Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For the NIV, which I happen to hold in high regard....
Be careful with Macarthur. Like others have said, he is a Dispensationalist and a proud one. Thus, you will see a dispensational bent on his exegesis and commentary on Old Testament prophecy and Revelation. Rather than spending more money on another study Bible, I would recommend looking at spending that money on Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament's Use of the Old Testament if you don't already have it.
One should also be aware that he has preached through the NT in his sermons but will not preach through the Old Testament (only selected verses from selected books). I would assume this is because of his Dispensational views that the Old Testament is not for us today, but if anyone knows differently please let us know. When looking at the study notes in the 2010 MacArthur Study Bible, the NT study notes are full and in-depth but the OT are very limited and mostly just word definitions or geographic details or small historical details. My understanding is that his students took his sermons/lectures/articles and reformatted them into notes and put them in the Bible. So, since he hasn't preached through the OT, they had very few notes to insert. So in his OT, you get a note for verse 2, 8, 14, etc. While acknowledging our theological differences, I would agree that he is one of the best dispensationalists and is an excellent speaker.
I should mention that Dispensationalism isn't even my main concern. He also promotes the "Lordship Salvation" view that is severely critiqued as "legalistic works salvation" by other Calvinists. They believe he gets "justification by faith alone" wrong by adding works/commitment/discipleship(sanctification) back into justification as a requirement of things we must do in order to be saved. So he confuses justification and sanctification.
I have to disagree with this. Yes, he is a dispensationalist in some sense (he calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist," meaning that he believes there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he doesn't believe in the classic 7 dispensations of earlier dispensationalism), but he has a solidly Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation). He clearly teaches that good works come after salvation, not before (Ephesians 2.8-10). He definitely does not confuse justification and sanctification. ... MacArthur is clear about salvation.
The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person’s behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.
Not once did I leave reading MacArthur's definition of Lordship salvation as a works based doctrine. I also believe that your understanding of his wording is incorrect.
Acts 3:19 " "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;"
Works based? I don't think so, and neither does MacArthur.
I have to disagree with this. Yes, he is a dispensationalist in some sense (he calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist," meaning that he believes there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he doesn't believe in the classic 7 dispensations of earlier dispensationalism), but he has a solidly Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation). He clearly teaches that good works come after salvation, not before (Ephesians 2.8-10). He definitely does not confuse justification and sanctification. ... MacArthur is clear about salvation.
My dear brother, I very very very much wish you were correct. I came from the MacArthurites and pray for them. They are a very well-meaning and zealous group. I think we can agree that Pastor MacArthur teaches "Lordship Salvation." This belief has been critiqued by Reformed scholars/pastors (and other Dispensationalists like Zane Hodges) as promoting a type of "works salvation." I am not at all saying that Pastor MacArthur is intentionally promoting "works salvation" - let's be super clear - he believes in "justification by faith alone." The errors are unconsciously made in his definitions/descriptions and practices and is certainly not an intended result. This criticism is made against "Lordship Salvation" because it teaches that "saving faith" includes a commitment/promise/decision/obedience to God to submit to His Lordship. Someone wrote that the term "Lordship Salvation" is incorrect to use because "lordship" is a fruit/sanctification and so does not justify.
You can find many of Pastor MacArthur's statements in "Gospel According to Jesus." He made statements like "Disobedience is unbelief." "... repentance is a critical element of genuine faith." "...faith is not complete unless it is obedient." You can read the critiques of "Lordship Salvation" on Puritanboard and in Michael Horton's "Christ is Lord" book: "He seems to be saying that we are justified, not by faith and works (the Roman Catholic View) or by a faith that works (the Protestant view) but by a faith that is works." (Page 39). Pastor MacArthur did revise his book "The Gospel According to Jesus" in response to the critique by Dr. Horton. In my opinion, unfortunately, these teachings can still be found in the revised book and in subsequent books and materials.
You can read more about Pastor MacArthur's Lordship Salvation views on his church website HERE. I get what the article is trying to communicate but the words and phrases are constructed in such a way as to suggest aspects of sanctification are included/required in "saving faith." I didn't read the whole thing, but notice how the article defines "saving faith" in such an unclear way as to suggest "surrender" or "personal commitment" (man's work) is part of "saving faith"?
The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person’s behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.
Notice also these confusing statements:
And "Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ. ... easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ." Saving faith includes "a personal commitment"?
The article defines repentance: "Repentance is a turning from sin... It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well. ... In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation." This makes it sound like turning from sin/repentance/sanctification is required for salvation.
Consider this statement: "[The gospel] was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners..." FOR repentant sinners. Above repentance is defined as "turning from sin," which sounds like sanctification. So repentant/sanctified sinners are given the "offer of eternal life and forgiveness."
The article continues "To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority." What does he mean by this? The gospel PRESUPPOSES repentance and commitment?
Again, "...the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender." There it is again. Faith involves not just surrender but now an extremely high level of surrender "unconditional surrender." Does any Christian ever offer Christ "unconditional surrender?" Don't we fail and sin and place ourselves before Him all the time, if we are honest?
