John MacArthur Booted off Bible Broadcasting Network

[Monergist]

Earlier 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.

Article Link

 

[TomVols]

BBN also booted Alistair Begg. I think it's time we boot BBN

 

[npetreley]

Here is an excellent part of that article. Mon: Thanks for the link, by the way.

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)

 

[BobRyan]

MacArthur is a 5 point Calvinist so obviously he is wrong on certain points regarding the Gospel and how salvation works.

Having said that - He has a lot of very good teachings. I don't know why BBN would boot him.

If I can find good instruction from MacArthur - you would think that BBN could manage it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
MacArthur is a 5 point Calvinist so obviously he is wrong on certain points regarding the Gospel and how salvation works.

Having said that - He has a lot of very good teachings. I don't know why BBN would boot him.

If I can find good instruction from MacArthur - you would think that BBN could manage it.

In Christ,

Bob

MacArthur's Calvinism (like mine) is more like Calvin's--not scholastic, but exegetical. Expositional preaching forces the preacher to deal with the issues and not punt in either direction. I personally think it takes a lot of cheek for BBN to call Mac's preaching "hyper-calvinism." I wonder if any of them have seen the Lord build a 6,000 member church which has been built on thousands of conversions.

 

[Ray Berrian]

The five points of Calvinism are error of the worst sort. Many Calvinists are so messed up that they don't really know if they themselves are saved. So much for Christian assurance. [Romans 8:16]

Mix some truth with a lot of error and many people, who have not studied both sides, will buy it.

 

[Major B]

I am not a "five-point" calvinist, and neither is Mac. His definition of "five point" Calvinism makes him at most a 4.25 pointer. I am an expositor, my theology is exegetical, neither following the errors of scholastic calvinism, nor those of the people who eliminate election from the Bible.

The whosoever will verses mean what they say, and the election verses mean what they say, and I am not authorized by God to gut either group, nor to formulate some comfortable philosophical dogma which will neatly explain it all.

Mac does not preach calvinism--he preaches the Bible verse by verse, line by line, precept upon precept. The straw man some want to build won't fit here. I know the type of Calvinist you mention; the only thing worse than the scholastic calvinist is the teacher of easy-believism, who deceives many into thinking they are saved when they show no evidence of conversion.

How much of Mac's preaching have you heard? What I hear is a constant call for sinners to repent and be saved, and for professing believers to live for Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

MacArthur teaches Perseverence such that if you fail to persevere in 10 years then TODAY you are not saved. He also teaches limited atonement.

I don't know any 4 pointer or 3 pointer that will hold to both of those positions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[blackbird]

MacArthor is a theological "Einstein"----verse by verse, chapter by chapter through the Bible.

When he deals with scripture that remotely points to Calvin(who's teachings were a little bit less than infallable)---the "Headhunters" on both sides start in with:

"See there! Told ya! He's a 5 pointer!"

"No he ain't! He's more of a 4.245499753er!!"

When MacArthor or anyone else is dealing with the omniscient mind of God----we must remember that they are dealing with the omniscient mind with finited ones!!

Brother David

 

[Eric B]

The BBN is obviously woefully confused about grace. 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.

Here's the same old rhetoric. But look what exactly the BBN was quoted as saying:

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.

Notice, they did not ditch "sovereignty" in favor "free will alone". They even said BOTH were true, but beyond human reasoning. (haven't the Calvinists been saying precisely this lately?) But then the monergist site comes up with its philosophical question: "why do some choose and not others?". The 'answer' of course, if forced into "because God chose one and passed over the other". THIS is what they are objecting to. Notice, they did not even favor one truth over the other, but said there was "no human answer". Calvinists try to force a human answer as to how it must work out, and if you don't accept it, you are simply trying to "give glory to man". (And remember how much Calvinists screamed about being "misrepresented" when Hunt wrote his book! )
I don't know how much MacArthur taught on this and broke it down into election and reprobation, or just "exegeted" the scriptures (and without reading things into them) but it is true that the monergists do often try to explain too much (and then thow up "it is above our comprehension" only to justify the unconditional reprobation corollary), and this apparently was what the BBN was objecting to. And no wonder!

 

[swaimj]

When I was in bible college in NC in the late 80s, I listened to MacArthur regularly on BBN. A few years later they stopped airing his program because of his teaching from Ephesians 1.

Since I havn't lived in NC since 1990 and have not heard BBN in years I am surprised that they started airing him again (at some point), but I'm not surprised that they are taking him off again.

 

[Bob Colgan]

Mac'

Is a five pointer and he is great.

Bob C

 

[Major B]

Here is Johnny Mac's version of the 5 points.

(1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom 8:7-8). (2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving Will (Eph 1:4-5). (3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God's wrath on behalf of His people, and his atoning work is efficacious for their salvation (Isa. 53:5). (4) God's saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ's true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because (5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).

