New MacArthur Series

Status
Not open for further replies.
John The Baptist said:
And that is why we need more than 1 Sunday morning service
Click to expand...
I have had grand dreams of an early service, then everybody fellowshipping over a meal or potluck, then going back for a second round; but I dont know the budget on such things, or how realistic it would be as a model. I am still in the midst of depression my church no longer has a Sun. or Wed. evening service.
 
davejonescue said:
I have had grand dreams of an early service, then everybody fellowshipping over a meal or potluck, then going back for a second round; but I dont know the budget on such things, or how realistic it would be as a model. I am still in the midst of depression my church no longer has a Sun. or Wed. evening service.
Click to expand...
For a couple years, my family and I enjoyed the fellowship of two other families that was truly reminiscent of Acts 2. We would meet at church, host them for lunch, enjoy deeper discussion of the word while the children played, eat leftovers, and then head back for the evening service. I miss those days. They prepared me for the work week much better than 90 minutes on Sunday morning.
 
TheInquirer said:
Read the testimony of former VP of Master’s Seminary Dennis Swanson - https://julieroys.com/podcast/whats-the-truth-about-john-macarthur-his-ministries/
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. However, Julie Roy's is more like a tabloid than actually news. It doesn't automatically means it is false, but it does mean it's questionable. This woman is also known to have a deep bias and vendetta against MacArthur. She also advocates several false teachings such as women in the pulpit and pushes feminism. She even thinks God has called her to be a pastor and she does go into pulpits occasionally. I say this as someone neutral in this subject as well. Is there a more reputable source where this ghost writing claim can be confirmed?

Also the article itself appears to just be someone making a claim but no receipts to back it up. Is there something specifically within the transcript that we should be looking at?
 
Instead of attacking Julie Roys, who I have not found to be a tabloid at all but has also done good work on exposing Mark Driscoll (my own pastor and friend was interviewed by her), read or listen to the testimony of Dr. Dennis Swanson who was at Master’s Seminary for 25 years and had first hand knowledge of what went on there.

If you want just one example of the kind of fraud the Mac camp is up to, listen to Swanson’s account of the $200,000 King James Bible that was non-gifted by MacArthur to the seminary library.

If you listen to the interview, you will also hear Swanson talk about the character assassination tactics the MacArthur camp uses on anyone they have issues with, including long time staff they let go, including people with impeccable reputations. Phil Johnson has repeatedly attacked Julie Roys to discredit her and the Mac mafia has followed suit rather than listen to or answer the claims and proof Roys has put forward through examining documents and the testimonies of former insiders. One side presents facts and testimony, another side responds with character attacks.

If eyewitness testimony of an insider is not sufficient, I am not sure what would convince you.
 
TheInquirer said:
Instead of attacking Julie Roys, who I have not found to be a tabloid at all but has also done good work on exposing Mark Driscoll (my own pastor and friend was interviewed by her), read or listen to the testimony of Dr. Dennis Swanson who was at Master’s Seminary for 25 years and had first hand knowledge of what went on there.

If you want just one example of the kind of fraud the Mac camp is up to, listen to Swanson’s account of the $200,000 King James Bible that was non-gifted by MacArthur to the seminary library.

If you listen to the interview, you will also hear Swanson talk about the character assassination tactics the MacArthur camp uses on anyone they have issues with, including long time staff they let go, including people with impeccable reputations. Phil Johnson has repeatedly attacked Julie Roys to discredit her and the Mac mafia has followed suit rather than listen to or answer the claims and proof Roys has put forward through examining documents and the testimonies of former insiders. One side presents facts and testimony, another side responds with character attacks.

If eyewitness testimony of an insider is not sufficient, I am not sure what would convince you.
Click to expand...
I guess we can agree to disagree on Roys. I truly do not think she is sound. Do you really think she is "restoring the church" as she claims on her website? Also, with Driscoll, there were many other sources exposing him.

As for Swanson, I have not heard or read anything about him to make him seem suspect. So, perhaps he is telling the truth. The main issue is, a charge against an elder usually requires more than just one testimony. Also, as the proverbs teach us, the first to state his case seems correct, but than another comes and examines him. I don't doubt that MacArthur has been involved in sin in his life, we all have, so I am not trying to advocate that anything said about him is automatically false. The issue is with this he said, she said stuff.
 
When I start seeing patterns of behavior exposed from various insider sources, it gives credence to the trstimony. Read former GCC elder Hohn Cho’s testimony in Christianity Today about what he found and experienced investigating the Gray abuse case. He is a lawyer who was asked by the elders to investigate. When they didnt like his findings, they told him to walk it back or resign. He resigned.
 
