Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans
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
Comments
-
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.
0 -
Grant Osborne
http://www.logos.com/product/2800/the-ivp-new-testament-commentary-series-romansBen Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romansJack Cottrell
http://www.logos.com/product/785/the-college-press-niv-commentary-romans-volume-1
http://www.logos.com/product/1111/the-college-press-niv-commentary-romans-volume-2William Greathouse
http://www.logos.com/product/15608/romans-1-8-a-commentary-in-the-wesleyan-tradition
http://www.logos.com/product/15609/romans-9-16-a-commentary-in-the-wesleyan-traditionF. Leroy Forlines
http://www.logos.com/product/16839/romansJoseph Agar Beet
http://www.logos.com/product/16558/a-commentary-on-st-pauls-epistle-to-the-romansR. C. H. Lenski
http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament0 -
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.
0 -
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:
- Grant Osborne (IVP NT): http://www.logos.com/product/2800/the-ivp-new-testament-commentary-series-romans
- Leroy Forlines (Randall House): http://www.logos.com/product/16839/romans
- Berne (Wesleyan Bible Commentary): http://www.logos.com/product/6634/wesleyan-bible-commentary-romans
I don't know if these are "scholarly" as you define it....
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
When I saw the title, I thought "boy, who knew Armenia produced so many commentaries that they could be ranked?"
[:D]
"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
0 -
Wild Eagle said:
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...]. [:D]
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
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 Wesley0 -
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
0 -
They can be purchased individually. Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-16
0 -
Thank you all very much for your input. I changed the title, hope now the spell is right [:$]
"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
0 -
hmm, from 3.5 thousands books I have Logos 4 platinum + others seems like I have none of Arminian commentary. Need to spend some $$$
"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
0 -
Doc B said:
[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.
0 -
elnwood said:
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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
John, I don't think you want to go there. Lot will want to debate you, but this forum isn't for debating.
0 -
John said:Doc B said:
[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?
0 -
macOS (Logos Pro - Beta) | Android 13 (Logos Stable)
0 -
Mark Barnes said:elnwood said:
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.
0 -
elnwood said:
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 said: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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:elnwood said:
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 ...
0 -
Whyndell Grizzard said:
Well I just checked all my "reformed" commentaries on Romans, and they all address Rom. 9.30-33, maybe someone has misled you?
So every Calvinist commentary you have ever looked at deals honestly with the conclusion? I know better than that my friend. I have never seen any Calvinist commentary that agreed with Pauls conclusion. In fact, Romans 9:33 says exactly the same thing as John 3:16. How many times have you ever heard a Calvinist commentator deal with the statement "whosoever believes" (v33) when dealing with Romans 9? [:O]
A long time ago I read Geislers "Chosen but free" and James Whites "Potters Freedom". (neither available on Logos). In Whites chapter on Romans 9 he stopped his commentary at verse 24, and called it the "crescendo" and "conclusion". I couldn't believe it, but nothing beyond verse 24 helped his case so he just ignored it.
White didn't address it, and I wanted to see what the best Calvinist commentaries had to say on the matter. White recommended John Piper, and called it the best exegesis of Romans 9 available. So I took a look. Piper didn't even make it to verse 24. He stopped at verse 23 after 256 pages of "exegesis" if you want to call it that.
Don't take my word for it, see for yourself: The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
According to White, this is the best Calvinist "exegesis" of Romans 9 available, and it totally ignores Pauls own conclusion to what he had written.
0 -
John maybe you should start a thread asking what the ttop Calvinist based commentary is.
0 -
Had to document this [H]
0 -
Thanks Robert, I hadn't even noticed [:D]
Evan Boardman said:John maybe you should start a thread asking what the top Calvinist based commentary is.
I like John Calvin's commentary. I have his monstrosity in print on my bookshelf. And I find him to be much less extreme than the theological construct that bears his name today. For example, in Romans 9:13 Calvin correctly points out that Esau is representative of the nation of Edom. Where White and others who claim the entire passage is teaching election of individuals have God hating the individual named Esau. Calvin also clearly rejects limited atonement in his commentary, making him a mere 4 pointer [;)]
0 -
John said:
I like John Calvin's commentary. I have his monstrosity in print on my bookshelf. And I find him to be much less extreme than the theological construct that bears his name today.
Richard Muller wrote a number of books proving that Calvin and Calvinist have one and the same theology. One is coming out in Logo's the 26th of this month, in a Baker collection www.logos.com/product/28496/baker-academic-reformation-history-collection
0 -
elnwood said:
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
The book is not about denominational ties, but about systems of theology, so he doesn't say whether or not he's a Wesleyan. Essentially his point is that any of the detailed statements of faiths/systematic theologies can only give that level of detail by going beyond the text of the Bible. His argument, therefore, is that we should be faithful to what the Bible "actually says", rather than trying to mould the Bible into a particular hermeneutical framework.
