By Greg Holt

It’s not that I think John MacArthur should be dragged through the mud, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding out there about what MacArthur taught, and what his views on Scripture actually mean.  Some of those views are misleading, and some are very dangerous.

If you merely hear a sermon here and there, his teaching sounds solid, biblical.  But if you were to look into what his beliefs are, then anyone who truly follows Jesus would be seriously troubled at what they would discover.

John MacArthur (Hereafter known as JM) was against homosexuality, check, so is the Bible.  Here’s the problem, MacArthur’s stance is far from Biblical.

In the instance I am speaking of, JM is talking about an adult child that comes out to a parent(s) on being a homosexual.  JM says that this person (If a Bible believing individual) must be confronted, and if no repentance is forthcoming, then two or three must confront him, if there is still no repentance, then the matter is taken before the church.  If that does not cause repentance, then this person is to be removed from the church.  So far so good, this IS biblical.  What comes next is not.

JM then says that the parents are to alienate them, isolate them, refuse to even eat with them, “turn them over to Satan.”  Now, while I DO think that no Bible believing parent ought to rubber stamp their child’s homosexuality or lesbianism etc., there is a huge difference between that and completely turning your back on your own child.  No one is ever going to convince me that it is biblical or “Christ-like” to do this, it is not.  Where do we draw the line?  Which “sins” are acceptable, and which sins are not in this context?

You can listen to Macarthur say this himself in the linked video.  Be WARNED, if you choose to listen, the host of this clip uses very foul language and obviously has a very bad attitude towards “Christianity.”  I could not find any better clip of this, as YouTube took them all down.

The proper biblical context of this hinges on one thing, the church.  It is the church that they are dismissed from.  So maybe as a member of the church congregation, this would become a person you would not spend time with anymore, but if this is your own child, that is different.  I did not approve of my child’s drug use or thefts etc., but I in no way turned my back on this child, nor did I stop loving.

John MacArthur on Abuse

It’s absolutely ridiculous how JM says to turn your back on a homosexual, but then allegedly covers up abuse.

“There was another controversy in the 2020s, when a woman named Eileen Gray came forward to accuse him of shaming her publicly for leaving her abusive husband. David Gray, a children’s minister at Grace, confessed to hitting his daughter “way too harshly—brutally” on her legs, feet, hands, and head and dragging his two other children as a form of discipline. Gray said she had been instructed by Grace ministers to forgive him even if he didn’t repent and to show her children how to “suffer like Jesus.” When she instead took her children and moved out, MacArthur condemned her from the pulpit and instructed the congregation to shun her, suggesting she was not really a Christian.

David Gray was later sent to prison for physical and sexual child abuse.”  (Source)

That was just one of many reported incidences.  According to The Roys Report, JM, who was in charge of The Master’s University, and The Master’s Seminary sanctioned teaching that it was more important to bring the abuser to repentance, than to protect those who were abused.  How could this actually be taught in a seminary and a college?  We need to worry about the abuser’s eternal soul, but hey, if the abuser’s victims are beaten, sexually abused, emotionally abused, possibly even killed etc., well, that’s just collateral damage, perfectly acceptable, right???

“At The Master’s University and Seminary, the institution’s counseling programs during MacArthur’s tenure taught that winning “the abuser over to righteousness” was more important than preventing harm to an abused wife, TRR previously reported.”  (Source)

It’s beyond the pale for JM and his staff to say that a woman should simply “live with it,” as in her husband’s abusive behavior.  Just suck it up like a good little Christian should.

Living the Good Life

Apparently, JM’s teachings on money have included calling out the “prosperity gospel” preachers for quite some time now.  Despite criticizing those who endorse the prosperity gospel, JM seems to live a lavish lifestyle himself.  This is disputed by Grace Church elder Phil Johnson, who is also the executive director of Grace to You.  But the facts do not support Johnson’s position.  Mr. Johnson also makes very good money, and sits of the board of directors for Grace to You. 

JM owns three homes that are worth millions of dollars.  JM’s empire, consisting of media, and educational presentations etc., have net his empire a cool $70 million a year in tax-free money.  There are also his books that sell very well, and lucrative speaking fees.  Just from Grace to You – JM’s radio ministry, and his position at the college and seminary, he brought in over $500,000 in one year.

Two of JM’s children also sat on the board of GTY, only one does now.  This sounds an awful lot like the shenanigans that have gone on over at Daystar and the family that runs the show there.  Ministry for profit.

Other Dangerous Beliefs

JM also espoused the belief that woman should stay home, that they should not work outside the home.  Women should not be pastors, nor should they hold ANY position within the church, and much more astonishing, JM said that women should not be allowed to hold positions of authority in the secular world, seriously?  His church, GCC, decided that all staff positions needed to be male, all of this of course caused quite the uproar.

JM also stated that the belief that modern day followers of Jesus are “filled with the Spirit,” is a delusion.  Not only that, but JM does not believe that the gifts of the Spirit are in operation today, when the apostles ceased, or died, the gifts of the Spirit also ceased.

If these “gifts” ceased, then why are they in the Bible?  If we can no longer be filled with the Spirit, then why did Jesus expressly say otherwise?

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”  John 14:23

Notice that Jesus words are not past tense, but present tense – we WILL come, there is no set end to this indicated by His words.

 ^“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”  1 Corinthians 3:16

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”  1 Corinthians 6:19

Again, the language is present tense, and there is no qualifier that would suggest that there is an end to these things at any time, past, present, or future.

This is what Pastor Shane Idleman said in response to this unbiblical belief:

“We need sound doctrine and the power of the Holy Spirit. It is possible to be ‘Bible taught,’ but not ‘Spirit led’—straight as a gun barrel theologically, but just as empty. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6). Don’t get me wrong, theological and expositional teachings are essential to Christian living, but how often are theology students encouraged to fast and pray as well as study?

