You have met MacArthur and know this to be true?
I have heard a great many of his messages in conferences and on radio and I have never seen this in the man. Nor is this the testimony of those who do know him. So I am curious as to what you base this accusation on?
As far as His name on the study Bible, he is the one that produced it, so I see no reason why his name should not identify it as such. Not any different than attaching the names of teachers to their teaching. Again, this is a great resource. I recommend it to everyone. Better to be in a study Bible than focusing on men's teachings.
MacArthur drew my attention first in regards to the ECT Document (Evangelicals and Catholics together). It was through that discussion that I was made aware of differences in doctrine between the two groups. When I was first saved I never imagined that anyone would have so little reverence for God that they would not make sure their doctrine was sound, lol, and as I grew I learned that there are indeed a number of false teachers among us, some intentional, some not, simply deceived because they feed themselves with doctrinal views of men and theology systems. I have actually had people I know join certain groups before they even knew what they taught. Just decided "That's the group I want to join."
The only questions I would ask is what doctrine that MacArthur holds to do you dislike, and how would you show him, rather than yourself...to be in error? I don't subscribe to everything MacArthur teaches, but as a whole, I would rather direct new believers to him and his teaching than anyone else. A close second might be RC Sproul.
Charismatics and Pentecostals have reason to dislike MacArthur, lol, but they too have a chance to address his doctrinal positions.
As far as "leaving little room for disagreement," I agree. His views are supported through the many cross references which is, in my opinion, the best way to come to an understanding of Scripture. The MacArthur Study Bible is how I learned to compare Scripture with Scripture, which is the only way we should do it. It helps train us into that form of study, at least, I know it did for me. Now I only use the Bible (mostly on BibleGateway) and Strong's Concordance in my studies. I still reference the MacArthur Study Bible when I am looking for cross references sometimes, but this is rare any more.
As far as where I disagree with MacArthur one point would be he believes men have always gone to Heaven, whereas I believe they were consigned to Sheol/Hades until the Cross. That's a big one. He believes men were regenerated under Old Testament Economies, I don't. I think Scripture is clear that this was a promise of the New Covenant and it did not begin until the eternal indwelling of God began when the Comforter came to work that unique ministry He works in the world, and the Church today.
MacArthur's biggest problem, just from my perspective, is his allegiance to reformed theology. This ties his hands on a few doctrines which can otherwise easily be reconciled without the burden of a theology system. In a recent conference, among many notable Reformed Theologians, not one of them could adequately answer the question "Do babies go to Hell?" He gave the best answer and responded that grace is where we look, but I felt it left much unsaid that has to be considered.
But that's just me. I like MacArthur, and wish I lived near his fellowship. I would go. The man has done his homework and that, my friend, is what leaves little room for disagreement. Because of his notoriety and, lol, his penchant for controversial subjects (which engenders animosity among some groups), he is a target for many. But the fact remains he stands as a notable person who is doing quite a bit for the cause of Christ. Few men have reached as many ears as this man has. His ministry is quite extensive. I would think a little bit of the benefit of the doubt might be in order. I don't se him as some, seeking only to profit from his ministry, but a sincere desire to see men saved.
And a desire to confront what he sees as false and damaging doctrine.
Sorry for the length, lol, just wanted to give a few reasons why I, personally, think he should be near the top of the list, if not number one. I didn't read the list, so not sure who might be viewed as more influential. If they include only the living, that is.
I'll tell you another one I think is underrated: Charles Stanley. I use to view him as kind of soft with feel good messages, but the more I listen to him (listen when I am travelling, my job has me driving a lot some days) the more respect I have for his theology. He is the only one I know of that points out the differences of the ministries of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant as opposed to those in the other Ages...with more than "It was external/temporal and now it's internal/eternal." He actually gets specific about it.
RC Sproul is a great teacher, and while I disagree with some of his views as well, would have no problem directing people to his ministry.
Did I say sorry for the length? lol
Okay, that's it. Didn't mean to ramble on.
God bless.
