Featured Commentaries?

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.

 

I would also suggest a book on how to study your Bible. It sounds a bit odd as some may expect just to open the book up and start reading, or others that the Holy Spirit will take care of everything and study beyond mere reading the test is not biblical. But just as those in the Bible sought out teachers and explanations, so are we to do the same. Biblical study is not an easy task, and it shouldn't be.

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

 

Hey brother,

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 understand. I think that you overstate (or understate?) the purpose of seminary as seminary does not go beyond being "thoroughly furnished." I understand why you would rightly be "on guard" against intellectualism and against people claiming to be superior over another based on a seminary education. Please also understand the flip side. Some are on guard against those who maintain a superficial apprehensive of God's Word and reject actually studying in depth and detail Scripture. Sometimes people have their tradition challenged and struggle to accept that Scripture itself is a complex topic that is more than enough to fill a lifetime of study. I am not saying that you belong to either camp, but neither do I. But insofar as seminary is concerned, it is an opportunity to equip men of God for purposes of God. It is not beyond biblical equipping, but is squarely within its contents. This is a continual process and seminary, while not an ultimate thing, is also not a negative thing. It is a time when students concentrate on the Word of God and explore their own theologies along side others. Granted, some may tend towards indoctrination (and that is perhaps dangerous) but there are also some very good seminaries out there. Unfortunately to an extent and with the professionalization of the ministry I think that sometimes churches are dropping the ball on biblical education and leaving it up to the seminaries.

 

Most of them seem to be that way.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

Thanks for the site. This is also how I choose commentaries. Each time I consider purchasing a complete series I reconsider as there are typically only a few individual commentaries that I really want of that series. I organize based on the books of the Bible each expounds upon, so individual books of a series will not typically be together.

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.