On the White Horse Inn, during the 11/23/08 episode, entitled "We Preach Not Ourselves," at mark 25:23ff, Michael Horton brings up an allegorical hermeneutic of scripture that the liberals use. The Lutheran (I think) says that Matthew Henry is a perfect example of one who is allegorical in their interpretation of scripture. Horton, exclaims, "...if you're relying on M.H. if you're a pastor listening, I think a lot of, a lot of reformed people would say, If you're relying on M.H. find someone else, that's not, that's ...there are real problems with M.H."
The group all heartily agrees. One of them throws the poor Henry a bone and says, "there are some useful devotional reflections there...' but immediately following says, "but the general hermeneutic [M.H. employs] is pretty bad." They go on to include him among the conservative" stripe of allegorical interpreters in contradistinction to the "liberal" allegorical interpreters.
I'm curious, what do those on the PB think about this? Do you agree with the above? Do you find M.H. worth a read?
The group all heartily agrees. One of them throws the poor Henry a bone and says, "there are some useful devotional reflections there...' but immediately following says, "but the general hermeneutic [M.H. employs] is pretty bad." They go on to include him among the conservative" stripe of allegorical interpreters in contradistinction to the "liberal" allegorical interpreters.
I'm curious, what do those on the PB think about this? Do you agree with the above? Do you find M.H. worth a read?