is accurate, MacArthur is in no way, shape or form a hyper-Calvinist.
"Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:"
I think it is basically accurate. Even a casual reading of a Calvinist document like the Westminster Confession would demonstrate that true Calvinism is not compatible with any of these ideas.
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.