Commentaries: conservative and Liberal

Page 2 of 3 (57 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 56 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 525
Kent | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 17 2014 9:32 PM

William Gabriel:
Easy, anyone who believes in fewer points of doctrine than me is a flaming liberal and might as well deny the faith. Anyone who believes more points of doctrine than me is a fundamentalist whack-job, and I would never want to associate with them.

Yes

Posts 482
elnwood | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 17 2014 10:32 PM

There are commentary recommendation lists all over the web.

If you want to compare which commentaries liberals like, and which ones conservatives like, find a list from a liberal institution and one from a conservative institution.

Liberal Commentary lists:

Princeton Theological Seminary
http://www.ptsem.edu/uploadedFiles/Academic_Affairs/Academic_Departments/Biblical_Studies/CommontariesMasterList.pdf

Georgetown University
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/OT%20Comms.htm
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/NT%20Comms.htm

Luther Seminary
https://www2.luthersem.edu/mrogness/Resources_Preaching/Commentaries/commentaries.htm

Conservative Commentary lists:

The Masters Seminary
http://www.tms.edu/pdf/850Books.pdf

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-BTL-final-for-posting-sts.pdf

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/Booklist.pdf

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 4:25 AM

William Gabriel:

tom:

There isn't even an understanding of what is considered to be conservative and what is considered to be liberal.

Easy, anyone who believes in fewer points of doctrine than me is a flaming liberal and might as well deny the faith. Anyone who believes more points of doctrine than me is a fundamentalist whack-job, and I would never want to associate with them.

I wonder how Jesus would be labelled if he turned up in a Church today. And what about Paul?. I'm sure that based on his apparent disregard of the law and Jewish traditions he would have been labelled as a liberal by some,

I wonder is we will ever reach the point where we talk about a commentary set being balanced rather than liberal or conservative.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 2088
Joseph Turner | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 4:44 AM

Keep in mind as well that a good scholarly commentary will survey and fairly lay out the most important arguments given for a particular verse/passage, so that you have those arguments reflected in the commentary in small amounts.

Disclaimer:  I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication.  If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.

Posts 117
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 6:25 AM

Jack Caviness:
Coots was not a Fundamentalist in the historic sense of the term. He probably never read The Fundamentals, and likely would not have understood them if he had read them.
Which edition of the Fundamentals? ... Written by whom? ...According to what tradition?

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 6:46 AM

Paul C:
Which edition of the Fundamentals? ... Written by whom? ...According to what tradition?

In the context here that would be:

https://www.logos.com/product/7857/the-fundamentals

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 11206
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 6:47 AM

Paul, those appear to be very fundemental questions.  Can we assume you subscribe to a fundemental logic?

Actually, I do take seriously the scorpions, snakes, and so forth. Not in the hands of pastors, of course.  But there does appear to  be some sort of cultural mileau that combined these.  Yesterday, I saw it again but in the Talmud regarding the benefits of a privy, but adding protection from evil spirits too.

I wonder (emphasis 'wonder') if in Palestine at least, the participants (scorpions, snakes) were combined with the demons who inhabited the 'wilderness' (uninhabited area)?  Like Sedona, for instance.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 117
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 7:19 AM

Denise:
Paul, those appear to be very fundemental questions.  Can we assume you subscribe to a fundemental logic?
I think we can Assume that all professed Christians attempt to follow what they believe to be Fundamentals. The grey area is: Where do those Fundamentals find their foundation? Do we trust a 3 book series to dictate our individual understanding of Fundamentalism? I Think Not ! Obviously there are others who don't subscribe whole cloth. Hence the many versions of The Fundamentals. Smile

Edit: I am reminded of the children's literacy program called "Reading Is Fundamental" >  Romans 10:17

Posts 130
Willard Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 8:50 AM

Denise:
I wonder (emphasis 'wonder') if in Palestine at least, the participants (scorpions, snakes) were combined with the demons who inhabited the 'wilderness' (uninhabited area)?  Like Sedona, for instance.
I am told that in the Sedona area, There is an  extremely terrifying species that combines the traits of demons, reptiles, and politicians. What a terrible combination.

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 9:38 AM

Paul C:
The grey area is: Where do those Fundamentals find their foundation?

This is a great question Paul.

There is no doubt that the way that we use words like fundamental in the context of our discussions is flawed because whilst I knew what was meant here I also agree with you that using a series of books from the early 20th Century to define the fundamentals of a faith that started some 1900 years earlier presents us with a number of challenges.  My other favourite is "historical" when attached to any specific element of our faith or practices because when it is used the furthest anyone ever seems to go back is to Luther as if nothing before Luther matters. This is then quickly justified by a comment about how Luther rediscovered the "true faith" although interestingly when asked the people who say this cannot articulate who before Luther communicated this "true faith" in a form that Luther could rediscover.

