Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans
Comments
-
NB.Mick said:
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?
I didn't realize that this was the case with them. I guess we were spoiled with Horton and Olson and I forget that not everyone approaches this with the same dignity and respect as the two of them.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
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...
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.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
David Paul said:
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.
[8-|]
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: 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."
All those statements just seem so silly after reading non-Christian exegetical works on Scripture. Because they all start with a statement something like, "We have all seen what happens when the Bible is read through the grid of later Christian 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."
It's so awesome that he can approach the text without any theological presuppositions [8-)]
0 -
NB.Mick said:
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
"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 -
Wild Eagle said:
Thank you NB.Mick for referring to this article. I do have it in Logos.
You're welcome!
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
... 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?
Hmmm. I am reminded of Mr. Darcy's statement, "My faults, according to this calculation, are heavy indeed!".
You are, of course, free to think as you please re: White. While I am certainly not a shill for the man and he is more than capable of defending himself, I think your evaluation may be tinged with a little more negative hyperbole than what is fair.
Consider: The following list of people have high praise for The Potter's Freedom and have allowed their names and their comments/praise to be published in TPF. You may not recognize all of the names but it is a fairly weighty collection to be sure. It seems odd to me that men of this caliber would willingly and publically endorse such a rapscallion and his work.
Preface by Phillip R. Johnson; Executive Director of John MacArthur's Grace To You Ministry Elder of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA
Foreword by R. C. Sproul, Jr.; Editor-in-Chief, TableTalk Magazine
Douglas Wilson, Pastor; Editor of Credenda Agenda Magazine
Joel Nederhood, Pastor; Host of The Back to God Hour
Jay Adams, Ph.D.; Westminster Seminary, Escondido, California
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.; Bahnsen Theological Seminary
Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, Senior Pastor, Moody Church, Chicago
Jim Elliff, President, Christian Communicators Worldwide
Dr. Tom J. Nettles, Author of By His Grace & For His Glory
Fred G. Zaspel, Pastor, Author of The Theology of Fulfillment
Rev. Richard D. Phillips, Assoc. Minister, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, PA; V. P., Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
Nelson D. Kloosterman, Th.D.; Professor of Ethics and New Testament, Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Dr. Joel R. Beeke, Author, President of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Robert Reymond, Ph.D.; Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Author of A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith
Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft, III, Author, Pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Cumming, GA; Publisher of The Counsel of Chalcedon
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., A.B., Th.M., Th.D.; Former Prof. of New Testament & Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary; Former Prof. of Bible & Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
David King, Pastor, Dayspring Presbyterian Church, Forsyth, GA
J. Ligon Duncan III, Ph.D.; Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS; Adjunct Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
Dr. Fred A. Malone, Author, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Clinton, LA; Southern Baptist Founders Ministries Board Member
Dr. Jonathan Gerstner, Author, Pastor, Baltimore, MD
Maurice Roberts, Editor, Banner of Truth Magazine, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Buddy Boone, Radio Program Director, WHVN, Charlotte, NC; WCGC, Belmont, NC; WAVO, Rock Hill, SC
George Grant, Author; Pres., Bannockburn College, Franklin, TN
Bill Ascol, Chairman of the Board, Southern Baptist Founders Ministries, Shreveport, LA
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Dr. Joe B. Nesom, Southern Baptist Founders Ministries, Jackson, LA
Edward L. Dalcour, President, Department of Christian Defense
Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., Ph.D., President, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC
James M. Renihan, Ph.D., Dean, Associate Professor of Historical Theology, Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster Seminary in California
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
NB.Mick said:
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"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 -
Do they publish commentaries in Armenia? [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
JRS said:NB.Mick said:
... 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?
(...) I think your evaluation may be tinged with a little more negative hyperbole than what is fair.
Consider: The following list of people have high praise for The Potter's Freedom and have allowed their names and their comments/praise to be published in TPF. You may not recognize all of the names but it is a fairly weighty collection to be sure. It seems odd to me that men of this caliber would willingly and publically endorse such a rapscallion and his work.