“How often are they taught brokenness and repentance in addition to translating the Greek language? How often are they taught the surrendered life? We can sometimes be more concerned about a Master’s Degree than a degree from the Master.”  (Source)

JM also disputes the role of the shed blood of Christ in the saving of our souls, the forgiveness of sin:

“In his tape, numbered GC 80-44, titled “The Blood of Christ—Selected Scriptures” (which is a series of sermon excerpts), from sermons preached by MacArthur, we find this statement:

“There is no sense in getting teary-eyed and mystical about blood. We sing hymns about “There is power in the blood,” and so forth, and we don’t want to get preoccupied with blood. The only importance that the blood of Jesus has is that it shows he died. There is no saving in that blood itself. We cannot say that the very blood of Jesus—His physical blood—is what atones for sin. It is His death that atones for sin. His blood shed was an act of death. So, we do not want to become preoccupied about fantasizing about some mystical blood that is floating around somewhere. It is by the sacrificial offer of Himself—it is by His death—that we are redeemed. Blood shed is only the picture of His death. . . . So, when Jesus died and shed his blood this is no big thing. This is nothing for Israel to get all bent out of shape about.”  (Source)

This is obviously unbiblical.  It is plainly stated in the Bible that there is NO forgiveness without the shedding of blood!  Jesus would not have mentioned His shed blood for no reason, and it certainly was not allegorical.

“¹⁹ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. ²⁰ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”  Luke 22:19-22

“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,”  Hebrews 10:19

If JM was correct in his stated position, that all that mattered was the actual death of Christ, why then did Jesus specifically mention BOTH His body AND His blood?  The author of Hebrews assures us that by the blood of Christ is our path to God the Father assured.  This and many other conclusions of JM’s did not come from the Bible as much as he constantly asserted that they did. 

JM was also a Calvinist, and Calvinism contains some blatant errors.  I will just mention one such error: In the beliefs of Calvinists, God selected those who He desired to grant salvation to, you and I, along with everyone else – has absolutely NOTHING to say about it.  There is NO free will, if God did not choose you, you are toast, you have ZERO say in the matter.  This is fundamentally untrue!  You can read my teaching on this issue, which I believe is in line with the Bible in these two articles

Predestination, Election, and Free Will: Each Biblically Sound Doctrine

Free Will Verses Election: Solved

One cannot put their own spin on the Bible, and then assert that this “doctrine” comes straight from the Bible, yet this is consistently what Macarthur has done.  Yes, a lot of JM’s teaching is spot on, but there are way too many instances of taking liberties with the Scriptures.

Here is yet another glaring untruth, a VERY dangerous untruth, that JM taught as the gospel truth.  Most people I believe have heard of the Mark of the Beast.  JM taught that if you take the Mark of the Beast, you CAN be forgiven, and still go to Heaven with Jesus.  This is blatantly against what Scripture teaches us.  The Mark of the Beast involves worshipping the Beast, who is a puppet for Satan.  Taking his mark seals the deal, there is no turning back from that.

You can view a video of JM speaking this false doctrine here: The Mark of the Beast Will not Condemn You

“¹⁶ And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: ¹⁷ And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”  Revelation 13:16-17

“⁹ And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, ¹⁰ The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”  Revelation 14:9-11

I think the above verses make it pretty clear that JM’s teaching on the Mark of the Beast is false teaching.

The problem with “mostly” good Bible teaching is that once people have begun to trust whichever preacher operates in this fashion, then they will likely believe ALL of what he teaches, including that which is WRONG.  This cannot be classified as “no big deal,” and “everyone makes a few mistakes,” as JM’s rather ardent supporters have said.  This is a VERY big deal.

Conclusion

Will God forgive John MacArthur for the things he has taught and spoken, his actions?  I think that is up to God, not me and not anyone else.  I DO think that there will be lasting consequences for JM’s teaching that one can take the Mark of the Beast and be forgiven, that is most definitely blasphemy.

Let’s say that one is literally “left behind,” the rapture has occurred, and one/many is still here.  The people are told that they HAVE to accept the Mark of the Beast, or they will no longer be able to buy and sell, life in other words would become extremely difficult.  So, one who has belief in Jesus decides to accept the mark, and having heard of JM’s teaching on the mark, decides that he/she can be forgiven for it, after all, one has to survive right?  Accept one upon death will face the Judgement Seat of Christ, and one will be placed with the goats, and end up in Hell forever.

What about JM’s other actions/teaching?  The actions of GCC church in ignoring abuse and telling women to live with it, that bringing the abuser to repentance is more important than dealing with the abuse – this sort of suggests and indirectly seems to condone abuse of women, as well as saying that bringing one to repentance, to righteousness, trumps the concern over the abused individual’s safety.  I’m not saying that this was JM’s or the church’s intent, but others looking at this could very well draw that conclusion.

Turn your back on your children if they are LGBTQ, what else should you, or could you turn your back on them for?

Denying the importance of the blood of Christ as it relates to forgiveness of our sins, well, what else is ok to deny concerning Jesus Christ?  Was He (Jesus) REALLY crucified, or was that a story only?  Did He even truly exist?

One can no longer be filled with the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, what else has ceased?  Does God then even hear our prayers?  So, as a Believer, you are on your own with a book of words and nothing else whatsoever at all???

Do you see how these things could lead people down a dangerous path?  Maybe even push them away from the faith period?

No good can come from teaching things that are not true, and saying that the teaching is straight from the Word of God, which JM expressly said.  Oh, woe to the “teacher” who does this!

“My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”  James 3:1  Note: “masters” is better expressed as teachers.

 

Featured Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons