Top Arminian based commentary on the book of Romans

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.

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

[:D]

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

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

elnwood said:

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.

John said:

Doc B said:

[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?

Mark Barnes said:

elnwood said:

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 said:

elnwood said:

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 ...

John maybe you should start a thread asking what the ttop Calvinist based commentary is. 

Thanks Robert, I hadn't even noticed [:D]

Evan Boardman said:

John maybe you should start a thread asking what the top Calvinist based commentary is. 

I like John Calvin's commentary. I have his monstrosity in print on my bookshelf. And I find him to be much less extreme than the theological construct that bears his name today. For example, in Romans 9:13 Calvin correctly points out that Esau is representative of the nation of Edom. Where White and others who claim the entire passage is teaching election of individuals have God hating the individual named Esau. Calvin also clearly rejects limited atonement in his commentary, making him a mere 4 pointer [;)]

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.