When no Calvinist responded, he stated that,
It's slightly puzzling to me that as concerned as Calvinists are with exegesis, that when I link to an Arminian exegesis of their leading proof text, they don't respond.Who said Romans 9 "was our leading proof text"? Anyway, since his posts are not exegesis of his own, then I'll respond in kind (it should be noted that most of these men have Ph.D.s and are respected scholars, almost all the rest have either a Th.M. or an M.Div., and so are trained exegetes):
Dr. Steve Baugh on Romans 9
Matt Slick on Romans 9
Rev. Lane Keister on Romans 9
Dr. John Piper on Romans 9, part 1
Dr. John Piper on Romans 9, part 2
Thomas Schreiner, "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election to Salvation?" in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995), ed. Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware, p. 91.
Dr. Schreiner's response to Abasciano's critique of the above paper
Rev. Grover Gunn on Romans 9
Rev. W. E. Best on Romans 9
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace on Romans 9
Dr. R. Scott Clark on The Israel of God
Series on Romans by Dr. Michael Horton
Romans 9 by Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M
Dr. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Baker, 1993
Dr. Robert Peterson on Romans 9, part 1
Dr. Robert Peterson on Romans 9, part 2
An Exegesis of Romans 9 by Dr. James White
Dr. James White on Romans 9, part 1
Dr. James White on Romans 9, part 2
Critique of Arminian Hank Hanegraaff's take on Romans 9 by "Dr." Gadfly.
More could be listed for sure. Definitely more books could (should?) have been listed as well. Systematics texts. Ad infinitum . . . But that wasn't my purpose. My purpose was to unpuzzle one Dr. Vic Reppert! :-) When you put Victor's source up against these it will be clear which position has done the more scholarly job exegeting the text. Pretty much a no contest.
(HT Monergism.com for many of these.
No comments:
Post a Comment