Nana Yaw Aidoo
I do not remember where I read that Dr. John MacArthur had preached through the entire Bible in 50 years to the Grace Community Church. I do remember being impressed by this news however. I respect this man even though I do not agree with him. Like most conservative Protestants, he says many good things. However, having been immersed in reformed tradition, he does not teach the truth on what a person must do in order to be saved. I am not aware of any Protestant who does.
Dr. John MacArthur has an article in which he gives reasons why baptism isn’t essential for salvation. Thus, when I called to memory the fact that he had preached through the Bible, I began to wonder what he did when he got to the book of Acts. Therefore, I sought a lesson of his, specifically on the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch to learn how he could deny the necessity of baptism and yet preach through the Acts of the Apostles. I found the sermon entitled, “The Faith that does save.” To be fair, MacArthur gives some good information in his sermon. However, in all candor, all I could think about when reading the manuscript was rat poison. Rat poison as most people know, is made up of 97% maize feed and 3% poison. Nonetheless, it is that 3% that kills the rat. MacArthur’s aforementioned sermon is spiritual rat poison. Dangerous, deadly and destructive to the soul.
I do not think I have the ability to review everything he said. However, there are somethings I want to point out from this sermon.
First is what he says about Simon Magus.
Now, some people might assume that Simon was just a wandering Christian. He is not a wandering Christian. He cannot be, for no Christian, no time needs to plead forgiveness. That’s a set fact. That’s a positional truth taken care of at the moment of salvation. The conditional forgiveness offered in verse 22 is proof positive that this man was never a believer.
Notice that MacArthur says a Christian, no time needs to plead forgiveness. What is interesting is that he gives no proof yet calls this statement, a set fact and a positional truth. What does the Bible say about Christians pleading forgiveness? Speaking to those in fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:6), the apostle wrote:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10).
Does this not prove that it is possible for a Christian to stumble in sin and thus there comes a time when he needs to plead forgiveness from God? The case of Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus teaches us that there are two laws of pardon in God’s divine economy. There is the law of pardon for the alien sinner. And there is the law of pardon for the Christian who has sinned. In the former, men must believe the gospel, repent of their sins and be baptized unto the remission of their sins. And in the latter, men must “repent…and pray” for forgiveness of sins.
However, since MacArthur takes the position that a Christian does not need to plead forgiveness, he further says the conditional forgiveness offered to Simon in verse 22 is proof positive that this man was never a believer. If this is so, then it is interesting that the inspired historian did not know about it for he wrote:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done (Acts 8:12-13).
Please consider that little word also. It means “in that manner, similarly.” Thus, by using this word, Luke is informing us that Simon believed in the same manner as those in the preceding verse. Therefore, if verse 22 is proof positive that Simon was never a believer, then it is proof positive that the Samaritans of verse 12 were never believers. Who can believe this? John MacArthur on the one hand says Simon was never a believer. Inspiration on the other hand says the Samaritans believed and Simon believed also. Nothing but spiritual astigmatism can cause a man to say the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly says. Since it is a cardinal Calvinistic position that it is impossible for the believer to lose his salvation, it comes as no surprise to us that Dr. MacArthur takes the position that the believer needs not plead forgiveness. He couldn’t prove it if his life depended on it.
Second is MacArthur’s story of how he helped a man receive Christ.
Anyway, I said, “Excuse me. Could I talk to you a minute? He says, “Yeah, yeah,” you know. So I said, “Well, stand over here.” we were in a little store front thing, and I said, “I just want to talk to you about Jesus Christ. I’ll never forget it, he said, “You do?” And I said, “Yeah, I just want to explain how you can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” And I took about four or five minutes and I presented it to him, and I said—I got my courage up and I said—“Would you like to receive Christ?” And he looked at me and said—“You know, I think I would.” My reaction was, “You would?” You know. I mean, is it this easy?
Right? And right there we knelt in the street and the guy opened his heart and received Jesus Christ. I mean, there are times, you know, when God puts you in a place and it’s ready…So when something doesn’t happen and you’ve presented Christ, check those two things. Maybe you had a good presentation but the Spirit of God hasn’t done the preparation. Either one.
Folks, I do not think I’m willing to pin a lack of conversion on the Spirit of God not doing His part. Christ’s diagnosis of some who could not be converted was not that the Spirit hadn’t done the preparation but that the prospects had closed their hearts, ears and eyes to the truth (Matt. 13:14-15). True, there are many reasons why some would not come to Christ. However, one of these reasons is not a lack of preparation of the heart of the prospect by the Spirit of God.
The main thing in his story for me is the fact that in teaching his prospect what to do to receive Christ, they knelt in the street and the prospect opened his heart and received Jesus Christ. How different from Philip and the Ethiopian whom MacArthur was preaching about. Whereas MacArthur’s prospect knelt down and opened his heart in order to receive Christ, Philip’s prospect, the Ethiopian, believed the gospel of Christ, confessed his faith in Christ and was baptized. This is consistent with every single conversion account in the book of Acts. All who received Christ did so by believing in Christ and being baptized to put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). No kneeling down, no prayer. For prayer does a sinner no good as far as conversion to Christ is concerned (Isa. 59:1-2). Is it not interesting that MacArthur asked his prospect to do that which Philip did not ask his prospect to do? What do you say about a man who teaches and does contrary to the Spirit-filled preachers of the first century?
