วีดีโอ

Very helpful brother. It amazes me that just a few years ago, nobody had ever suggested this two part Romans thing. It simply wasn't taught in Church history. Now the provisionist crowd are eating it up. The same crowd that says calvinism is false because it didn't exist until Augustine. Blows my mind

@6:58, concerning Rom. 1:13, "...the distinguishing feature, here, is that the 'you' and 'Gentiles' are all Gentiles..." Had to laugh out loud at that one! It's just soooooo obvious. So glad you're doing this series! Amazing how many will be deceived because they think Dr. Allen is a credible scholar.

I listened to this up to about 8.5 min in. The first place I had issue was your comments about Leighton’s comments on infant damnation. At or about 2:30- about 4 min. Really it’s beyond the vail to point out the most painful and uncomfortable lie of Calvinism? You don’t like the subject any better than I do. You know it goes against the character of God to tell anyone much less an innocent baby that God chooses for you to go to hell. The God of the Bible “wished that none would parish”. I thought you guys believed in Gods Sovereignty? In a debate a debater is supposed to bring up the problems with the opponent’s position. And this is the most obvious one. At about 7 min you begin talking like Leihton doesn’t believe that our salvation is miraculous. Every person who puts faith in Christ knows it’s a miracle from God. You hammered his concern to basically not use your words because you and I both know you don’t mean the same things when certain words are used. You litterally question his motives and reasoning. Ofcorse he doesn’t like your definition of depravity. He quotes dozens of verses to support that the truth of John 3:16 is still true. “Who ever will”may come. I made it all the way to Seminary before I even heard about Calvinism. I didn’t know anyone that called themselves Christian would ever be guilty of not offering the Gospel to any who would come. I started attending church nine months before I was born and I am still there. I am ultra conservative and evangelistic. I’m one of those Bible thumpin, firey, southern Baptist you mentioned. My first memory is wearing a suit to be in the nursery at FBC San Antonio in about 1970. I got stung by a bee so I still remember the moment. My point is I grew up deeply involved in the Scriptures and never heard of any of this until I was 21. I served my first church at 19. I learn truths every day but I recognized that Calvinism was contrary to God character the moment I heard it the first time. The first time I heard it explained fully was from Leighton himself. He was fully in your camp at the time I knew him and his dad from serving with them on several occasions. I knew him to be focused on evangelism and I couldn’t reconcile the contradictions to the need to share the gospel with urgency and the “no need” approach of Calvinism. Enough history. I take issue with you questioning his motives and his feeling towards the gospel because I know him and know that is not who he is.

I’m a long time personal friend of leighton Flowers. Everything you said is a twist on what he believes. There isn’t a person in the debate that doesn’t accept God is responsible for all salvation. The difference is that he doesn’t believe God automatically excludes people. In the summer of 2003 I was director at a youth camp in west texas Leighton was a Calvinist at the time and we stayed up all night discussing this subject. He followed it fully and there was no doubt in his mind. He understands your arguments as well as you do but he had taken the time to learn what the whole Bible says and he had answered to the questions the 5 points can’t answer. You are welcome to your opinions and I respect that. But you don’t know Leighton and you don’t understand the simple truth of what he says.

Is it true that Calvinism teaches that God sends people to hell for not believing in something they were never capable of believing in?

Its is like a professor speaking to a classroom of students of various backgrounds, cultures, genders. He may speak specifically of a topic as a subject that may highlight one culture, but is speaking to the whole audience present about the culture. Just because the subject at hand may be a specific culture, it does not eliminate those students of the culture from the audience.

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I didn't have any formal catechisms growing up, and wanting to start with my kids is new territory. This is helpful.

...but ypu are fooled by Augustine's errors.

Calvinism quotes the Bible and then negates the Gospel. There is no need for a Savior if God has already decided who is going to be saved and who will be lost. Calvinism is an affront to the cross of Christ who died for ALL. Calvinism shows disregard for evangelism by teaching God has already decided everyone's fate. If you quote the Bible, you should practice the Gospel.

Inconsistentcy and double standards are two common signs of a bad argument. Thanks for the work you put into this. Hopefully your work here will nip this in the bud.

People like Allen, just can't accept that there are no Jews and Gentiles in Christ and that Gods True Israel are Gentiles and Jewish believers. Since they know the arguments and have been shown the scriptural truth, yet still cannot accept it,I must conclude from the scriptures, they are still natural men. Are they Elect? This I do not know.

