John MacArthur passed away recently. I have written several articles critical of MacArthur’s theology. I stand behind those articles (click here to view the main one).
I believe that John MacArthur was a Christian. I don’t think any of us can know that for sure for someone else. Assurance has to do with the believer’s view of himself, not other Christians. Still, I think J Mac is in heaven. But… he is there in spite of the gospel he preached, not because of it.
MacArthur unapologetically preached a Lordship gospel. Boiled down, he preached that if you weren’t willing to “make Jesus Lord” of every area of your life, you did not get saved.
MacArthur’s guiding mission was to combat what he called “easy believe-ism” - the assertion that many Christians aren’t really saved because they just “believe” but don’t submit to the lordship of Christ. What amazes me is that John was a Calvinist (as am I). Calvinism (and the Bible) teaches that man does not choose God. The doctrine of election states that God is the first actor in salvation. Calvinists believe that God regenerates an unbeliever and then that unbeliever “chooses” Him. But the choice could not come from an unregenerate sinner. This is the core of the doctrine of election.
But John, and those who share this desire to stamp out easy-believe-ism, fail to see the obvious implication of election. If I am elect and therefore saved, it is not a result of me making the right lordship commitment to God. It is 100% and only a result of God’s choosing me.
John spent a lot of his ministry time trying to convince easy believers that they probably weren’t saved. This, to me, is a waste of time and actually causes damage to one’s faith, especially that of new believers.
John was admitted to heaven, not because he made Jesus the lord of every area of his life. He was admitted because His name was written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. John was a sinner, which means Jesus was not “obviously” the lord of every area of his life. His sin nature never submitted to Jesus. Neither will yours. Neither will mine.
Lazarus didn’t have to show a commitment when Jesus raised him from the dead. He made no promises to submit to Lordship. He was dead. Then, out of love and compassion, Jesus made him alive. Dead men can’t make promises and commitments. And that is the message of the true gospel. You are naturally, spiritually dead at birth. At some point, God makes you alive spiritually, just like he did physically with Lazarus. It is 100% the work of Christ. Dead men can’t do work.
MacArthur has experienced a better, fuller gospel than he preached. God didn’t check every way in which John made Jesus the Lord of his life. The Father looked at John and saw the righteousness of His Son. John’s level of commitment had nothing to do with his entrance to heaven. Neither will yours.
Only Christ’s righteousness is strong and pure enough to withstand the judgment of God. Our promises and pledges to do better are not part of the equation. Any commitment to keep Jesus lord 24/7 in every area is at best naive, and at worst an assertion of our part in the salvation equation.
It is not easy to believe. Without God opening one’s eyes, it is impossible to believe. Fighting “easy believe-ism” is easy. Since only God can open the eyes and heart, the answer is to preach the true gospel, not to search for nominal believers to convict. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation is, at best, legalism, and at worst, the same old false gospel of human commitment. If MacArthur is in heaven, and I believe he is, it is in spite of the Lordship Salvation gospel he preached, not because of it.
I think the phrase of John's (MacArthur, not the Apostle) that stops me the hardest is "Nothing less can qualify as saving faith".
How do we reconcile that to Luke 18 where Jesus answers his disciples "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it"? Does this childlike faith meet John's standard of a complete sacrifice of self to the Lordship of Christ over all aspects of one's life? Try telling a 6-year-old that and see what you get.
This does not mean that such a desire ought not be the objective of maturity for every believer, but I cannot put such at the same level as the essentials of the gospel. If I reject the deity of Christ, you have an argument. If I'm still holding on to control over some aspect of my life, I may need help but it doesn't mean I'm not saved. Maybe I need some loving correction from a brother, not but evangelizing.
As humans we tend to be reactive. When John was early in his ministry, the error of easy-believism was rampant. So I get why he would fight against it.
But we can't pile an impossible task onto the conscience of a believer as a mark of the veracity of their conversion.
Do I long for the day when my will is as perfectly subjected to His as He demonstrated that His is to the Father's? A thousand times YES!
Will I ever be there this side of eternity - 1001 times NO!
But I ought not judge my conversion (or worse, my brother's) on the extent to which it is true. I trust this was not John's motivation, nor am I saying this is the position of everyone who espouses it, but it really smacks of elitism. "I'm confident in my salvation because of my maturity. You should doubt yours because of your immaturity." Yikes!
How does one know they are part of the Elect?