JRS,
OT: as a non-native speaker I enjoy the opportunity to learn new words in this forum. I never encountered the word "rapscallion" before, but it seems the dictionaries give it a somewhat negative meaning oscillating between someone who dislikes rules and breaks them to someone who intentionally deceives others for his personal gain. While Mr. White may be able to live from his speaking activity, and may have bolstered his reputation with a questionable doctorate, I would never think he'd intentionally deceive people about Calvinism, the Doctrines of Grace or such things. I think he believes them and wants to do everything in his capability to fight for the truth. /OT
What I posted was my personal impression from listening/watching some of White's video podcasts. I didn't evaluate "The Potter's Freedom", but wrote about my impression from the author's public appearance in his videos. I think I can prove every one of the items I listed after the dash - whether this makes them bad or rather successful (Ha, now somebody is telling these ... off!) is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, some people like them. But a discussion of this is well beyond the Logos forum rules. My question - and it really is a question - was, whether he switches to another personality and really is capable of working on a level that would make reading his answer to Geisler worthwile.
Regarding the long list of endorsers (apart from the fact that many books are endorsed when the endorsers have read only a very short abstract of a book - if so): you are right, even though I think I'm well-read in the Calvinism debate, there are names I didn't recognize - and some I did recognize and have my private opinion on. However, a lot of those people camp out at far entrenched positions in this debate, making me wonder whether they wouldn't endorse anything that comes from "a friend" and shoots in the generally right direction.
That said, from the "look into" pages of the current 2009 edition of White's book, it seems to be a hard but civil discussion of Chosen But Free, that adresses some of the less stellar points in Geisler's work and otherwise delivers a discussion of the usual biblical passages from a reformed perspective. So, I think, it could make a worthwile addition to the James White collection.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm trying to put all of this in perspective. The bio's that I've quickly read on Geisler and White seem to indicate that they are both reformed evangelicals. I'm guessing (and this is purely a guess) that Geisler is a moderate calvinist and White is a strict calvinist? Would this be correct?
0 -
Doc B said:
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.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Michael said:
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm trying to put all of this in perspective. The bio's that I've quickly read on Geisler and White seem to indicate that they are both reformed evangelicals. I'm guessing (and this is purely a guess) that Geisler is a moderate calvinist and White is a strict calvinist? Would this be correct?
I know this is getting way off topic from the OP's question but let me answer quickly and then I am going to stop posting.
The labels can be tricky and are weak attempts to describe locations on a free will <--> deterministic continuum. I say they are weak because often they are descriptors that are relative - based upon one's own location/perspective on that continuum. In other words, to some one who feels strongly that man's will is free, autonomous, and self-determinant (even to the point that not even God can overrule it), everyone to the right of him might be termed a "calvinist" or an "extreme calvinist". In a similar way, if a person believes firmly in the "Doctrines of Grace" as summarized in the 5 points of "TULIP" acronym, he or she might label anyone who holds to fewer than all five points as Pelagian/Arminian/Weslyan etc.
And then just to keep everyone confused, the terms can be used pejoratively by all sides regardless of meaning.
The problem is debate without mutually-agreed upon defintions ... everyone just assumes that everybody else knows precisely what he or she means by the terminology ... and so the accusation of "name-calling" gets bandied about all of the time not to mention hurt feelings, etc.
To answer your specific question:
1) White is a thorough-going Reformed/Calvinist apologist/theologian who holds to all five points. Many would consider him to be radical, extreme, hyper, etc. while many others would consider him to be solidly in the Reformed tradition. The term 'strict Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
2) Geisler, I believe, considers himself to be a two maybe three point Calvinist generally, and in Chosen But Free has attempted to define a happy middle between Calvinism on the one hand and the Arminian model on the other. Hence, the title which implies that one is chosen/elect by God and yet simultaneously free to choose. Many would consider him to be Arminian regardless of what he labels himself while others might call him a Calvinistic Arminian (i.e., an Arminian with Calvinist tendencies on some points). The term 'moderate Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
Nota Bene: If I am wrong in any of these characterizations or labels - in ANY way - let me apologize profusely right here and now. No malice was intended or implied. I am rending my clothes even now. I am like dung. I am a man of unclean lips. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! Run away, run away!