Third, MacArthur’s teaching on the design of baptism.
MacArthur admitted that the Ethiopian’s baptism must mean that baptism is important. But how important? Is it important for salvation?
True evangelism presents the whole doctrine of salvation. You know what else Philip even taught him? About Baptism. You say, “Is Baptism important?” It must be. Philip taught him about it. Is it important for salvation? No. But it’s important for the confession of salvation publicly.
Once again, this man teaches something for which he has no proof. Where in all the Scriptures is it taught that baptism is important not for salvation but for the confession of salvation publicly? Whiles MacArthur says baptism isn’t important for salvation, the apostle Peter says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). How many times would this man pit himself against the very Bible he claims to believe and preach?
Again, notice that he said true evangelism presents the whole doctrine of salvation. The whole doctrine of salvation you say? If Philip preached baptism as he preached the whole doctrine of salvation, is this not proof that baptism is necessary for salvation? MacArthur says no. Let’s take it again folks. Is baptism important? According to MacArthur, it must be since Philip preached it when presenting the whole doctrine of salvation. Yet even though it is necessary to preach baptism when preaching the whole doctrine of salvation, according to MacArthur, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. So did Philip teach something as part of the whole doctrine of salvation, even though it isn’t necessary for salvation? According to Dr. John MacArthur, that is a yes. This my friends is a clear case of a man who wants to eat his cake and have it.
If what this learned doctor is saying is true, how then do we explain the Ethiopian’s joy after baptism? He had heard the gospel preached and believed it. Yet it was only after he was baptized that he rejoiced. Clearly, the Ethiopian’s joy followed his knowledge that he was now a Christian. It is a strange thing that this man did not rejoice at the point he was supposedly saved until he had confessed his salvation publicly through baptism. Is that what evangelicals do? Do they postpone their “salvation joy” until they have been baptized? Do they not rejoice over their “salvation” even if not yet publicly confessed through baptism? I am aware of some evangelicals who were baptized two years after they were supposedly saved. I do not know if these folks lived in sadness two years after their “salvation,” until they had publicly confessed it through baptism.
Evidently, Philip in preaching Christ to the Ethiopian taught him how to benefit from the work of Christ on the cross. It is useless to tell a man that Christ died for him without teaching him how to benefit from the death of Christ. Philip indeed presented the whole doctrine of salvation, which includes baptism. Thus, the Ethiopian’s question in verse 36 was as if to say, “If what you’re saying is true, then here is water; what stops me from receiving the benefits of the Christ you have just preached to me?” Friends, we benefit from Christ’s death on the cross for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) when we are saved from our sins. The question is how? How do we receive this benefit? How are we saved from our sins? Christ, the Savior’s answer is this: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). According to our Lord, what must a person do not to be damned but to be saved? The answer is that he must believe and be baptized. Little wonder the Ethiopian asked to be baptized and was baptized upon the confession of his faith. Dr. MacArthur’s teaching however pits a Master against His slave, the Sender against the one sent and the Bible against the Bible.
So enslaved are men of the ilk of MacArthur by reformed theology that they just cannot see through a ladder. So scared are these men of being saved by their own works (Eph. 2:8-9) that they would rather deny Biblical teaching than relinquish the reformed position of justification by faith alone. Oh yes, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) but folks, that is a far cry from saying we are justified by faith alone. The Bible explicitly says that no man is and ever will be justified by faith alone (Jam. 2:24). As far as justification or salvation is concerned, faith in its comprehensive and fullest sense includes baptism. Notice that while Paul and Silas told the Philippian to believe in Christ in order to be saved (Acts 16:31), it was only after he had been baptized that he was said to have believed in God with all his house (Acts 16:32-34). Again, when those Ephesians answered no to Paul’s question, whether they received the Holy Spirit when they believed (Acts 19:2), the apostle inquired, “unto what then were ye baptized?”(Acts 19:3). Why did the apostle move to baptism, when he had just asked about faith? What has baptism to do with faith? Folks, this account clearly teaches that faith in its comprehensive and fullest sense includes baptism. The one who is truly justified by faith is the one who upon belief, repentance and confession of faith, allows himself to be baptized unto the remission of sins.
I sought this sermon to know how a man could hold the view that Dr. MacArthur holds on baptism and yet preach through the book of Acts. I have learnt that it cannot be done without wrongly handling the Bible (2 Cor. 4:2). Dr. John MacArthur in preaching about the faith that does save ended up preaching a faith that is dead and powerless in its ability to save. I must say I admire his faithfulness to the Calvin-Luther tradition even if I think it is rather unfortunate. Because of his conservative disposition, Dr. MacArthur says some good things concerning the book of Genesis, the virgin birth and others. He has no sympathy at all for the seeker sensitive church growth model and he seems a very good speaker and a man with convictions. This very disposition is what makes him a very dangerous preacher. Like all Protestant preachers, he preaches a perversion of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). With all due respect, he is as false a teacher as a Joel Osteen or a Joyce Meyer. Do not be deceived by his scholarly appearance. “…For even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
Work Cited
MacArthur, John. “The Faith That DOES Save.” Grace to You, 21 Jan. 1973, www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1727/the-faith-that-does-save. Accessed 20 Feb. 2022.
