Featured Anyone want Barnhouse’s Romans books?

Discussion in 'Book Exchange' started by StephenMartyr, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. StephenMartyr

    StephenMartyr Puritan Board Freshman

    After reading about Barnhouse’s apparently dispensational (maybe slightly?) leanings I’m not sure if the two volume Romans series I have will be read. Rather than keep them, maybe they can go to a good home. Any one interested? Unless you think they are worthwhile and something I should go through.
     
  2. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    I have Barnhouse. I've listened to him more than I've read him. But what I have heard of him was always quite good (in my humble estimation). You may not be wrong about his leanings. Though it isn't anything I've ever looked into, it wouldn't surprise me given the time in which he ministered. But I would caution you against throwing any man out on such grounds. I have some men in my library who, notwithstanding their errors, have proved immensely helpful to me in other areas. I mark the places where they are wont to be amiss and move past it. I eat the watermelon... and spit out the seeds.

    "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Prov. 11:14). And in a book like Romans, it is certainly a benefit to hear a range of godly expositors. Not all counselors will be of equal value. But they are all of some value.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Edifying Edifying x 1
    • List
  3. StephenMartyr

    StephenMartyr Puritan Board Freshman

    I appreciate this a lot :)
     
  4. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    At the time Barnhouse ministered (1920s until his death in 1960), dispensationalism had made some serious inroads in Reformed churches, which explains his leanings in that direction. I've read parts of his Romans series. Somewhere in there, he rails against the need for confessions of faith and catechisms in Christianity. That's the point where I stopped reading. (Also, the series isn't really specifically about Romans. He uses texts from Romans as jumping-off places to talk about other things.)

    Fortunately, the Reformed world has managed to eject dispensationalism from its churches since Barnhouse's time.

    Not recommended.
     
  5. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    Barnhouse was pre-trib. So was his successor J.M. Boice, although the latter was probably much more solid overall, with him emphasizing it much less and also strongly opposing the Dallas Seminary "free grace" or "no Lordship" theology. (If I'm not mistaken, the pew Bibles at Tenth Pres. were Scofields in Barnhouse's day.) If you have any Boice books that I don't have, please send them my way! I don't know about Barnhouse, but Boice (I think) upheld the unity of the covenant of grace and so can't properly be termed a dispensationalist. Ditto for Schaeffer.

    (I've seen it argued more than once that Boice switched to post-trib later in his ministry. But I've never seen any proof of this, and have seen definite proof otherwise as late as 1986, when in his "Foundations of the Christian Faith" he referred the reader to his little pre-trib book as containing his views on eschatology. He also suggests that its possible that the temple will be rebuilt in his Minor Prophets commentary, published the same year, I think.)

    While some would knock Barnhouse (and Tenth) for remaining in the PCUSA, he was a stalwart at a time in which people were turning to liberalism left and right, and abandoning the authority of the Bible. His works certainly aren't indispensable, and there are certainly better choices, but his place in history should be kept in perspective.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  6. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    I think this forum is designed for loaning or exchanging books rather than selling. For sales, go to the "Let's Do Business" forum. But hey, if you want to give them away, I'll pay shipping. :D
     
  7. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Dr Boice was excellent, and I think that he did switch to the historical Premil position later on in his life.
     
  8. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    I doubt he ever gave up pre-trib, even if he may have disagreed with Scofield and Chafer on some other things. The Scofields weren't removed from the pews until Boice got there, (for the first link, scroll to "Why Tenth uses the ESV") and that may have mainly been due to Boice's opposition to the Scofield notes teaching on the carnal Christian and other departures from "Lordship Salvation."

    Likewise, some have said that Pink was abandoning amil and going back to dispensationalism at the end of his life, something for which there is no evidence. Others have said that Schaeffer was post-trib. I think the main source for that is the idea that a Presbyterian just can't possibly be pre-trib. But that seems to have been a fairly common view among more broadly evangelical and fundamentalist Presbyterians in the early and mid 20th Century. And Schaeffer had been part of the Bible Presbyterian Church, (which revised the WCF to teach premil) which in part split from the OPC over tolerance of that kind of teaching.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  9. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    If I remember correctly it is not specifically a commentary he wrote for publication, but a collection of his radio addresses on Romans. So he did go on rabbit trails in the course of these addresses.
     
  10. C. M. Sheffield

    C. M. Sheffield Puritan Board Junior

    Similar criticisms were made of Lloyd-Jones' series on Romans.

     
  11. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    That was what was surprising to me when come over from Dispensational theology full blown, as found out that there have been a minority of prominent Reformed who held to historical premil, even the pre trib pre mil position!
     
  12. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    That series was usually said to be an excellent study source.
     
  13. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    The same could probably be said of all of his sermons if what one is looking for is verse by verse expository preaching that sticks very close to the text. But I think MLJ may be closer to the Puritan style as opposed to a MacArthur.

    Speaking of a man mentioned above, Boice's commentaries are also very respected by many, but I've noticed in at least some of the "expositional" ones that he doesn't even cover all of the verses or at any rate doesn't address some things that you would expect to be addressed in a more vbv commentary or sermon series.
     
  14. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The same was often said of the commentaries by Warren Weirsbe, but they were more devotional and practical.
     
  15. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    The rabbit trails are deliberate, I think. At the beginning of Volume 1, I think, he says something to the effect that he's using the text of Romans as a way of looking at other topics that may have only a tenuous relationship to Romans.
     
  16. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    I think that D. A. Carson said somewhere that you can learn a lot from Lloyd-Jones, but only if you can read very quickly (love Lloyd-Jones though he did).
     
  17. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    And it's been said that Spurgeon actually exposited the actual biblical text of his sermons only about 50% of the time.
     
  18. Ebo

    Ebo Puritan Board Freshman

    God bless you all, it’s refreshing observing your considerations of Barnhouse and others. God be glorified
     

Share This Page