The Conservative/Liberal divide is, IMHO, a product of 19th and 20th Century European and American intellectualism.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 117
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 9:55 AM

Graham Owen:
The Conservative/Liberal divide is, IMHO, a product of 19th and 20th Century European and American intellectualism.
Great comments, Graham. Do you see a connection between  intellectualism and say...Gnosticism ? >  Romans 1:22 > Matthew 18:3

Posts 382
Sacrifice | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 10:23 AM

Besides the recommended books above, online lists of what 'some' would refer to as be conservative -

Ligonier:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-commentaries-on-every-book-of-the-bible/

and

Covenant Theological Seminary (Academics > Library > Commentary Guide):

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/library/commentaries/

Yours In Christ

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 10:36 AM

Paul C:
Do you see a connection between  intellectualism and say...Gnosticism ?

I see parallels in the way that both systems distract believers from the truth but personally I see them as having a very different philosophy at the core.

As I get older what I notice more and more is that the intellectual approach drives us into the mind numbing detail to the point where we miss the bigger picture and even start to invent some detail to fill in the blanks. There is also an obsession with being 'right', detail does that to you, an example of which is the camel debate that another thread here refers to. Francis Schaeffer expressed it like this:

We want to know more than we are actually given. So it is necessary for us to remind ourselves again just what kind of book the Bible is. As I have already indicated, the Bible is a book for fallen men. Wherever it touches upon anything, it does so with true truth, but not with exhaustive truth.

Schaeffer, F. A. (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview (Vol. 2, p. 52). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

I see a faith and sense of mystery in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers that is missing from modern 'intellectual' Christianity.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 117
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 10:51 AM

Graham Owen:
I see a faith and sense of mystery in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers that is missing from modern 'intellectual' Christianity.
Agreed. Now I will Attempt to digress, so as not to be held in contempt of the forum rules. Big Smile

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 18 2014 11:03 AM

Paul C:
Now I will Attempt to digress, so as not to be held in contempt of the forum rules.

I always try and hide my OT stuff with a quote from a Logos book like the Schaeffer one!

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 11
Old School Saint | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2014 1:27 AM

Thanks for all the replies. I started studying the bible in the 1980s. I was introduced to Matthew Henry's commentary back then. That commentary lead me to believe that commentaries were useless. Even though I did not understand the scriptures, it just seemed like one man's opinion. So I never looked at another commentary.

Now I am at a place where I am really trying to understand what the different *CHRISTIAN* beliefs are based on. I was planning to use commentaries and theology books to try figure this out.

Thanks again for the replies!

Posts 737
Evan Boardman | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2014 4:39 AM

If you find Matthew Henry useless, perhaps it's not whether its liberal or not, but the type of commentary you need to change. Matthew is devotional.

Posts 1699
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2014 5:26 AM

Paul Terry:
Thanks for all the replies. I started studying the bible in the 1980s. I was introduced to Matthew Henry's commentary back then.

Welcome to the family here.  Matthew Henry's work is a Classic, but while I wouldn't say it is just one man's opinion since he does speak for many, but it does present one view - a view that makes many assumptions that many of us do not share.

Back when I was in school I had a teacher who assigned rotating commentaries before we had a class discussion on a passage.  I learned an odd thing - not to trust my immediate judgement of a commentary.  I found that often the ones that when I left the library left me sure what a passage was about, often did not prepare me for the class discussion that well.  On the other hand, commentaries that seemed to list lots of information and yet came to very limited, frustrating conclusions often left me much more prepared for these discussions.  I think that may have been his point, actually.

Of course, fortune favors the prepared mind to a certain extent.  Those commentaries that have a lot of information often are written in a dense fashion that is difficult to understand until you have the background for it.  Different audiences need different works...  But as that prof also said, Commentaries are usually the most boring books written, because they have to say something about everything in the book, even if you have nothing new or interesting to say on a particular issue.

Paul Terry:
Now I am at a place where I am really trying to understand what the different *CHRISTIAN* beliefs are based on.

Yes, often (usually?) these different beliefs are based upon different understandings of the Bible.  But perhaps a good historical overview may help you learn the playing field, so to speak...

SDG

Ken McGuire

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Basic, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 2769
Erwin Stull, Sr. | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2014 8:08 AM

Paul Terry:

Now I am at a place where I am really trying to understand what the different *CHRISTIAN* beliefs are based on. I was planning to use commentaries and theology books to try figure this out.

If you are referring to beliefs on a denominational perspective, the book "Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences" by Ron Rhodes may give you some basic information. Logos does not have this book. I purchased a copy of it about a year and a half ago from www.christianbook.com.

Posts 2589
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 19 2014 12:15 PM

Ken McGuire:

I found that often the ones that when I left the library left me sure what a passage was about, often did not prepare me for the class discussion that well. On the other hand, commentaries that seemed to list lots of information and yet came to very limited, frustrating conclusions often left me much more prepared for these discussions.

Yes Surprisingly true.

Page 2 of 3 (57 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS