Posts
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Study of Bible Truth. Crossway, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
In this nearly 1000-page book, Pastor John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue extensively go through biblical doctrine. The topics covered in this book include the inspiration of Scripture, the nature of God, Christology, the Holy Spirit, the nature of human beings, sin, salvation, angels, the church, and eschatology. Not surprisingly, considering this is a book by MacArthur, it embraces the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, TULIP, cessationism, the pre-tribulational rapture, and pre-millennialism.
Here are some items, which are a mere sample of what I got out of the book:
A. MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge that there is no perfectly accurate manuscript of the Bible on earth. Still, on the basis of such passages as Psalm 119:89, which states that God’s word is fixed in the heavens, they believe that there is a perfect version of the Scriptures in heaven. Over time, the jots and the tittles of the law and the prophets are being fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).
B. MacArthur and Mayhue appeal to Acts 19:14-16 and Jude 8-10 in arguing for cessationism, the idea that God no longer performs miracles through human agents. In these passages, unqualified people presume to cast out or to rebuke demons. Whether that supports cessationism is a good question. When those men in Acts 19 presumed to cast out demons, the time of miracles had not yet ceased, even in MacArthur’s reckoning; the apostles performed them, after all. At the same time, Acts 19 may demonstrate that not just anyone can perform miracles.
C. MacArthur and Mayhue hold that the miracles of the first century were designed to confirm the truth of the Christian message. Indeed, they cite biblical passages in which people are amazed after seeing Jesus or the disciples perform miracles. Nowadays, according to MacArthur and Mayhue, the Bible is sufficient by itself, for II Peter 1:16-21 states that the prophecies of Scripture are even surer, more certain than the Transfiguration. There are reasons that Scripture is conceivably preferable to the Transfiguration: Scripture is available to a lot of people, whereas the Transfiguration was only witnessed by Peter, James, and John; Scripture also conveys more detail and context than a brief miraculous event. But is II Peter 1:16-21 necessarily saying that we no longer need miracles to confirm the faith, since Scripture is enough?
D. Related to (C.), what support for the Christian faith do MacArthur and Mayhue offer? They are rather skeptical that classic apologetic arguments can lead a person to the God of Jesus Christ, plus they contend that God in Scripture hardly ever attempts to defend his credibility: he just speaks authoritatively, and that’s that! The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is also instrumental in bringing people to faith.
E. MacArthur and Mayhue argues that the tongues of I Corinthians 14 are human languages, like the tongues of Acts 2. They draw parallels between the two chapters: in both cases, outsiders are baffled by what they are hearing, as observers in Acts 2 think the disciples are drunk, and Paul fears that people hearing tongues in I Corinthians 14 will think that the Corinthian Christians sound like barbarians. Of course, MacArthur and Mayhue think that people speaking in tongues in these passages do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they were not merely trained to speak foreign languages. The implication may be that Christians in I Corinthians 14 are getting carried away with a gift that God gave them, using it in inappropriate ways and settings. On the basis of I Corinthians 14:21, which quotes Isaiah 28:11, MacArthur and Mayhue conclude that tongues are a sign to the people of Israel, perhaps that the Gospel is going to the Gentiles.
F. Overall, MacArthur and Mayhue effectively survey different Christian perspectives, discuss what they consider to be their strengths and weaknesses, and offer their conclusions. Their discussion of when the soul enters the body comes to mind as an excellent example. Their discussion of preterism, however, was a little lacking: one can read that section and wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would want to become a preterist! MacArthur and Mayhue contend that preterism is wrong because Christ did not come back in the first century, and the cataclysmic heavenly signs of Matthew 24:29 did not occur then. MacArthur and Mayhue ignore that preterists have answers to these arguments: God’s “coming” can refer to a divine act of judgment (see Genesis 11:5-7; Exodus 12:12), which is what occurred in 70 C.E., and heavenly signs are not necessarily literal but are used to describe even historical events of divine judgment (Isaiah 13, which concerns the fall of Babylon). At the same time, MacArthur and Mayhue inspire a good question: when do preterist arguments become a stretch? Matthew 25 occurs after Matthew 24, and it depicts God judging the nations and sending some people to hell. Can that cogently be interpreted as a first century event?
G. There are cases in which MacArthur and Mayhue let the Hebrew Bible be the Hebrew Bible, rather than projecting their Christian beliefs onto it. They interpret “Elohim” (plural), for example, not so much in reference to the Trinity, but rather as a way to express God’s awesomeness: God is too great to be expressed in the singular. At other times, MacArthur and Mayhue think that Jesus in the Hebrew Bible is unavoidable: the Angel of the LORD in the Hebrew Bible, for them, is not a mere messenger but is a member of the Godhead, since this messenger receives worship and has the power to forgive sins (Joshua 5:13-15; Exodus 23:21; Zechariah 3:3-4), which are divine prerogatives. MacArthur and Mayhue also interpret Daniel 9 in light of the New Testament, without considering non-Christian interpretations (i.e., that it relates to the time of the Maccabees). That is understandable, since they are Christians, and they present a fairly decent case that the Book of Revelation envisions the seventieth week of Daniel 9 to take place in the eschaton.
H. MacArthur and Mayhue observe details in Scripture that appear to support their positions. In favor of their Calvinist belief that divine grace is what causes a person to have faith, they refer to Acts 18:27, which refers to people who came to believe through grace. That does not mean that Christians were never under divine wrath, for they were before they believed; Ephesians 2:3 makes that clear, as MacArthur and Mayhue contend. MacArthur and Mayhue embrace infralapsarianism rather than supralapsarianism: they hold that God’s predestination of some to life and some to damnation logically follows his predestination of the Fall. They refer to Romans 9:22-23, which presents God forming vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. Wrath and mercy presume the existence of sin, which came as a result of the Fall, so, for MacArthur and Mayhue, God’s predestinating choice in Romans 9 logically follows and assumes the existence of the Fall.
I. MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “soul” and “spirit.” They acknowledge nuance in the words: nephesh in the Old Testament, for instance, can refer to a person, but also to what gives the person life.
J. MacArthur and Mayhue say that impeccability, the idea that Christ was unable to sin, is the majority position within Christianity. Why would Christ be tempted, though, if he was unable to sin (Matthew 4; Luke 4; Hebrews 4:15)? Is not the temptation a waste of time? Can Jesus even be tempted, if he was unable to sin? MacArthur and Mayhue refer to this point of view but do not successfully respond to it.
K. Related to (J.), there are times when MacArthur and Mayhue chalk things up as mysteries. In explaining passages that appear to suggest that Jesus is the savior of all, MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through those passages, look at their contexts, and they conclude that the “all” in those cases are specifically believers rather than everyone, in accordance with their belief in TULIP. At the same time, they deny that God desires or delights in the death of the wicked, since such a notion would contradict such passages as Ezekiel 33:11. They say that God may have two desires: God would like the wicked to be saved but chooses the option that brings God more glory, which includes the damnation of the wicked. Ultimately, they settle on saying that we see in Scripture that God desires the repentance of the wicked, but also that God chooses the specific people who will be saved and does not select everyone.
L. MacArthur and Mayhue make the interesting point that John the Baptist, in baptizing people, was implying that the Israelites were not truly part of the people of Israel and needed to become Israelites through baptism. Baptism, after all, was a Jewish rite by which Gentiles converted to Judaism. And John in Matthew 3:9 warns the Israelites not to place their trust in Abraham being their father. History rarely comes into play in this book, but there are key moments when it does, with profound results.
M. MacArthur and Mayhue argue that II Peter 3:10 does not depict God destroying the old heaven and earth then creating a new one, but rather God purifying the old one (cp. Malachi 4). David Jeremiah makes a similar argument in a book of his I am reading, The Book of Signs.
Overall, this book is an interesting, edifying, and biblically-based work on biblical doctrine. In contrast to many of MacArthur’s works, this one lacks anecdotes. But it draws heavily on the details and implications of Scripture. Some discussions are more interesting than others. I, for one, thought that the book spent more time than I liked on divine simplicity. Even in that discussion, however, MacArthur and Mayhue are unafraid to tackle tough questions, such as the question of whether divine simplicity (i.e., God does not “possess” attributes because they are who he is, and God does not consist of parts) contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. This book is a rewarding read.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
In this nearly 1000-page book, Pastor John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue extensively go through biblical doctrine. The topics covered in this book include the inspiration of Scripture, the nature of God, Christology, the Holy Spirit, the nature of human beings, sin, salvation, angels, the church, and eschatology. Not surprisingly, considering this is a book by MacArthur, it embraces the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, TULIP, cessationism, the pre-tribulational rapture, and pre-millennialism.
Here are some items, which are a mere sample of what I got out of the book:
A. MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge that there is no perfectly accurate manuscript of the Bible on earth. Still, on the basis of such passages as Psalm 119:89, which states that God’s word is fixed in the heavens, they believe that there is a perfect version of the Scriptures in heaven. Over time, the jots and the tittles of the law and the prophets are being fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).
B. MacArthur and Mayhue appeal to Acts 19:14-16 and Jude 8-10 in arguing for cessationism, the idea that God no longer performs miracles through human agents. In these passages, unqualified people presume to cast out or to rebuke demons. Whether that supports cessationism is a good question. When those men in Acts 19 presumed to cast out demons, the time of miracles had not yet ceased, even in MacArthur’s reckoning; the apostles performed them, after all. At the same time, Acts 19 may demonstrate that not just anyone can perform miracles.
C. MacArthur and Mayhue hold that the miracles of the first century were designed to confirm the truth of the Christian message. Indeed, they cite biblical passages in which people are amazed after seeing Jesus or the disciples perform miracles. Nowadays, according to MacArthur and Mayhue, the Bible is sufficient by itself, for II Peter 1:16-21 states that the prophecies of Scripture are even surer, more certain than the Transfiguration. There are reasons that Scripture is conceivably preferable to the Transfiguration: Scripture is available to a lot of people, whereas the Transfiguration was only witnessed by Peter, James, and John; Scripture also conveys more detail and context than a brief miraculous event. But is II Peter 1:16-21 necessarily saying that we no longer need miracles to confirm the faith, since Scripture is enough?
D. Related to (C.), what support for the Christian faith do MacArthur and Mayhue offer? They are rather skeptical that classic apologetic arguments can lead a person to the God of Jesus Christ, plus they contend that God in Scripture hardly ever attempts to defend his credibility: he just speaks authoritatively, and that’s that! The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is also instrumental in bringing people to faith.
E. MacArthur and Mayhue argues that the tongues of I Corinthians 14 are human languages, like the tongues of Acts 2. They draw parallels between the two chapters: in both cases, outsiders are baffled by what they are hearing, as observers in Acts 2 think the disciples are drunk, and Paul fears that people hearing tongues in I Corinthians 14 will think that the Corinthian Christians sound like barbarians. Of course, MacArthur and Mayhue think that people speaking in tongues in these passages do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they were not merely trained to speak foreign languages. The implication may be that Christians in I Corinthians 14 are getting carried away with a gift that God gave them, using it in inappropriate ways and settings. On the basis of I Corinthians 14:21, which quotes Isaiah 28:11, MacArthur and Mayhue conclude that tongues are a sign to the people of Israel, perhaps that the Gospel is going to the Gentiles.
F. Overall, MacArthur and Mayhue effectively survey different Christian perspectives, discuss what they consider to be their strengths and weaknesses, and offer their conclusions. Their discussion of when the soul enters the body comes to mind as an excellent example. Their discussion of preterism, however, was a little lacking: one can read that section and wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would want to become a preterist! MacArthur and Mayhue contend that preterism is wrong because Christ did not come back in the first century, and the cataclysmic heavenly signs of Matthew 24:29 did not occur then. MacArthur and Mayhue ignore that preterists have answers to these arguments: God’s “coming” can refer to a divine act of judgment (see Genesis 11:5-7; Exodus 12:12), which is what occurred in 70 C.E., and heavenly signs are not necessarily literal but are used to describe even historical events of divine judgment (Isaiah 13, which concerns the fall of Babylon). At the same time, MacArthur and Mayhue inspire a good question: when do preterist arguments become a stretch? Matthew 25 occurs after Matthew 24, and it depicts God judging the nations and sending some people to hell. Can that cogently be interpreted as a first century event?
