Luther Rice College: Matthew Henry is outdated, but Calvin is not??

[kathleenmariekg]

I watched this video produced by Luther Rice College

What do you all think about this video, especially the parts about quoting Matthew Henry vs John Calvin, and free resources in a college paper?

The Research Process Step 2 Seek Appropriate Resources
Direct link to video
Media Player
Page behind the direct link to the video
The Research Process

03:48 Wrong kinds of sources:

• study bibles
• outdated resources (consistently older than ten years)
• resources available for free on the web

Think about what your notes and bibliography suggest about you to your professors!

04:40 Matthew Henry is good, but written in the 1600's. Outdated. Concerned with the Catholic Church, not German higher critics challenges to Bible authority. That came 200 years later. Does not apply to the Evangelical challenges we face now.

06:26 Finding Germinal Sources
Read the original work. Read John Calvin himself, not someone that wrote about John Calvin.

 

[JonC]

I agree that Matthew Henry is outdated as commentary. There have just been too many discoveries, studies, and theogical development that are post-Matthew Henry for the commentary to be utilized as a source for serious study.

I would say the same regarding John Calvin's commentaries. But Calvin's contribution was also philosophical (divine predestination, the nature of communion, the role of secular government to the church, the nature of idolatry, ect). Even here, without Beza, Calvin's may be less relevant (Calvinism's impact today is mostly in relation to "the doctrines of grace").

 

[Jerome]

06:26 Finding Germinal Sources
Read the original work. Read John Calvin himself, not someone that wrote about John Calvin.

Good luck with that, since much of John Calvin’s teaching remains unavailable in English, having yet to be translated after hundreds of years.

Sad, isn't it?

books.google.com/books?id=sGHKcZI3XAMC&pg=PA2

To anyone lacking Latin or Renaissance French, much of the writings of John Calvin must remain inaccessible....many of his...sermons, letters, tracts, polemics, writings on liturgy and church regulations—are not [available in English].

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Good luck with that, since much of John Calvin’s teaching remains unavailable in English, having yet to be translated after hundreds of years.

Sad, isn't it?

books.google.com/books?id=sGHKcZI3XAMC&pg=PA2

Sad is exactly the right word.

 

[RayS]

The ten year guideline/rule is very common in academic research. I'm not sure why they would say that Henry is not acceptable. That does not make any sense to me. If someone is writing about a theological matter and Henry has something to say that is relevant, I would see no reason to leave him out.

Ray S.

 

[Rob_BW]

It looks like they're talking about two different things, using up to date research and also using primary sources.

 

[Ziggy]

The academics must be like the Athenians, always wanting to read and hear (and cite) any "new" thing. In my own classroom studies, I most often found century-old material often to be superior to current views and trends.

That said, Matthew Henry and other such like are considered devotional rather than academic commentaries, and generally are not cited in seminary courses.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

It looks like they're talking about two different things, using up to date research and also using primary sources.

I explored that idea, knowing the speaker discussed them at different points, but I couldn't get past being clearly told to use one, but not the other, and being told that a professor's opinion of the entire paper would be affected by that choice. No instruction was given about when to use up to date research and when to use primary sources, was it?

That said, Matthew Henry and other such like are considered devotional rather than academic commentaries, and generally are not cited in seminary courses.

If he he had said this, I would have understood that. It would have fit in with his caution not to use study Bible notes. What specifically defines Matthew Henry as a devotional commentary, and how can I know the difference between devotional and academic commentaries.

The academics must be like the Athenians, always wanting to read and hear (and cite) any "new" thing. In my own classroom studies, I most often found century-old material often to be superior to current views and trends.

The ten year guideline/rule is very common in academic research. I'm not sure why they would say that Henry is not acceptable. That does not make any sense to me. If someone is writing about a theological matter and Henry has something to say that is relevant, I would see no reason to leave him out.

Ray S.

I am just not impressed that new is always better. And his blank statement not to use free resources was particularly concerning. If a Christian makes his material available to all Christians, it is no longer of value to academics?

I am more curious than have any opinions about how academia and Christianity mix in colleges. And I want to get up to speed quickly on this topic, so I have that knowledge as context. It took me about a year at a secular college to get that context about secular colleges. I needed that context to know when to ignore and when to obey the rants of my some of my more radical professors. When I followed general college expectations, and received a paper back with angry notes scribbled all over it, because in reality the professor didn't like my conclusion, I just played a passive aggressive role of bringing papers back to the tutoring center to ask how I could "do better" next time. The tutor would then report the professor and someone higher up would warn him to lay off me.

Elevating Calvin and banning Henry reminds me of my secular college. Yes, the professor stated a reason, but ... the reasons did not always stand up to scrutiny of his superiors and his peers.

I was confused by secular academia at first, but I eventually figured them out. My conclusions of what drives secular academia just don't fit into any professed goals of Christianity.

 

[Rob_BW]

I believe the topic and course would dictate.

Church History or Historical Theology? Interact with primary sources, don't rely on secondary sources.

New Testament Greek or Practical Theology? Use the most up to date research.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

I believe the topic and course would dictate.

Church History or Historical Theology? Interact with primary sources, don't rely on secondary sources.

New Testament Greek or Practical Theology? Use the most up to date research.

That video really needed something more after the way that was presented.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the topic and course would dictate.

Church History or Historical Theology? Interact with primary sources, don't rely on secondary sources.

New Testament Greek or Practical Theology? Use the most up to date research.

I like your breakdown here, as Christians who teach and pastor should know historical theology as well as modern!

 

[Yeshua1]

I explored that idea, knowing the speaker discussed them at different points, but I couldn't get past being clearly told to use one, but not the other, and being told that a professor's opinion of the entire paper would be affected by that choice. No instruction was given about when to use up to date research and when to use primary sources, was it?



If he he had said this, I would have understood that. It would have fit in with his caution not to use study Bible notes. What specifically defines Matthew Henry as a devotional commentary, and how can I know the difference between devotional and academic commentaries.





I am just not impressed that new is always better. And his blank statement not to use free resources was particularly concerning. If a Christian makes his material available to all Christians, it is no longer of value to academics?

I am more curious than have any opinions about how academia and Christianity mix in colleges. And I want to get up to speed quickly on this topic, so I have that knowledge as context. It took me about a year at a secular college to get that context about secular colleges. I needed that context to know when to ignore and when to obey the rants of my some of my more radical professors. When I followed general college expectations, and received a paper back with angry notes scribbled all over it, because in reality the professor didn't like my conclusion, I just played a passive aggressive role of bringing papers back to the tutoring center to ask how I could "do better" next time. The tutor would then report the professor and someone higher up would warn him to lay off me.

Elevating Calvin and banning Henry reminds me of my secular college. Yes, the professor stated a reason, but ... the reasons did not always stand up to scrutiny of his superiors and his peers.

I was confused by secular academia at first, but I eventually figured them out. My conclusions of what drives secular academia just don't fit into any professed goals of Christianity.

What to know the difference between a technical and a devotional commentary? Read J Vernon on Romans, and then someone like Leon Morris!
J vernon will give you practical application, the Morris type really get into background, history, hebrew and the greek !

 

[Reynolds]

I like your breakdown here, as Christians who teach and pastor should know historical theology as well as modern!

Yeah, because Paul would not understand Theology well enough to submit a paper on it to Luther Rice.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, because Paul would not understand Theology well enough to submit a paper on it to Luther Rice.

well, know that he would not know and understand stuff such as NT Wright and word of faith peddle!

 

[kathleenmariekg]

What to know the difference between a technical and a devotional commentary? Read J Vernon on Romans, and then someone like Leon Morris!
J vernon will give you practical application, the Morris type really get into background, history, hebrew and the greek !

I could quote Leon Morris' New Testament Theology in my research paper? I have access to that.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

double post sorry

 

[Ziggy]

I could quote Leon Morris' New Testament Theology in my research paper? I have access to that.

Definitely, unless you were in a liberal college or seminary that might not accept conservative scholars (and there are some).

Just one hint about quoting: use quotes to *support* your position, but not to advance the discussion on its own. Otherwise Morris will get the A and you won't (learned from experience ).

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Definitely, unless you were in a liberal college or seminary that might not accept conservative scholars (and there are some).

Just one hint about quoting: use quotes to *support* your position, but not to advance the discussion on its own. Otherwise Morris will get the A and you won't (learned from experience ).

Thanks!

I getting some context. I am also getting burnt out on this. Some of this is a distraction from what really matters. It isn't that I am not willing to work at things, it is just that some things are not worth working at, especially if it means not working at something else. I think I have enough context to pull back and think long and hard about how I want to proceed.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

I watched this video produced by Luther Rice College Media Player
04:40 Matthew Henry is good, but written in the 1600's. Outdated. Concerned with the Catholic Church, not German higher critics challenges to Bible authority. That came 200 years later. Does not apply to the Evangelical challenges we face now.

Okay, so now I know what "higher critics challenges" are, but I am not convinced that Matthew Henry's lack of challenge to them makes him outdated. Why give them so much credit? Why focus so much on every type of challenge, instead of staying focused on the core ideas presented at the beginning?

This feels a bit like a victim that tries to prove false every lie stated about her, instead of walking away and LIVING her life, centered on HER. If we stop and argue every little thing that anyone presents, who is in control? Who is at the center, and who is orbiting who?

 

[Rob_BW]

While you may find the work distasteful, if we're not going to totally separate from the world a la the Amish, academia is one area where it is essential that we continue to fight.

Millions will interact with the scholarship of the unbelievers and the theological liberals. We need people who can counter it.