Commenting and Commentaries C.H.S.

[Rippon]

Some choice words from the Prince of Preachers .

Of course , you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition . if you are of that opinion , pray remain so , for you are not worth the trouble of conversion , and like a little coterie who think with you , would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility . It seems odd that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to them , should think so little of what he has revealed to others ... usually , we found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them . In their case , it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt . ( page 9 )

Need I after my previous lectures commend to you the judicious reading of commentaries ! These are called " dead men's brains " by certain knowing people , who claim to give us nothing in their sermons but what they pretend the Lord reveals direct to themselves ... The remarks which they give forth as the spirit's mind are very inferior in all respects to what they affect to despise , namely , the mind of good and learned men ... Read , then , the admirable commentaries which I have already introduced to you ...So to rely upon your own abilities as to be unwilling to learn from others is clearly folly ; so to study as not to judge for yourselves is imbecility . ( 29,30 )

 

[Rippon]

Here is what Spurgeon had to say about John Calvin .( pages 11,12 )

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men , John Calvin !... He was no trimmer and pruner of texts . He gave their meaning as far as he knew it . His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could , and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words . He labored , in fact , to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words , but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words .

 

[Craigbythesea]

Here is what Spurgeon had to say about Adam Clark,

CLARKE (ADAM, LL.D., 1760-1832).—A New Edition, with the Author's final corrections. Six vols., Imp. 8vo. Lond., 1844. W. Tegg's edition, new, £3 3s. S. 38/- Also printed on large paper, 6 vols., 4to.
Despite some few oddities, this is one of the most learned of English expositions. (See page 9.)

From page 9:
I have placed next to Gill in my library Adam Clarke, {9} but as I have no desire to have my rest broken by wars among the authors, I have placed Doddridge between them. If the spirits of the two worthies could descend to the earth in the same mood in which they departed, no one house would be able to hold them. Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyan friends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes rank among the chief of expositors. His mind was evidently fascinated by the singularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much of an old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none but a great man could have collected. Like Gill, he is one sided, only in the opposite direction to our friend the Baptist. The use of the two authors may help to preserve the balance of your judgments. If you consider Clarke wanting in unction, do not read him for savour but for criticism, and then you will not be disappointed.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Here is Rippon’s first quote in context without the ellipsis,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is true there are a number of expositions of the whole Bible which are hardly worth shelf room; they aim at too much and fail altogether; the authors have spread a little learning over a vast surface, and have badly attempted for the entire Scriptures what they might have accomplished for one book with tolerable success; but who will deny the preeminent value of such expositions as those of Calvin, Ness, Henry, Trapp, Poole, and Bengel, which are as deep as they are broad? and yet further, who can pretend to biblical learning who has not made himself familiar with the great writers who spent a life in explaining some one sacred book? Caryl on Job will not exhaust the patience of a student who loves every letter of the Word; even Collinges, with his nine hundred and nine pages upon one chapter of the Song, will not be too full for the preacher's use; nor will Manton's long metre edition of the hundred and nineteenth Psalm (Ps 119:1-176) be too profuse. No stranger could imagine the vast amount of real learning to be found in old commentaries like the following:--Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others on the various epistles.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Here is what Spurgeon had to say about John Calvin .( pages 11,12 )

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men , John Calvin !... He was no trimmer and pruner of texts . He gave their meaning as far as he knew it . His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could , and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words . He labored , in fact , to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words , but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words .

We also need to remind ourselves as we read the words of Calvin---that the words of Calvin are a little bit less than infallable and inerrant!!

 

[John of Japan]

And the first round goes to Craigbythesea.

Rippon staggers as he heads for his corner.

Corner judge blackbird is marking that scorecard.

 

[Me4Him]

I wonder why

"Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others"

Never mentioned the "OTHER THREE DAYS" Jesus referred to about his "RESURRECTION" in their writing, the 5th, 6th 7th day???

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Da 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

 

[Rippon]

Craigbythesea , do you have a Adam Clark's works ? In case you do not -- why would you give Spurgeon's remarks upon the same ?

So do my quotes force a radically different meaning ? I just quoted the meat of what Spurgeon conveyed . Nobody mentioned my quotes from pages 29 and 30 . Are you sure they were in-context ? There were 30 pages in CHS's intro . I cut to the chase .

You guys are silly .

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Craigbythesea , do you have a Adam Clark's works ? In case you do not -- why would you give Spurgeon's remarks upon the same ?

Spurgeon was quoted writing favorably of Calvin, and a reader of that post could possibly get the wrong impression that Spurgeon endorsed everything that Calvin wrote. Therefore I posted Spurgeon’s comments about Adam Clarke, a man with vastly more education than Calvin, and who STRONGLY disagreed with all five points of Calvinism and the manner in which Calvin interpreted very much of the New Testament. And yes, I own a copy of the work by Adam Clarke that Spurgeon commented upon. Actually, I own two hard copies of it—one that I keep at home and one that I keep at my office. It is also downloadable for free as a module for the free E-Sword Bible study program at E-Sword.Net.

