Soap Box 40- A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF 'THE MACARTHUR STUDY BIBLE'

Permission for quotes requested and pending.


The author and general editor of this Bible is John MacArthur, Jr., pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley California. He is the radio voice on the program, "Grace to You" and president of The Master's College and Seminary. He is a graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary. He is author of many books.

Two books, The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works The Gospel According to the Apostles, are two works defending Lordship Salvation while exposing No-Lordship Salvation to many shortcomings, as John MacArthur sees them as such. Several terms are used to describe No-Lordship Salvation, namely, 'easy-believism' and 'cheap grace'. His ministry, ( to the writer ) will always be colored by this doctrinal position found in these two above mentioned books. He may consider it a feather in his cap. This writer feels it is more than a feather but a whole bird, an albatross around his neck. From this writers perspective, MacArthur had every right to pursue his position and point to flaws in other 'brethren's positions'. We all do this. The contention of this writer is that he could have done a much better job. John MacArthur might be the first to agree with this, but of course, not for the same reason as the writer of this paper.

It is interesting to this writer, that as MacArthur takes his position in these two above mentioned books, he not only gathers supporters from his own circle ( those in his church, seminary and supporters from radio, but not limited to these) but also avowed critics who see ( not just a small circle or school of dispensationalism as infected with easy-believism and cheap grace) but who see all dispensationalists ( including, I believe, MacArthur's own flavor of dispensationalism) as less than an essential Christian movement and to be recognized as spurious Calvinism and dubious or false evangelicalism.

(See, Wrongly Dividing The Word of Truth, A Critque of Dispensationism, pages 2 and 3.)

In other words, the late John Gerstner, with the endorsement of R. C. Sproul and Dr. J.I. Packer, has concluded that Dispensationalism is a non-Christian movement. Gerstner's radical arrogance is exposed here. Gerstner assumes the mantle of a super-savior in extreme fashion. This apostle of (truth as he sees it), reminds one of that select group of friends of Job ( who believed they were born with truth on their tongue and truth would die when they did) and like James and John who wanted to call fire down from heaven. Jesus said that they did not know what manner of spirit they were of. Luke 9:49-55 Truth rises, shines and sets in their theology.

MacArthur recognizes the extreme position of these above-mentioned avowed critics of Dispensationalism in Faith Works, pages 224-225, but is seemingly willing to be identified with them in some points of criticism in spite of their gross misunderstanding, wrong assumptions and unfair portrayal of the whole system of dispensationalism.

In a paper written to evaluate the two positions, this writer has made a small chart to compare the differences of approach.

Lordship Salvation	No Lordship Salvation
Synthesis	Analysis
Inclusive	Exclusive
Target	Bulls eye only
Buckshot	Bullet
Movie Film	One Frame at a Time

The key for all to see is that ( as humans ) those on both sides are smaller than the grace and truth that can be found in each position. The good men on both sides have lacked the wisdom of calling a 'dispensational group council' where the goal is reconciliation, and the meeting is not over until settlement has been reached.

Since most 'Grace' movement believers are really outside of this engagement, there are no sides to take. That is, there is much to be gained by listening, learning and observing the developments, coming from both sides, but the 'Grace' position exists independent of both of these positions. An example of what would be gained is to look at the 'MacArthur Study Bible'.

The opening page gives us the Author and General Editor, John MacArthur, but not John MacArthur, Jr. Is this an over sight or a desire to start a new beginning? The next page gives to us information found in the Bible but not originating with the author or the team of supportive co-workers. This includes maps, charts and several comparative studies of such as a harmony of the Gospels, which come from other copy right sources. This gives an insight into the underlying thinking about this study Bible. There was no desire to be completely 'original' , but to supply the student with helps that the editor believed made a good contribution toward a meaningful study Bible.

