What to do with John MacArthur books?

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

You’re right…that WAS weak. Also, I linked to some of this info earlier, but will post it here so no one has to search : for those who want to know the weakness of White’s (and essentially MacArthur’s) 2 Tim 3:16-17 “exegesis,” here is how it fails:

Marco Polo, I find your post (and PNewton) challening as well and want to review it, but I think a closer look at the context, a review of the grammar, and a few cross reference will help us out.

BTW Thank you for getting back to me on this. I thought you bailed out on me earlier with the joke about James White

In regard to those earlier exchanges, I think you understand my point about needing outside references. Any student knows that if a paper is handed in to a professor without footnotes, citations, and a bibliography, it would be laughed at. For it to be respectable, there’s got to be scholarly research.

As I personally form my opinions and establish my convictions, I like to see that a theologian has been reading someone else. Doing research. As the Proverb says, “A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.”

I’ll get back to you re above shortly…

 

[MarcoPolo]

I thought you bailed out on me earlier with the joke about James White

I did not bail out. I had already addressed pretty much everything, but it was apparently scattered in too many posts. The links I used in earlier posts contained most of the info. that I collected in #39. My analysis of ophelimos was also added, and who knew that Jimmy Akin had written the exact same analysis in his article to which I linked in #39.

p.s we are getting off-topic here in this thread about keeping or tossing John MacArthur books. If you want to respond about 2 Tim 3:16-17, …I started a new thread.come over here

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

White’s exegesis is D.O.A. and really is nothing more than wishful thinking because he is left with no part of Scripture that teaches Sola Scriptura…

As I stated earlier, I think context will help us out here. Teaching the sufficiency of Scripture from this passage is not wishful thinking, it’s apostolic thinking. It’s Pauline thinking.

Let’s remember, 1&2 Timothy, along with Titus, are considered teh “Pastoral Epistles.” 2 Timothy is the last epistle Paul wrote, and is often considered his dying words (4:9-18). So this is Paul’s last chance, as an apostle, pastor, and preacher, to pour his life and heart out to the next young pastor of the church at Ephesus.

In chapter 3, he addresses the topic of “perilous times to come” (v.1), and how to carry out ministry in the face of severe opposition, false teaching, and persecution. Paul lists 24 things that characterize perilous times. He mentions those who are “never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (v.7). He assures Timothy that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (v.12).

How does a young pastor carry-out the work of the ministry in such difficult circumstances? By preaching the word! (4:2) Paul’s whole argument and the thrust of his advice have been building up to this climactic point. Preaching the Scripture is Timothy’s primary task because the Scripture is the only thing with divine life (theopneustos), therefore, it is all he needs. That’s what makes Scripture so powerful and unique. That’s why Paul would not tell Timothy to make his primary task anything other than preaching the Scripture.

Of course Catholics like to object (and Protestants would agree) that “word” (logos) does not only refer to written truth, but truth incarnate (Christ) as well, which is certainly true. But in this case, given the context of the preceeding verses, we should understand “word” as meaning Scripture. But even if that cannot be accepted, it’s still okay to understand logos in its broader sense, because Paul’s meaning would still be, “Preach the logos (written and incarnate)” as it is found in the “Holy Scriptures,” “which you have known from childhood.”(v.15)

It cannot be denied that the term “Holy Scriptures” is referring to written truth. Greek “gramma” means letter. grammatos (plural) means document, epistle, book. Timothy is told to “continue in… the Holy Scriptures” which he has “learned and been assured of” v.15.

In the face of adversity and persecution, young Timothy is exhorted to preach the Word as found in the Holy Scriptures.

After all, it is the "Scripture which

1. is given by inspiration of God
2. is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction
3. completes the man of God
4. thorougly equips for every good work.

BTW, what does D.O.A mean?

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Am moving to the other thread with MarcoPolo…

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I find his argument in Psalm 19 far weaker. For example:
There is such a basic logical error that I am surprised JM made it. Specifically, he equates the “precepts” and “commandments” of the Lord with Scripture. Why? It was surely not the intention of the Psalmist. David was a faithful Jew to whom the precepts and commandments were the Law of Moses. David also accpeted the commands of the Lord as passed through Nathan the prophet. He didn’t build the temple, did he?

The connect of Psalm 19 to the 66 books of the Bible 1400 years later is nothing but begging the question, one of the most commonest fallacies of all.

For real, if you read Psalm 19 do you really get the idea that it is about the sufficiency of written Scripture? Is this not rather profound eisegesis?

I won’t be able to develop this fully right now…but off the top of my head We know the law was written, if nowhere else, on tablets of stone. It is not a stretch to say that when the Psalmist referred to the law that he was referring to something written. To the canon at the time. What David affirmed and believed about the sufficiency of the canon then is what we affirm and believe about the sufficiency of the canon now.

We no longer have living prophets, so we will have to accept the written word as commandment.

 

[pnewton]

We no longer have living prophets, so we will have to accept the written word as commandment.

Correct. The words were written in stone. But I do not believe we can extract from Psalm 19 that the Mosaic Law referred to is sufficient for salvation. I guess what I am trying to say is we can’t make the jump to sola scriptura without somewhere adding an unproven assumption, or adding the assumption we try to prove.

In the above sentence, you state we no longer have living prophets. This is an unsubstantiated assumption. I agree with you, but let’s look at the broader assumption. We no longer have prophets or anything else but the written word. But if we assume the written word is the only thing we have today, we are asserting the very thing we try to prove.

The truth is that we do have something else besides the written word. We have the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit inspire and direct one on one, through a group or both. This is a real difference.

I do not bear the animous some here toward JM, because I have read so much of his stuff, I recognize he is very learned and has a lot to teach. I just think he is wrong on a couple of points. I like his stuff on Colossians and go back to it all the time. Same with the spiritual armor. People here may no know this, but I have used some of his material here even.