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
- 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
- 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.
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
Ben Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romansR. 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.
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!
Ben Witherington
http://www.logos.com/product/6250/pauls-letter-to-the-romansR. C. H. Lenski
http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testamentWitherington 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.
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.
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!
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 ...
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!
Does Witherington claim to not be Wesleyan? I mean, I'm a Calvinist and a Baptist, but I can critique Calvinists and Baptists all dayThe 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."
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.
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:
I don't know if these are "scholarly" as you define it....
Have joy in the Lord! 
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
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.
[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.
[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?
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.
macOS (Logos Pro - Beta) | Android 13 (Logos Stable)
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:
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
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
They can be purchased individually. Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-16
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.
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.
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
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Can anyone even READ Romans and remain an Arminian?
The REFORMED theologian Jacobus Arminius?
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!
I'm Anabaptist. I'll just have to take my lumps. [;)]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!
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!
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
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
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
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.
The best commentary in my opinion are
Romans by Grant R. Osborne
and
Romans by John Wesley
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.....
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.
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install
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.
But free in Mysword/esword.