Originally posted by Rippon:
So do my quotes force a radically different meaning ? I just quoted the meat of what Spurgeon conveyed . Nobody mentioned my quotes from pages 29 and 30 . Are you sure they were in-context ? There were 30 pages in CHS's intro . I cut to the chase .

I was not suggesting that you quoted Spurgeon out of context and misrepresented what he wrote for indeed you did not do that. I simply posted the full context because it adds details that I believe are interesting.

Originally posted by Rippon:
You guys are silly .

Why do you think that we are silly?

 

[Brother James]

Now tie all this together for us Craig in your special way to teach salvation by works, baptismal regeneration and eradication of the sin nature.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Brother James:
Now tie all this together for us Craig in your special way to teach salvation by works, baptismal regeneration and eradication of the sin nature.

Why do you behave so wickedly in your posts and thereby bring dishonor to Him who died for you?

 

[genesis12]

I have a really penetrating question: me4him, how did you produce the graphic?

....oops ... another one ... each time I post it says "sit tight, we are taking you back to (whatever), but it never does. I have to click on the topic to go back to my post. Whazupwidat?

 

[Rippon]

Another Resurrected Thread!

Some choice words from the Prince of Preachers .

Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to them, should think so little of what he has revealed to others ... usually, we found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them. In their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. ( page 9 )

Need I after my previous lectures commend to you the judicious reading of commentaries ! These are called " dead men's brains " by certain knowing people, who claim to give us nothing in their sermons but what they pretend the Lord reveals direct to themselves ... The remarks which they give forth as the spirit's mind are very inferior in all respects to what they affect to despise, namely, the mind of good and learned men ... Read, then, the admirable commentaries which I have already introduced to you ...So to rely upon your own abilities as to be unwilling to learn from others is clearly folly; so to study as not to judge for yourselves is imbecility. ( 29,30 )

I think some on the BB need a little reminder of these things.

 

[OldRegular]

I wonder why

"Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others"

Never mentioned the "OTHER THREE DAYS" Jesus referred to about his "RESURRECTION" in their writing, the 5th, 6th 7th day???

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Da 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Weird! or at least strange!

I am not sure what your schematic implies. It seems to have nothing to do with the OP but perhaps you know something I don't.

Surely you are not saying that Jesus Christ is not Lord and not God, given that you make a distinction between the days. The only Scripture you quote seems to have nothing to do with the schematic or the OP particularly since you quote a passage that states: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

 

[Jerome]

Here is what Spurgeon had to say about John Calvin .( pages 11,12 )

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men , John Calvin !... He was no trimmer and pruner of texts . He gave their meaning as far as he knew it . His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could , and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words . He labored , in fact , to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words , but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words .

And here is the full quote from Spurgeon, with the sentence left out via ellipsis [...] highlighted:

"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men, John Calvin! In his expositions he is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic: that is to say, where Scripture maintains the doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree, but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness and integrity. He was no trimmer and pruner of texts. He gave their meaning as far as he knew it. His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could, and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words. He labored, in fact, to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words, but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words."



Trimmer and pruner of texts? Indeed!

 

[Rippon]

Here is what Spurgeon had to say about John Calvin .( pages 11,12 )

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men, John Calvin!... He was no trimmer and pruner of texts. He gave their meaning as far as he knew it. His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could, and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words. He labored, in fact, to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words, but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words.

And the above was from my second post.

 

[Jerome]

"I stand almost exactly where Calvin stood in his maturer years ; —not where he stood in his Institutes, which he wrote when quite a young man, but in his later works; that position is taken by few." ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Autobiography

 

[Jerome]

"Next to the perusal of the Scriptures, which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse CALVIN'S commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy." ---Jacob Arminius, quoted by Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries

 

[Rippon]

"I stand almost exactly where Calvin stood in his maturer years ; —not where he stood in his Institutes, which he wrote when quite a young man, but in his later works; that position is taken by few." ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Autobiography

C.H.S. was mistaken in this view.Calvin's theology remained essentially the same through the time of his conversion till death.He did increase in knowledge of course.Theodore Beza knew him for 16 years and said that in essence Calvin's theology was unaltered over the years.(I wish I could find the quote.I read it just yesterday in one of my books.)

Actually John Calvin changed as little as Spurgeon did from his conversion at 15 and a half to his death (at nearly 58)-- it was consistent as could be through the course of time.

 

[Rippon]

From page 12 the words of Dr.John King are quoted by Spurgeon regarding Calvin.

No writer ever dealt more fairly and honestly by the Word of God.He is scrupulously careful to let it speak for itself,and to guard against every tendency of his own mind to put upon it a questionable meaning for the sake of establishing some doctrine which he feels to be important,or some theory which he is anxious to uphold.This is one of his prime excellences.He will not maintain any doctrine,however orthodox and essential,by a text of Scripture,which to him appears of doubtful application,or of inadequate force.For instance,firmly as he believed the doctrine of the Trinity,he refuses to derive an argument in its favor from the plural form of the name of God in the first chapter of Genesis.It were easy to multiply examples of this kind,which,whether we agree in its conclusion or not,cannot fail to produce the conviction that he is at least an honest commentator,and will not make any passage of Scripture speak more or less than,according to his view,its divine Author intended to speak.