Arminian commentaries

[Henoch]

Grace to you and peace, beloved brethren. I was wondering if y'all ever read Arminian commentaries like Adam Clarke's or Bengel's Gnomon? How do you equip yourselves against the semi-pelagian/Arminian errors found there? Considering that there are already vast sound solid resources by sound Calvinists, would you consider the reading of Arminian commentators worth our time during the few days of our pilgrimage here on this earth? How do you approach reading such works(since there could be valuable gems in such material too)?

 

[RamistThomist]

I give the same answer to all commentary-based questions: I judge by the individual in question. Craig Keener, for example, is probably a charismatic synergist, but his material on the book of Acts is in a class of its own.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course I read from non-Reformed commentators.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Let me rephrase my earlier answer because I think I misread your post. I don’t seek out other commentators specifically because they’re Arminian and then read all of what they write. I spotcheck, or sometimes I’ll use something like ACCS which gives a lot of different perspectives on a particular text.

 

[greenbaggins]

Enoch, I think it depends greatly on who is doing the reading. Pastors absolutely should read from as many different perspectives as possible when it comes to commentaries, though they should make sure that solid nutritious fare is still the majority of what they read. For an average person in the pew who doesn't have the kind of commentary time that pastors have, they should stick to Matthew Henry, Calvin, and good moderns like Duguid, Davis, Currid, Mackay, and Ferguson.

 

[Polanus1561]

I find some dispensational commentaries good on non dispensational texts (Prophets). They have a good eye for detail and are conservative (no JEDP). Bible Knowledge Commentary by DTS Facculty is very decent.

If you know how to discern stuff, it’s a valuable gift.