Matthew Henry commentary

[CredoBiblicist]

Does it explicitly teach TULIP? It's recommended by the prince of preachers so it has to be good, but just checking.

Anyone think there is a better commentary out there?

 

[twin1954]

Does it explicitly teach TULIP? It's recommended by the prince of preachers so it has to be good, but just checking.

Anyone think there is a better commentary out there?

Mathew Henry's is a widely accepted and much used commentary on the Scriptures. I use him quite often. Was he a Calvinist? Yes and it does show in his commentary. Are there any better one? Yes. Robert Hawker is my favorite for a Christ centered commentary.
Index of ./Robert Hawker/

John Gill is my favorite for doctrinal commentary.

Index of ./John Gill/

 

[Iosias]

It's recommended by the prince of preachers so it has to be good, but just checking.

I am sure Spurgeon found it helpful, but he died in 1892 and scholarship has moved on.

Anyone think there is a better commentary out there?

Yes, for a whole Bible commentary try the New Bible Commentary, the Oxford Bible Commentary and the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Good series are the Word Biblical Commentary series, the Apollos Old Testament Commentary series, Old Testament Library, New Testament Library, and the Hermeneia series.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Does it explicitly teach TULIP? It's recommended by the prince of preachers so it has to be good, but just checking.

Anyone think there is a better commentary out there?

Personally, I like to use several commentaries, and often I prefer John Gill to others (he was a Baptist, I am Presbyterian, go figure). John Calvin's commentaries are always worth searching. Jamieson, Fausett, Brown Commentary, and Barne's Notes are also great resources. The Geneva Bible notes are also nice to parallel with other commentary.

They only teach TULIP insofar as the Bible teaches it, so depends upon the passage of Scripture commented on. In other words, while TULIP is not taught explicitly in the commentaries mentioned, all of the commentaries mentioned were written by Calvinists who believed TULIP to be Scriptural, and the body of their commentaries would as a whole would likely teach TULIP, but not as one would read from a systematic theology text.

 

[Iosias]

Personally, I like to use several commentaries, and often I prefer John Gill to others (he was a Baptist, I am Presbyterian, go figure). John Calvin's commentaries are always worth searching. Jamieson, Fausett, Brown Commentary, and Barne's Notes are also great resources. The Geneva Bible notes are also nice to parallel with other commentary.

They are also rather dated.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

They are also rather dated.

Agnostics and atheists make the same claim about Scripture and religion. It's a rather spurious argument.

 

[Iosias]

Agnostics and atheists make the same claim about Scripture and religion. It's a rather spurious argument.

There is good Reformed scholarship that is up-to-date

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There is good Reformed scholarship that is up-to-date

There is good modern Reformed scholarship, but the notion of "up to date" suggests the scholarship which modern scholarship rests upon, is misinformed or misinterpreted or no longer of use or you get the idea.

It's not as though the truths of Scripture have changed, it's not as though moderns are better interpreters, it's not as though moderns are more intelligent or insightful, and it's not as though moderns have an ounce more of the Spirit of God, it's not as though God the Holy Spirit did not lead those before us into truth, it's not as though God is revealing "new" truths or "truths" contrary to His previous revelation in Scripture. I do not believe for one minute that God has left the Church in a shroud of darkness for two thousand years waiting to give "special" modern men new revelations. Of course, you can argue and disagree with me all day long, but my position will not change on this, apart from Christ Himself.

Far too much of so called modern "scholarship" is grounded and founded in the so called "higher" biblical criticism, which has been exposed by people far greater than I, for what it is, a pile of dung.

 

[Iosias]

Gordon Wenham, J. G. McConville, Bruce Waltke, Mark Futato, John Goldingay, Leslie Allen are all excellent modern evangelical commentators.