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
Mostly the term "hypercalvinist" is used as a perjorative, some in ignorance, but one would expect BBN to not use it in ignorance but to be careful not to falsely label and misrepresent as well known and respected Christian leader as John McArthur. But then, many at BBN think TD Jakes is a wonderful man of God.
Those who are confused by the teaching of the Biblical doctrine of Election are confused because they want fast fook/sound bite theology that fits neatly into the philosophy they already employ and don't want to be challenged to grapple with the Scriptures.
McArthur's pretty forceful.
Strident, even in a certain way.
I can still easily see him in that ball park.
that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
Calvinist certainly believe that humanity has a will, but that will is enslaved to sin and cannot act in such a way as to please God, nor does he want to.
Each one of those "preachers" has Charles Finney as one of their heroes. We are still seeing the horrendous effects of Finney's scorched earth false doctrines.
That's because I believe FR is not God.
Dispensationalism is relatively new, as is their approach to prophetic interpretation, and has the tendency to read into scripture some fanciful ideas that are not meant. Such as Hal Lindsey's seeing jet aircraft in the locusts in John's Book of the Revelation. Most seem to let the newspapers determine what their new interpretation is, ala Lindsey or Jack Van Impe
(and ecclesiological passages)
That's odd, most D's are Arminian flavored Baptists who's ecclesiology is congregational and is not found in Scripture but is a Greek democratic concept. I don't consider that to be "legitimate".
Mind you, I'll not questioning their salvation, but their teachings on secondary matters not essential to salvation.
xzins, it was not "one of the" foremost Reformation doctrines.
It was the ~ONLY~ soteriological doctrine of the Reformation.
That is irrefutable, historical fact.
~ALL~ the major Reformational fathers held to a monergistic view of Salvation -Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Oecolampadius, Beza, Ursinus; Olevianus...
"Free-Will" theology is a step back to Rome.
Jean
Dr. Eckleburg backed into your truck????
Jean
Here ya go. Sacraments
Which ones do you believe we hit? Can you back your assertion with direct quotes from any of us?
I'd like to hear which one's he thinks we adhere to as well, and why, with some substantial evidence to support his assertions.
Re. 5.
Some of those items seemed a bit non-sensical to me.
However, as a Baptist, I say: "Sacraments, we don't need no stinkin' sacraments!"
No sacramentalism among Baptists, reformed or otherwise.
Hmmm, "new age" cults, Roman Catholics, why don't you throw gnostics into the mix just to be complete with your guilt by association?
So where would we be without creeds? You would have Arians and their stepchildren, the Jehovah's Witnesses, running the churches. After all they use pretty much the same Bible you do. It was the early creeds, like Nicea and Chalcedon, that foreced the Arians out.
Briefly:
(Long run-on-sentence alert: in three, two, one....)
Though no great fan of Hal Lindsay, I actually BETTER respect his expectation, born of respect for the plenary, VERBAL inspiration of Scripture, to find real-world fulfillments of prophetic passages, THAN I do the amil blurring of every specific detail of prophecy to mean just one or two (totally unrelated, and non-real-world) things. Though a huge fan of Edward J. Young, his bubling of unfulfilled prophetic passages in Isaiah and Daniel is at least as reprehensible as any mistake Hal Lindsay ever made.
That's first. Second:
Specifically, by ecclesiology I meant, "Is the church a new man, distinct from Israel (as Scripture says), or is it a transmogrified, haha-fooled-you 'spiritual Israel' (as Scripture NEVER says)?"
I didn't have church government in mind. (Though you do overgeneralize even there.)
Dan
Umm Jean, it was Dr E's son who went looking for and hit Cory's vehicle. It's all part of a "vast Calvinist conspriracy".
Yes, that is the "old school" Reformed position. From the Belgic Confession:
Article 33: The SacramentsWe believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith.
He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.
For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.
Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments that Christ our Master has ordained for us. There are only two: the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ.
From the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed?But you should also remember that Reformed theology defines grace differently than Roman Catholic and Arminian theology. Therefore, we understand “means of grace” differently. See the following article: The Evangelical Fall from the Means of Grace: The Lord’s Supper by R. Scott ClarkAnswer: From the Holy Ghost, (a) who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments. (b)
__________
Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)
Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.
__________
Question 68. How many sacraments has Christ instituted in the new covenant, or testament?
Answer: Two: namely, holy baptism, and the holy supper.
__________
Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
_________
Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?
Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ.
Jean
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.
I would be interested as well in seeing some solid proof of that assertion. I am confident that I have never made such blatantly false statements regarding Calvinism or the teachings of scripture. There have been a few here who have made such charges against the GRPL members, but I tend to think that was primarily for the agitation value they perceived in it, because not one of them has ever successfully proven such charges, at least in my recollection. Stamping one's foot and saying it over and over again does not constitute proof.
Are you asking if I(we) agree with his definition of "Hyper-Calvinism"?
If so, then no. There are so many ~personal~ definitions of Hyper-Calvinism out there -each definition suiting the individual defining it.
For example, According to some individuals on your side of the aisle, a Hyper-Calvinist seems to be somebody who holds to the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained ~ALL~ things that come to pass. I have pointed out time and time again that all the major and historical Calvinist confessions profess this very belief. John Calvin himself held to this belief. If a Hyper-Calvinist is one who believes that all things are pre-determined/fore-ordained by God, then all confessing Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) are Hyper-Calvinists. That's a bit ludicrous, don't you think.
While you might personally might think that the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass is an extreme view, it is quite a different thing to dishonestly claim that this belief is "Hyper-Calvinist".
On the other hand, I tend to stick with the ~CLASSICAL~ definition of Hyper-Calvinism succinctly summarized as the emphasis of God's sovereignty to the minimization man's responsibility.
Basic Calvinism has long held the belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass yet at the very same time man ~FREELY~ makes his own choices and is fully responsible for his own actions. This is my belief as well.
Basic Calvinism sees man's responsibility written through out the Scriptures and sees God's complete sovereignty and control written through out the Scriptures. We accept both (sovereignty being understood as the freedom from outside influence) and we must simply accept it at face value.
In Genesis 45, Joseph explicitly credits God with the events that brought him to Egypt. He explicitly declares to his brothers, "It was not you who sent me here, but God”. In Genesis 50, Joseph tells his brothers, “And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good”
Joseph didn’t say that God “manipulated” the events. Joseph explicitly says that God “meant” it. The mystery is that, while the intentions and actions of his brothers were evil, the intentions and actions of God to bring about the very same events were good. As drstevej used to say, “Man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty side by side without apology”.
The Hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, needs to keep Scripture rational. The Hyper-Calvinist cannot accept mystery or paradox. So, what the Hyper-Calvinist does is minimize the responsibility of man. He keeps the sovereignty of God, but he reduces or removes man’s responsibility. This is a form of rationalism that is forced upon the Scriptures. It is a different, non-Reformed hermeneutic.
Arminians, on the other hand, also need to keep Scripture rational. The Arminian also cannot accept mystery or paradox. However, unlike the Hyper-Calvinist who minimizes the responsibility of man, the Arminian emphasizes the responsibility of man to the minimization of God’s sovereignty. This, too, is a form of rationalism that is forced upon the Scriptures. It is also a non-Reformed hermeneutic. I am told by the FR-minians that God “manipulates” things. But that is not what the Scriptures say. Genesis 50 explicitly lays the intentions of all that happened to Joseph on God himself. He “meant” what happened to Joseph –not “manipulated”.
What Calvinists do not do is take some preconceived notion of fairness or limited human reason and make Scripture in agreement with it. You do not see Calvinists suggesting that an offer can only be sincere only if man has the “actual ability”. If we come to Scripture insisting on that unsupported presupposition, then -like a cult- we will have to re-interpret what a passage clearly says. We, therefore, would be unable to take those Genesis passages at their face value.
