[google28b52e0868d1e307.html]

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 16 July 2025

JOHN MACARTHUR'S DUBIOUS LEGACY

 John MacArthur, Reformed Expositor with Tainted Legacy, Has Died

John MacArthur has been dubbed "the world's premier expository preacher"  by his own organisation.1 Although he was highly revered within his own echo chamber, he was not so revered outside his collection of sycophants. MacArthur's serious theological issues and his obdurate refusal to apologize or ever admit any wrongdoing or error were extremely concerning. There are undoubtedly former members, and in all likelihood current members of GTY, who have been damaged, particularly by MacArthur's attitude towards women and children and his mishandling of abuse cases. 

MacArthur has been accused of repeatedly shaming or ignoring abuse survivors and enabling abusers, leaving vulnerable women and children without support and at risk. In 2003, Hohn Cho, a lawyer and former elder at GCC, accused the church of "awful patterns" of siding with abusers and endangering victims.2  GCC's wall of silence on past and current abuse allegations is deafening!

In 2001, Eileen Gray turned to the elders of GCC for support, in a desperate attempt to protect her children from her husband, David Gray, a teacher at the church, who was physically and emotionally abusing them. Later, it emerged that he was also sexually abusing them. When Eileen refused to submit to their "advice" to return to her marriage and remove a restraining order, they wrote formal letters accusing her of ruining her family. GCC: “We strongly believe that it is time for you to remove the restraining order and return to end the separation from your husband,” they warned. “There are no longer sufficient reasons for the two of you to stay apart. We therefore are requesting that you forgive David, allow him to move back home, and once again follow his leadership as the Scripture teaches.” GCC followed up with further letters instructing her to "repent" for her failure to submit to their demands. On August 18, 2002, MacArthur announced publicly to the entire congregation of 8,000 that Eileen Gray had violated Matthew 18, that she refused to repent of her wickedness, that she was being subjected to church discipline, and that the entire church ought to essentially shun her and treat her like an unbeliever. Just four years later, in 2005, David Gray was convicted on multiple counts of sexual and physical abuse of children. He is currently serving 21 years to life for his crimes.3  Incredibly, MacArthur subsequently endorsed David Gray's "prison ministry".



Earlier this month, former member Lorraine Zielinski sued GCC for maliciously sharing and misrepresenting confidential information relating to her marriage. Zielinski advised GCC counselors she was afraid for her safety and also the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. However, the counselors advised her to drop her request for a legal separation. When Zeilinski attempted to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors, and threatened that if she refused, confidential details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation.4 These are not good people on any level! (Matthew 7:20).

MacArthur's theology was a kind of pick and mix position between Calvinism and dispensational pretrib rapture eschatology, both of which are extremely problematic. 

MacArthur's patriarchal views went far beyond the scriptural mandate not to appoint women pastors. (1 Timothy 2:12). According to MacArthur, women shouldn't teach or publicly discuss theological issues at all! 5 Similarly, his stand against charismatic NAR false prophets and teachers was tainted by cessationism and a complete denial of any gifts of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

One of the most shocking episodes was MacArthur's claim that believers can take the mark of the beast during the "seven-year tribulation"* and be saved. There is a powerful warning in scripture not to take the mark of the beast, but MacArthur simply doubled down when he was challenged.6

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”(Revelation 14:9-11).

MacArthur's denial of the blood of Christ was another example of his aberrant understanding of the scriptures. MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Hebrews, published in 1983 by Moody Press: "It is possible to become morbid about Christ's sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood.." (emphasis mine)7

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9).

..according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:2).

..and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood. (Revelation 1:5).

MacArthurs Masonic Connections

MacArthur never repudiated his family connection to Freemasonry; in fact, on one occasion, in 2009, he even boasted about it. During a sermon on the parable of the four soils (Mark 4:1-20), MacArthur spoke of his ministry as the “explosion of spiritual fruit and the harvest” of the ministry of his great-grandfather, Rev. Thomas Fraser Fullerton, who was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of PEI.8 

“The good news is, when the soil is prepared by God, there’s going to be an explosion of spiritual fruit and the harvest will go on and on and on and on and on. A nice young man in our church was recently in Prince Edward Island and I had said in the church service that my great-grandfather was a pastor of St. James Kirk Presbyterian Kirk in Prince Edward Island back in the 1800’s. So when he was up there, he started digging around and found all kinds of things about my great-grandfather. Thomas Fullerton was his name and he was pastor there at the main church in Charlottetown for about twenty-eight years. He was a chaplain in the Canadian Military and he went to the Boer War in South Africa and fought and did ministry among the troops. And you look back and that and you say, ‘Okay, there’s a...his father was also a pastor who had been in Scotland and then gone to Australia and come there and at some point the Lord plowed the heart of that family and it just kept going and it just kept going and it kept going and it came down through my...from my great-grandfather to my grandmother, his daughter, and then through her to my father and then through me and this is the explosion and we’re all in this process somewhere. All of our lives intersect and that’s the...that’s the good news in the story and the disciples needed to hear that because it all basically looked like it wasn’t going anywhere.” (A Diagnosis of the Soils)

Those currently paying tribute to MacArthur desperately need a reality check; we should question their motives and/or their discernment. (1 John 4:1).  

11 comments:

  1. Correct me if I'm wrong - but, before His physical departure from this world, I'm absolutely positive that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth - I don't think He mentioned John MacArthur...

    ReplyDelete
  2. John MacArthur wanted others to be accountable, but he was not accountable to anyone. He had complete autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A question for you Mike –
      If it was God’s will that Christ died at Calvary for every person in the world – and scripture states in 2 Chronicles 20/6 that no one is able to withstand God – then why are there billions of people – past and present who have, and are continuing to resist God’s will?

      Delete
  3. Excellent comments Treena.
    For me Macarthur's deadliest errors were his demeaning of the Blood of Christ ( to the point where he stated in so many words " we are NOT saved by His blood") and his Calvinist gospel, which is a DIFFERENT gospel . A Christ who did not die for all of humanity is ANOTHER Christ, not the one the apostles preached. A spirit which regenerates a select group of humanity to enable them to believe and repent is ANOTHER 'holy spirit' for Christ declared the Spirit He would send would convict the WORLD of sin, which God so loved that He sent His Son to die for. He did not say "the world of the elect". That is an interpolation to fit in with a false teaching.
    After leaving the errors of Pentecostalism (which also promotes ANOTHER Spirit and Christ who is supposedly in support of the manifestations of this spirit) I tried to fellowship with Reformed believers but found I could not for the reasons given above once they were fully made known to me. The warnings about those who preach another gospel are very clear. Getting some Biblical doctrines right but the basic gospel wrong is insufficient to be among the saved when we leave this world. The fact that Macarthur is so venerated as "America's theologian" etc speaks tragic volumes regarding the beliefs and discernment of many who call themselves Christians.
    My best to you, Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Mike.. It is very puzzling that Christians revere and almost idolize MacArthur. God bless.

      Delete
  4. Hi Anonymous. Treena may wish to add to this.
    We know for a fact that God wants "ALL men to repent ( and believe the gospel)" and "it is not His will that ANY should perish", so the fact that both angels and men continue to reject God illustrates that He creates beings with free wills. The passage saying no man can resist His will cannot mean that God controls the free wills of men. Salvation is a "two way street". Jesus came firstly to His own peculiar people in the Earth who had more knowledge of God than any other race but-in the main-"they received Him not ". Bur ""ALL who received Him" in any nation " became the children of God ". (John 1) He said to the Sanhedrin " you will not come to me that ye may have Life". God knew Lucifer and Adam would rebel against Him and made arrangements re the sins of both ahead of time but it was never His will or desire that they should sin. Both resisted the will of God.
    So regarding the scripture you mention I speculate that it can only generally refer to the end of these long periods of probation when EVERY knee-angelic and human-will bow and confess that Chtist is Lord and that God has been just, merciful and righteous in all His dealings with his free will creates beings. Mike

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Mike,
    Every person is born enslaved to Sin i.e., their innate, self-ward and selfish desire to self-preserve and self-promote - this is an irrefutable fact.
    The human heart is deceitful above all things. And desperately wicked (incurably sick); Who can know it? Jeremiah 17/9
    What is also inarguable is the fact that every person born has been moulded, at any time in their life, by inherited mental, emotional and physical traits - over which they have had absolutely no control.
    For I, the Lord, am a jealous your God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation…. Exodus 18/3
    A modern-day example of inherited sin is illustrated in the way that Palestinian school children are successfully indoctrinated by parents and teachers from a very early age to denigrate, hate and kill Jews.
    No one elects their parents, their gender, their physical characteristics, their upbringing or their pre-college education - all of which are essential components in the development of anyone’s adult nature.
    And no person chooses the community, country, culture or religion into which they’re born - again, all essential factors in the formation of any individual’s character.
    At any time in their lives each person’s character is the random product of their inherited genetics expressing themselves through their life’s cumulative experiences.
    In a nutshell - each and every person is the product of creative processes over which they have had absolutely no control.
    Creative processes which have moulded and determined their essential nature.
    And it is their essential nature which will dictate their ‘free will’ response to the gospel of Christ.
    As they say, ’One man’s meat is another man’s poison’.
    There are those who would suggest that everyone is able to respond to the Gospel of Christ and, to a point, this is true, but what is much more true - is this:
    Not everyone has the inherent natural ability, because of ancestry, culture and nurture to respond positively to the Gospel of Christ.
    And so, it can be stated that a person’s ‘free’ will cannot contribute equitably to a person’s salvation - because a person’s ‘free’ will is the product of their essential nature and their essential nature, because of its chance origins and constituents, is not, and never can form the basis of a level, impartial and fair playing field.
    Therefore, it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that the exercise of ‘free will’ in the acceptance of the Gospel is no fairer, equitable or just than the biblical doctrine of divine pre-election.
    Many denounce ‘Biblical’ pre-election by labelling it as ‘Calvinist’ doctrine, but pre-election is, without doubt, Biblical and not Calvinist in its original source:
    For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8/29-30.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Jack. This is Treena's website. I will let her respond to this.
    Let me just say that there were centuries of cultural differences between the Gentile nations "who knew not God" in the first century and yet the Gospel spread like wildfire and was soon numerically dominated by non-Jews. Despite their religious and cultural privileges the majority of Jews rejected Christ and still do,yet it was constantly offered to them again and again in that era. The moment you believe God "selects"some for salvation you make him a "respector of persons" ,which the scriptures clearly refute. Thus it is misinterpretating the doctrine of the elect of God to view it that way. This Manichean doctrine of fatalism comes from Augustine who was in that cult and obviously never quite left it. Calvin idolised Augustine who was the doctrinal father of the Catholic Church.
    Trreena and I do not agree with everything taught on the following website but I think we both applaud their articles regarding Calvinism. I suggest in a friendly manner that you read them prayerfully asking God to correct you if it is needed.
    https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/02/27/calvinism-greatest-delusion/
    My best to you Treena. I leave any further comments re this topic to you! Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link Mike I am going through it now and it is very well written and thorough. I did have quite an altercation with "discerningtheworld" about the pretrib rapture a long ime ago and I have not read their posts since then. I have had a number of interactions with Jack in the past and I will not debate him again. God bless.

      Delete
    2. Hi Mike,
      Where does it say (in scripture) that God wants no-one to perish? If the scripture you had in mind was 2 Peter 3/9 then you should consider that, in his letter, Peter was addressing believers and not the whole world (2Peter 1/1). Throughout my Christian life I’ve never been prompted (by the Holy Spirit) to read the works of any early Christian writers. God promised to send His Holy Spirit to counsel and lead those who would be brought to believe in Him which - in my case, I believe He has done. You refer to the Jews - as an example of those who (mindfully) reject Christ – but their rejection is not intellectually borne from their (so called ) ‘free’ will – their rejection is due to God spiritually blinding, and therefore preventing the majority of them from accepting and believing in Christ – Romans 11/7 & 2/Cor 3/14. I don’t know how relevant this is but in finishing this response the phrase ‘first to the Jew then to the Gentile’ was brought to mind……
      God Bless you Treena.

      Delete
    3. I will not post any further comments on this subject Jack. Your aim appears to be to deconstruct the faith of others and I will not be facilitate it. I have already answered your question regarding 2 Peter 3:9 in a previous post where I responded to Rob Zins aberrant teaching: "He is patient toward you (ὑμᾶς, plural). (2 Peter 3:9). Zins' interpretation of this verse is that Peter directed this phrase to 'the reading community' whom he addressed as "Beloved" earlier in the chapter. (2 Peter 3:1). The question arises: Was Peter addressing this specific group of believers (in this case, predominantly Jewish believers), or was he including everyone in the world in these statements? The obvious problem with Zins' interpretation is that it makes no logical sense for God to say to "the elect" that he is not willing for any of them to perish. In other words, why would God say that He is not willing for any believers to perish if, according to Calvinism, 'the elect' cannot perish? If Peter was referring to 'repentance within salvation', it is highly unlikely that he would have used the term ἀπόλλυμι which implies 'permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); 'to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction' (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end. consequences."7 Zins seems to be suggesting that "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing could perish i.e. lose their salvation. Zins' deficient interpretation is fairly typical of the reductio ad absurdum that Calvinists resort to in order to manipulate the scriptures. The orthodox non-Calvinist interpretation is that God is patient and delays judgement because he desires all men everywhere to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 17:30; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Earlier in the chapter, scoffers refer to 'the promise of His coming' when they ask, 'Where is the promise of His coming?' (2 Peter 3:4). 'His promise' in 2 Peter 3:9 refers back to, and addresses the accusation on the lips of the scoffers. In other words, these verses are not directed exclusively to the 'reading community'. The context and grammar of this passage indicate that God is patient with everyone.. not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9)." https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2025/05/my-response-to-hardcore-calvinists-rob.html

      Delete