Fini.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Thank you JRS!
0 -
JRS said:
I know this is getting way off topic from the OP's question but let me answer quickly and then I am going to stop posting.
Thank you JRS, yours and other posts gave me insights about the authors, and I really appreciate it.
"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 -
JRS said:
The labels can be tricky and are weak attempts to describe locations on a free will <--> deterministic continuum. I say they are weak because often they are descriptors that are relative - based upon one's own location/perspective on that continuum. In other words, to some one who feels strongly that man's will is free, autonomous, and self-determinant (even to the point that not even God can overrule it), everyone to the right of him might be termed a "calvinist" or an "extreme calvinist". In a similar way, if a person believes firmly in the "Doctrines of Grace" as summarized in the 5 points of "TULIP" acronym, he or she might label anyone who holds to fewer than all five points as Pelagian/Arminian/Weslyan etc.
And then just to keep everyone confused, the terms can be used pejoratively by all sides regardless of meaning. (...)
1) White is a thorough-going Reformed/Calvinist apologist/theologian who holds to all five points. Many would consider him to be radical, extreme, hyper, etc. while many others would consider him to be solidly in the Reformed tradition. The term 'strict Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
2) Geisler, I believe, considers himself to be a two maybe three point Calvinist generally, and in Chosen But Free has attempted to define a happy middle between Calvinism on the one hand and the Arminian model on the other. Hence, the title which implies that one is chosen/elect by God and yet simultaneously free to choose. Many would consider him to be Arminian regardless of what he labels himself while others might call him a Calvinistic Arminian (i.e., an Arminian with Calvinist tendencies on some points). The term 'moderate Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
[Y] imho a very good post. Congrats.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
JRS said:
2) Geisler, I believe, considers himself to be a two maybe three point Calvinist generally, and in Chosen But Free has attempted to define a happy middle between Calvinism on the one hand and the Arminian model on the other. Hence, the title which implies that one is chosen/elect by God and yet simultaneously free to choose. Many would consider him to be Arminian regardless of what he labels himself while others might call him a Calvinistic Arminian (i.e., an Arminian with Calvinist tendencies on some points). The term 'moderate Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
I don't know White, but this is a very good analysis of Geisler.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:JRS said:
2) Geisler, I believe, considers himself to be a two maybe three point Calvinist generally, and in Chosen But Free has attempted to define a happy middle between Calvinism on the one hand and the Arminian model on the other. Hence, the title which implies that one is chosen/elect by God and yet simultaneously free to choose. Many would consider him to be Arminian regardless of what he labels himself while others might call him a Calvinistic Arminian (i.e., an Arminian with Calvinist tendencies on some points). The term 'moderate Calvinist' (correctly defined) might be appropriate.
I don't know White, but this is a very good analysis of Geisler.
To attempt to define his position as "moderate Calvinism" Geisler is seeking to portray historic mainstream Calvinism as an extreme strand of the tradition which to put it bluntly is ridiculous. Calvinism may or may not be extreme but if it is it is it is Calvinism generally that is extreme not the mainstream variant, Geisler is attempting to libel (or I suppose he would say "expose") the whole historic framework by redefining an unorthodox position as being the yardstick by which the whole tradition is judged.
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.
0 -
Mike Pettit said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
NB.Mick said:
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.
0 -
Mike Pettit said:
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 said: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 [:D]
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
JRS said:
The problem is debate without mutually-agreed upon defintions ...
Correct, that is part of the problem.
JRS said: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.
[quote]
"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.
[quote]
"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.
[quote]
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.
0 -
Jim Wait said:
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.
0 -
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
0 -
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.
0 -
elnwood said:
AKA- New Beacon Bible Commentary is a great resource.
-dan
PS:Only just noticed the age of this thread.
0 -
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.
0
