What to do with John MacArthur books?

[MarcoPolo]

Catholics think Protestants are shallow??? Here is a premier Catholic apologist admitting his lack of scholarship.

Yes, I’ve heard the debate. Madrid thought that needed a little more too, and that’s why he addressed the Greek in the article I linked to in post #10.

When you have the superior exegesis of the verse from the Protestant standpoint, please post it. I would like to read it.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Yes, I’ve heard the debate. Madrid thought that needed a little more too, and that’s why he addressed the Greek in the article I linked to in post #10.
.

Thank you for the link in post 10, I had not read Madrid’s follow up analysis to the debate. It’s good that he did that…I can understand his need to regroup after the exegetical lashing he took from Louw and Nida’s *Greek-English Lexicon *and Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Robertson’s Word Pictures. Vine’ Expository Dictionary and Bauer, Arndt Gingrich and Danker and Hendrickson’s lexical works.

Still, in his follow up, I did not see one scholarly citation to refute White/MacArthur. To the point of this thread, that is why I appreciate the scholarship exhibited by Protestant exegetes, and the commitment to the original languages, from Luther to MacArthur.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

When you have the superior exegesis of the verse from the Protestant standpoint, please post it. I would like to read it.

No need to go there again for me. Wouldn’t say it any different than White or MacArthur. Whether the Protestant standpoint is “superior” is up to you. It depends on what factors influence your decision making. For me, it’s a combination of accurate exegesis (scholarship) and moral integrity, both of which MacArthur has which is why I appreciate him.

I have less respect for the shallow exegete that says " I didn’t bring all sorts of linguistic apparatuses to throw at you to try to build my case based on what this scholar or that scholar might say."

IN the spirit of this thread, and the accusation of Protestant “shallowness,” I just wanted to point out that Protestants may not be as shallow as the author of this thread suggests.

 

[hilaryisaac]

Yes…but I want to hear from the original poster what his/her concerns are

I do need to state that these are my opinions after reading both ‘sides’ of writing. Take nothing away, Protestant writers are good writers. Please don’t take offence.

Protestant writers seem really ‘shallow’ - not used to offend, but they’re simply very ‘on the surface’.

I simply mean to say that I feel - and of course any one may disagree - that these books don’t go as well in depth as Catholic writing, which I personally feel that I have grown more from.

Sola C F G S DG, as you might have seen, some Catholics do disagree with me and I am ok with that. It’s great that others have learnt something from them. Like I said, I’m not out to offend you or any of our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Thank you for your views, Sola C F G S DG; I might have put my question in a more sensitive context, by leaving out my experience. If you think I should put the question in another way, it could simple be: "What should I do with old books that I bought that I don’t find useful to my growth?"

If it helps, this thread could help Protestants who might have books they want to discard, but don’t know how to.

Again, I am not making a firm statement that Protestant writers are shallow. I simply mean to say that I haven’t grown as much from them as I have gained from other writing. That’s all.

Sorry for any ill feelings caused.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

II simply mean to say that I feel - and of course any one may disagree - that these books don’t go as well in depth as Catholic writing, which I personally feel that I have grown more from.

Again, I am not making a firm statement that Protestant writers are shallow. I simply mean to say that I haven’t grown as much from them as I have gained from other writing. That’s all.

Sorry for any ill feelings caused.

Thank you, Hilaryisaac, for your response. However, your original post was not offensive in the least. It’s your post above that is offensive. in your original post you said “MacArthur has lousy information.” I was simply curious what of his you thought was lousy.

In this post, you recoiled, and said it’s all based on your feelings. Deeply ironic, as basing your thoughts on your own feelings is exactly the type of Catholic shallowness I have been confronting in my last few posts.

True scholarship is marked by quoting resources outside oneself. Patrick Madrid cannot do this, for instance, on the topic of sola scriptura. Shallowness is basing your thoughts and convictions on your own feelings, as you have done, and as Patrick Madrid does.

If you are going to confront Protestants of shallowness, be prepared to back up your comments with something other than shallowness and personal feelings.

Having said that, would you mind responding to my question about what you thought of MacArthurs was shallow and lousy?

Thanks!

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

Hi all,

The problem I have now is that I’m stuck with many Protestant books - by John MacArthur and several other protestant writers. I want to get rid of them, because (1) I don’t really want to have lousy information in my shelves, and (2) I want to make way for more good Catholic reading. What should I do with these books?

