Wiersbe Study Bible vs Wiersbe Bible Commentary

[Jim Ryan]

Would someone well acquainted with these books please help? These are the Wiersbe Bible Commentary (2 vol., 2007) and the Wiersbe Study Bible (2019).

I would like to purchase one or the other because I like Weirsbe's sermons, but I can't get my hands on either book in any bookstore in order to see the contents and know which one to buy. I can see bits of them online. I'm looking for answers such as "If you get the commentary, you don't need the study bible, as the study bible adds little to what the commentary offers" or "The study bible came out years later and is even better than the commentary, so just get the study bible" or "Sorry, but the two are very different and very good, so you should get both!" etc.

(I have not read the Be series. I have listened to many of Wiersbe's sermons.)

Thanks for any help with this.

 

[Silverhair]

Would someone well acquainted with these books please help? These are the Wiersbe Bible Commentary (2 vol., 2007) and the Wiersbe Study Bible (2019).

I would like to purchase one or the other because I like Weirsbe's sermons, but I can't get my hands on either book in any bookstore in order to see the contents and know which one to buy. I can see bits of them online. I'm looking for answers such as "If you get the commentary, you don't need the study bible, as the study bible adds little to what the commentary offers" or "The study bible came out years later and is even better than the commentary, so just get the study bible" or "Sorry, but the two are very different and very good, so you should get both!" etc.

(I have not read the Be series. I have listened to many of Wiersbe's sermons.)

Thanks for any help with this.

I have the Wiersbe Bible Commentary NT & Wiersbe's Expository Outlines in my bible program and I rely on them for good insight to the verses that I am studying. I have never been a fan of Study Bibles but many people use them all the time.

If you are looking for more depth on the verses in question then the Commentary is the way to go.

 

[kyredneck]

the Wiersbe Bible Commentary

He certainly seems sound with the doctrine of election:

Wiersbe on Calvinism | A Twisted Crown of Thorns ®

"....when it comes to dealing with the doctrine of God’s Unconditional election:

This miracle [the new birth] all began with God: we were chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-4). This took place in the deep counsels of eternity, and we knew nothing about it until it was revealed to us in the Word of God. This election was not based on anything we had done, because we were not even on the scene. Nor was it based on anything God saw that we would be or do. God’s election was based wholly on His grace and love. We cannot explain it (Rom. 11:33-36), but we can rejoice in it.
‘Foreknowledge’ does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us. This would raise the question.’Who or what made us decide for Christ?’ and would take our salvation completely out of God’s hands. In the Bible, ‘to foreknow’ means ‘to set on’s love upon a person pr persons in a personal way.’

It is used this way in Amos 3:2: ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth.’ God set His electing love on the nation of Israel. Other verses that use ‘know’ in this special sense are 1 Corinthians 8:3, John 10:14, 27; Matthew 7:23; and Psalm 1:6.
But the plan of salvation includes more than the Father’s electing love; it also includes the work of the Spirit in convicting the sinner and bringing him to faith in Christ. The best commentary on this is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Also, the Son of God had to die on the cross for our sins, or there could be no salvation. We have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and set apart by the Spirit. It takes all three if there is to be a true experience of salvation."

 

[Silverhair]

He certainly seems sound with the doctrine of election:

Wiersbe on Calvinism | A Twisted Crown of Thorns ®

"....when it comes to dealing with the doctrine of God’s Unconditional election:

This miracle [the new birth] all began with God: we were chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-4). This took place in the deep counsels of eternity, and we knew nothing about it until it was revealed to us in the Word of God. This election was not based on anything we had done, because we were not even on the scene. Nor was it based on anything God saw that we would be or do. God’s election was based wholly on His grace and love. We cannot explain it (Rom. 11:33-36), but we can rejoice in it.
‘Foreknowledge’ does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us. This would raise the question.’Who or what made us decide for Christ?’ and would take our salvation completely out of God’s hands. In the Bible, ‘to foreknow’ means ‘to set on’s love upon a person pr persons in a personal way.’

It is used this way in Amos 3:2: ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth.’ God set His electing love on the nation of Israel. Other verses that use ‘know’ in this special sense are 1 Corinthians 8:3, John 10:14, 27; Matthew 7:23; and Psalm 1:6.
But the plan of salvation includes more than the Father’s electing love; it also includes the work of the Spirit in convicting the sinner and bringing him to faith in Christ. The best commentary on this is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Also, the Son of God had to die on the cross for our sins, or there could be no salvation. We have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and set apart by the Spirit. It takes all three if there is to be a true experience of salvation."

You left off a critical part KY

As far as God the Father is concerned, I was saved when He chose me in Christ before the foundation of the world. As far as the Son is concerned, I was saved when He died for me on the cross. But as far as the Spirit is concerned, I was saved one night in May 1945 when I heard the Gospel and received Christ. Then it all came together, but it took all three Persons of the Godhead to bring me to salvation. If we separate these ministries, we will either deny divine sovereignty or human responsibility; and that would lead to heresy. Wiersbe Bible Commentary

 

[kyredneck]

You left off a critical part KY

Critical? To what? He presented scriptural election as sound as any Calvinist would.

Are you regretting that you vetted him? That he doesn't fit with your deranged obsession against God's Sovereign Grace?

 

[Silverhair]

Critical? To what? He presented scriptural election as sound as any Calvinist would.

Are you regretting that you vetted him? That he doesn't fit with your deranged obsession against God's Sovereign Grace?

Why should I regret Wiersbe's comments.

Actually for a calvinist to present scriptural election this way would require them to deny their own theology. But you can go on thinking that way all you want.

God is omniscient so He knew all that would freely trust in His son, Christ's death covered the sins of the whole world so that would include the sins of those that would eventually freely trust in Him. But this is where the calvinist view goes of the rails. The Holy Spirit saves those that freely trust in the Son as opposed to the calvinsit idea that one is saved then give faith.

So sorry there KY, Wiersbe does not support your calvinist view. He presents the biblical view of man exercising his God given free will so as to be saved. Once again context is your downfall. You just had to keep reading to see that.

"Peter does not deny man’s part in God’s plan to save sinners. In 1Pe_1:23 he emphasizes the fact that the Gospel was preached to these people, and that they heard it and believed" Wiersbe

Note his words "I was saved one night in May 1945 when I heard the Gospel and received Christ." Wiersbe

Biblical view: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Eph 1:13

FYI Because I have an obsession with the truth of scripture I would logically be opposed to the errant teachings of calvinism. So that is what I point out so people will not be misled.

 

[kyredneck]

The Anti-Calvinist Rant
"Confronting the errors and dangers of Calvinism - a theology that flips the Bible on its head and does great harm to Gospel Truth, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, and our faith.

List of Calvinist Preachers, Authors, Theologians, Websites, etc.

...Paul Washer

Trevin Wax

James White

George Whitefield

Don Whitney

Warren Wiersbe

Jen Wilkin

Jared C. Wilson..."

List of Calvinist Preachers, Authors, Theologians, Websites, etc. (anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com)

 

[Silverhair]

The Anti-Calvinist Rant
"Confronting the errors and dangers of Calvinism - a theology that flips the Bible on its head and does great harm to Gospel Truth, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, and our faith.

List of Calvinist Preachers, Authors, Theologians, Websites, etc.

...Paul Washer

Trevin Wax

James White

George Whitefield

Don Whitney

Warren Wiersbe

Jen Wilkin

Jared C. Wilson..."

List of Calvinist Preachers, Authors, Theologians, Websites, etc. (anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com)

So you use an anti cal web site to say that Wiersbe is a calvinist. But if that is true then even your calvinist preachers do not agree with the calvinist view of salvation. Seems he did not get the memo.

But whether he is a calvinist or not he just confirmed what the bible says.

"Peter does not deny man’s part in God’s plan to save sinners. In 1Pe_1:23 he emphasizes the fact that the Gospel was preached to these people, and that they heard it and believed" Wiersbe

Biblical view: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Eph 1:13

It seems that a calvinist can not present the gospel as their theology requires

01:14 God is rich in mercy and he desires to save sinners but he can't just forgive it [sin] and pretend those things didn't exist because then he would be unjust and he's not. So his plan from eternity past was to send his Son in human flesh to be a representative for you, to take the punishment you deserve to take all of the righteous deeds that he did his entire life credit them to your account if you will repent and put your trust in his son He will forgive you because he makes you perfect in Christ.

Freewill plain and simple. But this is a presentation by Todd Friel of Wretched {a calvinist} so you see that even calvinists must preach the biblical truth of a persons free will ability to trust in Christ Jesus in order to present the Gospel message.

 

[DaveXR650]

He certainly seems sound with the doctrine of election:

He does. Wiersby is interesting in that he was and is highly respected among many anti-Calvinists. Yet, like you said, that quote seems to me like a reasonable, balanced approach. Where some Calvinists get into trouble is that they go so far as to say that you as an individual don't have to put faith in Christ. You do, and it is the condition for you to be saved. What the non-Calvinists tend to do is to so put the emphasis on free will that they have God having to passively wait for each of our sovereign decisions, and then, I suppose He should be hopefully relieved if we say yes.

 

[kyredneck]

So you use an anti cal web site to say that Wiersbe is a calvinist.

Actually I thought you might know the guy, him being a fellow ranter. I didn't know such sites existed, right hateful.

 

[Silverhair]

He does. Wiersby is interesting in that he was and is highly respected among many anti-Calvinists. Yet, like you said, that quote seems to me like a reasonable, balanced approach. Where some Calvinists get into trouble is that they go so far as to say that you as an individual don't have to put faith in Christ. You do, and it is the condition for you to be saved. What the non-Calvinists tend to do is to so put the emphasis on free will that they have God having to passively wait for each of our sovereign decisions, and then, I suppose He should be hopefully relieved if we say yes.

I agree "He certainly seems" to be but he is not actually teaching the calvinist view of salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

Actually I thought you might know the guy, him being a fellow ranter. I didn't know such sites existed, right hateful.

Neither did I. There seem to be a number of sites on both sides that are, shell we say, a tad extreme in there views. I don't rant I just point out the errors of your theology.

The ones I see ranting on here, to use your words, are the calvinists.

 

[kyredneck]

Where some Calvinists get into trouble is that they go so far as to say that you as an individual don't have to put faith in Christ.

@Silverhair says that faith in Christ is choosing Christ. You? (1000 words or less please) add: meaning I'd like to see what you think instead of reading Owen.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't rant I just point out the errors of your theology.

You spew falsehoods by twisting what others say and idle words with your jeers, taunts, and jabs, all just to get your 'fix'. Matthew 12:36

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair says that faith in Christ is choosing Christ. You? (1000 words or less please)

I would describe saving faith as taking God at his word and agreeing to and trusting in his plan of salvation. Our faith is what links us to Christ and so it is described as "receiving Christ". "Choosing Christ" is fine with me in the sense that one must understand that Christ is Lord and surrender to that and accept the pardon that is being offered. One can also choose not to have Christ to rule over you and not to believe in his terms of salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

I would describe saving faith as taking God at his word and agreeing to and trusting in his plan of salvation.

Is this before 'born of the Spirit', or after? 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Silverhair]

You spew falsehoods by twisting what others say and idle words with your jeers, taunts, and jabs, all just to get your 'fix'. Matthew 12:36

Have you gotten your fix yet KY.

Have you reread your posts lately. You are the one that keeps making the accusations about my comments. Are you going to deny that historical underpinnings of calvinism.

You do not like the facts being brought out about the history and errors of calvinism so your rant and rave against what I post.

 

[DaveXR650]

Is this before 'born of the Spirit', or after? 1 Corinthians 2:14

That's a good question. The standard Calvinist theology student's answer is that you believe because you have been born again. But I'm not so sure. Wiersbe and most Baptists, Wesleyans, Calvinists and so on all believe that the Holy Spirit is the driver of all your conviction or desire or enlightenment or quickening to come to Christ. But does that mean that you are born again first. Does any scripture say that? I think it's probably simultaneously timewise.

Is a born again person justified? Owen believed that faith came before justification. So was he a Calvinist?

The thing I would ask you is this : If someone like Wiersbe is willing to say that no salvation is possible without the work of the Holy Spirit and the sovereign will of God, are you going to be so strict in your interpretation of Calvinism that such an answer is unacceptable. In that case, in order to be a good Calvinist, how far do you have to go? Do you have to say you can't really believe yourself? Is it really wrong in your mind to say that at such and such a time you received Christ and became a Christian?

 

[Silverhair]

Is this before 'born of the Spirit', or after? 1 Corinthians 2:14

Well since one is only “born of the Spirit” after they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and you are only indwelt by the Holy Spirit after you believe and you only believe after you have heard the gospel message. Eph 1:13 “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,”

Then logically and biblically faith in Christ Jesus has to come prior to being born of the Spirit.

But I doubt that you will accept this as it does not fit with your theology. You being a calvinist.

 

[kyredneck]

Well since one is only “born of the Spirit” after they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and you are only indwelt by the Holy Spirit after you believe and you only believe after you have heard the gospel message. Eph 1:13 “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,”

Then logically and biblically faith in Christ Jesus has to come prior to being born of the Spirit.

But I doubt that you will accept this as it does not fit with your theology. You being a calvinist.

The two are not the same. Every saint that’s ever been, OT and NT, was ‘born from above’.