Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans
Comments
-
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 -
-
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?
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 -
-
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 -
-
George Somsel said:
Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian?
The REFORMED theologian Jacobus Arminius?
0 -
alabama24 said:George Somsel said:
Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian?
The REFORMED theologian Jacobus Arminius?
Well, the CATHOLIC Pelegius had his problems too.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
-
alabama24 said:John said:
I found Geislers "Chosen but Free" to be a very worthwhile read.
I really wish it were made available digitally.
I agree. I would like to see Geisler's CBF paired with White's The Potter's Freedom and offered as a Logos mini-collection. I think it would make a much more stimulating read than the Horton/Olson pairing.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
One lump or two?
I guess with you and Evan, it was a one-two punch. (or perhaps Hawaiian) [:)]
0 -
JRS said:
I agree. I would like to see Geisler's CBF paired with White's The Potter's Freedom and offered as a Logos mini-collection. I think it would make a much more stimulating read than the Horton/Olson pairing.
I love the Horton/Olson pairing. Pairing Geisler's CBF with White's The Potter's Freedom would also a very good idea
"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 -
Mark Barnes said:
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."
Fwiw, I've made the point a few times in the past that in the argument between Calvinists and Arminians, the correct choice is neither.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Wild Eagle said:JRS said:
I agree. I would like to see Geisler's CBF paired with White's The Potter's Freedom and offered as a Logos mini-collection. I think it would make a much more stimulating read than the Horton/Olson pairing.
I love the Horton/Olson pairing. Pairing Geisler's CBF with White's The Potter's Freedom would also a very good idea
[Y]
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:Wild Eagle said:JRS said:
I agree. I would like to see Geisler's CBF paired with White's The Potter's Freedom and offered as a Logos mini-collection. I think it would make a much more stimulating read than the Horton/Olson pairing.
I love the Horton/Olson pairing. Pairing Geisler's CBF with White's The Potter's Freedom would also a very good idea
Horton and Olson are both professors with a long history of sholarship in their field. They treat each other quite gentlemanly. It's a pleasure to listen to them debating or to read the books back to back.
But Geisler and White? Do they even play in the same league? I've occasionally listened to some of these "Radio Geneva" podcasts and found them to be abysmally bad - needless ad hominem attacks, pushing against strawmen and always a snide remark agains some totally unrelated pet-adversaries of choice... is this really the best horse Calvinist apologetics have in the stable? I can understand why this guy "wins" debates, but is it worth reading books by him?
Have joy in the Lord!
0
