Talk:John MacArthur (American pastor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

DOBSON CONTROVERSY

I recall a few weeks ago MacArthur essentially blamed God's anger towards the United States to sexual immorality and more specifically, "lesbian sex". Could anyone expand on that? (I'm sure someone else probably has more info), but then again, I'm an idiot.

John MacArthur is a fundamentalist, and not an evangelical.

There are at least two objective reasons why this is the case:

He is against the field of psychology and believes that there is no such thing as mental illness. The legal case mentioned in the main article was regarding this issue. It went all the way to the California Supreme Court, but the Court chose not to hear the case.

He is a young Earth creationists and believes that a "24 hour day" reading of the Genesis account is the only literal interpretation of the relevant passages.

Subjectively speaking, as was mentioned by the previous entry and in the main article, he is severely critical of other Christian leaders. He does not treat differences of opinion regarding most issues as merely differences of opinion, in other words he does not show grace.

These are all hallmarks of fundamentalism, so that is why John MacArthur is fits more properly in the fundamentalist camp. The only issue that I know of that sets him apart from other fundamentalists is that he does not advocate a "King James only" view. That is that the King James version of the Holy Bible is the only legitimate translation of the Bible, English or otherwise. Regarding the KJV, one fundamentalist was quoted as saying, "If it was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for me." --Davidoh1975 (aka 63.201.37.95)

Fair enough. I would add to your list that he is a Dispensationalist (of a sort). However, he's not rigorously anti-intellectual (despite the opposition to psychology) or a fan of codes of conduct, which also tend to appear in Fundamentalist Christianity (see Fundamentalist Christianity#Other beliefs). --Flex 20:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Although MacArthur does not advocate a specific "code of conduct" (e.g. Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College), his doctrine of "Lordship Salvation" certainly incorporates "good" conduct as a requisite of salvation. --Davidoh1975 (aka 63.201.37.95)

Hi, David. I'm pleased to see that you created an account. If you are signed in, you can sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this ~~~~. It will automatically replace them with your user id and a timestamp. I signed your posts above for you.

To your point: The necessity of good works is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism, and in fact, some conservative Christians reject that works are required at all for salvation (e.g. Charles Stanley and the "once saved; always saved" group). Catholicism as well as historic Protestantism both see good works as essential ("What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" --James 2:14). This is a different issue from the "codes of conduct", which are generally framed negatively rather than positively — that is, the codes forbid rather than require specific acts. While MacArthur is a strong advocate of Lordship salvation, he does not generally subscribe to such codes of conduct. --Flex 13:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

David, on second thought... I think it is inaccurate for you to say that MacArthur is not an evangelical (as you do in the title of this discussion). The article itself still says his theology is "best described" as evangelical, and his website does not claim (as far as I could find) that he thinks he is a fundamentalist. The problem as I see it is inspecific terms: fundamentalist and evangelical are both very loose labels that have diverged from their original meanings and describe a vast, overlapping swath of Christendom (compare the beliefs section of Evangelicalism with that of Fundamentalist Christianity). I think we should adopt his prefered term, which my searching seems to indicate is "evangelical". If you disagree, what definition of evangelical are you thinking of that disqualifies him? --Flex 02:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever label one may choose for themselves is irrelevant. One could choose labels for arbitrary reasons. So meeting an objective standard would seem to be a better way of determining if someone is an fund. or evang. From what I've seen, if someone believes in any of the above 3 ideas I mentioned for the reasons mentioned, they would be fundamentalist. But the most substantial difference between fund. and evang. are subjective: Do they show grace in difference of theological opinion? Do they treat PEOPLE of other religions fairly? What kind of music do they find acceptable, and how do they treat people who listen to those other kinds of music? Those sort of things. With all of what I mentioned together, I would argue that MacArthur is indeed a fundamentalist, even if he chooses not to call himself that.

Another important difference is women in ministry. Fund. would never allow women in ministry (i.e. in leadership positions over men), while evang. have more open ideas about what a woman's proper role in ministry is. This also would put MacArthur in the fund. camp.