I wanted to put them up for a cheap sale on eBay but figured that if I think such info is no good, as a responsible Catholic, I should not be putting it up for others. Of course, if I had sold them, I would have raised a little returns to fund new books. Is my only option to burn them up or throw them in the chutes?! Some of them are new and untouched.
!

As far as what to do with the books…if you were truly interested in scholarship (I use the term scholarship as an antonym to “shallowness”, which you supposedly disapprove of), I would refer you to the fourth greatest scholar ever, John Milton, author of the brilliant, massive epic Paradise Lost. (1. Jesus 2. Adam 3. Solomon 4. John Milton).

“He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true warfaring Christian.”
(from Areopagitica).

In other wards, if you want to truly be a strong Christian, read everything, use biblical discernment, and establish your convictions! If you want to be a weak, shallow Catholic, only read your side, and discard those whose views oppose yours.

At least, that’s what the fourth greatest scholar ever suggests.

Hope this helps!

 

[hilaryisaac]

in your original post you said “MacArthur has lousy information.” I was simply curious what of his you thought was lousy.

I can’t seem to find that quote you put in my mouth. That’s poor on your end, you have to say. Look at the post and you’ll see those words in the quotation marks are simply not there in the post.

Sola C F G S DG, I don’t think you’re really curious or looking for any perspective of mine - we both know that.

Again, I will re-state:

• I don’t think ALL protestant writing is bad. I just don’t feel I have grown from them in general, compared to my Catholic books. I don’t see a need to pull out chunks of work from anybody’s work to prove anything. You have your right to feel to have gained more from one author or another. So do I.
• I am not here to put your protestant beliefs down. I am not. Again, I’ll admit that I could have phrased the question with more sensitivity: “What should I do with old books that I bought that I don’t find useful to my growth?”

basing your thoughts on your own feelings is exactly the type of Catholic shallowness

I really don’t get you. You mean to say that if you prefer one movie or another, you havethe obligation to explain your preference? And if youdon’t, it makes you shallow? Again, I say, I’m not out to offend you.

If you are going to confront Protestants of shallowness, be prepared to back up your comments with something other than shallowness and personal feelings.

This thread was not meant to “confront protestants of shallowness”. That’s just not the point. I don’t even think protestants are shallow. In fact, I truly do believe that most of them, like most Catholics, do truly love God. The purpose of this thread as to ask simply: “What should I do with old books that I bought that I don’t find useful to my growth?” This could also be asked by protestants, Buddhists, Muslims. You have any suggestion? This thread was not started to undermine protestant study. And again, I’m sorry for any ill feelings caused. I should have phrased the question with more sensitivity.

Having said that, would you mind responding to my question about what you thought of MacArthurs was shallow and lousy?

Again, this is a general feeling. I don’t see anything wrong with having feelings. Feelings do not make one shallow. For example, I have read TWELVE ORDINARY MEN by MacArthur, and read several other authors’ works on the Apostles by other (Catholic and protestant) writers. And after reading all the work, I feel that I’ve grown more from the others. What’s wrong with that?

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I can’t seem to find that quote you put in my mouth. That’s poor on your end, you have to say. Look at the post and you’ll see those words in the quotation marks are simply not there in the post.:

It was implied.

I Sola C F G S DG, I don’t think you’re really curious or looking for any perspective of mine - we both know that…:

On the contrary! I am deeply curious. I’ll admit, Pastor MacArthur is one of my spiritual heroes. What do you disagree with? What is shallow? I’m just inviting you to an open forum discussion.

I really don’t get you. You mean to say that if you prefer one movie or another, you havethe obligation to explain your preference? And if youdon’t, it makes you shallow? Again, I say, I’m not out to offend you…:Again, this is a general feeling. I don’t see anything wrong with having feelings. Feelings do not make one shallow.

This statement reflects postmodernism, which is very difficult to have a rational argument with. It’s like boxing Gumby. You need to read MacArthur’s book The Truth War. It would be of great help to you as you wrestle with postmodernism. Here are some quotes from that work:

p.13 “Postmodernists are generally suspicious of rational and logical forms. They especially do not like to discuss truth in plain propositional terms.”

p.17 “Right and wrong have been redefined in terms of subjective feelings and personal perspectives.”

p.12 “The postmodernist recoils from absolutes…instead, truth, if acknowledged at all, becomes something pliable and ultimately unknowable in any objective sense.”

What MacArthur says above is what you have done in your last two posts. With all due love and respect, maybe MacArthur is not the one who is shallow. As the Lord taught, examine the log in your own eye before removing the spec from other’s.

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I admired John MacArthur soooo much when I was in college. I went to a nearby Christian university. (He runs a Bible School in L.A. area). Students at my university were very critical of him and his methods.

Besides rumors, what were they critical of?

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I listen to [MacArthur] most every morning…he is a psychological spectacle. Often on point…often completely out of the realm of reason.

In what sense? To some degree, “foolishness,” or, being out of the realm of reason, is acceptable.

1 Cor 1:20 Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1:25 The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men

The wisdom-loving Greeks thought Paul and the Apostles were foolish. Unbelievers often respond to biblical truth this way.

Thoughts?

 

[MarcoPolo]

In what sense?

As I said, MacArthur said the Catholic Church is a front for the “kingdom of Satan”, and the whole rest of that speech to which I linked is poorly done; countless falsehoods stated throughout.

I can understand his need to regroup after the exegetical lashing he took

A tip: if you want to be taken seriously, lose the over-the-top language here. It’s not convincing anyone, especially anyone who heard the debate.

FYI, White’s and MacArthur’s exegesis of 2 Timothy was debunked in post #9 & 10 and by Madrid (Yes, I know you think Madrid was annihilated, but unfortunately, I’ve heard the debate which I even own on CD. ).

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

As I said, MacArthur said the Catholic Church is a front for the “kingdom of Satan”, and the whole rest of that speech to which I linked is poorly done; countless falsehoods stated throughout.).

I posted a short response to that post

A tip: if you want to be taken seriously, lose the over-the-top language here. It’s not convincing anyone, especially anyone who heard the debate…).

A tip: if you want to be taken seriously, quote someone other than yourself, outside authorities, etc…

FYI, White’s and MacArthur’s exegesis of 2 Timothy was debunked in post #9 & 10 and by Madrid (Yes, I know you think Madrid was annihilated, but unfortunately, I’ve heard the debate which I even own on CD. ).

Catholics are going to think Madrid one, Protestants are goign to think White won. Depends what color glasses you’re wearing. What I’m looking at, is who had scholarship on their side? I tried to study the debate neutrally, and White ultimately convinced me due to his scholarly research. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” 2 Tim 2:15. Madrid doesn’t quote anyone, even in his attempted follow up, because the exegesis is not on his side, only Tradition.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I posted a short response to that postif you want to be taken seriously, quote someone other than yourself, outside authorities, etc…

Like James White.

 

[hilaryisaac]

As the Lord taught, examine the log in your own eye before removing the spec from other’s.

I have not even had any intention of removing any spec from anyone’s eye. Like I said, the point of this thread is plain and simple: “What should I do with old books that I bought that I don’t find useful to my growth?” This could also be asked by protestants, Buddhists, Muslims. You have any suggestion? This thread was not started to undermine protestant study.

I feel someone trying to remove a speck in my eye though…

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Sola C F G S DG:

The OP has explained several times the purpose of this thread: What to do w/ old books. If you want to debate Sola Scriptura and John MacArthur and James White, hop on over to Noncatholic Religions or Apologetics. Right now you’re just coming off as antagonistic, whether or not that’s your intent.

hilaryisaac:

I agree w/ the previous posters: sell or give away the books. I would only throw away/destroy them (or give them to well-informed Catholics for their apologetics library) if they were truly dangerous, i.e., containing downright lies or falsehoods about the Catholic Church (like Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, for example).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I read MacArthur’s book THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JESUS back when I was a Presbyterian, and I have to say it’s one of the better protestant books on the necessity of TOTAL surrender to the LORDSHIP of Christ. In that sense, the book is heck, dare I say it???---- quite Catholic indeed.

Another protestant author, incensed at MacArthur’s insistence on OBEDIENCE to the Lord Jesus for salvation, came out with his own book attacking MacArthur’s book. His name was
Zane Hodges and HIS book was called “ABSOLUTELY FREE !!”

