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...

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jack Caviness

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.

elnwood

Grant Osborne
http://www.logos.com/product/2800/the-ivp-new-testament-commentary-series-romans

Ben Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans

Jack 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-2

William 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-tradition

F. Leroy Forlines
http://www.logos.com/product/16839/romans

Joseph Agar Beet
http://www.logos.com/product/16558/a-commentary-on-st-pauls-epistle-to-the-romans

R. C. H. Lenski
http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament

Gary Osborne

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.

NB.Mick

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....

Ben

When I saw the title, I thought "boy, who knew Armenia produced so many commentaries that they could be ranked?"

[:D]

Doc B

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]

Mike Childs

I suggest Ben Witherington's commentary on Romans and Clarence Bence's commentary, Romans, A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition

Kenneth Neighoff

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

Kenneth Neighoff

They can be purchased individually. Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-16

Wild Eagle

Thank you all very much for your input. I changed the title, hope now the spell is right [:$]

John

[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.

Mark Barnes

Ben Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans

R. C. H. Lenski
http://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.

Evan Boardman

John, I don't think you want to go there. Lot will want to debate you, but this forum isn't for debating.

Whyndell Grizzard

[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?

Robert M. Warren

elnwood

Ben Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romans

R. C. H. Lenski
http://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.

Mark Barnes

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 [;)]).

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.

John

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.

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.

George Somsel

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]

JT (alabama24)

Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian?

The REFORMED theologian Jacobus Arminius?

George Somsel

Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian?

The REFORMED theologian Jacobus Arminius?

Well, the CATHOLIC Pelegius had his problems too.

JT (alabama24)

I'm Anabaptist. I'll just have to take my lumps. [;)]

NB.Mick

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...

I addition to commentaries, maybe this JETS-article by Brian Abasciano helps. He discusses the question of election on Romans 9 and interacts a lot with Calvinist-leaning commentaries, esecially Schreiner's BECNT volume (if you have the Logos resource, hopefully you will find many links to follow). Abasciano has authored two books on Paul's use of the OT in Romans 9 (only until verse 18...), but AFAIK no full-fledged commentary on Romans.

Wild Eagle

I addition to commentaries, maybe this JETS-article by Brian Abasciano helps. He discusses the question of election on Romans 9 and interacts a lot with Calvinist-leaning commentaries, esecially Schreiner's BECNT volume (if you have the Logos resource, hopefully you will find many links to follow). Abasciano has authored two books on Paul's use of the OT in Romans 9 (only until verse 18...), but AFAIK no full-fledged commentary on Romans.

Thank you NB.Mick for referring to this article. I do have it in Logos. Currently I am reading Forlines, F. Leroy Romans and finding it very helpful. He grabbed my attention because he taught the book of Romans for over 40 years. I think the next one will be IVP Romans by Grant R. Osborne, but I am still waiting for dynamic price for The IVP New Testament Commentary Update (IVPNTC) (5 vols.) because I own one volume.

Black's NT and Lenski cant afford it yet

NB.Mick

Thank you NB.Mick for referring to this article. I do have it in Logos.

You're welcome!

Wild Eagle

commentaries, maybe this JETS-article by Brian Abasciano helps. He discusses the question of election on Romans 9 and interacts a lot with Calvinist-leaning commentaries, esecially Schreiner's BECNT volume (if you have the Logos resource, hopefully you will find many links to follow). Abasciano has authored two books on Paul's use of the OT in Romans 9 (only until verse 18...), but AFAIK no full-fledged commentary on Romans.

I found also two of his books, but sadly they are locked in a bundle:

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis by Brian J. Abasciano
Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis by Brian J. Abasciano

fgh

For what it is worth, Armenians are citizens of an Eastern European country.

Actually, the ancient Armenia is divided between several modern states, plus a lot of Armenians had to flee the area a century ago, due to the Armenian genocide, so an 'Armenian' can refer to:

a member of the Armenian people (living anywhere)
a citizen of the state of Armenia (whether of Armenian decent or not)
a member of the Armenian Orthodox Church (living anywhere, and being of whatever ethnicity)
(possibly) a person whose native language is Armenian.

In this case, if the thread was really about an "Armenian based commentary", I would have assumed that to mean an Armenian Orthodox commentary.

JJ Miller

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.

Terry Roelfsema

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

Jarod King

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.

Dan Francis

William 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-tradition

AKA- New Beacon Bible Commentary is a great resource.

-dan

PS:Only just noticed the age of this thread.

Joshua Tilley

The best commentary in my opinion are

Romans by Grant R. Osborne

and

Romans by John Wesley

John Infield

Thanks Josh for getting this back to the original posted question. I’m going to read more from Grant Osborne due to your recommendation. After reading more about this modern theologian from Scotland who taught at Trinity Deerfield IL (Chicago), I will also delve into his book on Revelation. I had not heard of him until today. Also, on this thread, it has been recommended to search out N.T. Wright. His name keeps coming up at schools and forums in my circle. Not choosing Calvinism and then being called an ArminIan is a forced negative strategy of division by some. We are Christians.... 1Cor 1:12-13, 3:4. There is NOTHING wrong with seeking out a non-Calvinist view point. It literally only took 6 posts here until the 7th became a defensive post And on and on it goes.....

Angela Conley

But free in Mysword/esword.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Help
Best Of