I am studying the book of Romans. So far, the top commentaries I looked lean toward Calvinism. I would really like to see Arminian view point (Especially Romans 9-11), Can anyone suggest which commentary I should use.
PS: I am looking more scholarly commentary rather than devotional...
"No man is greater than his prayer life. The pastor who is not praying is playing; the people who are not praying are straying." Leonard Ravenhill
Have 3 in my library, but cannot vouch for their scholarly level.
Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. Rev. ed. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: Continuum, 1991.
Bence, Clarence L. Romans: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 1996.
Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. Fourth American Edition. New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818.
Could isolate these because of the Denomination collection advice posted on these forums recently. If necessary, I can trace that for you.
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install
Grant Osbornehttp://www.logos.com/product/2800/the-ivp-new-testament-commentary-series-romans
Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans
Jack Cottrellhttp://www.logos.com/product/785/the-college-press-niv-commentary-romans-volume-1http://www.logos.com/product/1111/the-college-press-niv-commentary-romans-volume-2
William Greathousehttp://www.logos.com/product/15608/romans-1-8-a-commentary-in-the-wesleyan-traditionhttp://www.logos.com/product/15609/romans-9-16-a-commentary-in-the-wesleyan-tradition
F. Leroy Forlineshttp://www.logos.com/product/16839/romans
Joseph Agar Beethttp://www.logos.com/product/16558/a-commentary-on-st-pauls-epistle-to-the-romans
R. C. H. Lenskihttp://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament
By far the best Arminian-based commentary on Romans would be Adam Clarke's Commentary. Unfortunately it's been languishing in Community Pricing (in other words its unavailable at this time) for quite a while now.
You will find non-calvinist commentaries at http://www.squidoo.com/arminiancommentaries (somehow the site seems broken currently, at least for my Chrome browser). Some that come to mind:
I don't know if these are "scholarly" as you define it....
Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10
When I saw the title, I thought "boy, who knew Armenia produced so many commentaries that they could be ranked?"
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
Wild Eagle: I would really like to see Armenian view point
For what it is worth, Armenians are citizens of an Eastern European country. Arminians are followers of Jacobus Arminius, the Dutch theologian.
[Maybe there's a reason the top commentaries are Calvinistic...].
My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.
Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.
I suggest Ben Witherington's commentary on Romans and Clarence Bence's commentary, Romans, A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley
I would highly recommend, Greathouse and Lyons two volume work. It is found only in a bundle right now in Logos, http://www.logos.com/product/8645/new-beacon-bible-commentary-library-volume-1
They can be purchased individually. Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-16
Thank you all very much for your input. I changed the title, hope now the spell is right
hmm, from 3.5 thousands books I have Logos 4 platinum + others seems like I have none of Arminian commentary. Need to spend some $$$
Doc B: [Maybe there's a reason the top commentaries are Calvinistic...].
Correct, there is a reason. Because the so-called Arminians were quickly killed, imprisoned or exiled before they had a chance to become established.
You will not find much in the way of "Arminian" commentaries on Romans 9. The correct interpretation is found by understanding that Romans 9 was not a new teaching, but in fact most of the chapter is merely quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah regarding Israel. Even the verses that according to Calvinists teach election (and damnation) of individuals are quotations from passages that teach something quite different.
Calvinists turn the "Potter" in Romans 9 into a potter who desires to destroy individuals, but in scripture God is only portrayed as a potter over Israel as a nation. This is a very simple but absolutely true Biblical fact which proves all the Calvinist commentaries on the passage to be totally false.
And last but not least, Paul wrote a conclusion to Romans 9 that starts in verse 30. You will notice that all Calvinist commentary on Romans 9 ends at verse 27 or 28 (if not before), and comes to far different conclusions than Paul did.
The scripture really does speak for itself ... but not all of us are always willing to listen when it does.
elnwood: Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans R. C. H. Lenskihttp://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament
Witherington and Lenski are not Calvinists, but they're not Arminians, either. Witherington doesn't like to be put in either camp, and Lenski is Lutheran.
John, I don't think you want to go there. Lot will want to debate you, but this forum isn't for debating.
John: Doc B: [Maybe there's a reason the top commentaries are Calvinistic...]. Correct, there is a reason. Because the so-called Arminians were quickly killed, imprisoned or exiled before they had a chance to become established. You will not find much in the way of "Arminian" commentaries on Romans 9. The correct interpretation is found by understanding that Romans 9 was not a new teaching, but in fact most of the chapter is merely quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah regarding Israel. Even the verses that according to Calvinists teach election (and damnation) of individuals are quotations from passages that teach something quite different. Calvinists turn the "Potter" in Romans 9 into a potter who desires to destroy individuals, but in scripture God is only portrayed as a potter over Israel as a nation. This is a very simple but absolutely true Biblical fact which proves all the Calvinist commentaries on the passage to be totally false. And last but not least, Paul wrote a conclusion to Romans 9 that starts in verse 30. You will notice that all Calvinist commentary on Romans 9 ends at verse 27 or 28 (if not before), and comes to far different conclusions than Paul did. The scripture really does speak for itself ... but not all of us are always willing to listen when it does.
Well I just checked all my "reformed" commentaries on Romans, and they all address Rom. 9.30-33, maybe someone has misled you?
Win 10 | Android 9 | Fire OS 5
Mark Barnes: elnwood: Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans R. C. H. Lenskihttp://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament Witherington and Lenski are not Calvinists, but they're not Arminians, either. Witherington doesn't like to be put in either camp, and Lenski is Lutheran.
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I'm simply trying to be helpful to the original poster, though, and not claiming to speak for Lenski or Witherington.
The Logos product page for Lenski quotes Cyril Barber as saying that Lenski is "Armenian (sic) in doctrine." Ben Witherington III is ordained in the United Methodist Church and teaches at Asbury Seminary, also a Methodist institution.
So I would say that Lenski is Arminian in doctrine, if not by denominational association, while Witherington is Arminian by denominational association, if not doctrine also. Either way, I think the original poster should find both commentaries representative of the Arminian position on the book of Romans.
elnwood:Ben Witherington III is ordained in the United Methodist Church and teaches at Asbury Seminary, also a Methodist institution.
Witherington has written a critique of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism in The Problem with Evangelical Theology (in case you were wondering, they're all wrong ).
elnwood:So I would say that Lenski is Arminian in doctrine, if not by denominational association,
In his commentary on Philippians, Lenski says "Thank God, Paul is neither an Arminian Calvinist nor a Calvinistic Arminian. The Arminians and the Calvinists do better than that; each holds only one error instead of combining two. Paul held neither error."
But you're right in that he's certainly closer to the Arminian position than any Calvinist, and would be helpful to the original poster.
Mark Barnes: elnwood:Ben Witherington III is ordained in the United Methodist Church and teaches at Asbury Seminary, also a Methodist institution. Witherington has written a critique of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism in The Problem with Evangelical Theology (in case you were wondering, they're all wrong ).
Interesting. Perhaps we should be five-point Witheringtonians?
Does Witherington claim to not be Wesleyan? I mean, I'm a Calvinist and a Baptist, but I can critique Calvinists and Baptists all day ...