Thank God for the pope and the magisterium.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I have not even had any intention of removing any spec from anyone’s eye. Like I said, the point of this thread is plain and simple: “What should I do with old books that I bought that I don’t find useful to my growth?” This could also be asked by protestants, Buddhists, Muslims. You have any suggestion? This thread was not started to undermine protestant study.

Understood. And I did respond to your question in post #26.

But you did make some statements in your original post that were misleading, and opened the thread to broader discussion than you may have intended. Note, it was several of your own Catholic peers who originally opened it up to MacArthur’s view on sola scriptura, so I am not the only one who misunderstood you.

In order to answer your question, it would be helpful to know your reasons for wanting to get rid of the books. For example, If you don’t like his haircut or the color of the jacket, dont get rid of them. If you found a typo, or thought he forgot a needed chapter, probably shouldn’t get rid of them. If you found hate speech, faulty exegesis, immorality, etc, (which I doubt you did) then you might want to get rid of them. That’s why I wanted to openly discuss your motivations for rejecting the material.

So far, the only thing motivating you that I’m aware of is your feelings, which for all us sinners is not the most reliable source (unless you come from a postmodern perspective). If you read any good book on mortification of sin it is not going to make you feel good. You might feel terrible! But those awful feelings are great, as they convict us and purify us and motivate us toward deeper holiness for the glory of God.

Do you see what I’m saying?

 

[pnewton]

while he does refer to 2 Tim 3:16, links to his more popular and thorough argument for Sola Scriptura can be foundhere, in an exposition of Psalm 19

I find his argument in Psalm 19 far weaker. For example:

Thirdly, in verse 8, Scripture is seen as the** precepts** of the Lord. Precepts meaning doctrines, if you will, statutes some translations have, that is principles for life and godliness, divine principles. It is filled with principles, he says, that are right. Literally in the Hebrew, that set the right path. Principles for walking down the right path. And as one walks in those principles, the effect is rejoicing the heart. True joy fills the inner person. And so we find that Scripture is sufficient to produce salvation, sanctification and true lasting heart contentment and joy. We don’t need voices from angels. We don’t need conversations with the supernatural, we don’t need visions and miracles. We don’t need mystical kinds of imaginations and intuitions to be led by God. We need only His Word. He leads us in a right path, that path becomes our joy. All our true pleasure, all our true delight comes from following the path laid out by the Word of God. People who walk in that path experience joy.
Now that leads us to the remaining three. Number four is in verse 8. “The** commandment** of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” The commandment indicates that the Scripture is a mandate.

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?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I find his argument in Psalm 19 far weaker.

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:

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (artios), equipped (exartizo) for every good work.

(White’s unedited analysis in his opening remarks) First, the more irrelevant error. Patrick Madrid points out regarding White’s appeal that the Greek words labelled refer to a total completeness and sufficiency: “White was able to find a single Greek lexicon that listed " sufficient " as a possible translation of artios and another lexicon that listed “sufficient” as a possible translation of exartizo. But, as I pointed out, the lexicons he cited listed “sufficient” as a third or fourth translation of artios and exartizo. None listed “sufficient” as the primary or even secondary meaning.” In fact, with regard to exartizo, all the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that “sufficient” is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance.

Secondly, and far more fatal to White’s exegesis is the obvious, which I mentioned in post 10. Let’s say White was 100% correct and the words “complete” and “equipped” refer to a totality of completeness and adequacy. He spends almost no time analyzing the word “profitable” that introduces these words.

So according to him, the passage basically says, “All Scripture is profitable for making us totally complete and making us completely sufficient for every good work.”

#1: His exegesis of this verse puts it in conflict with other verses of Scripture.
#2: Where in the verse do we see “only” Scripture is profitable for making us complete? Nowhere. White and MacArthur add this word in their explanation of the verse.
#3: The Greek word for “profitable,” ophelimos, means profitable and helpful or serviceable, i.e. advantageous. As Jimmy Akin says, a hammer is useful for driving nails, but not “only” a hammer can drive in nails, i.e. nail gun, blunt object, etc…

And as I said: So Scripture is helpful to make us complete? AMEN! Paul is on the money.

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…

 

[Sola_C_F_G_S_DG]

I find his argument in Psalm 19 far weaker. For example:

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 thought someone might respond with that. Thank you for this challenge. let me think about that and get back to you…