News About John MacArthur's Commentary Series

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I've just purchased the fourth and final volume of his commentary on Luke (I was up at his church's bookstore in Sun Valley, CA) yesterday. I was told by bookstore staff that his last commentary - on Mark's gospel - will be published in two volumes in March, 2015 (five months from now). These two volumes will complete his commentary series.

Bibliographically, it will look like this: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur; 33 volumes (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1983-2015). It's quite a remarkable achievement: to preach, in detail, through the entire New Testament, then publish the results as as set of commentaries.

I know that MacArthur is not completely Reformed and that one will not agree with everything he writes, but his commentaries do contain a lot of wisdom and insights into the text - and they're conservative (even if not completely Reformed). My pastor has told me that MacArthur has a lot of good things to say about Revelation, for example.

So, there you have it, sports fans. His commentary series will be complete by next spring, DV.
 
That's the first I've heard on John MacArthur not being reformed. I think his view of the end times, along with him being a Baptist, might conflict with the beliefs of people on the board, but at least in my definition, I see him as completely reformed. He also puts a ton of work into his studies, even if a few things might seem a little off
 
That's the first I've heard on John MacArthur not being reformed. I think his view of the end times, along with him being a Baptist, might conflict with the beliefs of people on the board, but at least in my definition, I see him as completely reformed. He also puts a ton of work into his studies, even if a few things might seem a little off

Brother John is, by and large, a Dispensationalist and he makes no quibbles about it. While his harmitology and soteriology are in the neighborhood, his ecclesiology is a long way from being Reformed. He doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for being called Reformed. Being Reformed is much more that soteriology. I certainly consider him a brother and he has done much to help steer the goofiiness called pop-evangelicalism from it's thoroughly humanistic tendencies, and he provides entertainment, especially his dealings with the "charismaniacs".

It is commendable that he has done so much work in commentaries...........
 
In the words of RC Sproul "Covenant Theology is Reformed Theology".

So, as much as I love and respect Brother John, he doesn't really "fit" the definition of "Reformed".

I think "Reformed" is what you are when the "Three Cs" are true: Calvinist, Covenant Theology, Confessional.
 
Phil Johnson:

Moreover, in all the years I have known John MacArthur, he has never pretended to be "Reformed" in the technical sense of the word. He does say that his perspective on soteriology is essentially Reformed and Calvinistic, because that's a fact.... But, despite the persistent caricature frequently batted around the dark side of the blogosphere, neither he nor I have any wish to coopt the capital-R label "Reformed" in the sense of "Truly Reformed." Nor have we ever claimed that we own the legitimate copyright to the R-label.

Pyromaniacs: See, here's the thing:
 
Last edited:
Curious, what does your Pastor say about the sort of good things MacArthur has to say about Revelation, as a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist?
I believe he's also Pre-Trib, isn't he?

As much as I appreciate some of the things that MacArthur has said over the years, he's also a man without accountability to either a Creed or Denomination. He famously at one point in his teachings denied the Eternal Sonship of the Son of God. Fortunately, he has reversed his position on that. But for many years he wrote and defended this view.

Without accountability to a Confession, those who are under him are at the mercy of John MacArthur's current understanding of the Scriptures. That's a dangerous place for Christ's people to be in, particularly for someone with as much influence as he holds. It is certainly not the way to organize the Church. In a Reformed Church if a minister's views on the Scriptures departs from their Confession, the minister leaves the Church. In John MacArthur's case - the Church accommodates his views.

I do not think that people recognize the huge danger in that. We should reflect on that for a moment.

Make no mistake, I think he's a brilliant, godly man. But I do not think he is Reformed.
 
While I'm far from dispensationalist, when I use the term reformed, I normally am referring to the belief in the sovereignty of God, and basically agreeing with the 5 points of Calvinism. Just how I always thought of the term. I don't mean to derail the topic though.
 
Curious, what does your Pastor say about the sort of good things MacArthur has to say about Revelation, as a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist?
I believe he's also Pre-Trib, isn't he?

As much as I appreciate some of the things that MacArthur has said over the years, he's also a man without accountability to either a Creed or Denomination. He famously at one point in his teachings denied the Eternal Sonship of the Son of God. Fortunately, he has reversed his position on that. But for many years he wrote and defended this view.

Without accountability to a Confession, those who are under him are at the mercy of John MacArthur's current understanding of the Scriptures. That's a dangerous place for Christ's people to be in, particularly for someone with as much influence as he holds. It is certainly not the way to organize the Church. In a Reformed Church if a minister's views on the Scriptures departs from their Confession, the minister leaves the Church. In John MacArthur's case - the Church accommodates his views.

I do not think that people recognize the huge danger in that. We should reflect on that for a moment.

Make no mistake, I think he's a brilliant, godly man. But I do not think he is Reformed.

I definitely disagree with this. No Pastor has to fully agree with a creed or fully agree with a denomination. He can still have full accountability in the body or perhaps in other ways. Luther wouldn't tie himself to a creed, he would tie himself to conscious and what He sees in God's word, and not one word of man outside of scripture would be able to sway him otherwise, unless of course, it was something he saw himself and confirmed in the Word. Again. Luther himself is not an infallible human, but I see absolutely no danger in that.

The only thing I see danger in is being seen in such a high regard as a Pastor. I hope he has accountability in his life left and right because he definitely needs it.
 
In the words of RC Sproul "Covenant Theology is Reformed Theology".

So, as much as I love and respect Brother John, he doesn't really "fit" the definition of "Reformed".

I think "Reformed" is what you are when the "Three Cs" are true: Calvinist, Covenant Theology, Confessional.

Thanks for this as well. I haven't really thought of the term in that was as far as covenant theology, but I think it helps.
 
I definitely disagree with this. No Pastor has to fully agree with a creed or fully agree with a denomination. He can still have full accountability in the body or perhaps in other ways. Luther wouldn't tie himself to a creed, he would tie himself to conscious and what He sees in God's word, and not one word of man outside of scripture would be able to sway him otherwise, unless of course, it was something he saw himself and confirmed in the Word. Again. Luther himself is not an infallible human, but I see absolutely no danger in that.

The only thing I see danger in is being seen in such a high regard as a Pastor. I hope he has accountability in his life left and right because he definitely needs it.

What would happen, were you to change your views on Baptism? Should you be allowed to teach Paedo-Baptism in your Southern Baptist Denomination? That seems to be the logical conclusion to what you just said. You are not above the elders of the Church, you are a single elder in the Church. John MacArthur is more akin to a Prelate, who is not subject to anyone. When his views change, the Church's views change.

When it comes to Confessions - I am not saying someone cannot take good-faith exceptions to certain things in a Confession. Even then, men are then instructed not to teach contrary to the Church's Confession of Faith.

Consider, what form should the accountability that you "hope" MacArthur has take? The American Church landscape is full of the littered remains of churches who have been destroyed because "the pastor" has broken the church due to his lack of real accountability. The recent news of a certain Megachurch pastor's stranglehold on his supposed "board of accountability" should make this self evident, especially if you believe Reformed views on Anthropology (the T in TULIP, for instance).

Lutherans are not technically Reformed. But that said, if you do recall, Luther's church did create the Augsburg confession and the Book of Concord. How do we know what the Church believes without a Confession? Why are we even here on this site - if we do not think the Confessions are important to bind the Church together so that we can all walk as one?

Having been at churches in the past, where the whim of doctrine changed because of who the latest preacher is (we went from Arminian to 4-point "Calvinist" by changing pastors once). you haven't looked very hard at the landscape here in America where this happens often. The wreck that new pastor's views caused in the church was monstrous. People leaving because suddenly the church no longer believed what it purported to for decades before.

Also think about this: MacArthur's Church sat under his teaching for a long time while he denied the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Should make us pause. And who was going to correct him in his church? No one, as he is the "Pastor-Theologian" who dictates doctrine.

If you do not think this is dangerous to Christ's People, I suggest you reflect and reconsider.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top