This biblical approach is far from the stilted verbage of the actual canons of dort, and while Mac emphasizes particular redemption (as does the Bible, quite forcefully), he does not limit the atonement, recognizing that there is no limit to the power of the blood of Christ.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Major B,

You said, quote: ' . . . while Mac emphasizes particular redemption (as does the Bible, quite forcefully), he does not limit the atonement . . . '

Ray quote: Particular Redemption is a misnomer. Christ died for every human, born sinner. Study Ezekiel 3:19; John 1:12, 3:16; I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2 and Revelation 22:17 to get you started. Arminianism best explains this Biblical truth. All who truly believe become the elect and are saved throughout eternity.

God is not prejudicial toward some sinners; Jesus is God of Divine justice. This is what Dr. Sproul types like to bury deep down in their quasi-theology.

 

[billwald]

"Many Calvinists are so messed up that they don't really know if they themselves are saved. So much for Christian assurance."

Does it matter? Won't the creator of the universe do what is right? Can't a person also do what is right simply because it is right and not for pie in the sky?

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Major B,

You said, quote: ' . . . while Mac emphasizes particular redemption (as does the Bible, quite forcefully), he does not limit the atonement . . . '

Ray quote: Particular Redemption is a misnomer. Christ died for every human, born sinner. Study Ezekiel 3:19; John 1:12, 3:16; I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2 and Revelation 22:17 to get you started. Arminianism best explains this Biblical truth. All who truly believe become the elect and are saved throughout eternity.

God is not prejudicial toward some sinners; Jesus is God of Divine justice. This is what Dr. Sproul types like to bury deep down in their quasi-theology.

Ad hominem attacks are an admission of a weak case, Ray.

The verses you quote are certainly applicable, and when I preach on those verses, I preach them as they are.

However, one cannot ignore passages and verses like John 17:1-24, 10:1-30, 6:37-65, Eph 1:1-14, 5:22-33, Romans 8:28-39, Acts 20:28, Is 53, Mat 1:21 and many many more. Those who ignore the particular passages are refusing to deal with them honestly as those who ignore or explain away 1 Jn 2:2, etc. For someone to quote John 1:12 without adding verse 13 is a perfect example of the problem.

Now, you and I could spend all year (or the next 20) debunking each other's passages--I prefer to believe both truths and to preach them side by side.

To the philosopically-minded, who worship at the golden idol of "The law of Non-Contradiction," (I must have missed that 11th commandment, as I've never seen it in the Bible!), I'd say Paul's surrender at Rom 11:33-36 and Job's at Job 42:1-6 is where I want to be--admitting that human minds cannot divine this.

Any doctrine which denies God's total control of salvation is out of balance.

Any doctrine that denies the total free offer and responsibility of man to believe is out of balance.

And no ad hominems.

 

[Major B]

I remember a sermon I preached at a church which was somewhat torn over these questions.

The text was Rom 8:28-30

I had two teens stand on either side of the podium, each with a large trash bag.

First, I held up several pieces of paper with "whosoever will" verses on them. As I read each one, I wadded up the verse and threw it into the bag on the right.

Then, I did the same with the "election" verses. Before long, I had two bags full of paper. Taking the bags in hand, I asked the congregation which bag of verses they wanted to discard--the answer was "neither." From then on, that congregation "got it," and accepted God's Sovereignty and man's freedom as twin truths instead of opposing theologies.

 

[GH]

Then, I did the same with the "election" verses. Before long, I had two bags full of paper. Taking the bags in hand, I asked the congregation which bag of verses they wanted to discard--the answer was "neither." From then on, that congregation "got it," and accepted God's Sovereignty and man's freedom as twin truths instead of opposing theologies.


And the precious blood of Christ reconciles these two truths.

All glory, praise and honor to YOU, ALMIGHTY FATHER \O/

 

[Ray Berrian]

Major B,

Ray--quote: 'Romans 9 has nothing to do with the Lord God picking and choosing some to be damned or saved. Esau and Jacob are numbered among the elect in Hebrews 11:20. Isaac blessed both sons and explained to them about their future life in eternity. None of the O.T. heroes of faith listed were perfect but neither were any of them damned to Hell. The autocratic selecting of some for Heaven and Hell is merely the aberration of John Calvin so newly out of Catholicism, who took his thoughts from Augustine.

If you study the passage closely, God is saying, hypothetically, (vs. 9:22) that He could put siners into destruction, but He is longsuffering toward the lost, and is merciful with the children of dust.

If Hebrews 11:20 were not in the Bible your case for autocratic/Unconditional Election might be more plausible. This passage steamrolls Calvinism second point of TULIP.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hebrews 11:20 is completely unrelated to the CvA issue. Please start a thread in the appropriate forum if you wish to discuss that verse.

And please use to learn the quote feature.