Why John MacArthur Can't Save You

Freerepublic | 12/10/2006 | Self

[farmer18th]

"God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation."

            — John MacArthur, Why Government Can't Save You, 2000

Now frankly, if you object to that remark by John MacArthur, it would seem to me that you would also have to object to the Apostle Paul's statement that "righteousness doesn't come by law." 

            -- Phil Johnson, John MacArthur Apologist

These two statements reflect, very dismally, the tendency of today's churchmen to render the gospel of Christ impotent.  

Let's examine the first one:     God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation.

Oh really?  

Well, let's start at the very beginning.   After giving Adam and Eve a garden to meet all of their needs, what is the first thing God gives them?    A rule.   A law.    "Don't eat from the tree of life."     After saving his people, Israel, from Egypt, what does God do?     He sets up rules for the camp, laws for life, the ten commandments.     What does Jesus say, "if you love me, keep my commandments."      God believes in law so much that He writes it on our hearts.   

But we live by grace, not law, you say, and that has nothing to do with "promoting legislation."      

This response, in this context, reflects the contemporary church's confusion between that which is necessary for salvation (grace alone) and that which is necessary for ordered life in a civil, Godly society (the law).      When Jesus confronts the reality of sin within the church, He describes the methods for confronting it in Mathew 18, and He does it so thoroughly, He includes an enforcement clause.    If the sinner won't repent, we are not even to keep company with him.    He is to be shunned.    Paul wrote not to give bread to those who won't work.     Jesus and Paul and others, throughout the New Testament, lay down all sorts of rules for the new age of the church.     Over and over again, the force of the ten commandments, and the moral law of the Old Testament, is re-affirmed.   Adulterers, extortionists, drunkards, sodomites, whores, and thieves are all identified as practitioners of evil--law breakers.    Bishops are told to have "one wife," not three or four.    The just ruler of Romans 13 is told to be a terror to evil doers, to use the sword when necessary.    There is no carping response to Paul in any of these passages, chiming in smugly, "oh, but, Brother Paul, that's just Old Testament stuff."

Clearly, if Jesus thought it proper for the church to confront sinners, to shun them if necessary, and if this teaching is reaffirmed by Paul after His earthly departure, His atoning death does not render the Ten Commandments moot, nor does it render the rest of the moral law academic.      The law marches on, teaching us what sin is, teaching us gratitude for His Grace, and, finally ordering and controlling our lives on earth.    

Still, you say, that's life within a Christian community, not life "in the world."

Here's where I wish our contemporary pastors were better scholars of history: Listen up, everyone.    Mark my words:   

We took over.  

Remember?   

The entire world dates its time by Christ's birth.    Before Christ, much of western and northern Europe was a savage landscape, with blue-faced Picts wearing the heads of their enemies on their belt loops.     In the new world, a satanic culture, the ancient Aztecs and Mayans,  cut the beating hearts out of their human sacrifices.      The Roman Empire was full of well-educated moral heathens, watching human beings fight to the death for sport in the Coliseum.    

The kings of the Christian era ended all that, or began the work of putting the government on Christ's shoulder.      For all the failures of the Eastern and Western church, for the last two thousand years, there has been a new law-giver, Christ the King.    Urban II and his Christian monarchs beat back a savage horde of Saracen (Muslim) invaders and saved civilization from their grip.    There wasn't a flag planted in the new world without reference to a Christian monarch and a Christian God.    There wasn't a law written without the weight of scripture pressing its imprint on the text mightily.      I reproduce for you now, as an example, text from the criminal code of the colony of New Hampshire in 1759:

...And be it likewise Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any person shall presume willfully to blaspheme the holy name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost, either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God, his creation or government of the world; or by denying, cursing, or reproaching the holy word of God...every one so offending shall be punished by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, and until they find sureties for their good behavior, by setting in the pillory, by whipping, boaring through the tongue with a red hot iron....

It's a good thing John MacArthur wasn't around to cluck his disapproval.     Without the zeal of lawmakers who were profoundly influenced by scripture, and by God's law, the world would have been more easily surrendered to the savages.