G. There are cases in which MacArthur and Mayhue let the Hebrew Bible be the Hebrew Bible, rather than projecting their Christian beliefs onto it. They interpret “Elohim” (plural), for example, not so much in reference to the Trinity, but rather as a way to express God’s awesomeness: God is too great to be expressed in the singular. At other times, MacArthur and Mayhue think that Jesus in the Hebrew Bible is unavoidable: the Angel of the LORD in the Hebrew Bible, for them, is not a mere messenger but is a member of the Godhead, since this messenger receives worship and has the power to forgive sins (Joshua 5:13-15; Exodus 23:21; Zechariah 3:3-4), which are divine prerogatives. MacArthur and Mayhue also interpret Daniel 9 in light of the New Testament, without considering non-Christian interpretations (i.e., that it relates to the time of the Maccabees). That is understandable, since they are Christians, and they present a fairly decent case that the Book of Revelation envisions the seventieth week of Daniel 9 to take place in the eschaton.
H. MacArthur and Mayhue observe details in Scripture that appear to support their positions. In favor of their Calvinist belief that divine grace is what causes a person to have faith, they refer to Acts 18:27, which refers to people who came to believe through grace. That does not mean that Christians were never under divine wrath, for they were before they believed; Ephesians 2:3 makes that clear, as MacArthur and Mayhue contend. MacArthur and Mayhue embrace infralapsarianism rather than supralapsarianism: they hold that God’s predestination of some to life and some to damnation logically follows his predestination of the Fall. They refer to Romans 9:22-23, which presents God forming vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. Wrath and mercy presume the existence of sin, which came as a result of the Fall, so, for MacArthur and Mayhue, God’s predestinating choice in Romans 9 logically follows and assumes the existence of the Fall.
I. MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “soul” and “spirit.” They acknowledge nuance in the words: nephesh in the Old Testament, for instance, can refer to a person, but also to what gives the person life.
J. MacArthur and Mayhue say that impeccability, the idea that Christ was unable to sin, is the majority position within Christianity. Why would Christ be tempted, though, if he was unable to sin (Matthew 4; Luke 4; Hebrews 4:15)? Is not the temptation a waste of time? Can Jesus even be tempted, if he was unable to sin? MacArthur and Mayhue refer to this point of view but do not successfully respond to it.
K. Related to (J.), there are times when MacArthur and Mayhue chalk things up as mysteries. In explaining passages that appear to suggest that Jesus is the savior of all, MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through those passages, look at their contexts, and they conclude that the “all” in those cases are specifically believers rather than everyone, in accordance with their belief in TULIP. At the same time, they deny that God desires or delights in the death of the wicked, since such a notion would contradict such passages as Ezekiel 33:11. They say that God may have two desires: God would like the wicked to be saved but chooses the option that brings God more glory, which includes the damnation of the wicked. Ultimately, they settle on saying that we see in Scripture that God desires the repentance of the wicked, but also that God chooses the specific people who will be saved and does not select everyone.
L. MacArthur and Mayhue make the interesting point that John the Baptist, in baptizing people, was implying that the Israelites were not truly part of the people of Israel and needed to become Israelites through baptism. Baptism, after all, was a Jewish rite by which Gentiles converted to Judaism. And John in Matthew 3:9 warns the Israelites not to place their trust in Abraham being their father. History rarely comes into play in this book, but there are key moments when it does, with profound results.
M. MacArthur and Mayhue argue that II Peter 3:10 does not depict God destroying the old heaven and earth then creating a new one, but rather God purifying the old one (cp. Malachi 4). David Jeremiah makes a similar argument in a book of his I am reading, The Book of Signs.
Overall, this book is an interesting, edifying, and biblically-based work on biblical doctrine. In contrast to many of MacArthur’s works, this one lacks anecdotes. But it draws heavily on the details and implications of Scripture. Some discussions are more interesting than others. I, for one, thought that the book spent more time than I liked on divine simplicity. Even in that discussion, however, MacArthur and Mayhue are unafraid to tackle tough questions, such as the question of whether divine simplicity (i.e., God does not “possess” attributes because they are who he is, and God does not consist of parts) contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. This book is a rewarding read.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