Regarding Lordship Salvation (which is also a whole other issue), what I find unacceptable about it is that "good conduct" is a REQUISITE for salvation, while most evangelicals, myself included, would say that it is a RESULT of salvation. Now, proponents of LS would NEVER admit that under LS it is a requisite, but from what I've seen, read and heard from these people, that is exactly how it works out in actual practice of it. Davidoh1975 04:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, it appears that Flex is reflecting a more accurate and NPOV position. When Davidoh1975 says, --"From what I've seen, if someone believes in any of the above 3 ideas I mentioned for the reasons mentioned, they would be fundamentalist. But the most substantial difference between fund. and evang. are subjective: Do they show grace in difference of theological opinion?",-- this is clearly a POV opinion and an insufficient basis for labeling McArthur a Fundamentalist. The definition of a Fundamentalist is not "young earth", "24-hour creation day", and a subjective opinion of a man's personal demeanor. It seems it would be better to leave the introductory statement as "evangelical" or perhaps "conservative Christian" or even just "Christian"; then, in the body of the article, add reference to some fundamentalist aspects of his theology, but even at that, it should be done based on fact or published scholarly interpretation (citing sources), or Wiki-concensus, but not a single opinion -- especially when contested. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

MacArthur, like several other important Evangelical leaders, is trying to reconnect with historical theology - especially the Puritans. MacArthur's uniqueness comes from trying to accomplish this from a dispensationalist and baptistic perspective. The very fact that he is so interested in historical theology pretty much puts him outside of The Fundamentalist camp, in my opinion. Some of the things being tied to "fundamentalism" above, are common among any evangelicals who have a fly-speck of respect for what Christians have always believed on the issue, prior to our very recent departure: like women in ministry.

Fundamentalism doesn't any longer describe beliefs so much as allegiance, and especially the attitude toward separation. Criticism of error and hypocrisy in other Christians (as he sees it), and especially of their leaders, is not unique to Fundamentalists; and many do it in the belief that they are imitating Christ who criticized hypocrites and errorists - not a bad point. MacArthur's separateness comes from out of his Baptist convictions, not from the Fundamentalist movement. And there is no hint of the distinctive "n^th-degree" separation in MacArthur ("be ye separate from them who be not separate" - Fund 1:1).

Furthermore I, as a confessionally Reformed Christian, absolutely reject the completely innovative contrast that comes to the foreground in the "Lordship" controversy. That is a problem that is tied specifically to the dispensational outlook, which tends to produce such a low view of the Law that it actually discourages Christians from believing that Christ came to deliver us from our sins, as well as from the penalty due to sin. Of course it is an obligation to turn from sin, to live for God. To profess Christ, but not to desire and pray for grace through Christ to be free from impiety, blasphemy, rebelliousness, murder, slander, theft, and covetousness is deplorable and scandalous hypocrisy. Antinomianism is dispensationalism's great problem tendency, which MacArthur, to the enormous credit of the grace of God, is trying to overcome. My thinking this way comes out of calvinism, not from the fundamentalist movement. It's the same with MacArthur.

Short version: Flex has it right. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Criteria

The problem with this entire discussion is that no one has yet to clearly define the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, therefore, a truly NPOV is not possible. The problem is compounded by the fact that the media makes no distinction between the two groups. The problem with the term itself is that it's historical CONNOTATION has changed from it's original inception. The above 2 writers do not label MacArthur a fundamentalist because he does not fit THEIR definition of it. I confess I did the same thing, but as I have indicated, no one has set forth a clear distinction between the two groups, and until there is, or at least a consensus, a truly NPOV is not possible.

The weaknesses of Lordship Salvation as well as the distinctions between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are better discussed in a separate wiki articles. So, who up for it? 00:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Two criteria
   1. The Associated Press stylebook now recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group or person who does not use the term as a self-description.
   2. Those who trace their principal affiliation to groups originating in the Fundamentalist movement (who did not subsequently distance themselves from it) can be labelled "Fundamentalist".
2. and two suggested usage guidelines:
   1. The term is best used within a narrower scope, rather than as a merely convenient generalization: "Rev. Bob Smith holds a fundamentalist view of Noah's flood" - would better be stated, Bob Smith thinks that a literal interpretation of Noah's flood is fundamental to the Christian faith. In other words, avoid using fundamentalist as a character description, or an evaluation of the quality of a person's position.
   2. Those groups fairly consistently rejected by self-labelled Fundamentalists, should be more appropriately labelled. Thus:
      The GARBC is fundamentalist. The Conservative Baptist Foreign Missionary Society is conservative Evangelical.
      The Bible Presbyterian Church is fundamentalist, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is confessional and Reformed
      Bob Jones University is fundamentalist, Wheaton College is left-leaning Evangelical
      etc. ...

And here's one that should ring true, for you:
Pensacola Christian College is fundamentalist, Biola University is conservative Evangelical.

I hope this helps us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue with your last point!

The AP not withstanding, I would still argue that self labeling is not a sufficient means for a neutral determination. You chose to call PCC fundamentalist and Biola evangelical. However, a search on the PCC website reveals that they do not refer to themselves as fundamentalist, and that in an NYT magazine (Sept. 5, 2004) interview with Clyde Cook, the president of Biola U., he

"explained that the university is as committed as ever to the principles articulated in "The Fundamentals," although, he said, "we've found different and more effective ways to deliver those truths.""

I suppose you can READ the last part as a distancing, but it is certainly not explicitly so. Because of this, it would seem to me that self labeling and distancing are not good criteria for determination.

Regarding your usage propositions, when someone reads that, "Rev. Bob Smith holds a fundamentalist view of Noah's flood," whether or not it is taken as a "...character description, or an evaluation of the quality of a person's position." would depend entirely on the reader. How I were to take that sentence would depend on where I found the sentence. If I found it in Newsweek, I would take it as how you suggest it be written, "Bob Smith thinks that a literal interpretation of Noah's flood is fundamental to the Christian faith." However, if I read that in say Christianity Today, I would take it as, "Rev. Bob Smith thinks that a global flood covering the face of the entire planet Earth is the only valid interpretation of the Flood passage."

However, even if it was written as you suggest, "Bob Smith thinks that a literal interpretation of Noah's flood is fundamental to the Christian faith." That STILL does not tell me whether Smith is a Fundamentalist. Then it comes down to what was meant by "literal." Some Christians believe that the flood passage MUST mean a GLOBAL flood that covered the face of the Earth. Other Christians believe that it was a UNIVERSAL flood that killed all land life that was effected by human activity, but was localized in terms of geography. I would say that the former is a fundamentalist view, while the latter is an evangelical view, while both would say that their's is a literal interpretation.

Even if we use your criteria and we assume that he does NOT call himself a fundamentalist, can you show me where MacArthur has distanced himself from fundamentalism, because he is certainly rooted in it?

BTW, I do appreciate your attempt at establishing an NPOV criteria. Thanks!Davidoh1975 18:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

A proposal for differentiating between CONTEMPORARY Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

I propose that we use specific theological beliefs as a criteria for determining whether someone is a Fundamentalist or Evangelical. They would be factual statements and should not be considered a judgement on the validity of the position. Such judgements would only be in the mind of the reader. I believe that this is an objective determination, independent of self labeling or historical ties to the original Fundamentalist movement. The beliefs are as follows:

Women in ministry-

Fundamentalist- Women have no place in leadership positions over men, and they should not speak from the pulpit during worship.

Evangelical- Women have have valid roles in ministry, even if it is in leadership positions over men, and are no different from men in terms of giving a message to the congregation from the pulpit.

Age of the Earth-

Fundamentalist- The age of the planet Earth is anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 years old and is essential to a correct understanding of Scripture.

Evangelical- A specific age of the Earth is not essential to correct biblical interpretation.

Noah's Flood-

Fundamentalist- Noah's flood covered the entire face of the planet Earth.

Evangelical- Noah's flood destroyed all life that was effected by human activity, including all humans EXCEPT for the 8 who were on the Ark, but MAY NOT have been global.

Psychology-

Fundamentalist- Psychology is a false religion and mental illness is an illusion.

Evangelical- Psychology is a valid field of the study of human behavior, and practitioners in the field of mental health may be used to help treat emotional problems.

Bible Translations-

Fundamentalist- The KJV is the only acceptable translation of the Bible to be used in worship, devotion, and study.

Evangelical- All translations have their strengths and weaknesses and no ONE is better than the other for ALL Bible related activities.

Catholicism-

Fundamentalist- The teachings of the Catholic church are heretical and presents a false Gospel.

Evangelical- Although there are significant IRRECONCILABLE differences between the Protestant and Catholic Churches, the core teaching of each Church are the same, and hence are both are valid member of Christiandom.

Most other specific issues both sides are pretty much in agreement. Although if anyone reading this knows of another significant difference, please let us know. Notice that I have made NO judgement as to the validity of each position. I propose that if any person or institution adheres MOSTLY to either one side or the other, they should be given the respective label because they have met an OBJECTIVE criterion.

In that case, MacArthur should clearly be labeled a Fundamentalist. Davidoh1975 07:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Davidoh1975 , you are using what I think are invented criteria. The whole point here is to avoid applying labels in a way that we make up ourselves, or that pushes a particular point of view. Does MacArthur and the GTY organization consider itself Fundamentalist? Or does it label itself differently? Do Fundamentalists regard him as one of them? Has he made his position known in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical debate, so that he stands on one side or the other? These questions all concern facts. Your criteria invent new ways of sniffing out Fundamentalists. My guess is that MacArthur isn't at all ashamed of the fundamentalist label (although some fundamentalists might be ashamed of him - I don't know). You could probably write to him or to Phillip Johnson and ask how the article should be written, to be accurate.

You began this thread by suggesting two "objective criteria".

1. He is against the field of psychology and believes that there is no such thing as mental illness. The legal case mentioned in the main article was regarding this issue. It went all the way to the California Supreme Court, but the Court chose not to hear the case.
2. He is a young Earth creationists and believes that a "24 hour day" reading of the Genesis account is the only literal interpretation of the relevant passages.

What was the purpose of these criteria? To prove (in your words) that, he is "not an evangelical" but rather a "fundamentalist". This strikes me as nothing more than argument by labelling. Furthermore, as I've already said, your criteria for what constitutes an Evangelical are completely your own invention. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mark, here. For more on the "spin" attached to the word "Fundamentalism", see this article: "Is Fundamentalism the New Sex?" by Carl Trueman. With tongue-in-cheek, he quotes Alvin Plantinga as saying that a fundamentalist is "that awkward person...who is just to the right of you." More seriously and no less arbitrarily than you, he defines Christian fundamentalism as "that attitude of mind which believes that the Bible must always be interpreted with no reference whatsoever to what the church throughout the centuries has considered it to teach." That certainly doesn't fit MacArthur. --Flex 21:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Those last two quotes sound like value judgement to me. You should notice that I have made no value judgement as to what MacArthur believes or of fundamentalism itself. If that's what you believe about those issues I presented then that's what you believe. Let the reader decide if EITHER subset of those beliefs are deficient. The WORST thing I have said is that MacArthur shows no grace (which is merely an agreement with the first post). But even THAT is an objective statement. Some Christians believe you should not ALWAYS show grace.

Whether or not they are my own invention is inconsequential. If I "invent" a way to OBJECTIVELY SHOW how fundamentalism and evangelicalism are different, and most people in Christiandom agree with that, then so be it. That was actually the purpose of my proposal ("invention," as you put it). Take an example from pollitics. You can't call yourself a "social conservative" of you believe on free abortion and demand, completely open national borders, and legalization of narcotics. Whether to label someone a social liberal or conservative comes from their BELIEFS. The difference in this matter is that there is much less consensus as to what makes up the difference, and I am trying to establish a consensus, which is really what definitions are. If you disagree, fine, you disagree, just as I have disagreed to your criteria.

Mark, you still have not shown me where MacArthur distances himself from fundamentalism. If you can not, then by YOUR OWN criteria, he should be called a fundamentalist. Davidoh1975 22:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Translations, etc.

"If it was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me" is silly - regarding the KJV. English speaking people are a missionary project. The KJV is in English. The New Testament was not written in English and there are translation mistakes all over in the KJV. KJV is the Authorized Version but to say it is the only version is silly. Get a Greek text, learn basic grammar rules, look up words as they were used when the Greek testament was written and then start noting inconsistencies. Then dump the idea that the KJV was good enough for the apostles who wrote in koine greek. It's a wonderful translation but it's not the only translation. Now I believe in word for word tranlation and not thought for thought. Therefore all tranlations are not created equal. Try the LITV. It's not perfect either but it's pretty good.

One must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. Big difference. You must be born before you can live for the Lord. New birth has one condition. Belief in the gospel concerning Christ - 1 Cor. 15:3-4... then Eph 1:12-13 say upon hearing and believing you are sealed by the Spirit of God Himself until the redemption ... get it? From the time you believe, until the time you are redeemed. There is no period of time in between when the believer is not sealed by God as God's property. The argument in James 2 is for believers. Read the context and follow it from Chapter 1. He is talking about salvation of the "soul" from the attack of the sin nature - and resultant works of the flesh. This is not equal to salvation from the penalty of sin - the lake of fire. If you cross reference Romans 6 and 7 you will find the doctrinal antidote for freedom from the sin nature (note the article in the greek - he harmatia - "the sin" ... Believers are to Reckon their identification with His death, Reckon their resurrection life together with Him, and Yield their bodies as instruments of righteousness unto God the Father. It's that simple. But it starts with believing the gospel that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again. That was the gospel delivered directly to Paul from the Glorified Resurrected Jesus Christ - Galatians 1. --204.73.55.90

We appreciate your thoughts, but this is not really a forum for discussing one's thoughts and beliefs on arbitrary topics. It's primarily about discussing MacArthur's. You'll also notice from the dates that the above conversation is rather old. --Flex 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Check my work

When I replaced the existing publications list with the wiki-table, I may have lost some important notes from the following. Would someone please come behind me and clean up any mess I have made? HokieRNB 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1973 The Church: The Body of Christ, revised and retitled in 1982 and 1996 by Victor as The Body Dynamic God's Will Is Not Lost, revised slightly and retitled in 1977 as Found God's Will

1975 Liberated for Life Can a Man Live Again?

1976 Keys to Spiritual Growth, revised in 1991; reprinted by Crossway in 2001

1977 Focus on Fact: Why You Can Trust the Bible, revised (slightly) and retitled in 1983 by Victor Found: God's Will, slight revision of 1973's God's Will Is Not Lost

1978 The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective, revised in 1992 as Charismatic Chaos Giving: God's Way

1980 Beware the Pretenders Kingdom Living: Here and Now, revised slightly in 1998 as The Only Way to Happiness Why Believe the Bible Take God's Word For It, curriculum edition of Why Believe the Bible

1981 Jesus' Pattern of Prayer, revised in 1995 by Victor as Alone with God

1982 Body Dynamics, revision and retitle of 1973's The Church, revised and retitled again in 1996 as The Body Dynamic The Family Your Family, contains the same material as The Family, but has discussion questions

1983 Hebrews The Ultimate Priority Why I Trust the Bible, slight revision and retitle of 1977's Focus on Fact

1984 1 Corinthians

1985 Matthew 1-7

1986 The Legacy of Jesus, revised slightly and retitled in 2001 by Word as How to Survive in A World of Unbelievers Ephesians

1987 Matthew 8-15 Galatians

1988 The Gospel According to Jesus, revised in 1994 Matthew 16-23

1989 God With Us: The Miracle of Christmas, retitled in 1993 as The Miracle of Christmas Matthew 24-28 Shepherdology, revised slightly and retitled in 1991 by Moody as The Master's Plan for the Church

1991 Our Sufficiency in Christ, reprinted by Crossway in 1998 Romans 1-8 Keys to Spiritual Growth, revision of 1976 edition; reprinted by Crossway in 2001 The Master's Plan for the Church, slight revision of 1989's Sheperdology

1992 Charismatic Chaos, revision of 1978's The Charismatics Rediscovering Expository Preaching, co-written by John and The Master's Seminary faculty How to Meet the Enemy Saved Without a Doubt Colossians & Philemon

1993 Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, retitled in 2000 as The Gospel According to the Apostles God: Coming Face to Face with His Majesty, retitled and reprinted by Crossway in 2001 as Our Awesome God Anxiety Attacked: Applying Scripture to the Cares of the Soul Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World Drawing Near The Miracle of Christmas, retitle of 1989's God With Us

1994 The Gospel According to Jesus, revision of 1988 edition The Vanishing Conscience Romans 9-16 Different by Design Introduction to Biblical Counseling, co-written by John, Wayne Mack, and The Master's College faculty Acts 1-12 Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern

1995 First Love: The Joy and Simplicity of Life in Christ The Power of Suffering: Strengthing Your Faith in the Refiner's Fire 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, co-written by John and The Master's Seminary faculty Alone with God: The Power and Passion of Prayer, revision of 1981's Jesus' Pattern of Prayer

1996 Titus The Love of God: He Will Do Whatever It Takes to Make Us Holy, Retitled in 2001 The Silent Shepherd: The Care, Comfort and Correction of the Holy Spirit The Glory of Heaven: The Truth about Heaven, Angels and Eternal Life Acts 13-28 The Body Dynamic: Finding Where You Fit in Today's Church, revision of 1982 volume

1997 The Power of Integrity: Building a Life Without Compromise How to Get the Most from God's Word: An Everyday Guide to Enrich Your Study of the Bible, revision of 1980's Why Believe the Bible and 1983's Why I Trust the Bible retitled by Nelson in 2003 as Unleashing God's Word in Your Life The MacArthur Study Bible Strength for Today

1998 The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness The Only Way to Happiness, slight revision of 1980's Kingdom Living The Pillars of Christian Character: The Essential Attitudes of a Living Faith James Our Sufficiency in Christ, reprint of 1991 Word edition In the Footsteps of Faith: Lessons to Learn from Great Men and Women of the Bible

1999 Successful Christian Parenting, retitled in 2000 as What the Bible Says about Parenting Revelation 1-11 The Second Coming Nothing But the Truth The MacArthur Topical Bible I Believe in Jesus

2000 The Murder of Jesus What the Bible Says about Parenting, retitle of 1999's Successful Christian Parenting The Gospel According to the Apostles, retitle of 1993's Faith Works, repackaged in 2005 Whose Money Is It, Anyway? Why Government Can't Save You O Worship the King Revelation 12-22 A Faith to Grow On

2001 How to Survive in a World of Unbelievers, slight revision and retitle of 1983's Legacy of Jesus The MacArthur Student Bible The God Who Loves, retitle of 1996's The Love of God Keys to Spiritual Growth, reprint of 1991 Revell edtion Philippians God in the Manger The Battle for the Beginning, repackaged in 2005 Our Awesome God, retitle and reprint of 1993's God O Come All Ye Faithful Truth for Today Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible

2002 The MacArthur Quick Reference Guide to the Bible Why One Way? What Wondrous Love is This Can God Bless America? When Morning Gilds the Skies Twelve Ordinary Men 1 & 2 Thessalonians The MacArthur Topical Bible [repackaged]

2003 Think Biblically, co-written by John and The Master's College faculty Lord, Teach Me to Pray Unleashing God's Word in Your Life, retitle of 1997's How to Get the Most from God's Word Safe In the Arms of God MacArthur Bible Handbook MacArthur Daily Bible Hard to Believe 2 Corinthians MacArthur Scripture Memory System

2004 Truth Matters The Murder of Jesus [repackaged] 1 Peter Welcome to the Family Follow Me A Faith to Grow On [repackaged] The Book on Leadership

2005 A Faith to Grow On Bible Fool's Gold? The Heart of the Bible The Vanishing Conscience [repackaged] The Battle for the Beginning [repackaged] The Gospel According to the Apostles [repackaged] MacArthur One-Volume Commentary The Fulfilled Family Twelve Extraordimary Women 2 Peter & Jude

2006 John 1-11 The Quest for Character The MacArthur Study Bible (NAS)