We take it for granted, today, that all cultures, all societies, should have laws against murder, against perjury, against theft, but those are cultural assumptions we owe, very much, to scripture, to God's word.     In the previous century, we would have assumed all cultures should have laws against adultery as well, but we have forfeited our inheritance on that front, to pastors who believe, apparently, that families remaining intact only has utility within the church, and even there, we are as likely to see a wedding shower for an unwed mother as we are a call to repentance.     The simple fact remains, nevertheless,  that God's word, in scripture and in history, has "promoted legislation" over and over again.

But to bring it all into stark relief, let's re-state John Macarthur's original formulation:

"God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation."

This way:

"God does not call the church to be any good in the world at all."

Is that unfair?    Not at all.    How do we restrain evil in this world?    One of the ways, certainly, is that we write laws.    How do we keep murderers from preying on our children?    We write laws.     How do we let neighborhoods know there might be a predator in the neighborhood?    We write laws.      How do we--and how does God--let the world know that homosexuality is a culture of death?    We write laws.    How can John MacArthur lock up the church at night and know his sanctuary will be relatively safe from vandals?     We write laws.   We promote legislation.    We occupy until He comes.

But the church, you say, is only for the care of our souls.  

Well, "soul care" is a funny business, at least if you go by what Jesus and Paul say, because they keep talking about life on earth and there are very few passages that talk about the nature, or the rhythm, or the look of heaven.    Our citizenship in heaven, we are told, begins here.    We are told to take care of widows and orphans.    We are told to refrain from fornication, from adultery, from gossip, from extortion, from drunkenness.     We are told to submit to each other.      It sounds a lot like God's law because that's exactly what it is.     We are even told to not to break God's law, "that grace may abound."    That means we are to be schooled--and school others--in the law of God.    All are without excuse.

John Macarthur's idiosyncratic notion that the church should not affect the laws of the land is particularly troubling because it leaves our rulers bereft of counsel.     The very men who should most weigh in on matters of law--the men of God--are ridiculed if they take God's word to the task of governing society.    The world system that Pastor John laments careens ever further out of control as the church remains silent.     In California, an avowed lesbian proposes legislation that would require all elementary school textbooks to recognize the contributions of sodomites in history and science.    Our most innocent, our children, are thus blinded to what God calls an abomination, and no one is there to speak for the truth because pastors like John insist on keeping the flock confined inside the praise ghetto.    When California voters had a chance to begin dismantling the death industry of abortion, in proposition 85's parental consent initiative, much of the church was silent.    With apathy made into a Christian virtue by the likes of John MacArthur, it is no wonder.

"...If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;  If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"

            --Proverbs 24:11-12

Now, let us proceed to the learned Phil Johnson:    

Now frankly, if you object to that remark by John MacArthur, it would seem to me that you would also have to object to the Apostle Paul's statement that "righteousness doesn't come by law."      

Phil Johnson is a member of John MacArthur's church and acts, as near as I can tell, as a sort of web bulldog for his pastor, serving up really incredible graphic art along the way.       In both John MacArthur and Phil Johnson there exists a penchant for rhetorical bullying and verbal slight of hand.    Notice the name of John's Book, "Why Government Can't Save You."    This puts anyone who wants to take back the culture for Christ on the defensive, of course, by making a proposition so ridiculous no one could defend it.   John claims this title was dictated by his publisher, but that, in itself, is damning evidence.    Was the text dictated to him as well?     Was the false doctrine dictated by the publisher?      Was John MacArthur handcuffed and forced to put an insulting and demeaning title on his book, a title virtually guaranteed to stir up strife among the brethren?   

