Arminian Internet Resources on Romans 9

Reviewed Commentaries Ranked One to Eleven
<><><>
<><><>
<><><>
<><><>
<><><>
<><><>
Commentator
ReviewLinguisticsLogicClarityTOTAL
4
3
4
10
8
5
1
14
3
2
10
15
7
4
5
16
6
1
11
18
2
11
6
19
1
10
8
19
11
7
2
20
5
6
9
20
10
8
4
22
9
9
7
25

These commentaries were subjectively ranked from one to eleven; one being the best, two the next best and so on. Linguistics was scored based on use of original languages and explaining things phrase by phrase. Logic was scored based on explaining the text, leaving the fewest unanswered questions and coherence of the big picture. Clarity was scored based on ease of reading and understanding the author.
Additional Resouces on Romans 9
My thoughts on Romans 9-11
Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered
Joseph Sutcliffe’s brief commentary
Wesley’s Commentary
William Klein’s article: “Paul’s use of Kalein: A Proposal”
Brian Abasciano’s article Corporate Election in Romans 9
Dennis McCallum’s youtube clips
Brennon Hatshorn’s Thoughts
Kevin Jackson part 1
Kevin Jackson part 2
Skinner’s Commentary
Pristine Faith Restoration Society

This list is not comprehensive, but I would like it to be. If you know of other commentaries on Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective, please comment with a link. Thanks!

Comments

bossmanham said…
I've been tweaking my understanding as of late. Romans 9 takes some time to grasp because of the cultural disconnect.
June 23, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Kevin Jackson said…
Very helpful, thanks. I agree with bossman. Understanding the cultural context is critical for Romans 9.
June 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Kevin Jackson said…
Billy's link
Dennis McCallum's is pretty good too, but it is media (video/audio). link
June 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Robert said…
Hi Dan,

Thanks for providing these resources on Romans 9 from the correct perspective. As you know, this is probably the key necessatarian proof text which they improperly interpret to arrive at their conclusions on the false and unbiblical doctrine of unconditional election. By providing these resources we can help those who really want to get Romans 9 right and avoid the nasty errors of calvinism.

Robert
June 23, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Brennon,

Yes, the cultural issue is a tough one, as well as nailing down the culture Paul was addressing. To what extent were they Jews vs. Gentiles?

As you revise your thoughts, please let me know and I will add them here.

God be with you,
Dan
June 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the links.

God be with you,
Dan
June 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Robert,

Thanks. I read a quote at one point where one of the Synodists at Dort said the whole synod was about understanding Romans 9... so yep it's fairly key in the C/A debate. I have to dig up that quote at some point.

Yes, although there's even better stuff in book form, hopefully these internet resources will help. I am amazed that all this good stuff is out there for free.

God be with you,
Dan
June 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Kingswood Hart said…
I'm doing a series on Romans at the moment. The contents page can be found here: https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/romans-blog-series/
September 29, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more