The 'Table of Contents takes up the next two pages. This begins with 32 pages of study material listed as:

Index to Charts and Maps

Introduction to the Bible

Personal Notes

How We Got the Bible

How to Study the Bible

Preface to the New King James Bible

The Center Reference Column

Table of Abbreviations

Books of the Bible Abbreviations

The Progress of Revelation

Then, there are about 12 pages of information dealing with the O.T. and Notes. This is followed by each book of the O.T. and an introduction to each book. The Inter-testamental Period has a couple of pages of information. Then, the N.T. and notes are dealt with in 14 pages, followed by each book of the N.T. with introductions to each book. Then there are 6 Appendices:

Topical Index

Read Through the Bible In a Year

The Character of Genuine Saving Faith

Overview of Theology

Monies, Weights, and Measures

Color Maps

This Bible has over 2203 pages, with 32 Roman numeral pages at the beginning of the Table of Contents to be added. This is a large Study Bible.

It is very interesting that MacArthur makes certain claims about being a dispensationalist in the books dealing with his explanation of Lordship Salvation, but there is little in this study Bible that would emphasize this claim.


"It may surprise some readers to know that the issue of dispensationalism is one

area where Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and I share some common ground. We

are all dispensationalists." (Faith Works The Gospel According to the Apostles Page 219)


"Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's pro-

gram through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel

is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church. Israel and the

church are separate entities, and God will restore national Israel under the earthly

rule of Jesus as Messiah. I accept and affirm this tenet, because it emerges from a

consistently literal interpretation of Scripture ( while still recognizing the pre-

sence of legitimate metaphor in the Bible ). And in that regard, I consider my-

self a traditional premillennial dispensationalist." ( The Gospel According To Jesus, p. 25 )


"The men who taught me in Seminary were all dispensationalists. Yet none of

them would have defended no-lordship teaching". ( Faith Works The Gospel

According to the Apostles, P. 225 )


"Moreover, everyone on The Master's Seminary faculty is a dispensationalist."

( Faith Works The Gospel According to the Apostles, p. 225, footnote )


In the light of the above quotations, it is hard to believe that John MacArthur and the members of the Master's Seminary and editors at Grace to You, are the same people, who were the movers and makers of the MacArthur Study Bible. This Bible is so "general", so "generic" and so "anemic" in reference to dispensational terminology, one would be hard pressed to believe that John MacArthur and his group of helpers and contributors were actually and truly dispensationalists in an unashamed fashion. But these statements ( by this writer ) deserves explanation. Hopefully, as one continues to read, a fair explanation, being attempted, will actually be given.

In the September, 1998, ( page 383, vol. 41, no.3 ) issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Darrell L. Bock wrote an article, 'Why I Am a dispensationalist with a Small "d" '. That is one thing. But those who entered notes and teaching in the "MacArthur Study Bible" must have used invisible ink, in reference to their being identified with a position that clearly states a dispensational situation.

But, there is a real sense in which one can teach dispensational truth without using the word. This Bible was not to be another clone of the Scofield Reference Bible or The Ryrie Study Bible, but done in MacArthur fashion, with his ideas of what is proper balance and emphasis. Consider these statements from the "Introduction to the Bible" :


"While the 39 OT books major on the history of Israel and the promise of the

coming Savior, the 27 NT books major on the person of Christ and the estab-

lishment of the church". ( page vii )


" There is, therefore, a continuity of grace and salvation through all of redemp-

tive history. Various covenants, promises, and epochs do not alter that funda-

mental continuity, nor does the discontinuity between the OT witness nation,

Israel, and the NT witness people, the church." ( page ix )


Here it is as clear as it gets, a statement concerning MacArthur's position about Israel and the church. Compare these to his quoted statements from his two books and you see a definite emphasis, concerning dispensationalism ( MacAtrthur style) that limits it, rather harnesses it, controls it, keeping it aligned with the basic tenet that Israel and the church are to be kept separate and distinguished in the over all plan of God as unfolded in the Scriptures. There is no obligation for anyone to agree, accept this position or the direction taken to arrive at this position. In a sense, this study Bible gives you material and enough suggestions for the student to construct his/her own doctrinal position.

