Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Matthew Henry

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post

    Another thing is, he might see the Antichrist as the Pope, almost everyone did back then. Today I would think most MSD would see the Pope as the False Prophet. Just showing a difference in perspective of the day.
    Actually, it's even clearer now that the Catholic church is antichrist.

    No one should be awaiting the antichrist, that's a deception. The antichrist has been at work for approximately 1,700 years. The historicist view of eschatology is the truth. The majority of protestants down the centuries readily recognized the papacy was the seat of the antichrist for a reason, and not because the nation of Israel wasn't signed into being by Mystery Babylon leaders who have submitted themselves to the plague of the Catholic church.

    Here, look at what Revelation 13 says about the two beasts. I believe the first beast is the amalgamation of church and state when the Roman Empire instituted the Catholic Church. All those heads, horns, and diadems represent many, many leaders (popes).

    The head wound happened in 1870 (see link below) where the French stormed the Vatican and the papacy ended briefly. Obviously, this didn't kill it. Mussolini, in 1929, ratified the Lateran Treaty (see link below) which re-established the state of Vatican City. Then look at the second beast. It looks like a lamb (Christian), but talks like a dragon (the devil).

    The second beast is the Catholic Church's successful subversion of Protestantism, and is an extension of the apostasy Paul prophesied about in the first century.

    What does this second beast do? Look at verse 12. It performs false signs and deceives all the protestants to worship the first beast! Sound familiar?

    Protestants all over presume Catholics are brethren. The biggest names in protestant leadership are all embracing the Catholic church, and all of these wolves have been revealing they want their followers to embrace the Catholic church, too.

    Revelation 13:1-4 1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?" Revelation 13:11-14 11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. 12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. 13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. 14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life.

    First Head Wound in 1870: http://www.guardiasvizzera.va/conten...ontificio.html

    Re-establishment of the papacy in 1929: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty


    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    He comes at the Bible from a Presbyterian perspective, as compared to a commentary, say, by a Roman Catholic.
    Do you consider Roman Catholics Christian?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hpwillis View Post
    What do you think of the Matthew Henry Commentaries? I found out about him a month ago or so and have been looking up what he says on-line. So far he seems trustworthy. I really want to learn how to use the Bible and the Bible only to do Inductive Bible Studies, but he's pretty interesting and seems to believe the same way I do.....so far. Thought I would get some opinions on him before I went ahead and bought a set of his commentaries.
    I consider Henry's commentary solid. I also think Gill's is a good resource. Really, those centuries were the hey-day for Biblical Christianity down the last 2,000 years. The apostasy Paul warned about has been gaining traction for over 100 years and looks to be coming to a head with what will be a huge ecumenical endtime false revival.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Do you consider Roman Catholics Christian?
    I don't lay a blanket term like that on any organization, be it RCC, or Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Oneness Pentecostal, or Prosperity Preachers, or label any person with a denominational bent whether that's RCC, or Baptist.

    I talked extensively with a couple good friends of mine, years ago, who had a basic "Baptist" understanding of the gospel, and being born again. However, they were faithful in the RCC, going to mass, etc. I asked them why, and they replied it was to reach the Catholic's.

    So your blanket statement if answered "yes", would not only include them, as they were Christians in every sense of the word, but also all the pedophiles, and associates of Hitler.

    To answer "no" would mean my two friends would be excluded from your blanket statement.

    Christianity, "to be Christ like" isn't based on an association with any organization, it's based on a relationship with Jesus Christ.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByGraceAlone View Post
    I consider Henry's commentary solid. I also think Gill's is a good resource. Really, those centuries were the hey-day for Biblical Christianity down the last 2,000 years. The apostasy Paul warned about has been gaining traction for over 100 years and looks to be coming to a head with what will be a huge ecumenical endtime false revival.
    Agreed to a point. Those guys lived during the First and Second Great Awakenings, and the Spirit of God was being poured out in a way no one living today has ever seen. Which makes it hard to believe.

    But that doesn't mean they weren't influenced by "trends" of their day. In George Pember's book "Earth's Earliest Ages" he makes mention that some scientist, and seminary courses believed that people lived inside the sun. Originally published in 1876 he also addresses a major influence going through Christianity at the time, which was Spiritualism.

    "Spiritualism" had the meaning that dead people's spirits could commune with the living. As practiced in séances notabley by Westcott, and Hort with Lord Balfour and his dead wife. Circa 1880's

    My advise to Hpwillis was to get several commentaries, to get an overview from several human sources, and not rely on just one, due to influences and accepted doctrine in their denominations. And do a bit of background on each.

    For instance John Gill was a Baptist, no harm, no foul. In today's world and generally speaking Baptist have a pre-trib rapture doctrine. Again, no harm, no foul. You would therefore expect to see that in Gill's commentary. It is not there because Gill was post-trib. Arthur W. Pink a Baptist, and whose "Gleanings in Genesis, and Exodus, etc. which will change the way you look at those books, and IMHO in a good way, was a pre-trib rapture guy, and a Calvinist.

    In Hpwillis' question as to Henry Morris, a young earth creationist, which opposes Hugh Ross, an old earth creationist.

    And I might add that Henry Morris' commentary on the Bible will not only take that view, but also is presented in an apologists format. Of whom the leading older Apologist is G. K. Chesterton a Catholic. Who is quoted extensively by Ravi Zacharias who traveled with Billy Graham and at least was, with a ministry "Christian and Ministry Alliance of Canada", meaning not a Catholic. Who Chuck Colson says is the leading apologist of our day, and in my opinion is correct.

    Also one might be drawn to Thomas Aquinas leading philosopher, and apologist who was a Dominican Friar. Who also believed that life in animals could spring from plants. This in the 1200's outside of the influence of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And don't think that hasn't had a big influence on theology since 1865.

    None of these are evil because of their religious backgrounds, but those backgrounds will influence their thoughts etc. So have more than one, and know their backgrounds.

    And the most important thing is to know your Bible, read it, cross reference verses, study what words mean, etc... If you are truly seeking, God will truly answer.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,016

    Default

    I agree that Matthew Henry’s is an excellent commentary that holds up well in the present day. IMHO, that includes those interpretations that are difficult to reconcile with present day (seeming) realities.

    I also recommend Gill's, as BGA said, and JFB, any and all so long as paired with Wesley (primarily for his revelations on prevenient grace but also for excellent insights elsewhere -- just ignore anything about 1836 ).

    Henry wrote as TGA was approaching to be used by those revivalist preachers at that time, and many did, men greatly used of God, Whitefield and Wesley among them. Wesley said of Henry's commentary:

    He is allowed by all competent judges, to have been a person of strong understanding, of various learning, of solid piety, and much experience in the ways of God. And his exposition is generally clear and intelligible, the thoughts being expressed in plain words: It is also found, agreeable to the tenor of scripture, and to the analogy of faith. It is frequently full, giving a sufficient explication of the passages which require explaining. It is in many parts deep, penetrating farther into the inspired writings than most other comments do. It does not entertain us with vain speculations, but is practical throughout: and usually spiritual too teaching us how to worship God, not in form only, but in spirit and in truth.

    Keep in mind, Romans through Revelation were edited and published in the early 1800's, long after Henry passed:

    Matthew Henry's well-known six-volume Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (1708–10) or Complete Commentary, provides an exhaustive verse by verse study of the Bible, covering the whole of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and Acts in the New Testament. After the author's death, the work was finished (Romans through Revelation) by thirteen other nonconformist ministers, partly based upon notes taken by Henry's hearers, and edited by George Burder and John Hughes in 1811

    Not that those commentaries aren't trustworthy. Just sharing as an FYI.

    As BGA says, we are under a great deception currently. I see it as coming upon us since before the turn of the last century. That's why older commentaries, especially those given to us in the time of God's greatest moving upon the UK and US, and prepared for when He would move, as with Henry's, are so valuable to our study of His Word today.

    Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).

    A blessed day to all ~~

    There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. -- I John 4:18-19


    Whoever derides their neighbor has no sense, but the one who has understanding holds their tongue. -- Proverbs 11:12.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default

    My take-away from this thread is that the best thing I can do (and I'm trying) is to study the Bible on my own without the help of commentaries. Any commentary is a man's opinion of what the Bible says. I do think that an older commentary like Matthew Henry's and/or Henry Morris would be helpful. I may get one or both. It's interesting to me that no one has suggested Scofield. I have seen some questionable things on him so that's ok. I, too have seen great deceptions all around me. We left our church of 12 years recently and my sister is WOF now. That's why I really feel like I should crank up and get more deeper into studying God's word!!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hpwillis View Post
    My take-away from this thread is that the best thing I can do (and I'm trying) is to study the Bible on my own without the help of commentaries. Any commentary is a man's opinion of what the Bible says. I do think that an older commentary like Matthew Henry's and/or Henry Morris would be helpful. I may get one or both. It's interesting to me that no one has suggested Scofield. I have seen some questionable things on him so that's ok. I, too have seen great deceptions all around me. We left our church of 12 years recently and my sister is WOF now. That's why I really feel like I should crank up and get more deeper into studying God's word!!
    I actually use a Scofield Commentary KJV Bible, as my main Bible. The historical notes in the margins, along with cross-referencing verses is very helpful. Then the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, and Strong's lexicon Concordance with Hebrew and Greek definitions. If you use the book form of Strong's you can still do the reverse look up, but it's a longer process, but hey I did it for years.

    My second Bible is the New American Standard Bible. Not much on the commentary part, but a bunch of cross reference verses that are different than the Scofield.

    You might consider as like a second or third Bible the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. Not much commentary, but tons and tons of chain references.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    35

    Default

    I have the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. I haven't used it much. I need to. I get lost in it sometimes. I also have the Common Man's Reference Bible. I do have a ramshackle 1967 Scofield Bible that I look at occasionally. I've thought about buying a new one with the 1917 notes. It's been a few years since I bought a new Bible, so.....lol

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hpwillis View Post
    I have the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. I haven't used it much. I need to. I get lost in it sometimes. I also have the Common Man's Reference Bible. I do have a ramshackle 1967 Scofield Bible that I look at occasionally. I've thought about buying a new one with the 1917 notes. It's been a few years since I bought a new Bible, so.....lol
    Nothing wrong with those old Bibles. I can barely read my Scofield, I've got all my own notes written in. Use to keep a note book, but couldn't find anything in it, so started putting my notes directly in the Bible. It is one ugly looking thing, I tell you, but it's mine LOL.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    I actually use a Scofield Commentary KJV Bible, as my main Bible.
    Now you have really gone and done it! You have just exposed yourself as a heretic for not only revealing that you own a Scofield Bible but that you actually use it! I think that qualifies as a double heretic. You can expect the heretic police to be paying you a visit very soon.

    (for those who couldn't tell, that was sarcasm)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •