Exactly. Each generation of scholarship owes a debt to those who have gone before. While we insist that doctrine be built upon Scripture alone we also engage commentators and theologies to learn of their understandings and teachings as well as to test our interpretations and applications of God’s Word.
That is why through our interactions I have place so much emphasis on Scripture. We may turn to commentary, but we have to both start and end with the Word of God when it comes to our faith. But that is also why I’ve quoted men like Calvin, Owen, and Gill all the way to more contemporary men like F.F. Bruce, Joel Beeke, and J.I. Packer. Theology is not done in a vacuum. We do not take commentary as authoritative, but we have much to learn from these men.
You do have good points. I was unaware that there were some who refused to use Scripture while also denying the value of these scholars (I'm not accusing you of a "straw man argument" here, brother, but I have not seen this happen on this forum). Most people seem to have both Scripture and a few extra-biblical supports on their side.
Commentaries?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by gemurdock, Jan 31, 2016.
Page 3 of 3
-
But we can't find a more worthy object of study than God's Word, and it is worth the effort. What is different is the gulf of both time and culture that separates us from the first century. Here are a few resources along that line that may be of interest to you:
http://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Gods-Word-Hands--Interpreting/dp/0310492572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454417985&sr=8-1&keywords=grasping+God's+word
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310517826/?tag=baptis04-20
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Interpretation/dp/0830828265/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=51AECT9+rcL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107,160_&refRID=0HYBDNC1BJ7XDXV8TGNX
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0664223168/?tag=baptis04-20 -
Brother Jon,
Hello. No I never said I didn't believe "anyone in the last couple hundred years has contributed to teaching scripture" as you said in your private message to me, nor do I believe such. You bought up the fact that seminary students don't employ old commentaries as a basis of your argument that older commentaries written by men such as John Gill should not be utilized as much and implied are in some way less helpful than the newer commentaries, thus you suggested the brother looking for a commentary not use such older commentaries such as the one by Gill I suggested, therefore I sought to rebuttal your point you made on the basis of seminaries. I actually agree that newer writings can also contribute to our understanding of scripture. For example, recently a brother from my church gave me a book called "Manners and Customs of Bible Lands" written by Fred H. Wight in 1953. I understand there have been historical and archaeological discoveries of the various people from the times of the Bible that can be beneficial to our understanding of scripture. -
I agree with you that the Holy Spirit does not implant special revelation to believers like he did in the apostolic age. I never argued that He does. He unveils His truth as we read the word of God. As far as the scripture you gave to support seminaries, "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.", if one is a "man of God" (by that meaning he has the Holy Spirit) and the scripture through the Spirit indeed makes such a man "thoroughly furnished", than I do not see how seminary can add to the "man of God" as one can not go beyond being "thoroughly furnished". -
I think that our conversation (our PM) explained both of our views well. The reason I suggested modern commentaries (and will always suggest modern commentaries as a start) is that they address contemporary issues and interpretations while defending orthodox doctrine from modern errors and false teachings. I believe that we are responsible for guarding our doctrine against such things as Open Theism, emerging church doctrine, prosperity gospels, etc. Too often these things creep into otherwise orthodox doctrines. So my preference (and this is what we are talking about here) is to first make sure that we are guarding against what is creeping into our churches. Then we also look for commentaries to expound on doctrine (grow our faith). These would include both popular and critical commentaries.
My reasoning was not based on seminaries - that is where you misunderstood my point. That was my example. My reasoning is that the purpose of that restriction in graduate biblical study and research is to address these issues that are contemporary problems.
As I've stated, and you've no doubt noted, I have no problem at all incorporating these old and treasured commentaries (I've used Calvin, Gill, and Owen), nor do I have a problem incorporating contemporary scholarship (I've used Beeke, Piper, and Packer). I've also used both popular commentaries (MacArthur) and critical commentaries (Bock, Allen). And I've always held that we start and end with Scripture. -
-
I too use both modern and older commentaries. I think is important to recognize outside of the writers of Holy Scripture, no man's writings are infallible (please understand I am in no way not implying that is what you were contending), that is one of the reasons I think it best to focus mainly on scripture alone. I find things I agree and disagree with in all commentaries, some more than others, just like for example in my posts here on the Baptistboard there are posts I have written from years ago that I wish I could now go back and delete LOL! -
-
-
Sent from my TARDIS -
Has anyone mentioned or checked out http://bestcommentaries.com/ ???
I have spent some time in specific books of the Bible, so I can only do similar as the website and recommend certain commentaries from various authors and different series rather than just 1 author or 1 series. -
Sometimes I am thankful for not having OCD traits as that would drive me crazy :).....on second thought, I have spent a significant amount of time removing labels and their sticky residue from books (I can't stand labels on books) and I almost replaced a F.F. Bruce commentary because I somehow lost the dust jacket Frown. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 3 of 3