Of course not.    There is duplicity at work here, as there is in Phil Johnson's sly rejoinder.     No one who proposes that the church influence the culture believes that "righteousness...comes by law."      A law against murder doesn't quench the fire of our murderous hearts, but it does put real life murderers on notice.     The law restrains evil, it doesn't create righteousness.    We can be sure that John MacArthur doesn't mind the constitutional law protecting his right to preach.   (Or can we?    John MacArthur believes the framers were being disobedient to God by taking up arms against a tyrant;   perhaps July 4th is a very quiet day in the MacArthur household.)      At any rate, we can be certain, I believe, that MacArthur and Johnson are not arguing against law, only that the law, as Paul says, doesn't create righteousness.

This brings us, however, to a distinction without any material difference.    Just because the law doesn't create "righteousness" in us, doesn't mean that we don't need wholesome, Christian-influenced public policy and law.   

MacArthur and Johnson believe that good preaching is the best way to change the culture, and they claim--contrary to the facts--that men like James Dobson believe the laws are the most effective tool in saving the culture.    The fact is that James Dobson is a committed believer, who happens to believe something very radical, that the gospel should be practical, applicable, germane, that if the gospel is truly applied among a people, "we will know them by their fruits."      

Here's the distinction without a difference.    Theoretically, good preaching produces men like James Dobson, who, in turn, become advocates for the influence of Christ in the halls of government.    But wait a minute.   The good man who has believed what the pastor preaches has a chain around his ankle.   Don't go too far.    Don't use up too many of the body's resources.    After all--cluck, cluck--"government can't save you."     The fellow who makes a political observation at a bible study--based completely on what the scripture says--is told to keep it outside, or he's chided for being too worldly.    The signing of petitions, the calling of congressmen, the division of wheat from chaff on matters of sin versus righteousness all dwindle in the background, because the preacher has declared it all secondary, unimportant, a "waste of resources."

The very fruit of good theology is poisoned by words from the pulpit.    The very hope we have of making our citizenship here look more like our citizenship in heaven is killed, in its cradle, by the shepherds who should most care for the cause.   

It's a bit like a drill sergeant teaching his soldiers to do battle and then shooting them in the back the first time they stand against the enemy.

Shame on you, Pastor MacArthur.

 

 

[Uri’el-2012]

Who is in charge of the Universe ?

You , the Ekklesia or YHvH ?

b'shem Yah'shua

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I agree with you for the most part but MacArthur will likely never see it. And I refuse to be an obstacle to him (well beyond voicing my disagreement to this) because he is an excellent messenger of the gospel. So I guess that leaves me to grieve every time he calls on Christians to be silent on issues of good and evil. It is tragic. But somehow God has it in his plan for this to be a blind spot to MacArthur. Perhaps it will be an eventual lesson in humilty for him. Perhaps it will be a revelation for him as to his own love of righteousness or lack thereof. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for him to learn to ask forgiveness of those he has falsely accused. Perhaps it will just always be a blind spot for some reason I haven't figured out. I don't know. It's just that MacArthur is such an excellent Bible teacher and preacher of the gospel in most every other way that painful as it is, I am trying to overlook it.

[stylin19a]

And He said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

[farmer18th]

I guess that leaves me to grieve every time he calls on Christians to be silent on issues of good and evil.

I suppose all we can do is counter his error as much as possible. I personally wish he had less influence, because the most powerful poison is a pastor who creates the illusion of drawing a flock to God, only to put them to sleep.

[farmer18th]

And He said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Who made Caesar?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I suppose all we can do is counter his error as much as possible. I personally wish he had less influence, because the most powerful poison is a pastor who creates the illusion of drawing a flock to God, only to put them to sleep.

It's not an illusion. He does draw the flock to God. He does a profoundly wonderful job at that. He is just ignorant about politics. I think he has bad sources for news too. His passion seems not to be stirred by the evil perpetrated in the world. He theologizes it, which seems to cripple and paralyze him in the wisdom department. Should be just the opposite. But he is like two different people: The MacArthur who preaches and the MacArthur who acts as an ocassional panelist for Larry King. I can't reconcile the two myself.

He is an obstacle to civic responsibilty and an aid to evil (in that way only). In his view that's not the case because all is unrighteousness without Christ. See, I think MacArthur is wrong to take doctrinal truths and misapply them to the political arena. He doesn't do that with other areas of life, but for whatever reason, to MacArthur politics seems to be a sin. Of course he doesn't seen to carry that over to his own actions in that he is perfectly fine being a frequent guess on a political show.

