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
Congregationalism in no way arises from Dispensationalism...
I don't think I said it did, I commented that most D's are of Arminian baptist types and congregational in their ecclesiology, without comments on congregationalism arising from Dispensationalism. I was merely pointing out the connection, not the cause.
Dispensationalists don't have a corner on the market here. Lots of non-dispies believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture.
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)?"
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands -- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2) {Notice that Paul calls the older covenant a "covenant of promise". Paul bring gentiles close to the "commonwealth of Israel" by their faith in Christ. Why would he confuse people with this sort of language unless to make a point about the true meaning of "Israel"?}For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Rom. 2)
... you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ... But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD , A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. (1 Peter 2) {Peter couldn't have been speaking of the church, now could he? How could he dare use language specifically directed to Israel to speak of the church? Wouldn't that just confuse "dispensationally-minded" people?}
James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. (James 1) {Here is James, an apostle of the church, writing to Christians and referring to them as "the twelve tribes". Is he just dispensationally confused?}
Could he not be referring to the twelve tribes who happen to be Christians?
Yes, those are the cliche'd responses -- none of which teaches what you you're trying to produce. Yet dozens of times, all over the NT, "Israel," "Israel," "Israel" -- every time meaning (surprise!) "Israel."
So how have Dispensationalists responded to your pulling those verses out of their contexts in the past?
Dan
He left a note, a long one filled with lots of Scriptural proof text, but it must have blown away in the thunderstorm God brought.
AGW. 8~)
Many evangelicals, as betrayed by their worship, doctrine, practice, and attitudes about the faith and church, fall under this indictment. Truly, we ALL are so indicted except by a sovereign work of grace to change our hearts, and even then a lifelong struggle ensues. "O wretched man that I am..."
cut the crap nf - having been here a few years and after lurking several before that - I can make that assertion - and I dont have to back it up to satisfy the disingenuous need you have to ultimately pick it apart -
Rather - my impression generally is that the grpl - and calvinism as a whole makes God the author of sin - It an opinion - get over it - Im allowed to have it
As for your question Alex - again IMO - so dont let the shorts get bunched up
Yup = I consider some calvinists here to be in agreement with this
nope = I consider some calvinists here to be in disagreement with this
(yup) that God is the author of sin and of evil
(yup)that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
(nope)that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
(nope)that it is wrong to evangelize
(nope)that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
(yup)that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
(yup)that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
(nope) - you guys state that mysteriously they are saved - even the unelect)that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
(yup)that God does not command everyone to repent
(still scratching head)that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
(yup) that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
(yup)that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
(havent seen this discussed)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
(yup) that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
(havent seen it discussed)that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
(some)that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)(Im in a quandry on this one as Ive been told here I can be elect and saved despite my arminianism - and Ive also been called a heretic for rejecting calvinism)
again - these are all my opinion based on my experiences here- Im challenging no one - nor accusing anyone - It my simply impression
True, and nowhere in the NT does it speak of any promise to Israel apart from the church. Surprise.
So how have Dispensationalists responded to your pulling those verses out of their contexts in the past?
Please demonstrate where I have taken anything out of context.
Exactly. But that would be "dispensationally confusing" to use language about Israel to refer to the church.
"Elder-rule" without plurality is a form of episcopacy, one man rule without the hierarchy. Besides, elder rule in congregationalism is an oxymoron. The congregation can always vote out the "ruler".
When elders and churches are mentioned in the NT it is always the plural form. "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. " (Acts 20:17; cf Acts 15:2) "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you," (1 Tim. 1:5; not "an elder")
Single elder rule is on shakier ground than infant baptism. :-)
If so, then no. There are so many ~personal~ definitions of Hyper-Calvinism out there -each definition suiting the individual defining it.
That is a fair statement.
And here I was just saying something nice about you, Rev, to another GRPL member.
None of those points is held by any Calvinist on earth. Period. But humanists rewrite the word of God to suit their inclinations.
God does not "do" evil. But ALL things are by the hand of God. Hurricane Frances is not blowing on its own. It does so because God wills it to churn. It makes more sense to believe in no God than in a God who is ineffectual; who stands by and watches destruction which He could prevent if He so desired.
It is all of God, or none of it is of God. That's election; predestination; salvation; grace; TULIP; peace.
IMO when a poster raises the tenor of the discussion to crude dialogue, it can sometimes mean they're looking to get other posters banned. Certain popcorn gifs are a tell.
So let's all play nice.
It was despicable that MacArthur was erased from the airwaves. Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum. The truth of the Doctrines of Grace is loathsome to those who do not hear it.
His view does fit in with his Calvinist view of the world. I just don't think it is Biblical.
No network or broadcaster owes MacArthur a forum for his preaching.
Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum.
What happened to predestination? Isn't it all of God? Doesn't drstevej have any responsibility? drstevej was banned for obvious reasons and he did it to himself.
As God wills.
please Dr. - NF - came at it with a chip on his shoulder
So let's all play nice.
fair enough
It was despicable that MacArthur was erased from the airwaves. Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum. The truth of the Doctrines of Grace is loathsome to those who do not hear it.
Steve was no MacArthur.....he got two more breaks than anyone else has and continued to refuse the grace that was offered him.
Thanks for the kind words to a fellow grpler - and I may seem po'd today - but I have lousy days just like everyone else
I'll pray for a clearer heart
hope all is well with you
dont let the popcorn gifs get to you - theyre meant tongue in cheek (no pun intended)
I missed this prize LOL - What you talkin bout Willis ?........you calling me humanist or MacArthur? LOL
Like Israel, the church was meant to serve God. Without casting dispersions at anyone (for I fail as well), I see little genuine sacrificial serving of God. Instead, since man has "free will", we have reduce God down into a "homeboy" rather than our leader and champion. God is still sovereign. We just no longer recognize it.
BTW-It was through listening to a tape on the sovereignty of God by John MacArthur that lead me towards the Calvinist side of the tracks.
Hiya, Rev. Happy Convention Finale day!
The popcorn gifs are okay, as long as no one chokes on them and dies.
Pray for all our hearts.
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.