Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans
Comments
-
Michael Le Breton said:
Absolutely correct, dear brother! I heard Sproul 'teaching' a class of students on Rom.9 and was disgusted by it. It was not teaching; it was indoctrination. He completely ignored the cross- references to the O.T. passages Paul refers to, and ignored also the fact that at the beginning of chapter 9, Paul explicitely states that he is writing about God's dealing with Israel, NOT with the subject of individual salvation!
Calvinists continually use mis-leading analogies (usually the same old stale ones) in lieu of Scripture,and wrest scriptures with word-changes and wrong categorical application, and 'debate' in theological rather than scriptural language. Drive them into a corner,(which is easy enough to do), and they will cry 'Paradox' or misappropriate verses like Deut. 29v29. In short they are dishonest. They think they are right, even though they know they re wrong.
There are at least 3 things wrong with the content of the above post:
1.) It is in conflict with the rules and guidelines for the forums.
2.) It is spiteful and un Christian.
3.) It is ignorant of both the Arminian and "Calvanistic" perspectives.
0 -
Randall Cue said:Michael Le Breton said:
Absolutely correct, dear brother! I heard Sproul 'teaching' a class of students on Rom.9 and was disgusted by it. It was not teaching; it was indoctrination. He completely ignored the cross- references to the O.T. passages Paul refers to, and ignored also the fact that at the beginning of chapter 9, Paul explicitely states that he is writing about God's dealing with Israel, NOT with the subject of individual salvation!
Calvinists continually use mis-leading analogies (usually the same old stale ones) in lieu of Scripture,and wrest scriptures with word-changes and wrong categorical application, and 'debate' in theological rather than scriptural language. Drive them into a corner,(which is easy enough to do), and they will cry 'Paradox' or misappropriate verses like Deut. 29v29. In short they are dishonest. They think they are right, even though they know they re wrong.
There are at least 3 things wrong with the content of the above post:
1.) It is in conflict with the rules and guidelines for the forums.
2.) It is spiteful and un Christian.
3.) It is ignorant of both the Arminian and "Calvanistic" perspectives.
I agree with 1.) and that should be enough. 2 & 3 are subjective and (without intending to) puts you in the same category as the person posting it — judging.
I shan’t continue to avoid adding more to the theological debate which isn’t allowed as per forum rules.
DAL
0 -
I think Witherington would describe himself as a cradle-to -grace -grave Methodist. His mom says his first two words were John Wesley.
I find him fair, honest and articulate. Check out these Logos Resources.
0 -
The best commentary in my opinion are
Romans by Grant R. Osborne
and
Romans by John Wesley
0 -
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.....
0 -
But free in Mysword/esword.
0
