Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans

Page 5 of 5 (95 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5
This post has 94 Replies | 7 Followers

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 23 2013 4:22 PM

Mike Pettit:
For good or ill Calvinism is a highly systematised framework from which it is not really possible to remove a tenant without the whole system collapsing into self contradiction.

That was what Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to think though I wouldn't agree too often with him.

FIRST OF NOVEMBER, — the Earthquake-day, –
There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,            
A general flavor of mild decay,
But nothing local, as one may say.            
There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art            
Had made it so like in every part            
That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.            
For the wheels were just as strong as the thills            
And the floor was just as strong as the sills,            
And the panels just as strong as the floor,            
And the whippletree neither less or more,            
And the back-crossbar as strong as the fore,            
And the spring and axle and hub encore.            
And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt            
In another hour it will be worn out!

First of November, fifty-five!            
This morning the parson takes a drive.            
Now, small boys get out of the way!            
Here comes the wonderful one-hoss shay,            
Drawn by a rat-tailed, ewe-necked bay.            
"Huddup!" said the parson. — Off went they.

The parson was working his Sunday’s text, –
Had got to fifthly, and stopped perplexed            
At what the — Moses — was coming next.            
All at once the horse stood still,            
Close by the meet’n'-house on the hill.            
First a shiver, and then a thrill,            
Then something decidedly like a spill, –
And the parson was sitting upon a rock,            
At half past nine by the meet’n'-house clock, –
Just the hour of the earthquake shock!

What do you think the parson found,            
When he got up and stared around?            
The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,            
As if it had been to the mill and ground!            
You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,            
How it went to pieces all at once, –
All at once, and nothing first, –
Just as bubbles do when they burst.

End of the wonderful one-hoss shay.            
Logic is logic. That’s all I say.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 397
John | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 23 2013 7:02 PM

NB.Mick:

I can understand why this guy "wins" debates, but is it worth reading books by him?

Most of Whites material is excellent. I have to admit I was very disappointed with The Potters Freedom. It was a side of him I had not seen previously. On this issue of publishers, It is interesting that he had to seek a different publisher to get this one in print.

 

Posts 10600
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 24 2013 4:31 AM

Mike Pettit:
For good or ill Calvinism is a highly systematised framework from which it is not really possible to remove a tenant without the whole system collapsing into self contradiction.

Classic Dispensationalism has the same problem—Everything in Scripture must be forced into a pre-conceived mold. We can never allow the text to speak for itself or the whole system will collapse. Note that I am Dispensational by training and by inclination, but I also note its flaws. Die-hard Dispensationalists and Calvinists are not so willing to examine the system.

George Somsel:

That was what Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to think though I wouldn't agree too often with him.

It has been a long time since I read that. Thanks George Big Smile

Posts 778
JRS | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 24 2013 7:22 AM

George Somsel:

FIRST OF NOVEMBER, — the Earthquake-day, –
There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,            
A general flavor of mild decay,
But nothing local, as one may say.            
There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art            
Had made it so like in every part            
That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.            
For the wheels were just as strong as the thills            
And the floor was just as strong as the sills,            
And the panels just as strong as the floor,            
And the whippletree neither less or more,            
And the back-crossbar as strong as the fore,            
And the spring and axle and hub encore.            
And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt            
In another hour it will be worn out!

First of November, fifty-five!            
This morning the parson takes a drive.            
Now, small boys get out of the way!            
Here comes the wonderful one-hoss shay,            
Drawn by a rat-tailed, ewe-necked bay.            
"Huddup!" said the parson. — Off went they.

The parson was working his Sunday’s text, –
Had got to fifthly, and stopped perplexed            
At what the — Moses — was coming next.            
All at once the horse stood still,            
Close by the meet’n'-house on the hill.            
First a shiver, and then a thrill,            
Then something decidedly like a spill, –
And the parson was sitting upon a rock,            
At half past nine by the meet’n'-house clock, –
Just the hour of the earthquake shock!

What do you think the parson found,            
When he got up and stared around?            
The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,            
As if it had been to the mill and ground!            
You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,            
How it went to pieces all at once, –
All at once, and nothing first, –
Just as bubbles do when they burst.

End of the wonderful one-hoss shay.            
Logic is logic. That’s all I say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

How blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee(Psa 65:4a)

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 24 2013 8:58 AM

Oops !  I just realized that it wasn't Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote the "Wonderful One-hoss Shay."  It was his father of the same name.  I still frequently don't agree with Holmes' legal opinions.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 397
John | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 24 2013 9:56 AM

JRS:

The problem is debate without mutually-agreed upon defintions ...

Correct, that is part of the problem.

JRS:

2) Geisler, I believe, considers himself to be a two maybe three point Calvinist generally

Another part of the problem is when people completely misrepresent another persons view, as is done here. When I read over this the first time, I ignored it. I thought for sure others would address it. Instead the posting received praise from several posters?

In Chosen but Free Geisler affirms all 5 points of the TULIP. He demonstrates how the points have been interpreted differently by "moderate" Calvinists and "extreme" Calvinists.

"An extreme Calvinist is defined here as someone who is more Calvinistic than John Calvin (1509-1564), the founder of Calvinism." - CBF second edition, p56

Geisler documents how Calvin's ideas were taken to further extremes by his disciples, notably Theodore Beza. He also documents that the church historically had never held the more extreme view. Proponents of the extreme view had no support except for Augustine.

"We have been defending a moderate form of Calvinism. This view is not new. Its roots are found in the early writings os St. Augustine. As indicated previously, St. Augustine's earlier view was a more moderate form of what I have called extreme Calvinism. In our opinion, had Augustine not been thrown off track by his view of baptismal regeneration and the coercion of heretics to believe (during the donatist controversy), extreme Calvinists would find no significant support in the whole history of the Christian church up to the reformation." - CBF second edition, p134

Personally, I find that John Calvin himself was pretty close to the truth on things. But many of those who identify with his name today have distorted his view. On this I believe Geisler is right on. There is too much truth in Calvinism to ignore it, but too many extremists associated with it to embrace it. That's my opinion.

To the OP, looking for a good commentary. Don't rule out Calvin, his commentary is excellent. Just be aware that many have taken his views to the extreme.

Calvin was an exegetical genius of the first order.  His commentaries are unsurpassed for originality, depth, perspicuity, soundness, and permanent value.  The Reformation period was fruitful beyond any other in translations and expositions of the Scripture.  If Luther was the king of translators, Calvin was the king of commentators.  Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for not referring more frequently to Calvin, because others had so largely borrowed from him that to quote them was to quote him.  Reuss, the chief editor of his works and himself an eminent biblical scholar, says that Calvin was, beyond all question the greatest exegete of the sixteenth century.”778  Archdeacon Farrar literally echoes this judgment.779  Diestel, the best historian of Old Testament exegesis, calls him “the creator of genuine exegesis.”780  Few exegetical works outlive their generation; those of Calvin are not likely to be superseded any more than Chrysostom’s Homilies for patristic eloquence, or Bengel’s Gnomon for pregnant and stimulating hints, or Matthew Henry’s Exposition for devotional purposes and epigrammatic suggestions to preachers.

Schaff, P. (2002; 2002). History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII, Chapter XIV, Section 111. Calvins Commentaries

If you look this up in Schaff, be sure to read a little further to Section 114. Calvinism Examined. Very good analysis of the theological system as a whole that is honest about its problems.

Posts 98
JJ Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 4 2014 10:16 PM

Jim Wait:

The best commentary on ROMANS is the NIB commentary vol10.  N T Wright has spent his whole academic life teaching and writing about the book of Romans.  

Jim, Yes.  I was wondering when someone would suggest NT Wright.  The Original Poster said he wanted an academic commentary.  NT Wright does a masterful job of developing the flow and thought process of Romans *(I also recommend his Romans in a Week).  Now, I don't personally accept his theological conclusions on Justification and the like, but clearly this is a commentary of the utmost scholarship and beneficial for whichever camp one is in. Thanks. 

Posts 2
Terry Roelfsema | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 2 2015 9:48 AM

Jack Cottrell is an Arminian who studied in Calvinist schools, so he is well-studied.  

Romans: The College Press NIV Commentary, 2 volumes.  Logos and College Press has them

Posts 1
Jarod King | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 14 2017 11:11 AM

The best commentators that are opposed to Calvinism are Peter and Paul.  Ask the Calvinist if he really believes that God is a respecter of persons, then show him these 2 verses:

Acts 10:34  So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality..."

Romans 2:11  For God shows no partiality.

If you still want a commentary though, check out Robert Turner's book Reading Romans.

Posts 5253
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 14 2017 9:53 PM

elnwood:

AKA- New Beacon Bible Commentary is a great resource. 

-dan

PS:Only just noticed the age of this thread. 

Posts 1
Michael Le Breton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 4 2017 2:40 PM

Absolutely correct, dear brother! I heard Sproul 'teaching' a class of students on Rom.9 and was disgusted by it. It was not teaching; it was indoctrination. He completely ignored the cross- references to the O.T. passages Paul refers to, and ignored also the fact that at the beginning of chapter 9, Paul explicitely states that he is writing about God's dealing with Israel, NOT with the subject of individual salvation!

Calvinists continually use mis-leading analogies (usually the same old stale ones) in lieu of Scripture,and wrest scriptures with word-changes and wrong categorical application, and 'debate' in theological rather than scriptural language. Drive them into a corner,(which is easy enough to do), and they will cry 'Paradox' or misappropriate verses like Deut. 29v29. In short they are dishonest. They think they are right, even though they know they re wrong.

Posts 578
Randall Cue | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 4 2017 4:54 PM

Michael Le Breton:

Absolutely correct, dear brother! I heard Sproul 'teaching' a class of students on Rom.9 and was disgusted by it. It was not teaching; it was indoctrination. He completely ignored the cross- references to the O.T. passages Paul refers to, and ignored also the fact that at the beginning of chapter 9, Paul explicitely states that he is writing about God's dealing with Israel, NOT with the subject of individual salvation!

Calvinists continually use mis-leading analogies (usually the same old stale ones) in lieu of Scripture,and wrest scriptures with word-changes and wrong categorical application, and 'debate' in theological rather than scriptural language. Drive them into a corner,(which is easy enough to do), and they will cry 'Paradox' or misappropriate verses like Deut. 29v29. In short they are dishonest. They think they are right, even though they know they re wrong.

There are at least 3 things wrong with the content of the above post:

1.) It is in conflict with the rules and guidelines for the forums.

2.) It is spiteful and un Christian.

3.) It is ignorant of both the Arminian and "Calvanistic" perspectives.

Soli Deo Gloria

Randy

Posts 6594
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 4 2017 5:30 PM

Randall Cue:

Michael Le Breton:

Absolutely correct, dear brother! I heard Sproul 'teaching' a class of students on Rom.9 and was disgusted by it. It was not teaching; it was indoctrination. He completely ignored the cross- references to the O.T. passages Paul refers to, and ignored also the fact that at the beginning of chapter 9, Paul explicitely states that he is writing about God's dealing with Israel, NOT with the subject of individual salvation!

Calvinists continually use mis-leading analogies (usually the same old stale ones) in lieu of Scripture,and wrest scriptures with word-changes and wrong categorical application, and 'debate' in theological rather than scriptural language. Drive them into a corner,(which is easy enough to do), and they will cry 'Paradox' or misappropriate verses like Deut. 29v29. In short they are dishonest. They think they are right, even though they know they re wrong.

There are at least 3 things wrong with the content of the above post:

1.) It is in conflict with the rules and guidelines for the forums.

2.) It is spiteful and un Christian.

3.) It is ignorant of both the Arminian and "Calvanistic" perspectives.

I agree with 1.) and that should be enough. 2 & 3 are subjective and (without intending to) puts you in the same category as the person posting it — judging.

I shan’t continue to avoid adding more to the theological debate which isn’t allowed as per forum rules.

DAL

Posts 2091
GaoLu | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 4 2017 5:36 PM

I think Witherington would describe himself as a cradle-to -grace -grave Methodist.  His mom says his first two words were John Wesley.  

I find him fair, honest and articulate. Check out these Logos Resources.

Posts 3
Joshua Tilley | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 2 2019 5:54 AM

The best commentary in my opinion are

Romans by Grant R. Osborne

and 

Romans by John Wesley

Page 5 of 5 (95 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | RSS