That's JM's false claim. The articles clearly shows that the person writing it has a problem with the doctrine he is teaching.
Now you have called him a liar.
Sorry but Bynum clearly makes it personal. He calls MacArthur a hypercalvinist, which he clearly is not. He also accuses him of being some kind of eccumenist as if attempting to bring various denominations together for fellowship is the root of all evil. Bynum is off topic as much if not more than he is on topic. Clearly Bynum has it in for MacArthur for more than his rather orthodox (from a protestant point of view) opinion on the blood of Christ. FWIW Bynum's view is much closer to Catholicism than protestantism and that is why it appears you have found common ground with your Roman buddies on this thread.
You are now calling John MacArthur a liar. He may be a lot of things, but I can say one thing, I may disagree with his theology, but I have never questioned MacArthur's veracity. If Bynum calls MacArthur is a hypercalvinist, then it is Bynum's credibility that is in issue.
BTW have you ever been wrong before?