My copy of The Problem with Evangelical Theology is in print, and I'm too lazy to type out large portions! But the quote below is from Indelible Image, which I do have in Logos:
"Upon further review, it turns out that the biblical texts mean something other than what Calvinists and Arminians thought."
The New Testament is innocent of our later theological agendas and buzzwords and categories, whether we think of patristic theology or Thomist theology or Lutheran theology or Calvinist theology or Wesleyan theology or dispensational theology or pentecostal theology.
"I must insist that the proper order of things is that discovering and discerning the character of Old Testament theology and New Testament theology on its own merits must be seen as a necessarily prior enterprise to the constructing of a biblical theology, not least because we have all seen what happens when the Bible is read through the grid of later Calvinist or Arminian or Lutheran or Orthodox or Catholic systematic theology: the biblical text is read anachronistically and is gerrymandered for various later theological purposes and battles of which the biblical writers were innocent and ignorant. In short, distortion of the meaning of biblical texts happens over and over again as the attempt is made to make them fit a preexisting theological schema."
And this from his commentary on Hebrews:
"It will be worthwhile to lay out the traditional interpretations of this text by Calvinists and Arminians to show the different assumptions brought to the task of interpretation in each case. Theological systems, while not bad in themselves, can often lead to very strained interpretations of biblical texts, especially when the system is the primary intellectual grid through which the text is being read. This can easily be illustrated from a close reading of Protestant commentaries on Hebrews 6:1–6 since the Reformation. Differences of interpretation are usually based on whether a Calvinist or an Arminian is reading this text."
And one more from Indelible Image, again:
As I said in an earlier work, The Problem with Evangelical Theology it is precisely in our distinctives that the various evangelical and orthodox (both Catholic and Orthodox) theologies are exegetically weakest, and this ought to tell us something. The theology of sinless perfection, the theology of eternal security and divine predetermination, the theology of necessary second blessing and necessary glossolalia, the theology of sacramental salvation, the theology of continued human priesthoods and patriarchal privileges in both the family and the family of faith, the theology of rapture and two peoples of God, the theology of one particular denomination or church having a lock on God’s truth, the theology of Marian sinlessness and childlessness (other than Jesus)—all these shipwreck on the hard rocks of the New Testament and the theological and ethical expositions of the New Testament writers.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
And this from his commentary on Hebrews:
"It will be worthwhile to lay out the traditional interpretations of this text by Calvinists and Arminians to show the different assumptions brought to the task of interpretation in each case. Theological systems, while not bad in themselves, can often lead to very strained interpretations of biblical texts, especially when the system is the primary intellectual grid through which the text is being read. This can easily be illustrated from a close reading of Protestant commentaries on Hebrews 6:1–6 since the Reformation. Differences of interpretation are usually based on whether a Calvinist or an Arminian is reading this text."
Is this a Logos resource? Could not find it on the Logos website. Although Witherington wrote most of the Socio-Rhetorical Commentary series, the Hebrews volume is by David deSilva.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
Is this a Logos resource? Could not find it on the Logos website
See here https://www.logos.com/product/9681/ivp-new-testament-studies-collection
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
Richard Muller wrote a number of books proving that Calvin and Calvinist have one and the same theology. One is coming out in Logo's the 26th of this month, in a Baker collection www.logos.com/product/28496/baker-academic-reformation-history-collection
Calvinism is not a monolithe. There are various interpretations. And it is not uncommon to see the more extreme Calvinists labeling moderate Calvinists "Arminians". All in All, its a futile debate that benefits no one, and historically was the cause of much bloodshed and pain.
The reformation could have been a whole-hearted return back to the Bible, but unfortunately it was more a picking and choosing of what parts of Romans Catholicism to toss out. This is why I think reaching a good church history (like Schaff's, who was reformed) sheds a lot more light on the debate than the books out there to "prove" their view is correct.
0 -
John said:
I think reaching a good church history (like Schaff's, who was reformed) sheds a lot more light on the debate than the books out there to "prove" their view is correct.
Thanks for the recommendation. [Y]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
alabama24 said:
For those who consider it: Note that this resource is part of two bundles that are much less expensive than the individual book (plus numerous base packages)
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
alabama24 said:
I have not yet read this but it has been officially on my "To Read List" so it has moved up further as a priority.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Mark Barnes said:elnwood said:
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
The book is not about denominational ties, but about systems of theology, so he doesn't say whether or not he's a Wesleyan.
Here's a YouTube video, with the description "Dr. Ben Witherington III discusses why he considers the Wesleyan understanding of the gospel to be most faithful to Scripture."