Another very troubling and confusing statement: "Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him." Wait... Woah! Except Christ does exactly that! He gives eternal life to sinners, who's hearts do remain against him. Only, because he does this, their hearts WON'T remain against him. We will always remain against him - until he saves us. Only then will we change. Now if the author wrote "Those who remain lost to sin till the end will not receive eternal life," we can agree. But the way the article is phrased makes things sound reversed. Instead of these aspects of sanctification being consequences of our justification, this entire article continuously phrases them to sound like conditions/pre-requisites.
One more: "Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction."
Where is the clear teaching that we bring NOTHING to the table? NOTHING. Not commitment. Not obedience. We are disobedient all the way up until we are regenerated, converted, justified.
I have to disagree with this. Yes, he is a dispensationalist in some sense (he calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist," meaning that he believes there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he doesn't believe in the classic 7 dispensations of earlier dispensationalism), but he has a solidly Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation). He clearly teaches that good works come after salvation, not before (Ephesians 2.8-10). He definitely does not confuse justification and sanctification. ... MacArthur is clear about salvation.
My dear brother, I very very very much wish you were correct. I came from the MacArthurites and pray for them. They are a very well-meaning and zealous group. I think we can agree that Pastor MacArthur teaches "Lordship Salvation." This belief has been critiqued by Reformed scholars/pastors (and other Dispensationalists like Zane Hodges) as promoting a type of "works salvation." I am not at all saying that Pastor MacArthur is intentionally promoting "works salvation" - let's be super clear - he believes in "justification by faith alone." The errors are unconsciously made in his definitions/descriptions and practices and is certainly not an intended result. This criticism is made against "Lordship Salvation" because it teaches that "saving faith" includes a commitment/promise/decision/obedience to God to submit to His Lordship. Someone wrote that the term "Lordship Salvation" is incorrect to use because "lordship" is a fruit/sanctification and so does not justify.
You can find many of Pastor MacArthur's statements in "Gospel According to Jesus." He made statements like "Disobedience is unbelief." "... repentance is a critical element of genuine faith." "...faith is not complete unless it is obedient." You can read the critiques of "Lordship Salvation" on Puritanboard and in Michael Horton's "Christ is Lord" book: "He seems to be saying that we are justified, not by faith and works (the Roman Catholic View) or by a faith that works (the Protestant view) but by a faith that is works." (Page 39). Pastor MacArthur did revise his book "The Gospel According to Jesus" in response to the critique by Dr. Horton. In my opinion, unfortunately, these teachings can still be found in the revised book and in subsequent books and materials.
You can read more about Pastor MacArthur's Lordship Salvation views on his church website HERE. I get what the article is trying to communicate but the words and phrases are constructed in such a way as to suggest aspects of sanctification are included/required in "saving faith." I didn't read the whole thing, but notice how the article defines "saving faith" in such an unclear way as to suggest "surrender" or "personal commitment" (man's work) is part of "saving faith"?
The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person’s behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.
Notice also these confusing statements:
And "Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ. ... easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ." Saving faith includes "a personal commitment"?
The article defines repentance: "Repentance is a turning from sin... It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well. ... In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation." This makes it sound like turning from sin/repentance/sanctification is required for salvation.
Consider this statement: "[The gospel] was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners..." FOR repentant sinners. Above repentance is defined as "turning from sin," which sounds like sanctification. So repentant/sanctified sinners are given the "offer of eternal life and forgiveness."
The article continues "To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority." What does he mean by this? The gospel PRESUPPOSES repentance and commitment?
Again, "...the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender." There it is again. Faith involves not just surrender but now an extremely high level of surrender "unconditional surrender." Does any Christian ever offer Christ "unconditional surrender?" Don't we fail and sin and place ourselves before Him all the time, if we are honest?
Another very troubling and confusing statement: "Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him." Wait... Woah! Except Christ does exactly that! He gives eternal life to sinners, who's hearts do remain against him. Only, because he does this, their hearts WON'T remain against him. We will always remain against him - until he saves us. Only then will we change. Now if the author wrote "Those who remain lost to sin till the end will not receive eternal life," we can agree. But the way the article is phrased makes things sound reversed. Instead of these aspects of sanctification being consequences of our justification, this entire article continuously phrases them to sound like conditions/pre-requisites.
One more: "Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction."
Where is the clear teaching that we bring NOTHING to the table? NOTHING. Not commitment. Not obedience. We are disobedient all the way up until we are regenerated, converted, justified.
I have to disagree with this. Yes, he is a dispensationalist in some sense (he calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist," meaning that he believes there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he doesn't believe in the classic 7 dispensations of earlier dispensationalism), but he has a solidly Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation). He clearly teaches that good works come after salvation, not before (Ephesians 2.8-10). He definitely does not confuse justification and sanctification.
Here is MacArthur, from his website, on Lordship Salvation ; http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A114/an-introduction-to-lordship-salvationJoe, who are Boice and Packer?
In Lordship Salvation, are good works those works which we do unto the Lord? Such as my day job. MacArthur doesn't seem like the sort of man to tell me that I need to do fantastic works to be sanctified. He seems to have a grasp of reality, the Word included.