Is John MacArthur Adopting Roman Catholic Ideas?

So we're gonna be reading some quotes from John MacArthur. Now, some of these are really old, and then they're gonna get newer.

And I know for a fact that John has changed his view on some of this, which is good, and I'm glad that he has. We are not only declared righteous, we are made righteous, which is on page 98 of his work on justification by faith.

This making righteous is accomplished by infusing Christ's righteousness into Christians. I'm just gonna stop there.

Justin, what's our problem? So 11 .1 of our confession, the Second London Confession, but this would also be contained in the

Westminster and in similar language in the Belgic and other places. God justifies us not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and accounting and accepting them as righteous.

He does this for Christ's sake alone and not for anything produced in them or done by them. He does not impute faith itself, the act of believing or any other gospel obedience to them as their righteousness.

Instead, he imputes Christ's active obedience to the whole law and passive obedience in his death as their whole and only righteousness by faith.

So we've gotta make this distinction. We are declared righteous, we are counted righteous on account of Christ, and it is always

Christ's righteousness that is given to us, but that righteousness is always Christ's, not ours.

It is always alien to use the language of the reformers. So this whole idea of righteousness being infused into us is not a

Protestant category. That is a Roman Catholic medieval category. In the Council of Trent, Canon 11, it says, if anyone saith that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the

Holy Ghost and is inherent in them, so infused, or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathemate, or this is 12, if anyone saith that justification by faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake or that it is confidence alone in that whereby we are justified, let him be anathemate.

So the Catholic Church understood well what the Reformation was saying. I understand where MacArthur was going with this, basically saying if you have regeneration, then the fruits of regeneration should be evident in you, and that's different than saying you are infused with Christ's righteousness.

We are not infused with it. When you ignore history and you ignore what's come before, you tend to fall into the same trap.

So let's fast forward a little bit, Justin, into some more modern day writing that he's put out.

MacArthur says about the rich young ruler, quote, no matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ.

MacArthur would argue that Jesus actually presented the gospel to the rich young ruler, which is when he walked up and said, what must

I do to enter the kingdom? Christ said obey the law. Well, that's not gospel, that's law.

Well, or that Jesus presented gospel more precisely when he said sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me.

Whereas we would say no, what Christ was doing there actually was just turning the temperature up on the law to say, oh, well, you've claimed to have perfectly loved

God and neighbor in keeping the law, prove it by selling everything you have, giving it to the poor and following me, and of course the man can't do it.

Later on, he's talking about Judas, and his comment on this, quote, had responded, Judas had responded positively to Christ, but never with all his heart, which

I don't know anyone in the history of the world has ever responded with all their heart. Yeah, and there's a lot we could say about Judas, but what's implied in both of those quotes is that with the rich young ruler, the issue was that he was not willing to surrender all, and then with Judas, it was he did not respond positively to Jesus with all his heart.

Implication being the rich young ruler could have been saved if he had been willing to give away everything and follow

Christ. Implication, Judas would not have fallen away like he did if he had responded to Jesus with all his heart.

Let the listener discern what the emphasis is there. It's not trust and reliance upon Christ.

It's actually this thing that we bring. I'll just read this one last quote. I think it's an interesting way to kind of conclude here.

This is from Hard to Believe, so it's the most recent book. Salvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience.

Yeah, it comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in scripture.

It's the fruit of actions, not intentions. Now, here's where we go wrong. There's no room for passive spectators.

Words without actions are empty and futile. The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destiny.

And there's so much confusion there in that I agree with him, this is James, right?

Faith without works is dead. But that last phrase, no, your words do not determine your eternal destiny.

The life we live determines our eternal destiny. I mean, it is so problematic on a number of levels and it's a conflation of faith and obedience.

The good works that we do determines our eternal destiny. It's like good grief, guys.