0 -
Well, it' not so surprising that people misunderstand Calvin, Witherington is alive and people can't agree what he stands for.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
"I must insist that the proper order of things is that discovering and discerning the character of Old Testament theology and New Testament theology on its own merits must be seen as a necessarily prior enterprise to the constructing of a biblical theology, not least because we have all seen what happens when the Bible is read through the grid of later Calvinist or Arminian or Lutheran or Orthodox or Catholic systematic theology:
What an interesting point of view from Mr. Witherington, however, I disagree. His insistence on the order of knowledge and systemization as stated above is impractical and ultimately counter-productive. Is every student of the Bible to start from ground zero, inductively "discovering and discerning the character of Old Testament and New Testament theology" and only then be allowed to construct conclusions re: a biblical theology? Is there no framework (aka: theology) that guides the student's "discovering and discerning" before he is allowed to construct his biblical theology? I doubt that that is true even where Mr. Witherington teaches. A genuinely inductive-only methodology would lead to countless numbers of students chasing down all sorts of theological bunny trails in the weeds, in all directions. But if, in fact, there are to be guidelines to the students' journey of discovery, then whose guidelines are to be used?
The fact is, every single one of us stands on the shoulders of and has adopted to one degree or another the theology of those who have gone before ... whether it is Ch Fathers, Aquinas, the Reformers, Moises Amyrault, Wesley, Arminius, Bunyan, Toplady, Owen, the Westminster divines, Mary Baker Glover Eddy, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie, TBN and their coterie of teachers, or whoever.
There is absolutely no problem [imo] with first adopting any school or system of theology as a starting point and then using deduction (and induction) to check the plumb, followed by modifications to the system as the Word and the Spirit lead/teach. Sometimes those modifications only require a readjustment of a brick or two here or there, sometimes a section needs to be rebuilt, sometimes the entire wall needs to be torn down with the adoption of another to replace it.
The problem that I think Witherington is trying to address is when one stagnates in any system and/or lazily accepts all tenets - lacking any ability or desire to question or to critically analyze. When this happens, sola scriptura is essentially thrown out of the window and the creed/confession/teacher/system is substituted and becomes the de facto authoritative rule of faith and practice ... stated another way, tradition becomes authoritative over the Word and the Spirit ... and that can be just as true of Reformed, or Wesleyan, or Arminian, or Dispensational, or any other system.
-----------------------
BTW, in response to the OP's question I was going to suggest Geisler's Chosen But Free but in checking the Scripture index I see that he only covers up to Ro 9:29.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Ted Hans said:Jack Caviness said:
Is this a Logos resource? Could not find it on the Logos website
See here https://www.logos.com/product/9681/ivp-new-testament-studies-collection
Thank you for the link, but believe I will pass. Have no desire to spend that much to have the one commentary that interests me.
0 -
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.
0 -
JRS said:
There is absolutely no problem [imo] with first adopting any school or system of theology as a starting point and then using deduction (and induction) to check the plumb, followed by modifications to the system as the Word and the Spirit lead/teach. Sometimes those modifications only require a readjustment of a brick or two here or there, sometimes a section needs to be rebuilt, sometimes the entire wall needs to be torn down with the adoption of another to replace it.
The problem that I think Witherington is trying to address is when one stagnates in any system and/or lazily accepts all tenets - lacking any ability or desire to question or to critically analyze. When this happens, sola scriptura is essentially thrown out of the window and the creed/confession/teacher/system is substituted and becomes the de facto authoritative rule of faith and practice ... stated another way, tradition becomes authoritative over the Word and the Spirit ... and that can be just as true of Reformed, or Wesleyan, or Arminian, or Dispensational, or any other system.
Very good analysis.
0 -
My goodness, I am so surprised that we could not settle the Calvinist - Arminian debate in this thread. After all, something that the Church has debated for over 1,500 years shouldn't take our brilliant minds more than on Logos forum thread to settle. Should it?
Especially if everyone would see reason and agree that I am right.
Opps, isn't most of this out of bounds for this forum?
[;)]
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Mark Barnes said:elnwood said:
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
The book is not about denominational ties, but about systems of theology, so he doesn't say whether or not he's a Wesleyan. Essentially his point is that any of the detailed statements of faiths/systematic theologies can only give that level of detail by going beyond the text of the Bible. His argument, therefore, is that we should be faithful to what the Bible "actually says", rather than trying to mould the Bible into a particular hermeneutical framework.
My copy of The Problem with Evangelical Theology is in print, and I'm too lazy to type out large portions! But the quote below is from Indelible Image, which I do have in Logos:
"Upon further review, it turns out that the biblical texts mean something other than what Calvinists and Arminians thought."
The New Testament is innocent of our later theological agendas and buzzwords and categories, whether we think of patristic theology or Thomist theology or Lutheran theology or Calvinist theology or Wesleyan theology or dispensational theology or pentecostal theology.