The Westminster Confession sums it up quite nicely:
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
WCF V.II
God is the “first Cause” of all things that come to pass and our free decisions, free choices and free actions are “secondary causes”.
I think the beliefs that you list in your post are attempts by the author to give examples of beliefs that result when one “emphasizes the God’s sovereignty to the minimization of man’s responsibility”.
In the first example, I do not know of any Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist who would claim that God is actually the author of sin. I suppose there might be some out there, but it is not a common belief if it is even believed at all.
Likewise, it is entirely possible that a Hyper-Calvinist could hold to some of the beliefs stated, but not to any of the other beliefs stated.
Philip Johnson’s expanded definition of Hyper-Calvinism does much the same thing. He succinctly defines Hyper-Calvinism as I have done, but then he goes beyond that and offers what he thinks Hyper-Calvinists belief.
The problem with that is the original succinct definition is just fine. The expanded definitions are simply possible ways in which the succinct definition works out into a Hyper-Calvinist’s theology.
Notice in Johnson’s expanded definition any one of the definitions supplied accurately define a Hyper-Calvinist. A hyper-Calvinist need not hold ~all~ of his definitions.
The problem with that is this allows an Arminian to distort a Calvinists position and then claim he is a Hyper-Calvinist.
In the example of the doctrine of God’s Decree stated above (I had a purpose in my long winded answer, you know), many Arminians –including many FR-minians falsely accuse Calvinists of believing that God has authored sin due to their belief that God has pre-determined/fore-ordained all that comes to pass. They then point to Johnson’s definition and call us Hyper-Calvinists. The problem is, as I have stated above, all confessional Calvinists –including John Calvin himself- held to the very same doctrine of God’s Decree and none of them believe that God is the author of sin and evil.
This simply comes full circle by allowing Arminians and other non-Calvinists to falsely accuse ~ALL~ Calvinists of being Hyper-Calvinists.
Back to your question. Are you asking if we hold to any of what he calls "destructive beliefs"?
If that is your question, no. I do not hold to any of those, nor do any of the other GRPL members or other Calvinists here on FR.
Jean
I think a lot of Hal Lindsey's and Youngs techniques are dubious at best, some spurious, that sends people to the newspapers for prophetic interpretation. I find most is sensationalistic and opportunistic, selling lots of books with dubious speculations which lead Christians into a position of hand sitting waiting for the "rapture" instead of having an attitude of being available to do the work Christians are called to.<>I don't hold to the entirety of the amil view either.
Specifically, by ecclesiology I meant, "Is the church a new man, distinct from Israel (as Scripture says), or is it a transmogrified, haha-fooled-you 'spiritual Israel' (as Scripture NEVER says)?"
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Generally, when the term "ecclesiology" is used, I understand it as church government without an eschatological context.
I didn't have church government in mind. (Though you do overgeneralize even there.)
I don't think it was an overgeneralization, a brief synopsis maybe, but direct and to the point. Congregational ecclesiology is not anywhere in Scripture, nor was practiced by the early church. Rather a governance by plurality of elders is taught in Scripture, and practiced by the early church.
I agree about congregationalism, I agree about elder-rule, plurality is not a requirement.
And I'm a Dispensationalist. So are Grace Brethren, etc.
Over-generalization. Congregationalism in no way arises from Dispensationalism, any more than white buckskin shoes arises from Fundamentalism. It's a conceptually unrelated coincidence.
Dan
I still don't see how that follows. Any sovereign can choose not to apply his will to every case; just because Nebuchadnezzar chose to allow the Jews to continue to worship God or to worship Babylon's gods of their own will without interference, does that make Daniel's statements that he was absolutely sovereign untrue?
Likewise, if God sovereignly chose to give us free will, whether to worship or reject Him, how would that disprove His sovereignty?
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.