WHI Guys Critique Matthew Henry

[fredtgreco]

Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.

 

[JDKetterman]

Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.

I think there can be a weakness on either side of the fence. Bad redemptive historical preaching takes these great big leaps over the text without actually paying any attention to the particular verses of the text. I forgot who made this analogy, but it's like taking a 747 Airplane through a park. You're getting a broad view of the picture, but you are completely missing the details of the trees.

On the other hand, some verse by verse preaching can be atomistic and can ignore the broader context of what these particular verses are saying. You really won't get what the whole story is. Some ministers will try to so hard to pull some application out of the text of each verse. It's like trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Application is good and should be done, but only when it's flowing from the text and not when its something someone is trying to put into the text.

I tend to agree with the WHI guys about redemptive historical preaching when it is done rightly, but I have seen some pretty bad redemptive historical preaching.

As far as Matthew Henry, I have read a little of him, but not enough to make a judgment about his hermineutics. I am kind of interested in finding some examples...

 

[Theogenes]

It just goes to show that we always have to be good Bereans and evaluate everyone we read or listen to (including the WHI guys) by the Scriptures. This sort of situation also shows how we in the Reformed tradition are not immune from elevating people or personalities (perhaps not to the level or infalliblity like the Papists) but beyond what we should.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.

I have to admit to being conflicted because I really like the show and the things they say but I also agree with this statement.

I remember talking to Dave Crum a number of years ago. He was (is?) a missionary from the SoCal OPC to Tijuana. He was staying overnight with us and we got to talking about RH preaching.

I mentioned that there were people in the congregation that accused our Pastor of preaching the Law and I simply couldn't understand how they could say that. I'd ask them what they meant and they would say: "Just give me Christ, just give me Christ." They were huge fans of Lee Irons.

Dave mentioned that there were some ministers in the SoCal OPC that were trying to make a motion in the Presbytery to define the RH Hermeneutic as the only valid Biblical hermeneutic. Literally, some ministers were arguing that you are supposed to give zero application of a Scripture: just preach what Christ has done and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

This reminds me of the type of philosophy that some dilettantes who have nice ideas but they don't comport to reality.

The cognitive dissonance for these people was remarkable. They only wanted to hear what Christ had done but do you suppose they simply "preached Christ" to their kids as they were raising them as if the Holy Spirit was going to make application of the Scriptures to "look left, look right, and then look left again?" If the application of Scriptural principles is of life giving (or saving value) of our own children then how much more is it so for those of us who are spiritual children.

Again, I want to assume the best in the WHI gang. I simply want to note that a hyper-RH hermeneutic is spiritually irresponsible for the Pastorate. Our consciences need to be trained and it is irresponsible to leave application to the untrained conscience. Just like children need training in the way they should go, so do we. There's a reason our overseers are called Elders.

 

[fredtgreco]

Just listened to this. I have to say I was very disappointed, and not just by the Matthew Henry part. For my part, the supreme weakness in Reformed preaching is not imperative moralism, but insipid, repetitive redemptive historicalism.

I think there can be a weakness on either side of the fence. Bad redemptive historical preaching takes these great big leaps over the text without actually paying any attention to the particular verses of the text. I forgot who made this analogy, but it's like taking a 747 Airplane through a park. You're getting a broad view of the picture, but you are completely missing the details of the trees.

On the other hand, some verse by verse preaching can be atomistic and can ignore the broader context of what these particular verses are saying. You really won't get what the whole story is. Some ministers will try to so hard to pull some application out of the text of each verse. It's like trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Application is good and should be done, but only when it's flowing from the text and not when its something someone is trying to put into the text.

I tend to agree with the WHI guys about redemptive historical preaching when it is done rightly, but I have seen some pretty bad redemptive historical preaching.

As far as Matthew Henry, I have read a little of him, but not enough to make a judgment about his hermineutics. I am kind of interested in finding some examples...

JD,

I am not talking about whether preaching should be on one verse or 100. I have done both, preaching through a chapter (or two!) of OT narrative on a given Lord's Day, and one verse of an NT epistle.

What I am referring to is the RH tendency (and I have seen it first hand from some of the "poster boys," not simply bad preachers) to limit all application to "believe in what Christ has done." It is taking a part of the counsel of God (a critically important one, no doubt) and making it the whole of truth. After a couple of months where the only application is "cheer up, you are worse than you think, and Christ is better than you think," you get stagnant, complacent Christians.

 

[LawrenceU]

Well said, Fred.

 

[fredtgreco]

I would also add that ironically RH preaching gone amok does what I call "finding Christ under every rock" which winds up in near allegory of OT passages. It is not "dare to be a Daniel" but it is "Christ in the bushel" "Christ in the seven cows" etc....

 

[Ivan]

I thought it was harsh. Did they mean Spurgeon?!? There was a man given to a bit of allegory. I haven't seen so many egregious extremes in MHenry.

Wow! Talk about harsh.

Ivan,
I didn't mean it as a real "dog" on Spurgeon, just really wondered if they had the name they meant. Because MH has never sounded like an allegorizer to me.

And Spurgeon, well, you'd have to admit (surely!) that he would preach texts--verses or even phrases--that made a good sermon, but weren't always tied too closely to exegesis of those words. And honestly, that's what "finding" spirituality in a text is doing: reading something into it that isn't there by nature.

So it was a comparative statement. MH I hadn't found to be allegorical, CHS I had found "a bit" (to quote myself). If that was still too harsh for you, I'm sorry.

A misreading on my part, kind sir. I apologize to you. I like MH very much, but he is basically devotional in his approach, which I still enjoy and benefit from. Spurgeon....yes, I enjoy reading Spurgeon's sermons, yet I would never preach like Spurgeon for the very reasons you give. Your point is very well taken.

Still, I love Spurgeon. I do benefit greatly from reading his work and the many biographies of him. He had a powerful Gospel ministry that God greatly blessed.

 

[nicnap]

Well said, Fred.

 

[Jon Lake]

I used to enjoy White Horse (has been a while since I listened) but I am sorry they hammered on Henry. I have his commentaries and it is true that the emphasis is piety and devotion, I still view it as a "classic" and a thing of value in reformed thought when I refer to it I always keep that in mind.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Would men like Keller and Clowney be considered hyper-RH preachers? I ask this with great respect for both men (I realize Clowney has passed on), but I am also fairly new to the R-H hermeneutic and I want to temper my understanding of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ryan,

I don't even want to call any of the men on WHI hyper-RH because I've not heard it personally. I'm speaking of at least a few that have taken it way too far. I really want to assume the best in folks and I want to reiterate that I do benefit greatly from Horton's work at WHI and MR.

As far as Tim Keller goes, I would be surprised to discover that he was. My Pastor is actually using some of his study materials on Judges right now and it has some decent Reformed piety in it.

 

[bookslover]

I'm working from memory here, but I think D. A. Carson has said that Calvin is the better exegete of Scripture but Henry is more applicatory and devotional.

Also, it seems to me that I've read that Henry's commentary is not made up of his sermons, but rather from his devotional Bible readings given during his worship services before he preached his sermon. If true, this could enhance our understanding of just what it is Henry's commentary is supposed to be, and how we are to approach it.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It seems to me that the WHI & Company are more and more distancing themselves from the concept of biblical piety as stressed and emphasized by the Puritans. Whether that has anything to do with their critique MH's hermeneutics or not, I don't know.