"I must insist that the proper order of things is that discovering and discerning the character of Old Testament theology and New Testament theology on its own merits must be seen as a necessarily prior enterprise to the constructing of a biblical theology, not least because we have all seen what happens when the Bible is read through the grid of later Calvinist or Arminian or Lutheran or Orthodox or Catholic systematic theology: the biblical text is read anachronistically and is gerrymandered for various later theological purposes and battles of which the biblical writers were innocent and ignorant. In short, distortion of the meaning of biblical texts happens over and over again as the attempt is made to make them fit a preexisting theological schema."
And this from his commentary on Hebrews:
"It will be worthwhile to lay out the traditional interpretations of this text by Calvinists and Arminians to show the different assumptions brought to the task of interpretation in each case. Theological systems, while not bad in themselves, can often lead to very strained interpretations of biblical texts, especially when the system is the primary intellectual grid through which the text is being read. This can easily be illustrated from a close reading of Protestant commentaries on Hebrews 6:1–6 since the Reformation. Differences of interpretation are usually based on whether a Calvinist or an Arminian is reading this text."
And one more from Indelible Image, again:
As I said in an earlier work, The Problem with Evangelical Theology it is precisely in our distinctives that the various evangelical and orthodox (both Catholic and Orthodox) theologies are exegetically weakest, and this ought to tell us something. The theology of sinless perfection, the theology of eternal security and divine predetermination, the theology of necessary second blessing and necessary glossolalia, the theology of sacramental salvation, the theology of continued human priesthoods and patriarchal privileges in both the family and the family of faith, the theology of rapture and two peoples of God, the theology of one particular denomination or church having a lock on God’s truth, the theology of Marian sinlessness and childlessness (other than Jesus)—all these shipwreck on the hard rocks of the New Testament and the theological and ethical expositions of the New Testament writers.
Ben Witherington claims to be a Wesleyan in theology. He is a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, one of the leading schools of Wesleyan theology in the world. You have to profess Wesleyan theology to teach there. Ben has done so. While he does critique both Wesleyan and Calvinist theology, he does not renounce his Wesleyan theology.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Michael Childs said:
My goodness, I am so surprised that we could not settle the Calvinist - Arminian debate in this thread.
If we can't even convince George that Interlinears serve a useful purpose, how can we solve this issue? [:D]
0 -
JRS said:
BTW, in response to the OP's question I was going to suggest Geisler's Chosen But Free but in checking the Scripture index I see that he only covers up to Ro 9:29.
I found Geislers "Chosen but Free" to be a very worthwhile read. The book never claimed to be an exhaustive commentary on Romans 9, such as Pipers did. I recommend it for anyone with an open mind. Apparently James White didn't appreciate it as much as I did [:O]
Regarding Sola Scriptura, I think that is a really great idea. Too bad it has never been tried.
0 -
John said:
I found Geislers "Chosen but Free" to be a very worthwhile read.
I really wish it were made available digitally.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
alabama24 said:
I really wish it were made available digitally.
me too, thank you for suggestion JRS and John
"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
0 -
alabama24 said:
I really wish it were made available digitally.
Apparently, it is not available in any digital format. Loaned my print copy to a friend who a couple of years later thanked me for giving him the book [:^)] He had just had some tragedy in his family, so I did not have the heart to tell him it was a loan.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:alabama24 said:
I really wish it were made available digitally.
Loaned my print copy to a friend who a couple of years later thanked me for giving him the book
He had just had some tragedy in his family, so I did not have the heart to tell him it was a loan.Was it the updated one?
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Jack Caviness said:alabama24 said:
I really wish it were made available digitally.
Apparently, it is not available in any digital format.
It seems a major retailer of books (and practically anything else), whose breadth of offer might be likened to one of the world's largest river-systems offers the second edition (2001) - just got me a preview to make sure about the version they send over:
(picture taken from Kindle for PC application)
Note that the TOC of my 3rd edition (2010) paper version looks slightly different, especially it seems that Geisler in the 3rd edition calls views more often "extreme sovereignity" and "extreme free will" that he used to call "extreme Calvinism" and "extreme Arminianism" in the 2nd edition. There's no longer a direct response to "the potter's freedom" in the 3rd edition.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
alabama24 said:Jack Caviness said:
Loaned my print copy to a friend who a couple of years later thanked me for giving him the book
He had just had some tragedy in his family, so I did not have the heart to tell him it was a loan.Was it the updated one?
Do not remember.
0 -
NB.Mick said:
There's no longer a direct response to "the potter's freedom" in the 3rd edition.
Hmm. I wonder why?
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Wild Eagle said:
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...
Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian? [:S]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
