<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Arminian
Review: Clarke is an Arminian, that is he denies the doctrines of protestant reformed theology as taught by Luther, Calvin and all the great names of the protestant reformation. As such, I can't recommend this biased work to the church.
Rating: 
Summary: The Reformers weren't GOD, you know!
Review: I regualarly use Clarke's Commentaries as they are found on http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke.htm, for writitng papers, Bible studies, proving a point, etc. It's no more "biased" than Luther, Calvin, etc., etc., were. PLUS he includes a lot of the historical background of the text, something I don't think the Reformers knew that much about. My NT, professor in seminary was Arminian, but he had no problem with me reading Calvin. Why do you have a problem if others read Clarke? Who's biased here?
Rating: 
Summary: Clarke's Commentary
Review: To all Christians and in rebuke of the former reviewer: If we think that we can handle salvation, which "...belongs to our God", as a fire insurance policy, "Once Saved. Always Saved", search the scriptures... I recommed Clarke's work because itr challenges Holy Living. Good, I would say...
Rating:
Summary: Clarke's Commentary
Review: To all Christians and in rebuke of the former reviewer: If we think that we can handle salvation, which "...belongs to our God", as a fire insurance policy, "Once Saved. Always Saved", search the scriptures... I recommed Clarke's work because itr challenges Holy Living. Good, I would say...
<< 1 >>
|