I gave a thumbs up but it didn't register yet,maybe it eventually will, just wanted you to be aware 😉

I'm not surprised that you reject it. Personally, I believe it's due to your Calvinistic indoctrination. God's foreknowledge of all events does not make Him the causal agent of all events see Jeremiah 19:5. God created us in His image & likeness with free moral agency/volitional beings, so as to have genuine fellowship, personal relationship with Him. It's the only way "Obedience is better than sacrifice" can work. Scripture is replete with passages detailing if we choose A there will be blessings...if we choose B there will be consequences. Hence, God reacts to our behavior & choices. Same with spouse to spouse or parents with children. This is not an uncomprehendable scenario, nor does it diminish God's sovereignty. It helps you evolve & grow in your walk/relationship with God when you aren't bound to an "ism"...& no I'm not Arminian.

Great review, thank you

I really appreciate that it adds "explanatory sentences" for people unfamiliar with the myths + removes a lot of references to gods e.g. in other translations they always call the sun Helios even when it's not actually talking about Helios as a god. I read this after a bunch of other Greek works of myth, I'm unsure if i would've understood WTF Ovid was saying without that guide, he can be a bit abrupt in his treatment sometimes. Wasn't a fan of the long catalogs he sometimes gives (all the dogs that attacked the one guy turned into a deer, etc). It can get a bit absurd (people transforming for seemingly no reason, maybe just to fit the theme). Can also become a bit overly "nihilistic" with how evil seemingly everyone is Ovid seems to have put his own Roman spin on the greek myths a lot of the time. Zeus relationship with Fate for example seems rather different in Homer (it seems like his will = fate because he's so strong, though I might be misreading Homer).

I would be considered a dispensationalist and I think two part Romans is completely off.

The Answering Two-Part Romans playlist is here, which includes my review of Brent Lay's book Two-Part Romans (2PR): th-cam.com/play/PL_XyRUTXSjJW2Rg9Rx0MWr5TElju6rQ7N.html&si=mK9aUfcB-YVH8LIi

It takes about a minute on my bible app on my phone to look up uses of λοιπός. Not a scholar. On my PHONE! About a minute.

Has anybody noted yet that the 1:13 antecedent argument is undermined by 2Pet.3:16 ?

Hey brother, thanks for pointing me to your videos on this. Again, I had no idea this was such a controversy til I was recommended that other video with Dr. Allen by TH-cam. I have been reading Romans as a "Two-Part" Romans for a long time, and I did not get that from an ambiguous antecedent in 1:13. I literally just heard of Allen and Breda or Lay less than an hour ago, but some of the arguments you make here sound correct, but also there are some things I would not necessarily agree with, not making a defense of Allen, but a third position. For instance, your challenge on third person references: While I may agree that making blanket statements about the use of third-person references necessarily excluding the first-person, you point out where Allen used 2:14 and 3:1 inconsistently as if they are both the same kind of third-person reference. But, they're not. 2:14 is a "true" third-person reference, but 3:1 would be a rhetorical third-person where he is playing the role of the opponent to his argument (as Paul often does), who in this case would be a Jew who has followed his logic to an incorrect conclusion (that there would be no advantage to being a Jew then). I have not watched that Trinity Radio video all the way through, but obviously there is a strong anti-Calvinistic bias there, and I'm not even sure how this interpretation would somehow threaten Calvinistic doctrine (it certainly never has for me).

The "you" is to ALL in Rome-the entire referent the whole way through ch. 1.

One cannot conclude definitively from ideas that are uncertain; Two-Part Romans relies on uncertainties: Therefore, one could never say with certainty that Two-Part Romans is true.

All of the Book of Romans was written to the church in Rome. And for all believers today. And that is according to the book itself.

Thank you for the time you put into going through this. Very helpful. This whole two part Romans thing is clearly being invented as to find a way around the clear teaching of Romans 8 and 9.

In Christ there are no Jews and Gentiles...........all are of the same flock,all were chosen before time by Election and Jesus saved all the Elect at the cross. All who believe are God's spiritual Israel.

Two-Part Romans relies upon an ambiguous antecedent in Romans 1:13; The antecedent is not ambiguous: Therefore, