Certain preachers

[jamantc]

I hope that I am posting this in the correct area, and if not I deeply apologize as I am still trying to figure my way around the forum. I have been a fan of John MacArthur's since I was 16 years old. I listen to him every morning on the way to work and I have read many books by him, which I find to be informative and probably one the largest reasons I have come to understand more and more the grace of God's love and His Sovereignty over creation and beyond. As many have read my introduction here when I joined the forum, I am new and somewhat old (without understanding) to the reformed faith but am thankful more than words could ever say or actions could ever imply for God's grace upon me and my family! I am curious to how many folks like John MacArthur and his works? I am wanting to study the Bible in greater depth to draw even closer to God as I seek Him daily which I know I can only do with heart, soul, and mind if I am truly saved due to the scripture saying this. My first commentary was Romans by William Hendriksen. I have recently borrowed a copy of my pastor's JM book on 1 Peter and have found it to be a very easy to read and follow commentary. I know they are greater writers than JM out there and probably even greater commentary writers, but reading 1 Peter by him just seemed easy to follow and understand, or it could be that God has just made me easier to understand things since I have come the believe of total Sovereignty over my and my family our complete lives. Anyway, any thoughts on JM and his commentaries would be greatly appreciated if anyone has read several or all of him commentary work. Thanks!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

John Macarthur is excellent in many areas and I too often find him helpful. Where he tends to drift in my opinion is in his dispensationalism. As for his commentaries, they are not particularly academic in nature, but they can be quite good depending on the particular book being exposited. Avoid his commentary on Revelation at all costs, and exercise caution with the rest of the series.

 

[jamantc]

Gotcha. I have the Geneva Study Bible I have had for quite some years, along with a Nelson's NKJV and an HCSB, is there any more you may recommend with those or is that enough? I have read a variety of others books and stuff as well. I enjoyed many of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's books along with Piper, White, a few of Luther's books, and countless others, I just love to read. Now that I've finally figured it out as to why my beliefs were always different growing up from my Methodist congregation and understanding God's sovereignty and grace more and more, I am wanting to branch out into further study of God's word. When I realized I truly believed what scared me to begin with, I dove into Romans first and with Hendriksen's commentary because I was told if I want to know what I believe, the place is to start in Romans and the book was given to me for keeps .

 

[reaganmarsh]

John Macarthur is excellent in many areas and I too often find him helpful. Where he tends to drift in my opinion is in his dispensationalism. As for his commentaries, they are not particularly academic in nature, but they can be quite good depending on the particular book being exposited. Avoid his commentary on Revelation at all costs, and exercise caution with the rest of the series.

Agreed. He is an excellent expositor of the Word and I too have learned much from his ministry. However, his dispensationalist approach leaves much to be desired. That being said, I consult his writings and sermons frequently and with much spiritual profit, and praise God for the way he had seen fit to use Dr. MacArthur for his glory and good of many souls.

Welcome to the PB, by the way!

 

[reaganmarsh]

Gotcha. I have the Geneva Study Bible I have had for quite some years, along with a Nelson's NKJV and an HCSB, is there any more you may recommend with those or is that enough? I have read a variety of others books and stuff as well. I enjoyed many of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's books along with Piper, White, a few of Luther's books, and countless others, I just love to read. Now that I've finally figured it out as to why my beliefs were always different growing up from my Methodist congregation and understanding God's sovereignty and grace more and more, I am wanting to branch out into further study of God's word. When I realized I truly believed what scared me to begin with, I dove into Romans first and with Hendriksen's commentary because I was told if I want to know what I believe, the place is to start in Romans and the book was given to me for keeps .

You may find the "Spirit of the Reformation" study Bible helpful (despite being NIV; its outstanding feature is how its footnotes are linked to the 6 major reformed confessions/catechisms throughout the Scripture). Also, I've greatly enjoyed my ESV Study Bible.

 

[Fly Caster]

The biggest problem that I have with MacArthur is the inconsistency of his teaching content with his catch-slogan --"Unleashing God's Truth, One Verse at a Time." It should read something more like "Unleashing about 1/4th of God's Truth, One Verse at a Time."

This is a consequence of his Dispensationalism-- He simply does not preach the Old Testament. One can go to the GTY website and search sermons by scripture reference to see what I mean.

I want to be fair. I have a great appreciation for JM's ministry and the pastoral integrity that he has shown for many years. His teaching has been a great help to me personally, especailly when I was coming to embrace the Doctrines of Grace several years ago. There are some sermon series from Old Testament passages-- most notably an excellent series on the Creation account. Other than that, his OT expositions mostly have to do with foundational texts of the Dispensational system (ex. Daniel).

What you won't find in his sermons are anything on the Psalms, or the 10 Commandments, or Leviticus or having to do with the Covenants. In fairness, I recognize that OT passages are sometimes incorporated into NT sermons and I'm aware that scripture is so vast that few could manage to exposit it all in a lifetime of ministry.

But it does bother me that a man with a preaching ministry of 30-40 years does not deem it worthwhile to spend just a few hours of preaching time expositing the Law of God.

 

[jamantc]

All thoughts and comments noted and appreciated . So far, I am enjoying being a member of the PB for the short length of a week! I am just getting ideas on who and what to read to further my study of God's truth. As I stated before, I am new and somewhat old to the reform belief (unknowing it was what I believed while living an Arminian lifestyle that was totally contrary to their walk of life). Thank God not just for preachers and teachers of His word, but for others who have matured and can lead you in the direction needed to grow! As I've stated in my opening statement to the introduction board, what weighed on me the most was the Arminian stance of God looking down the corridor of time and seeing who would say yes, but refusing to see those same people as the elect and whom Christ died for and refusing to say the others were left to their sins. Maybe I am wrong in my understanding of their view, but it doesn't make since to say God knew yet Christ died for more than those God knew would choose Him as they would still be God's elect and nothing could snatch them from His hand. For them to say God saw who would say yes to his offer and then say they could fall never made sense to me, because if God knew they would choose Him, then they would be His and no one could remove them from His hands as is clearly stated. How can one be elect by God's sovereign choice or by looking through time before the foundation of the creation of the world and lose his or her salvation? That is a ludacrious in and of itself. I personally believe God chooses as His word backs this, even to the point my 10 year old understands it. "Even if possible" tells me the true believer in Christ and His elect cannot be deceived and will not be deceived according to my understand of reading God's word. Besides, I never agreed with the superstitious beliefs of the Methodist which in my opinion in nothing more than pagan beliefs incorporated into the church. God has mercy on who He has mercy and who are we to question Him? I understand the heart of man wishing for everyone to go to heaven, but scripture cannot be cloudy by a finite mind when an infinite Creator is in control! This is why I want to know more about God's truths as my heart has always longed for them, even in my darkest days, but no more than now since He has opened me more than ever to received His word. If I am wrong, please tell me .

 

[Solparvus]

I'm not a frequent listener, but his book "The Jesus You Can't Ignore" showed me that the Christ of the Bible is not the overemphasized "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" we see today. It was one step in realizing that Christ is truly a Lord, and not only Savior. Most of what I've heard or read has been solid (save the dispensationalism). I highly recommend him.

 

[jamantc]

That was one of the books that lead me to seeing the truth as well, Harley. I found it very good and more accurate than books I have read at suggestion of my Arminian friends who try to sway my thoughts, which ultimately couldn't be done

 

[Andres]

There are certainly far worse people to read/listen to than Dr. MacArthur. With that said, I also believe there are also far better men to read/listen to as well, especially if you desire a reformed teaching of scripture. Dr MacArthur is Calvinistic in his soteriology, but I don't know anyone who would referred to him as Reformed in the traditional, confessional sense.

I taught through 1 Peter about a year ago in Sunday school. The commentary we used was by Dr Edmund Clowney. you might give it a try.

 

[jamantc]

Thanks, Andrew. I saw that book online the other day and was curious about it. I believe I may do just that brother

 

[Solparvus]

That was one of the books that lead me to seeing the truth as well, Harley. I found it very good and more accurate than books I have read at suggestion of my Arminian friends who try to sway my thoughts, which ultimately couldn't be done

Excellent

It is true that in traditional Reformed theology he's not the best. He's also not Sabbatarian (though holds somewhat an elevated view of the Lord's Day). However, I've no doubt God has raised him up for such a time as this. When most professing Christians are not even grasping the fundamentals of the Gospel, he presents them unmistakably. My father studies his materials regularly and finds them incredibly helpful. Him and I both came out of an easy-believism Charismatic church, and for my father especially he was a breath of fresh air.

If you read the Pyromaniacs blog (co-authored by fellow pastor Phil Johnson), you see that MacArthur and his fellow ministers, both in the pulpit, in their writings, and in their books, are not afraid to confront modern day Christianized superstitions (eg. Charismata, fruitless Christianity, etc.). One thing I think they do very well is speak to the conscience. I check that blog regularly and profit from it.

By the way, welcome to the board!

 

[jamantc]

Same here, Harley. I went from the superstitious Methodist to the even more unbelievable Charismatic Pentecostal. Thankful none of either denomination made much sense to me according to scripture and God moved where I needed to be. I am learning more every day and stand more in humility and humbleness daily. I do love the fact they aren't afraid to confront such issues as well, especially the fruitless Christianity. The thing Methodist did for me was to keep me confused. I never knew if what I did was going to cause me to lose my salvation or make me an apostate, and that was one of the things I couldn't match to scripture about the believer either. I just honestly thank Him daily for many things, but for His grace and mercy upon me and my family and for more mature Christians in my life than I.

 

[JP Wallace]

But it does bother me that a man with a preaching ministry of 30-40 years does not deem it worthwhile to spend just a few hours of preaching time expositing the Law of God.

Yes, I researched that myself a couple of years ago, 40 years and only about 40 sermons (of that from the OT). However, I suppose that's more a problem for his congregation that for us as readers.

My other criticism is that he does not make much by way of application in his sermons, and that's deliberate, he believes the Holy Spirit applies God's Word (which of course is true), but I think we should assist people in understanding the implications in daily life too (as Paul and Peter and so forth do and importantly as Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to do!).

Theologically dispensational (hence bizarre neglect of OT), non-Sabbatarian, does not teach the Regulative Principle of Worship, not Covenantal. With these issues in mind he's useful, but I reccomend Hendriksen over him any day, by far.

What's he particularly good at? I think he is one of the best at explaining the cultural background to the Gospels.

 

[irresistible_grace]

In case you might be interested, my husband is really enjoying the LECTIO CONTINUA Commentaries.
Galatians (The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary) - Reformation Heritage Books
1 Corinthians - The Lectio Continua: Expository Commentary on the New Testament - Reformation Heritage Books

As regards the original post, I would take Hendriksen over MacArthur any day (for ALL of the reasons mentioned throughout this thread).

 

[jamantc]

Thanks, JP and Jessica. I loved Hendriksen as well. I will look at that as well, Jessica

 

[Josh Williamson]

I would highly recommend Dr. MacArthur. While we would disagree on end times, I do think that the church would benefit greatly from the ministry of JMac.

 

[reaganmarsh]

... does not teach the Regulative Principle of Worship, ...

Pastor Wallace,

I agree with you on your assessment of Dr. MacArthur's errors due to his dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures, and that he certainly ought to preach the OT and the Law. However, if I may offer one respectful correction to your remark: he does teach the RPW. I refer you to his "Worship: The Ultimate Priority," chapter 2. It is entitled "How Shall We Then Worship?" and gives a solid exposition of the RPW.

 

[JP Wallace]

Reagan

I have not read the book but I have viewed some of the worship services clips on You tube - it does not appear to me to be in keeping with the RPW as I understand it i.e there are choirs, soloistsm orchestra etc.. A long shot more conservative that most granted!

 

[jamantc]

love all the comments . thanks!

 

[reaganmarsh]

Reagan

I have not read the book but I have viewed some of the worship services clips on You tube - it does not appear to me to be in keeping with the RPW as I understand it i.e there are choirs, soloistsm orchestra etc.. A long shot more conservative that most granted!

I appreciate you pointing that out, as I've only read his work (not viewed it). I defer to your familiarity!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

There are much better works to reference than Dr. MacArhur. A lot better works where his hermeneutic doesn't have to be sifted through. I agree that he has been beneficial for those who have been raised and taught in the classical dispensational thought. But that only goes so far and keeps one tied basically to the same hermeneutical approach to understanding the Bible. I would refer others to better commentaries where there isn't so much of the underlying principle of interpretation that needs to be considered and done away with.


The Crossway Classic Commentary series is a great set.
John Gill is great and I use him a lot. Plus, his commentaries are free online as are many others such as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown or Matthew Poole.
The Welwyn Commentary series is awesome.


I would encourage others to focus more on trying to get to the good stuff without having to wade through the stuff that isn't as good. And that was the same counsel I gave as a Reformed Baptist. I was one of those for 30 years and I don't ever think I endorsed JM's commentaries. I basicallly stopped reading JM commentaries over 20 years ago. As an example, I did glean some good things from his Hebrews commentary but found his implementation of millenial doctrine in strange places to be rather disturbing. He would place the teaching in texts where it wasn't even called for. If I remember correctly he did this in Hebrews chapter 6 or 7. His dispensational gymnastics are hard to avoid and not worth unlearning if you don't have to.

 

[Vladimir]

It is a little bit off-topic, but can anyone recommend a good ESV study bible? I was looking into MacArthur, but I am reconsidering.

 

[Reformedfellow]

It is a little bit off-topic, but can anyone recommend a good ESV study bible? I was looking into MacArthur, but I am reconsidering.

Off topic yes, but I can't resist. Dr. Joel Beeke is heading the soon to be released, and first, KJV Study Bible entirely from a reformed perspective. I'm super excited to see how this will turn out. (Just study it alongside your ESV if you don't wanna read the AV text)

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It is a little bit off-topic, but can anyone recommend a good ESV study bible? I was looking into MacArthur, but I am reconsidering.

Off topic yes, but I can't resist. Dr. Joel Beeke is heading the soon to be released, and first, KJV Study Bible entirely from a reformed perspective. I'm super excited to see how this will turn out. (Just study it alongside your ESV if you don't wanna read the AV text)

Maybe someone will come out with a parallel ESV/KJV study Bible. It would probably be about two feet thick and weigh 50 pounds, but it would be sweet.

 

[Vladimir]

It is a little bit off-topic, but can anyone recommend a good ESV study bible? I was looking into MacArthur, but I am reconsidering.

Off topic yes, but I can't resist. Dr. Joel Beeke is heading the soon to be released, and first, KJV Study Bible entirely from a reformed perspective. I'm super excited to see how this will turn out. (Just study it alongside your ESV if you don't wanna read the AV text)

That one is not out until 2014.

Maybe someone will come out with a parallel ESV/KJV study Bible. It would probably be about two feet thick and weigh 50 pounds, but it would be sweet.

They'd probably come up with a 2-point text Compact® version of that in a few months anyway.

 

[jamantc]

Thanks again guys! Love reading all the comments. With all that's been said, I do enjoy reading JM's books, non-commentary books. I like His writing style, and because of him I actually learned why I was different growing up with beliefs. Not entirely up to him, since God showed me the way, but I could also say God show me the way through JM and maybe that's JM's mission in life is to lead those who are true believers to Christ through his writings and teachings. There's a foot stone to everything in life and for some, that is their purpose is to be the stepping stone to fuller pathways I guess one could say

 

[Don Kistler]

With all that has been said about John MacArthur's dispensationalism, one thing it has NOT led him into is dispensationalism's inherent antinomianism. John has led the charge for "lordship salvation," and has stressed for years that one cannot be a Christian who is not striving for obedience to God. His eschatological views are not grievous errors. The late James Boice held the same ones as does MacArthur.

He has repeatedly said that he sees a difference between Israel and the church, and that is the extent of his dispensationalism. Whether or not that is true, I'll leave all of you folks to discuss and debate. But it is much more important that John is not an antimominan, and that his understanding of the gospel of faith and repentance in Christ as Lord is rock solid.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Amen Dr. Kistler! He doesn't have a cheap grace.

 

[Solparvus]

With all that has been said about John MacArthur's dispensationalism, one thing it has NOT led him into is dispensationalism's inherent antinomianism. John has led the charge for "lordship salvation," and has stressed for years that one cannot be a Christian who is not striving for obedience to God. His eschatological views are not grievous errors. The late James Boice held the same ones as does MacArthur.

He has repeatedly said that he sees a difference between Israel and the church, and that is the extent of his dispensationalism. Whether or not that is true, I'll leave all of you folks to discuss and debate. But it is much more important that John is not an antimominan, and that his understanding of the gospel of faith and repentance in Christ as Lord is rock solid.

Thus, one of the signposts in the road to my conversion.