The late John R. Rice in his "Sword of the Lord' advertised the Scofield Bible. It was a popular edition of the Bible. But the ironic fact is that John R. Rice repudiated most of the teachings of the Scofield Bible in sermon and books.

Stanley E. Anderson in his book Scofieldism Upgraded could have re-titled this book Scofieldism Dismantled. He states, "Perhaps 97% of Scofield's notes are good, but 3% deserve examination." This writer's impression from reading the book is that Mr. Anderson actually seems to believe that only 3% of Scofield's notes are good, and 97% deserve examination and re-writing. But a bad start in the ministry could have easily caused this. For instance, here is a good confessional statement by Anderson: "This writer and his then wife-to-be spent three happy years in the Northwestern Bible School of Minneapolis where the Scofield Bibles were popular. We wish now that our respected teachers had warned us that the footnotes were not inspired." ( Both quotations from page 11) What is the best way to describe this student and his then wife-to-be ? Gullible ? Naïve ? It seems to this writer that they were still very immature people after three years of Bible school, when they would blame their respected teachers for not performing all their student's own thinking.

There is a method here, used by Rice and Anderson. How do you handle old friends with whom you now have disagreements ? How do you treat your parents, when you see things in a different way? Do you trash them ? Call them names ? Not if you are mature !! Not if you are a mature Christian !!

There is also a trend that seems to be happening among colleges. There are denominational schools that have dropped the 'denominational' name. There was a seminary in Denver, Colorado which some years ago was called Conservative Baptist Seminary. I am willing to be corrected, but that same seminary is now called Denver Seminary. Crossroads Bible College of Indianapolis, Indiana formerly went under the name of Baptist Bible College of Indianapolis. Without speaking for these schools, are they changing their name without changing their doctrines and/or their convictions? Are they trying to be even more than just baptist with a small 'b' ? Are they able to be just plain Baptists without their name as part of their school name ? If we want to know, we must ask them. Perhaps this is the method used in the MacArthur Study Bible, namely, teach the truth of dispensations ( as MacArthur understands dispensations ) without using the word, hardly at all. Whether this is true or not, and whether one agrees or disagrees is really immaterial.

In the Topical Index, the following words do not appear : Age, Administration, Epoch, Dispensation, Millenium, Rapture, Stewardship or Tribulation. But this is a matter of choice and judgment. The teachings and the words appear in the notes and/or the Appendices.

In the section, "How to Study the Bible", there are general precepts given for the student as a pattern to follow. The student is encouraged to broaden that pattern by gaining further knowledge through commentaries and other background reading. The student is encouraged to build his own sound doctrinal foundation by which to live. The emphasis of this Study Bible is to use the tools to gain a doctrinal footing, but not to open the top of the head of each student and pour into it everything John MacAthur knows and believes.

Many would lament that there is not a presentation on 'how to study the Bible' from a dispensational approach. But we have a choice to not use this Bible.

In the Appendix, the 'Overview of Theology', is a mini systematic presentation of what the contributors believe. Most paragraphs begin with 'We believe'. It lacks a section on Israel, to balance the section on the Church. The subjects dealt with are Holy Scripture, God, Man, Salvation, The Church, Angels and Last Things.

While this Bible does not use the word 'dispensation' or give emphasis to this approach to Bible study, neither is there an over-emphasis on "Lordship Salvation". There is an invention of a name or title for Christ that appears in the 'Introduction To The Bible'. One of the stated "5 recurring motifs" is said to be 'the Lord Savior and sacrifice for sin'. This name, Lord Savior appears because of the Lordship Salvation debate ( as I see it). MacArthur would bring out the truth that the Savior is the Lord, who saves. Yet, no evangelical dispensationalist ( that I know or read ) would deny this. But many would contend that every believer need not experience, recognize, realize, the total impact and implication that Biblical salvation brings with it, where MacArthur may demand an experience, recognition, realization ought to take place or should take place, in reference to the total impact and implication that Biblical salvation may bring to a believer.