Still, MacArthur is following his conscience and attempting to do what is biblical. He is far better at understanding theology than he is at applying it to life. But the Church today would be so much less without MacArthur's teaching and input. He is needed! So we should be more gracious than he is (I've failed at times); we should love him in spite of this political issue. There is no comparison in importance between politics and the gospel. The gospel is more important. So just be a support to those of us who do not think it is a sin to participate in politics and pray that MacArthur sticks to what he knows. He is quite gifted at it. We should even support his gospel efforts. God is using him and it would be wrong of us to let this get in the way. But it does hurt and even make me mad from time to time.

[farmer18th]

There is no comparison in importance between politics and the gospel.

I appreciate the graciousness of your reply, because most MacArthur disciples are a bit like a slighted Wahabbi if you criticize their leader, no matter how justified.

I think a large part of our problem is that we have made neat little rubrics--the church and art, the church and politics, the church and law. I don't think there's essentially any difference between the two. You can't say, "I'm saved, so I don't really care about innocent children being slaughtered, because that's just part of this worldly system," or "I'm really glad Jesus forgave my sins because I feel really bad every time I turn the Jews over to the S.S." If the seed doesn't produce fruit, it's not part of the tree.

[stylin19a]

He sets up rules for the camp, laws for life, the ten commandments. What does Jesus say, "if you love me, keep my commandments."

I don't think Jesus' commandments were the 10 commandments

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

By the way, I don't agree 100% with your wording.

My view is that murder is as wrong for a non-Christian as it is for a Christian. So is abortion. I think a Christian who loves God MUST be against murder. Etc. We cannot be indifferent. You can apply this to many issues.

By his wording, MacArthur seems to think these issues affect only the perpetrator. But what about the victims? Is no one a victim in the end because all have sinned? Are sinners not entitled to some civic justice?

I just do not understand how MacArthur can separate these things so completely other than to conclude he is theologizing it. All have sinned, so short of salvation, justice and righteousness and truth and goodness don't matter apparently. They can't unless all are saved. Seems to me if God makes his sun rise and set on the non-Christian and the Christian alike, then He might be okay with Christians acting to protect non-Christians from murder (or children from predators...etc..) I see it as doing what is right as far as we are able and building a just society where right is held in high esteem. That way when people fall short of the standard, they feel guilty -- enter the preacher who tells them what to do with that guilt. MacArthur sees it as trying to get righteousness out of a lost sinner. He says we are trying to save people by getting them to act right. I say they can act right (better than horrible) even though they can never be reconciled to God without faith in Christ.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think a large part of our problem is that we have made neat little rubrics--the church and art, the church and politics, the church and law. I don't think there's essentially any difference between the two. You can't say, "I'm saved, so I don't really care about innocent children being slaughtered, because that's just part of this worldly system," or "I'm really glad Jesus forgave my sins because I feel really bad every time I turn the Jews over to the S.S." If the seed doesn't produce fruit, it's not part of the tree.

I agree with that. Well said.

[infidel dog]

"MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark...All the sweet cream icing flowing DOWWWWNNNNN...." Sorry folks, I couldn't help myself.

[farmer18th]

I don't think Jesus' commandments were the 10 commandments

Can you show me the part where He says, "go ahead and murder, go ahead and lie, go ahead and steal, go ahead and covet; it's all covered."

[stylin19a]

i'm just questioning your "proofs"...which you really can't defend.

- 30 -

[Cvengr]

IMHO, the article confuses a perspective of John MacArther with separation of the Christian from working good order.

COSMOS (the world) is an attempt to make order out of chaos.

Anything we do which is independent of God is de facto a sin (disobedient to Him).


In organized systems, social skills precede production skills.

Prior to our salvation, many of us have become very scarred in our thinking processes to be socially acceptable in the world by advancing human good, independent of divine good.

