Philosophical Theology

In this post I addressed the aberrant view that justifying faith is assent alone apart from trusting in Christ. Therein I made a passing reference to another extreme view of faith – the “Lordship Salvation” gospel whose advocates not only define justifying faith without reference to the Reformed view of trust, but also add forsaking oneself, commitment of life and surrender to justifying faith, which in turn eclipses the gospel by confusing how one might appropriate Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.

It is notable that John MacArthur, the most significant proponent of this view, does not subscribe to historical Reformed theology. In that respect, MacArthur is unchecked with respect to confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. Aside from having a baptistic ecclesiology and a dispensational view of the covenants, MacArthur has gotten the ontological Trinity wrong along with the doctrines of justification and justifying faith. I address the latter two errors here.

Saving Faith According to John MacArthur:

Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.

The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 142

By “saving faith” MacArthur means justifying faith. We may infer this because he is speaking of the faith that is tied to conversion. Accordingly, sanctifying or persevering faith is not in view. What is also noteworthy is MacArthur cites “forsaking oneself” as an essential element of justifying faith, which is radically different than how the Reformed tradition defines justifying faith:

Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Westminster Larger Catechism, #72 What is justifying faith?

The most significant Confession in the history of the Protestant tradition defines the faith that justifies differently than MacArthur. At the heart of justifying faith is receiving and resting upon Christ, which is absent in MacArthur’s ordo salutis. Worse more, to add forsaking one’s life to the simplicity of faith is another gospel because it adds works to justifying faith. But not only does MacArthur add forsaking one’s life to faith, he also asserts that personal commitment is essential to justifying faith.

Commitment is the disputed element of faith around which the lordship controversy swirls. No-lordship theology denies that believing in Christ involves any element of personal commitment to Him.

Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 43-44

MacArthur contends that justifying faith, the faith that appropriates the benefits of Christ, entails “forsaking oneself” and “commitment.” It is not MacArthur but the Westminster Shorter Catechism that has it right when it states:

Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered in the gospel.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, #86 What is faith in Jesus Christ?

It escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking one’s life are works of righteousness, which if done in faith are fruits of sanctification and not elements (or principal acts) of justifying faith. MacArthur seems to miss that justifying faith is merely an instrument by which the unrighteous lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Larger Catechism #73)

Not only does MacArthur add works to justifying faith, he misconstrues the crowning element of justifying faith, which contemplates child like trust in the perfect righteousness of Another. Accordingly, MacArthur would have us believe that the traditional view of trust (often referred to as fiducia) is not trust in Christ but rather surrender to Christ.

This “trust,” or fiducia, faith’s volitional component, is the crowning element of believing it involves surrender to the object of faith.”

Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 44

MacArthur redefines fiducia by turning the volitional component of justifying faith into something other than child like receiving and resting in Christ for salvation. For MacArthur fiducia is not the disposition of trust in Christ (or to believe into Christ) but rather the work of bringing our righteous to Christ in deeds of forsaking, commitment and surrender.

No, this is not merely a matter of semantics:

It is not as though MacArthur is trying to articulate the Reformed view of trust albeit infelicitously. No, MacArthur’s project has something else in mind. In order to illustrate the point more clearly we simply might observe that it is possible for one to (a) forsake herself for another, (b) surrender her will to another, and even (c) commit her existence to another without ever (d) trusting in the person and work of another (i.e., in the love and mercy of the object of such loyalty).

Whereas trust in Christ presupposes an understanding and knowledge of the promise of mercy and grace offered in the gospel (notitia) – the works of forsaking, surrender and commitment can be born out of a fearful misunderstanding of the gospel – even a refusal to receive and rest in the love of God in Christ promised in the gospel! Consequently, we may not say that MacArthur is merely using three different synonyms to describe salvific trust. Rather, MacArthur has doing in mind or at least a disposition of intent that does not connote the trust element of justifying faith.

When one truly turns from sin and dead works to receive and rest in Christ as good news, she will by God’s grace begin to grow in the good works of forsaking her old ways as she surrenders more and more to a loving God in her commitment to the Savior in whom she trusts. Indeed, those who have been effectually called by God will by grace yield obedience to the commands of Scripture, even tremble at the threatenings of God. Notwithstanding, we may not incorporate such fruit of genuine faith (and repentance) into faith’s constituent elements.

In biblical conversion the sinner who recognizes her spiritual helplessness turns, receives and rests upon the mercy of God in Christ. After all, what else can a trembling sinner do to be saved other than believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?

Any obedience that is prior to receiving and resting in Christ can only be a work of the flesh. Yet even when a profound sense of forsaking, commitment or surrender is coterminous with sanctifying faith, such accompanying graces must be distinguished from faith itself.

MacArthur on Justification:

In MacArthur’s book Justification by Faith, MacArthur takes up the question of “Crediting righteousness to the Christian’s account.” His view of justification actually complements his erroneous view of justifying faith.

God actually credits righteousness to our account. He imputes righteousness to us; He infuses divine life into us; He regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares that we are righteous. There is an ontological as well as a forensic declaration. There is a reality – God gives us righteousness, and thus He can declare that we are righteous.

Justification by Faith, p.121 (emphasis mine)

God does not declare that we are righteous because he makes the unholy holy. God justifies the ungodly! (Romans 4:5) Nor are there two declarations, one for our ontic change and one for imputed righteousness. The forensic applies to imputation, not infusion. Lastly, does God declare us righteous on the basis of infused righteousness?

One page later MacArthur states:

The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him.

Justification by Faith, p,122

That is Rome, not Westminster!

Often right but never in doubt is not a comforting formula for church leadership:

It is my understanding that MacArthur may have repented of his views of Justification, just like he repented of his heretical denial of the eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity. Notwithstanding, he has not yet recanted on the nature of justifying faith. If anything, he has doubled down.

My aim is not to point out MacArthur’s theological errors, which are many. If that were my goal, there’s more I might have written. My original point was to address two prominent yet aberrant views of faith that flank the Reformed view. (Two ditches to avoid – assent alone and Lordship Salvation). Yet in the process one cannot help but appreciate the protective nature of confessional theology, local presbyteries and general assemblies. Accordingly, a significant takeaway is one can attend an independent church for her entire life and believe that she is getting the pure milk of God’s word, when in fact she might be getting something quite foreign to the catholic teaching of the church and Reformed confessional theology. We can thank God for the checks and balances of Presbyterianism and the collective theological formulations of the Reformed tradition.

In closing:

What grounds my concerns are theological but only insomuch as I believe they are practical and pastoral. To misunderstand the simplicity of faith and justification is to undermine the glory of God’s grace as well as Christian peace, joy and assurance (if not also the salvation of those who profess Christ). In the final analysis, the antidote for the barren fruit of “easy-believism” and “cheap grace” isn’t “Lordship Salvation” but the Reformed doctrine of justification through faith alone giving way to definitive and progressive sanctification in our union with Christ.

Update 2/2/2024: R. Scott Clark offers a multi-installment critical review of MacArthur’s Gospel According to Jesus. As of January 17, 2024 (part 21!) the review is still ongoing. In essentials, the current addition of the previous versions of the book makes the same errors.