TheInquirer said:
When I start seeing patterns of behavior exposed from various insider sources, it gives credence to the trstimony. Read former GCC elder Hohn Cho’s testimony in Christianity Today about what he found and experienced investigating the Gray abuse case. He is a lawyer who was asked by the elders to investigate. When they didnt like his findings, they told him to walk it back or resign. He resigned.
Click to expand...
I am not against you in this. I am just trying to use caution. Also, again though with the sources, with CT, they are a wildly liberal organization. It doesn't't mean it is automatically wrong, but are there any sound or conservative sources reporting on this?
 
Last edited:
I found the Roys article and one from Medium.com that quoted Swanson. However, I also want to take caution. Those who have agendas could be correct, but without a second source on the same issue, I'm inclined to wait for more evidence... but also to have caution with the other party as well.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I am not against you in this. I am just trying to use caution. Also, again though with the sources, with CT, they are a wildly liberal organization. It doesn't't mean it is automatically wrong, but are there any sound or conservative sources reporting on this?
Click to expand...
Generally, what conservative sources would you think are suitable on reporting cases on independent churches?
 
Polanus1561 said:
Generally, what conservative sources would you think are suitable on reporting cases on independent churches?
Click to expand...
At this point, I'm not sure. I would evaluate any source and try and do it with fairness. At the moment though, CT and Roys are not sources I would consider sound. Roy's does appear to do good journalism here and there (in my opinion as I know others differ with me here).
 
I sound further clarify with the sources. It just seems like with this issue you have those with agendas on both sides. It seems like a very emotional subject. You have those who support him no matter what and treat him like he is a Pope and then you have those who are against him no matter what. I just want to get at the objective truth. This will likely take time and using several sources.

Also, a question that might need to be asked is how much of this is MacArthur himself versus those who work for him. I saw the weird videos where people like Lawson and Peters were basically putting him up on a pedestal and that he can do no wrong. However, when I see Macarthur himself, he generally appears to be humble. It's a messy situation.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
At this point, I'm not sure. I would evaluate any source and try and do it with fairness. At the moment though, CT and Roys are not sources I would consider sound. Roy's does appear to do good journalism here and there (in my opinion as I know others differ with me here).
Click to expand...
To preface, I am not speaking on the specific allegations here.

But yes, I do not think the conservative news source that would report the going ons of independent churches exists. I do not think Presbyterians care about Baptist churches issues. Nor would conservative Baptists care about each other much. So, if there were direct witnesses that want to bring certain issues to light, they would have no conservative source to go to.
 
Polanus1561 said:
To preface, I am not speaking on the specific allegations here.

But yes, I do not think the conservative news source that would report the going ons of independent churches exists. I do not think Presbyterians care about Baptist churches issues. Nor would conservative Baptists care about each other much. So, if there were direct witnesses that want to bring certain issues to light, they would have no conservative source to go to.
Click to expand...
To connect to my last point. I would consider people like Steve Lawson and Justin Peters conservative. However, as I also mentioned they have a bias with this specific subject. With your overall point, I think we need to evaluate each source as they come in. With Roy's and CT you can scan the articles they have done over the years.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
To connect to my last point. I would consider people like Steve Lawson and Justin Peters conservative. However, as I also mentioned they have a bias with this specific subject. With your overall point, I think we need to evaluate each source as they come in. With Roy's and CT you can scan the articles they have done over the years.
Click to expand...
If X wants to bring an issue to light, do you think the issue/testimony would gain more credibility if X decided to publish the issue himself; rather than having the issue go through Roys and CT?

I am confused because there are two examples here that have a living witness who has conveyed the issue themselves to a 3rd party. Are their credibility as sources, which you state you evaluate (which is of course everyone should do), hampered by involving CT and Roys?

(I am asking this again not for the issue at hand but wanting to learn about what individuals in independent churches can do regarding issues)
 
Polanus1561 said:
If X wants to bring an issue to light, do you think the issue/testimony would gain more credibility if X decided to publish the issue himself; rather than having the issue go through Roys and CT?

I am confused because there are two examples here that have a living witness who has conveyed the issue themselves to a 3rd party. Are their credibility as sources, which you state you evaluate (which is of course everyone should do), hampered by involving CT and Roys?

(I am asking this again not for the issue at hand but wanting to learn about what individuals in independent churches can do regarding issues)
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe by going to a third party which has demonstrated a bias in the past, does call into question their testimony. I would say that publishing independently would have been the better route.
 
I’m no fan of Julie Roys, but there’s been smoke around MacArthur for a long time, and not just from “liberal” sources. He has been warned personally by fellow pastors about his handling of his finances. The response from the MacArthur camp is almost always the same—deny, and send Phil Johnson out on character attacks. It’s not pretty.

I have benefited greatly from some of MacArthur’s and Johnson’s work, but honestly I find myself not reading with caveats, but avoiding with caveats.
 
Ultimately time will tell. If there is widespread corruption it will eventually come out. Macarthur is too big and too public to be able to cover up wrong doings indefinitely.
 
To be clear McArthur doesn't have his books "ghostwritten". Having someone else edit your works for publication is not what ghostwriting is.

Most political books are ghostwritten in the way that it says "...by [insert politician here]" and were written wholly by someone else. That's actually how the French's got involved in conservative policy circles, Nancy wrote a lot of GOP books for people.
 
Swanson claims Busenitz ghostwrote entire books for MacArthur. Editors should be listed and acknowledged for transparency and integrity. Ask yourself why any honest and humble Christian would not publicly acknowledge the work of others on any work that bears their name.
 
Grabbed what I had left of MacArthur books on my shelf:

- Gospel According to Jesus - 1988, Zondervan, Leonard G. Goss listed as Editor on inside title page
- Hebrews Commentary - 1983, Moody Press, no editors or any other contributors listed
- John MacArthur Study Bible - I think this was part of the first run but I had it rebound and I don't see any publishing page at all, nor do I see any attribution of any contributors, maybe I am overlooking and happy to be corrected
- The MacArthur Study Bible (a copy I had given to my now deceased brother) - 1997, Word Bibles, John MacArthur listed as author and general editor, no other contributors listed. Individual books in the Bible:
- Genesis intro and notes - no contributors listed
- Exodus intro and notes - no contributors listed
- Leviticus intro and notes - no contributors listed
- Not going to go through all the rest at this time

I read the heck out of the Mac study Bible in my early years and I never came across any indication at all that anyone other than John MacArthur was solely responsible for the content.
 
Seems like at this point a new thread should be started. The Pros and Cons of John macarthur. I believe this thread was originally to announce a new series.
 
It is important people know what they are getting with a published work but I am fine if the discussion is better suited elsewhere or if admins want me to shut up about the whole thing and enough has been said.
 
TheInquirer said:
It is important people know what they are getting with a published work but I am fine if the discussion is better suited elsewhere or if admins want me to shut up about the whole thing and enough has been said.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think that info has been distributed at this point. Now it looks like more of a debate. I am with you that warning people of possible issues is important. I have done the same with organizations like the gospel coalition.
 
Polanus1561 said:
"This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.” In this episode, we make several preliminary observations and comments."

reformedforum.org

A Response to John MacArthur's Criticism of Amillennialism, Part 1

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd's Conference. In his address, "Hope for the Remnant," based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the "amillennialist's worst nightmare." In this episode, we ma
reformedforum.org reformedforum.org
Click to expand...
Part two also available
reformedforum.org

A Response to John MacArthur’s Criticism of Amillennialism, Part 2

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob continue their discussion of a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.”
reformedforum.org reformedforum.org
 
I think Swanson is correct about some things, but he also clearly has an axe to grind about MacArthur, and is less Reformed than MacArthur et al are. According to him they aren't even Dispensational anymore. Ironically, he seems to be using sort of an Old Dallas definition of dispensionalism in making the charge. MacArthur isn't even a progressive Dispensational when it comes to eschatology. The "leaky" part is that he believes it touches only on ecclesiology and eschatology and not sanctification etc the way Chafer disciples taught.

I'm not sure if Swanson is even that conservative anymore, for what it's worth. He seems to spend much of his time following "deconstructing" women on Twitter. After leaving Masters, he has been employed by at least two state universities, which typically aren't in the habit of hiring "fundamentalists." At one point, he tried to argue that Biden had some sort of "moral" authority.

The most glaring example of others doing the work is the "Bible Doctrine" tome edited by MacArthur and Mayhue (who doesn't work there anymore either.) Others such as Vlach (who also doesn't work there anymore) did most of the writing, but they are not credited specifically with what they contributed. Reportedly this is also how the study Bible came together. Study Bibles with full committees, such as the ESV Study Bible, take many years to complete, but some would have us believe that MacArthur did his in 3 years, at a time when there were many NT books he hadn't preached through yet. I do think they have acknowledged that other unnamed contributors were largely responsible for the OT notes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
New Commentary Series
Replies
1
Views
1K
joebonni63
joebonni63
B
  • Locked
News About John MacArthur's Commentary Series
Replies
11
Views
3K
JimmyH
JimmyH
B
  • Locked
John MacArthur Anniversary
Replies
7
Views
2K
JS116
JS116
P
  • Locked
Free John MacArthur!
Replies
13
Views
3K
brandonadams
brandonadams
B
  • Locked
World Series
Replies
5
Views
695
BFG33
BFG33
Back
Top