Many believers who study Scripture, indeed recognize many moral laws in Scripture and prefer a society which is obedient to God.

Here is the distinction: If we become religious activists focusing on morality first, before we focus on God through faith in Christ, we can fall into a trap of legalism. To our conscience, it may appear as though we are remaining obedient to Him because the objectives we seek in the law are similar to the laws we study in Scripture. Unfortunately, we are able to focus on the law without any faith through Christ, resulting in a legalistic perspective in our thinking.

Conversely, God created man in body, soul and spirit. He didn't create us to be void in one or the other. Likewise, when we are in the world, a system of order amidst chaos, as long as we remain in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ, He approves our ordering of chaos through faith in Him. Such are good works which will remain effectual for His reward. Those good works, without faith through Christ will on the other hand, simply be parlayed into evil by the Adversary in an attempt to bring about a counterfeit paradise without God.

Accordingly, even when we promote legislation which is similar to the Old Testament law, if we fail to remain in fellowship through faith in Christ, we merely promote morality without righteousness, love and faith in Him.

Unlike sin, which has a solution through faith in Christ and may be resolved in an instant by our confession and return to Him through faith in Christ, ..good and evil have not been so resolved. They must be resolved in time.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If we become religious activists focusing on morality first, before we focus on God through faith in Christ, we can fall into a trap of legalism.

There tends to be an assumption among many that any poltiical activism by a Christian is automatically a violation of the sort you mention here. Even the term "religious activist" biases the issue from the start. I am religious so how can I be anything other than a religious activist unless I am never ever an activist? So there you go. Guilty from the start.

I find it fascinating how good theology can be so misapplied. I see it over and over again. I think we have to always remember that God is holy and His righteousness is supreme. Any application of theology that gives aid and comfort to evil is a wrong application, in my view. The gospel is not advanced by silence regarding moral issues. If that were so -- if MacArthur were right -- then why hasn't his example brought revival to California? To Los Angeles? Or even to Sun Valley where his church exists? One truth doesn't nulify another truth. Because only through the imputed righteousness of Christ can we ever find peace with God does not mean that evil should triumph over good among the lost in a here and now sort of way. Good and evil are good and evil whether we ever repent and believe the gospel or not. We should speak the truth always and trust God with the results. He may or may not bring revival to America. May His truth and righeousness be exalted either way.

[Jemian]

Considering that Jesus IS God, not just a part of God and that He is also The Word, and the 10 Commandments were given as part of The Word, then I think it could be rightly said that the 10 Commandments are also Jesus's commandments. He came to fulfill the law, not to nullify it.

[farmer18th]

Prior to our salvation, many of us have become very scarred in our thinking processes to be socially acceptable in the world by advancing human good, independent of divine good.

Flannery O'Conner, I believe, called this promoting a good other than God's. There is not doubt that takes place, but I'm talking about disciples motivated to do good as a result of coming to God and then finding their shepherds uncomfortable with the very fruits of faith.

With MacArthur it takes this weird twist over and over again. He sees people doing good and instead of praising God, he says, "wait a minute; even Mormons engage in clean living; hold the train there."

Is it necessary to engage in the sin of apathy to prove you are saved by grace?

[farmer18th]

I just do not understand how MacArthur can separate these things so completely other than to conclude he is theologizing it.

That's pretty much it. MacArthur takes one of the most practical books in the world as a guideline for living, and turns it into a spiritual reverie. He seems to be so intent on teaching the concept of grace, that the very good works grace produces (political activism among them) is turned into a sin. The article that prompted me to write this essay was a critique of James Dobson by Phil Johnson. The very reason Dobson found a flock in teaching pareting was precisely this weird urge to silence the Bible on matters of improving culture. The pastors weren't preaching how to parent--so a layman like Dobson had to do it. Greg Laurie isn't getting his flock out to demand an end to abortion, so Randal Terry had to do it.

The Bible should be a very clear source for reference in determing how we fight the evils of our age, and if that makes MacArthur uncomfortable, he should step out of the pulpit. I honestly believe he does more harm than good.