On page 2191, we find as one of the Appendices: "The Character of GENUINE SAVING FAITH". There are three parts:


EVIDENCES THAT NEITHER PROVE NOR DISPROVE ONE'S FAITH

Visible Morality

Intellectual Knowledge

Religious Involvement

Active Ministry

Conviction of Sin

Assurance

Time of Decision


THE FRUIT / PROOFS OF AUTHENTIC /TRUE CHRISTIANITY

Love of God

Repentance from Sin

Genuine Humility

Devotion to God's Glory

Continual Prayer

Selfless Love

Separation from the World

Spiritual Growth

Obedient Living

Then the following statement appears in smaller type and italics: If List I is true of a person and List II is false, there is cause to question the validity of one's profession of Faith. Yet if List II is true, then the top list will be also.

Then there is a List III.

THE CONDUCT OF THE GOSPEL

Proclaim it

Defend it

Demonstrate it

Share it

Suffer for it

Don't hinder it

Be not ashamed

Preach it

Be empowered

Guard it


List III should be renamed, THE CONDUCT OF GENUINE SAVING FAITH WITH THE GOSPEL

'Genuine' should be left out of list II, since we are talking about authentic things. There is no other kind of 'humility' acceptable. Otherwise we must speak of 'genuine' Love for God, etc.

The two lists ( I & II ) are sincerely constructed but in another way they are arbitrary. All of the lists have scripture to support them. List I leans toward external activity. List II seems to be dealing with internal characteristics. Yet, 'Separation from the World" is an external kind of activity that could easily be practiced by those of List I, as Religious Involvement. "Continual Prayer" could be external at times. Like a leaking dam, sinful man is so wholly full of holes, many sincere attempts to systematically plug the all leaks, congers up bigger and longer lists.

Here we have possibly the little seven ( list I) and the BIG NINE ( list II ) Are we getting closer to the ole four ( believe, repent, confess, be baptized ) or farther away. Are we into the numbers 'game' or are we 'counting' too much ? Are we moving into the direction of truth or away from the truth ?

There may be too great an assumption made that 'if' list II is true, List I will be true also. There could also be the silly notions concerning , "what if" all of List II is true, except one, will List I be entirely true? Once we move into speculation and/or use human experience more to interpret doctrine than possibly just illustrate it, we are on less than thin ice.

Paul was NOT a Calvinist, NOR an Arminian. He was not/is not, in the Lordship camp or the No-Lord-ship camp ( as I see and read Paul). We should strive to be Pauline. Nothing more and nothing less. That is enough. We should be glad Paul says what he says in II Corinthians 13:5-

Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Know ye not yourselves how Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are discredited/disqualified/reprobates ?

In a way, Paul doesn't sound here like he believes in assurance, election, predestination and believer's security and that he could write this to the 'converts' of his own ministry and gospel preaching. BUT HE DOES BELIEVE! AND HE MUST WRITE, to do his job ! These lists are intended to help one to get a grasp of genuine saving faith. We can accept them, reject them or ignore them. We can make our own or not make our own. The following are statements which may contribute to this same area of thought, and then again, they may not contribute.


"You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving."

"Faith alone saves, but saving faith is not alone." John Calvin

"Good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works." Martin Luther

Finally, God does not need to see our good works, He can see the heart. As birds of the same feather gather together, so Christians gather and fellowship together because we can see and hear each other. So, God knows NOW, who is real. In a practical way, if we endure till we meet this God, we'll know then, finally and fully, who else has a real faith, too. We should wait till then, and not try to judge everyone now, since this is God's territory. Although we can continue to be fruit inspectors.

Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi