How do you pick a good commentary

I rather to have older commentatories than today's commentatories. Because there are much differ between old commentatories and new commentatories on the intepreting and views of the doctrines. I notice there are much major changes between old commentatories and new commentatories mostly base upon the doctrine of Soteriology(salvation), and Eschatology. Also, the reason why both are so much differ, because of Classic English and Modern English are so different within 300 years.

Of course, there is a good example of hotly debate about Mansuscript and Bible Translations such as KJV Onlyism. I rather avoid it.

Interestly, near all old commentatories were not teaching on pretribulationism, because they believed only ONE future coming of Christ.

Till in the late 19th Century there was much revolution among Churches on Eschatology doctrine. More complex new teaching such as dispensationalism, pretribulationism, rapture, etc.

Which one you prefer follow old commentatories or today's commentatories? I know most baptists use today's commentatories than old commentatories. Because they saying thse are much better and more clearer than old commentatories. Well, maybe they are right. Although, I disagree them. Because old commentatories were so deep and very theology. Many old authors were so well-educated, and studied Bible so deep. Also, during in their time, there were FEW Bible colleges or universities. Even, there was NO Christian bookstore.

I consider many old authors were very well-educated and well understanding God's Word, even, they study God's Word so restrictly and very carefully. I am sure that many of them were fear of God for being edit or comment God's Word in their commentatories. I am no doubt, many of them were so sensitivity, by interpreting God's Word so carefully and restictly.

Today's commentatories looks so much simple and easier to understand. Well, I already see so MANY errors and misinterpreting in new commentatories, that I disagree with them. The reason is, I believe many of new commentatories as authors who were graduated from seminaries, colleges, unveristies, they already learned from them in their time. Thier understanding God's Word are much different than old commentatories.

Colossians 2:8 warns us, do not let any men spoil us by learning from their own philosophy. Rather sticky and follow God's Word, what it says than what we listening to any today's men's teachings.

Today, most Christian or baptist seminaries, colleges and universities in America, are dispensationalism. I strong disagree with their teaching on dispensationalism. That why many today's commentatories are influenced come from today's univserities because of dispensationalism.

I rather follow God's Word, what it saying than what men saying. God's Word never chnage for 2000 years. I mean the doctrine of God's Word never chnage for 2000 years. But we as humans easily changing throughout 20 centuries. Our understanding of God's Word are being limited. Once when we get into heaven, then we all will have the same knowledge of God's Word.

But, being understanding God's Word is SO important for us! Because I already seen so many Christians are confusion, misleading, deceived by believing many false teachers. Because many Christians do not study Bible well enough. They can only depend is listening to any men's ow words on God's Word than personal study or read Bible at their home. Sad. 2 Tim. 2:15 commands us, that we ought to study God's Word so carefully and serious. Most of us don't study God's Word well enough. That why many are already confusion, deceived by listening to any men's teaching. Sad.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Hello Charles. We Christians, and the Baptist church are a divergent group of necessity, as Christ will place us in His Body where we will fit, and we each choose our own approach to acquiring knowledge we think to be necessary for our learning. My thinking an approach that is certainly not for everybody, but I have my secure place.

What do we know of the “Dead Sea scrolls”? They are certainly of historical interest, but I’m not counting on them to change what is portrayed in the KJV, AS, ISV, or other reputable Bibles. I don’t need anymore proof myself of confirming the Bible we have.

The answers are in His Word as presented to us. I study from the standpoint of dispensations of How did things come about. Who said What, and When they said it. Where were they, and Why did they say or do it.

We know that John at one point talked as Peter and James, but after talking to Paul, and reading His writings, and after the fall of the Temple, John no longer talked like James, and Peter. James and Peter wrote their books while Paul still lived, and the Temple was still standing. We know How John was able to change from the message of “repent and be baptized from the remission of sins” to such Pauline phrases as John 3:16. We know John in his writings never touches the subject of “water baptism” after the Cross. He makes no reference to the Jewish “repentance”, other than in prophecy to come. How did this change come about? We know by using the systematic approach of the five “W’s”. All claim to do this, but do we? I thought I did, but when put to the test, I found I wasn’t using this approach because it did not agree with my then current belief. Nothing can change Jesus talking to the one’s He came for before Damascus Road. Can we, or do we follow Peter today for we should if we don’t allow for the dispensational gospel that Christ from heaven gave to Paul.

Matthew 16:15-19 is a good example, and I know the different interpretations to these verses. ” He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” If I believed this is the last word on salvation then I would certainly have been in Rome this week paying homage to the successor of Peter, Pope John Paul II. I wasn’t there with the believers of works, angels and idols, because of the dispensational gospel of Paul, Ephesians 3. Paul builds on the same foundation as Peter, but it is a different house, on a foundation not built on the foundation of Peter, but on the masterbuilders foundation – I Corinthians 3:10. Paul makes plain that He will not build on Peter’s foundation, or any other than Christ told Him to lay. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

 

Great insight

 

Hi DeafPosttrib. This will be pretty much to the point, and I accuse you of being a dispensationalist, just like me. If not can you prove it.

Can you prove it by saying you were just like Noah? To stay saved Noah had to work at it. He had to build an Ark. He had to make “blood sacrifices”, as did all from the very beginning. Are you saved the same as God's own nation Israel, under the law and prophets from Moses to John the Baptist? Then from John the Baptist until Damascus Road the Jew was to “repent and be water baptized for the remission of their sins”.

Did you use any of these commandments from God to come to Him for salvation? If so which one? If not, how did you become a Christian? If you are saved by Grace through faith, with out any work, then I contend you must be a dispensationalist Christian. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

 

Ituttuti,

We have to read Hebrews chapter 11 talks about the Hall of Faith of the Old Testament saints. Notice the lists of O.T. saints, what they were action with their faith. Paul tells us, we shall live or walk by the faith just like as Noah, Abraham, etc. do.

Martin Luther, the father of Reformation Movement, he disliked book of James, he thinks James is much conflict with Romans, and conflict between James' teaching & Paul's teaching on faith & work. Actually, there are no conflict between James and Paul on teaching of faith and work. James chapter 2 talks lot about faith and work. Martin Luther thinks, faith and work go merge together conflict with Ephesians 2:8-9. Actually, James chapter 2 empasis on faith mostly than work. This passage make point that, the faith is more important, if suppose we doing our own good works, but without have faith, then it is worthless or vain. If suppose we have faith, but do nothing, then it is worthless and vain. James 2:26 points, if suppose body without spirit is dead. See, we all have body, also must have spirit and soul include merge with our body. If without have spirit & soul, we die for sure. I believe James' point is, both faith and work must be function together. Either without faith or work, is dead, period. James chapter 2 tells us, faith and work must be merge together to be functional together. James 2:21-22 tell us, Abraham was justified by the faith with action. Abraham obeyed God for offering his son Isaac. If suppose Abraham have faiht in God, but refuse offering his son Isaac, then his faith is DEAD, period.

You see Hebrews chapter 11 talk about the list of O.T. saints' faith by their ACTIONS. Apostle Paul tells us of Romans 1:17 "The just shall LIVE by faith{/B]." Paul quoted it from Habakkuk 2:4.

You seems accuse that I am dispensationalist. Well, God's plan of salvation never change since from the beginning to today. God's plan of salvation always emphasis on faith and repentance throughout all ages to the end of the age. Both faith and repentance cannot be separated, both always go merge together. We are not saved by keep the laws, doing daily animal sacrifice or offerings, we are saved by our FAITH and repentance, means we must walk goldy daily and to be endure all the way to the end - Matt. 10:22 & Matt. 24:13.

Early Christians understand, 'Israel' is the Church, not so called, "Replacement Theology" as what dispensationalists accuse them or covenant theologians that they are so called, 'replacement theology.

Notice Matthew Henry often talking about spiritual Israel is the Church in his commentary. He wrote it 300 years ago. Not only himself saying it, also, many Early Christians believed God reconciled both Jews and Gentiles unity together became one through Calvary. So, therefore, Church is Israel, Israel is Church. That what many old commentatories saying it. Today, modern commentatories saying both Israle and Church are distinction. More than 300 years ago, none of commentatory saying Israel and Church are distinction. Till 19th Century, John Darby developed new teaching on dispensationalism. That why many Christians adopted Darby's teaching.

I rather follow what the Bible saying than what men saying - Col. 2:8.

Also, we must be very careful what name of commentatory, we read, because many of them have different views, interpreting, opinions. These might be wrong interpreting. We have to depend upon the Holy Spirit for His guide us to understand God's Word. We all are not perfect, our understanding are limited. That what 2 Timothy 2:15 commands us, that we are responsible to study and digging God's Word very carefully.

I consider dispensationalism teaching is more complex and philosophy because of what men saying rather than what God's Word. It caused churches into division and confusion.

We must understand what is the purpose of Calvary is all about. Calvary is the most important key for the Bible and salvation.

