The Ryrie Study Bible and the MacArthur Study Bibles: Similarities and Differences

[@ThePaulKM]

I was the one who made the request. Thanks for taking the time to do it. And no, I didn't realize I was requesting you to kick the hornet's nest, sorry about that. I just figured Ryrie would be a better comparison to MacArthur than Scofield, considering MacArthur and Ryrie are both Baptists and Scofield is Congregationalist. So that's why I made the request. Thanks again for doing it. It was very helpful.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

My pleasure! It was a great request, I had fun with it! :)

[@jimharris8099]

Ryrie did write a book entitled "So Great Salvation ".

[@spartacusgladiator]

MacArthur a Baptist? Yeah until he was 18 yrs old. Never since.

[@bhjr]

You were fair to both sides. Thank you. I just appreciate your KZbin channel and frequent bestcomm. A real treasure trove of good and solid materials (on either side of their theological divides, nonetheless).👍 Grace and Peace!

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Thanks for the comment. Of course, it's my pleasure!

[@twanettefourie3131]

Thank you. Very helpful.

[@davidsutter1846]

Dr. Ryrie lets the Bible speak for itself.

[@ecuador9911]

Your analysis was very fair, concise and informative. I have both Bibles. Thank you

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Thank you! Are watching from Ecuador?

[@ecuador9911]

@@BestBibleCommentaries No. it’s a reminder of a good friend who used to live in Ecuador.

[@ecuador9911]

Regarding these two perspective, My salvation experience is (1) faith in Jesus as Savior, (2) Perseverance in Sanctification including reading and understanding my Ryrie Study Bible which (3) led to recognizing Jesus as Lord much later. So my experience follows Ryrie’s perspective, but I don’t subscribe to “easy believeism.” Those who “genuinely believe” WILL Persevere in their Sanctification. Those who “just say a prayer” and never follow, I “wonder about” their genuine salvation. I also have a MacArthur Study Bible.

[@Imsaved777]

MacArthur is strictly Calvinist. So trying to compare him with Ryrie is as different as night and day.

[@ThePaulKM]

Ryrie also holds to Calvinistic soteriology though.

[@SaneNoMore]

They are very similar in almost every doctrinal stance.

[@carmennooner2027]

I own the Ryrie and the MacArthur Study Bibles, as well as Schofield and Jeremiah and some by several contributors. When I am doing a deep dive or I've come across a confiscating or what appears to be a contradicting verse, I pull them all out so I can get a broader view of what the scholars have to say. Many times, I have gotten the clarity I needed and also a different perspective to put on the back burner for either further consideration or the realization that, perhaps, that particular interpretation is way off. I also have discovered that the short, brief, yet concise explanation is all I need.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

It sounds like you use these resources truly as an aid for understanding Scripture -- that is great! Yes, I agree, short and sweet is sometimes all that is needed.

[@jimyoung9262]

"I don't know if the requester understood the theological hornet's nest they're asking me to kick over..." 😂😂😂 I'm always interested in hornet's nests being kicked... 🍿🍿🍿

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Is that buttered popcorn? :)

[@jimyoung9262]

Of course. Need butter and light salt for hornets...

[@israelrivera3009]

We need more humor like thissss 😀👌👌

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

It's a nice break from people calling me a heretic! 😆

[@youngrevival9715]

Kick it

[@dcirish1213]

Could you possibly do a video on Allen p Ross 3 volume set on book of psalms? It’s a little pricey and was looking for a review. Have you reviewed any of Allen p Ross’s works yet?

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

I'll put it on my radar. Thanks

[@dcirish1213]

@@BestBibleCommentariesthank you! Just recently discovered your channel and love it! Lots of good reviews to go through. keep up the good work!

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

That's very kind -- thank you!!

[@jimyoung9262]

I have it and have found it to be very helpful. FWIW I'm a conservative inerrantist in a tradition that teaches chapter by chapter through the Bible. Ross seems to be a brilliant conservative scholar.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Yes he is. His Genesis commentary doesn't get as much love as it should, maybe because it's not in a series.

[@jakeham4017]

Do you know if the LSB MA Study Bible includes the same notes as his previous study notes, or does it contain new material? Thanks you!

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

The notes are updated according to the publisher. Since MacArthur hasn't changed any of positions, it may mean that more content has been added to the introductions and notes.

[@aubiejazz]

I find it strange that you did not mention that MacArthur is a calvinist which does show up in a lot of his notes. I use both of these study bibles and have found them to be good tools. I am not calvinist so I fall in line with Ryrie which is the first study bible I used starting in 1980. Thanks for pointing out the Lordship for salvation difference in these two men of God. Great Video!

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Yeah, I could have talked about it more

[@debbiebalnaves4842]

I have two old copies of these Bible's that are falling apart 🤣 I probably should buy new ones,the only problem is all my notes are already in these one's. I like them both , I've got several study Bible's, and I like them all . 😊

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Hi Debbie, thanks for the comment! I would definitely keep the ones with my notes!

[@TacoTuesday4]

Maybe worth looking into a rebind?

[@carben9143]

I also have both study Bibles. I have the Ryrie study Bible in the KJV and the MacArthur in the NASB. I do however want to get a NKJV Jeremiah study Bible and a parallel Bible that has the KJV, NASB 95, NIV, AMP 2015.

[@sensx20]

BBC, could you highlight some scholars who maintain a post-tribulation position? Thanks.

[@Strongtower]

Dr Michael Brown. Dr Craig Keener. Dr Douglas Moo. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the church is post trib. All Orthodox, Catholic, and most Protestants are post trib. Amil, PostMil, and Historic Premil are post trib positions. You will only find pretrib in a select group of Protestants who are Dispensational Premil.

[@bromineandtungsten]

@Strongtower Not really. Most of the church is not post-trib, and it depends on what you consider 'the church.' Only born-again people are the church so that would elminate any forms of syncretistic and sacramental Christianity. So Catholicism and Orthodoxy would both be outside of Biblical Christianity for sure. Now, post-mil may be considered post-trib but only in the sense that they believe Christ's return happens after everything is over, including the Millennium, which they do not take literally. They also do not believe in a literal tribulation period, so I would not classify them as post-trib in the same sense as a historic premil. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have little in the way of a developed eschatology. They both de-emphasize eschatology. Among evangelicals, pre-tribulationism is still dominant.

[@Strongtower]

@@bromineandtungsten Seems like we're using different definitions. I'm highlighting the Posttrib teaching that the rapture/resurrection is the same event as the second coming. I've actually spoken to Christians in the categories I mentioned above. They all agreed that the rapture/resurrection is the same event as the second coming. Only Premil dispensational pretrib/midtrib believers believe the rapture/resurrection and second coming are separate events. I find it sad how you discount the faith of millions of Christians because they don't believe exactly like you. I would encourage you to break out and fellowship with other believers. Have a good day brother.

[@bromineandtungsten]

@Strongtower that's sort of an equivocation. Because the emphasis of the Rapture positions is their relationship to the timing of the Tribulation. Hence, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib. It's an odd thing to say that amil and post-mil are post-trib when they don't believe in a literal Tribulation. Usually post-trib terminology is reserved for those who hold to a literal Tribulation, such as historic premil. As far as the Rapture and Second Coming, you'd be correct that most other views of eschatology conflate the two. Only the dispensational position sees their distinction. The fact that dispensationalism starts with a consistent literal hermenutic and ends with a singular and well-defined eschatology is one of its strengths that indicates the accuracy of its hermeneutic. As for discounting the faith of millions. I don't discount their faith. They definitely have faith in something, whether it be an organization, a ritual, or their own works. But those objects cannot save. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ apart from works. Only Christ can save. Some may not like that the Bible says that, but they have to deal with God's Word on that issue.

[@carben9143]

MacArthur does have a pre trib, Premillennial view point. I don't think it's historical Premillennial though. It follows closer with Dispensational Premillennial.

[@SaneNoMore]

Correct. MacArthur is a dispensational premillennialist. As is Ryrie.

[@bromineandtungsten]

Just the fact that MacArthur holds to a pre-trib rapture by definition means he is not historic premillennial. The 'historic' position-it's not actually the position held in early history-is that the Rapture occurs in conjunction with Christ's second coming at the end of the Tribulation.

[@robusc4940]

Easy. Does your Bible write :- Gal 2:7 "OF the" or "TO the" ? Rom 11:13 "THE Apostle" or "AN Apostle" ? "OF" & "THE" = trust it. "TO" & "AN" = run from it

[@tomhanrahan4157]

an example of MacArthur's bent on Lordship would be his commentary (I assume this comment is still there today as it was 20+ years ago) on James 4:1ff "Where do wars and fights come from among you?.."; where he claims these fights are *not* between believers, but from allowing NONbelievers into the church who cause trouble. As this is nowhere to be found in the text, and in fact the text quite obviously refers to problems among believers, this is a very poor interpretation. But it aligns with a Lordship view of salvation which says true believers would be mostly holy and not act like that.

[@timmyholland8510]

I kinda see the Calvinism point of view makes some good points. Yet, the less wordy notes would seem more to my preference. I'm conflicted on a choice, as both are similar in the important things?

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Hi Timmy, yes, they are in agreement on the Trinity, sinful nature, person and work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Second Coming, and other primary matters.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Do either of these Bibles attempt to explain the Sign of Jonah? The New Jerusalem Bible purports that Mark 8:12 was deliberately abridged and that Luke 11:30 is an "artificial association of orginally distinct sayings."

[@michaelkistner6286]

The NET translation notes are far better than either Ryrie or MacArthur.

[@sllim02]

Historic Premillinialism is essentially post-tribulational premillennialism so no, John MacArthur who is a pretribulational premillennialist would not regard himself as a historic premillennialist.

[@ramlin35]

The ESV Study Bible is a much better Study Bible than MacArthur's. The CSB Study Bible is also very helpful.

[@jimyoung9262]

The NLT study bible is great too. Along with the two you mentioned.

[@rodsalvage7121]

I am sorry that I don’t really understand what you are saying regarding the differences between the two bibles. Sounds like theological hair splitting. Think I will give them a miss and just stick to scripture.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

The Lordship-Free Grace conversation is significant and meaning, which is why conservative evangelicals have discussed it for 40 years. Hardly hair splitting. Nevertheless, blessings on your Bible reading.

[@johndisalvo6283]

Ryrie wrote his . Phil Johnson wrote MacArthur’s.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

What is your source for that information? Please provide a link. Thanks in advance. Macarthur has often partnered with Richard Mayhew, not Johnson, on his reference books, which he clearly and fully acknowledges in the preface to his study Bible.

[@johndisalvo6283]

@@BestBibleCommentaries The BCV ( Book Chapter Verse) channel with Saiko Woods. and Servus Christi Channel Many videos with FULL RECEIPTS!!! God bless!

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

I looked and there are lots of MacArthur videos. Can you point me to the right one? Better yet, do you where he gets his information on Johnson writing the study notes? Thanks again.

[@johndisalvo6283]

@@BestBibleCommentaries I don’t know the specific video but they both say it’s common knowledge within the reformed camp club. They say everyone knows that Johnson is MacArthur’s ghost writer! Both of those channels videos are long but jam packed with full receipts! Best I can do.

[@johndisalvo6283]

@@BestBibleCommentaries. Just googled Phil Johnson ghostwriter for John MacArthur and came up with a bunch of results. Former Masters Seminar VP Dennis Swanson went on Julie Roys website and spilled the beans about the whole thing. Julie Roy’s is a Christian investigative reporter. Have fun!!!

[@SaneNoMore]

I have to side with MacArthur on this one. I own both the study bibles and the books in the video but “easy believism” as many call the Free Grace position has lead to some people thinking they can say a prayer once then go off and live like they always have and still call themselves Christians.

[@bromineandtungsten]

That is definitely not Free Grace. You have conflated the practice of the "sinner's prayer" with Free Grace. In practice there may be people in Free Grace churches who are sloppy in their presentations of the Gospel and include a prayer, but I've seen prayerism in Lordship churches as well. I've never seen a single Free Grace writer or theologian promote the sinner's prayer, and I've only seen them repudiate the practice.

[@onetinsoldier777]

MacArthur is a false teacher a liar and deceiver. Calvinism is heresy don’t follow a man follow Jesus . MacArthur study bible is garbage.

[@bromineandtungsten]

I find it interesting every time people talk about the 'essentials' of the Bible and the 'non-essentials.' If something is non-essential, does that mean that it could be taken out of the Bible? That would be the logical conclusion. It is an arbitrary and subjective game you're playing, making yourself or other men the arbiters of what matters and doesn't in what God has revealed to us. All Scripture is breathed out by God. The key word is 'all.' And all Scripture is profitable to make the man of God thoroughly equipped. We need to stop talking about the Bible in terms of essentials and non-essentials.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

That's an illogical conclusion based on the Bible's teaching. You aren't arguing with me on this point, but the Apostle Paul who made this dictinction extremely clear for those who read and understand his writing. First, there are disputed and indisputable matters (Romans 14:1-5) -- clearly that is an obvious theological distinction. Second, he describes primary matters, and by implication secondary matters. For example, "For I delivered to you AS OF FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor, 15:3, emphasis mine). I could go on. Lastly, if you don't like the channel, then don't watch it.

[@bromineandtungsten]

@BestBibleCommentaries first, I wasn't arguing with you. I was pointing out a problem. Instead of reflecting on it, you knee-jerk reacted. Second, I never said I didn't like your channel. I've seen you react this way before, and it comes across as very defensive. Third, you misused Romans 14:1-5. That wasn't at all about doctrines stated in the Bible. It actually addresses gray-areas that the Bible doesn't provide hard-and-fast rules for. It's meant to be extrapolated for cultural issues through time that the Bible couldn't possibly include because it can't address every new cultural thing that comes up. That is quite different from revealed doctrine. Anything that the Bible discusses cannot be non-essential. If it is a part of the Counsel of God, then it is an essential. Fourth, regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3, yes there are doctrines that receive greater priority. I agree with that and certainly the Gospel receives first importance. But again, you're failing to see the difference between that and talking about essentials and non-essentials. It is illogical to conclude that because one doctrine is of highest importance that other doctrines revealed in God's Word are then non-essential. No part of God's Word is non-essential. All of it is important, and we have the responsibility to learn from the whole counsel. Consider what I'm saying, and please don't take this as a personal attack on you or your channel. I appreciate that you take the time to evaluate Christian resources.

[@jimyoung9262]

🍿🍿🍿

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Brother, this comment you made certainly sounds argumentative: "It is an arbitrary and subjective game you're playing, making yourself or other men the arbiters of what matters and doesn't in what God has revealed to us." If you weren't anticipating a strong reaction, perhaps you should have reworded that statement. Romans 14:1-5 is definitely relevant to this conversation. It alludes to several doctrines and quarreling over opinions about them. Your comment on 1 Corinthians 15:3 also sounds quite argumentative: "you're failing to see the difference between that and talking about essentials and non-essentials." I think you may be using the term "essentials" differently than me. I am using it to describe the gospel, which is conventionally how evangelicals describe it in relation to other doctrines. This doesn't imply that non-gospel doctrines are unimportant or uninspired -- that's simply a misunderstanding of the conventional use of the term. You: "It is illogical to conclude that because one doctrine is of highest importance that other doctrines revealed in God's Word are then non-essential." I think I understand what you are saying here, and I appreciate your high view of Scripture. But your argument seems to be with how the term is commonly used in theological discussion. I did a quick search to find examples, so you don't have to just take my word for it. Augustine: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Marytn-Lloyd Jones: "We must not divide on the question of prophetic interpretation: pre-, post-, a-millennialist, and so on. Not one of them can be proved, so we must not put them into the category of essentials. You have your views; hold them. Let us discuss them together; let us reason together out of the Scriptures; but if we divide on these matters, I maintain that we are guilty of schism. We are putting into the category of essentials what is non-essential." Anyway, I'm glad you are interested in resources that help you understand Scripture. Obviously, I am too. Since we don't know each other, perhaps it would be better to take a softer approach to a discussion of this nature, in contrast to the statements I quoted above. When it comes to having a high view of Scripture, it sounds like we are on the same team, so let's conclude this with unity on that matter. Take care, and I hope you keep watching.

[@Corinthians-kjv]

These are modern versions bible not the king james Holy Bible which comes from the correct line of manuscripts and texts and is the perfect word of GOD every word pure, all modern versions come from Alexandrian manuscripts which is gnosticism and vaticanus manuscripts which is catholic who teach false doctrines and heresy.

[@BestBibleCommentaries]

Then watch a different KZbin channel

[@SaneNoMore]

Ugh. As a former KJVO trained person I cringe at the ignorance of such statements. Hopefully continued study by individuals will end that idolatry. Also there are at least a half dozen translations not based on the “Alexandrian text” which they still find excuses to ignore or denigrate.