John MacArthur on TBN: He does not mince words!

I would say to MacArthur that there is widespread criticism from Bible believing Christians of TBN and ministries like it. Two things keep that criticism from negatively affecting their ministries: BIG, well-known ministers like MacArthur need to pile on and stamp out a ministry like TBN. Many won’t because their preaching is carried on it. If Michael Youssef, Ed Hindson, Charles Stanley, Ed Young Sr., Jonathan Falwell, James Merritt and David Jeremiah would raise a stink to TBN about the heresy propogated on it, maybe things would change. But the second thing giving oxygen to TBN is that a “get rich” mentality will always appeal to a certain segment of the population, thus TBN will always have an audience. Some people will get disullusioned with it, but others will take their place. What killed PTL is that scandal came to light. Perhaps the only way for TBN to die is that God, in His providence, may bring some scandal about it to light.

MacArthur has more guts than any evangelical I know of as far as publicly calling people out. I’d ask John to put out something in writing or from the pulpit that calls on the above men to publicly rebuke TBN and threaten to take their program away if TBN doesn’t repent.

[Jonathan Charles] MacArthur has more guts than any evangelical I know of as far as publicly calling people out. I’d ask John to put out something in writing or from the pulpit that calls on the above men to publicly rebuke TBN and threaten to take their program away if TBN doesn’t repent.

That’s why it is proper to refer to MacArthur as a fundamentalist.

I also think that:

(1) Most Christians with sense know that this stuff is shallow and wrong, so it is not something we need to hit often;
(2) Most Christians without sense will still be drawn to this stuff because it is meant for them; like magnets to iron shavings, they will find each other.
(3) A few new believers or borderline (sense-wise) Christians need to be warned.

But what I do not care for is a constant harping on this subject. I don’t know if harping on anything, really, is productive. More is not always better. Some cannot lay off attacking the TV evangelists almost every time they preach. That is wasting valuable time preaching to the choir, IMO.

[Ed Vasicek] Some cannot lay off attacking the TV evangelists almost every time they preach. That is wasting valuable time preaching to the choir, IMO.

While true, if you have any number of new converts in your church, this does need to mentioned more than it would if your congregation is all mature believers. I would think the best time to talk about this is when someone brings up a TV evangelist in a conversation, but it probably does need to be mentioned “authoritatively” from the pulpit on occasion.

Taking a different perspective on this:

[Original Article] The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have.

Before we cast too many stones, I’ve heard “Faith Promise” abused like this before in some “fundamental” churches as well. Other than the fact the money taken in doesn’t go to the preacher or a broadcasting company, there sometimes doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference in what the speaker promises to those who give.

But the music’s good. ;)

MacArthur has more guts than any evangelical I know of as far as publicly calling people out.

Hank Hanegraaff has been focusing on TBN for a long time as well.

[Jim Peet]

Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers?

I don’t know much about the current state of evangelicalism [except MacArthur and marginally Piper] , but I think the problem is that ‘evangelicalism’ these days is a cess of theological hodgepodge that tries to include everyone from theological liberalism to the fringes of conservative evangelicalism. I think MacArthur and Mohler et al are trying to pull it back to the right positions, but it is probably too far gone to rescue, like the denominational structures of old.

[Jonathan Charles] If Michael Youssef, Ed Hindson, Charles Stanley, Ed Young Sr., Jonathan Falwell, James Merritt and David Jeremiah would raise a stink to TBN about the heresy propogated on it, maybe things would change.

That would not cause TBN to change — just to cease carrying those programs. TBN also has its standards (which they have a right to), as seen in the fact that they chose to drop Hal Lindsey from their line-up for a time.
That begs a question — at what point does participation in something like a television network become a separation/compromise issue?
Obviously, no programmer can be expected to answer for the content of other programs on the same network, and even the best of networks carry a diversity of theological views.
Is participating in TBN beneath the preachers mentioned above, or should it be viewed similarly as if they were on a secular network? How about when David Barton goes a step further and cooperates with TBN in making a series of programs (The American Heritage Series) (www.wallbuilders.com/store/ahs.html)?
I find TBN to be a very strange creature, with its confusing mix of everything from rock-solid truth and good family programs to weird, strange and bizarre heresy. However, I am not sure if I can define a standard to which all broadcasters should be held. I am sure these men are on the network purely as a means to reaching a wide viewing audience, and probably all view it as a purely pragmatic issue.

I find TBN to be a very strange creature, with its confusing mix of everything from rock-solid truth and good family programs to weird, strange and bizarre heresy.

Sounds like a separation/compromise issue to me.

I do not believe that Jonathan Falwell is on TBN.

Also, James Merritt’s program and style have changed radically in the past few years. I am not sure that one would expect him to bring such a criticism, regardless.

If you go to TBN’s web site, all of the names I mentioned had programs broadcast on Sunday, 12/20. I’m not sure what they have the other 6 days-nuts and fundraisers.

The health and wealth Gospel is the natural fruit of the Charismatic movement. This movement has a theology based upon the continuation of sign gifts and miracles. Tongues are the foundation sign for all. MacArthur blames the general Evangelical movement for their lack of concern and failure to expose these heresies. However, MacArthur has been entangled with such groups from time to time. He has been united in ministry with C.J. Mahany who is charismatic. He places promotion of the Reformed agenda ahead of separating from those who provide fertile ground for the health and wealth gospel viewpoint. Also John Piper and Wayne Grudem are among the non cessationists who provide an open theology friendly to the Charismatic movement and their health and wealth view.

MacArthur appeared on the Kirk Cameron show on TBN (available online). He was asked what the Gospel was and immediatley went to Matthew 16 and the chchallengey Jesus to the disciples to deny themselves and take up their Cross and follow him. He made an extensive statement about the necessity of denying ourselves. The context here and at Mark 8 and Luke 9 shows this as a reference to the possible cost of following for his disciples. The reference of the soul gaining the world but being lost is an illustration of potential cost to any person by pursuing the world instead of following Christ It is also in a context of believers rewards. It is in a clear context of challenge to those disciples already believing and following and not a message to them of the Gospel of salvation. God gave the entire Book of Romans to explain and apply the Gospel. Nowhere does it have the message of denying self and taking up a cross to be saved. The call to sacrifice is at Romans 12 and is for the already Justified believer and based upon the mercies of God already received. For all his teaching and study MacArthur evidently does not understand the true Gospel of grace. He is surely saved. He has led others to Christ. But he is confused. He was gently admonished in 1990 by a study committee of the IFCA International who gave an extensive statement on salvation and the Gospel (available at their website). John is a member of the IFCA. He was pointed out as exaggerating and giving the wrong impression by James Rosscup, a former professor who taught him and later taught at Masters. The study commission of the IFCA included Robert Thomas of Masters Seminary, who is also a former professor of Johns. Others have sought to gently correct some of MacArthurs wrong statements on the Gospel. Micheal Horton, professor of Theology at Westminster seminary and Larry Pettigrew former professor of theology at Masters for many years have been among them. Yet, MacArthur has ignored most all critics and has not modified his statements on the Gospel. As I listened to Him on Kirk Cameron’s program I realized that his public explanation fo the gospel was clearly one of works and not a gift of salvation by simple faith. His public declaration of the Gospel was at that time a “false Gospel.”

This statement on the Shepherd’s bulletin was preaching to the choir. To my knowledge he has never directly named TBN and their Heretical promotions on Radio. Some Radio stations may cancel him if such were done. If I am wrong on this please let me know. Many Evangelical pastors do warn of TBN and the health and wealth Gospel. They do not have a large audience and such statements are often integrated in with their general teaching.

John MacArthur’s statements about TBN are correct and welcome. However, before he takes the general community of Evangelical pastors to task he should first look at his own relationships and compromises on the subject and his own ability to clearly articulate the true gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone.

I guess only the perfect can cry aloud when they see a Wolf?

[Pastor Harold] I guess only the perfect can cry aloud when they see a Wolf?

I do have a question for you Pastor Harold and that is…are you truly suggesting that Bob T. is demanding perfection before one can “cry aloud” or simply pointing out it is appropriate to be sure that they are not engaged in some of the same behavior they are criticizing? If you really believe Bob T. has directly or implicitly demanded perfection from anyone crying out, please cite the specific portion of his post demonstrating this. And if you agree Bob T. is not suggesting that anyone be perfect then what is the purpose of your post, what does it serve other than to unfairly or unjustly represent what Bob T. was really saying?

I am a supporter of MacArthur in some respects but I certainly don’t support or turn a blind eye to his inconsistencies when they are as glaring as Bob T. pointed out in this case.

[Jim Peet]

Unholy Trinity

Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers?

No surprise here, I guess, as even ostensible Fundamentalists have become more suave and “less heated, shrill or smug” towards these false teachers, since who are we to judge another man’s servant or pour on the crankcase oil?It appears that we’re in a different generation of Bible-believing evangelicals, who, fearing the stigma of their boorish forebears, might’ve swung to the opposite extreme.