Of course, I am sure many dispensationalists and pretribs would saying Calvary is the most important doctrine of the Bible. I agree with them. But, why do dispensationalists teaching there are divisions among the Body of Christ, if they are correct, then therefore, their teaching is conflict with the purpose of Calvary, what it is all about?

Today, it is NO longer divided among body of Christ, because Calvary already reconciled us together into one 2,000 years - Ephesians chapter 2. Both O.T. and N.T. saints are already unity together into one within the body of Christ through Calvary 2,000 years ago. Calvary already reconciled ALL saints of ALL ages from the beginning to the end of the age into ONE body of Christ at once 2,000 years go. Both O.T. and N.T. saints are already belong to God's children as one family, that's period. All are belong to New Jerusalem where God dwells, that's period.

Sorry, I seem off the track on this topic. But, I am trying to telling you, there are much differerent between old commentatories and today's commentatories, because of dispensationalism reason. Of course, Darby caused Churches on the doctrines revolution so much within 200 years.

I rather follow what the old commentatories saying than what today's commentatories saying. Because they were very wise, well-educated, fear of the Lord, study God's Word so carefully. Also, they were so deep than today's commentatories. Of couse, I am aware of many old commentatories' intepreting God's Word might have errors. But, many areas what they saying are more common senses than what most today's commentatories saying.

Nothing wrong to buy or read today's commentatories. More important that we are own responsible to read and study God's Word comes first BEFORE you read any commentatory. Most Christians don't. They spend hours study on commentatory than their own personal reading and study Bible. Of course, more Christians spend time read commentatories on the internets than read Bible today. We need return to old time fashion reading Bible, the only ONE book without notes such as "Scofield Bible", etc. I know most of us are busy and doing many errands to do, less time to read and study Bible. Well try to find RIGHT time to read and study Bible. TRY to read Bible much erarlier in the morning, the first thing to do before start to get busy. OR try to read and study Bible in the late night before you go to bed. Not easy. But, we can do it, Phil 4:13 "I CAN do all things THROUGH CHRIST which strentheneth me."

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Once again Amen. But you are a dispensationalist whether you like it or not. You quote Paul too many times. Once one quotes Paul and believes what he says should just admit they are also of the dispensational persuasion, as Paul says he is the dispensationalist Apostle He was the first and we are to follow Him to Christ, as reference before – I Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians chapter 3; Colossians 1:25. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

http://e-sword.net/

 

A good work by one that love's the Word.Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

For the pc you can use e-sword its free and has lots of commentaries and other good things for free. www.e-sword.net

I like the Interpreters Bible and IB Dictionary of the Bible, I have them in Book form and cd-rom, there is so much info in them.

David
<°)))><

 

Richard,
If you like Ironside and MacDonald, and you read Uplook, I assume that you are currently leaning to the Brethren. McGee is very much in line with Ironside. Check out, if you have not already, Gospel Folio press. I don't think you can go wrong with anything they sell.

Also check out Ray Stedman's work, all online for free at http:\\www.pbc.org (text and audio.) When Stedman was a Dallas Seminary student, he was Ironside's "chauffer." Stedman also mentored Luis Palau and Chuck Swindoll.

Also check out the http:\\www.blueletterbible.org site. Each verse has links to the hebrew/greek and commentaries (primarily Calvary Chapel, which is good dispensational, premill, non-Reformed thelogy.)

 

Calvary Chapel is one of the very largest charismatic groups in the world, a view that Ironside opposed with all the vigor of a young bull on a rampage. Calvary Chapel’s theology is a mishmash of Arminianism, Calvinism, and the Assembles of God. Therefore, by using the commentaries on this site, the reader can be exposed to a variety of views and discern for himself who has it together and who does not. Go for it!

 

Ironside wasn't right about everything.

I am not a CC member, but I have attended and listened on line to many. They are not cessationsists but are mild charismatics at best. I have never seen anyone prophesy or speak in tongues. CC is definitely not Word of Faith charismatic.

Just because you are not cessationist does not mean deficient theology.

 

I couldn’t agree more.

I have no problem at all with Calvary Chapel’s approach to the Charismata—indeed, I very much respect their approach and I believe that more Baptists should take the same approach.

???

Chuck Smith is not a cessationist and neither am I. Ironside, however was—and very strongly so.

 

Hello JohnB. Just a comment.

Love J. Vernon McGee, and S. Craig MacDonald (if this the MacDonald you refer to). Ironside contradicts, and does not admit so.

 

Nope. William MacDonald. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks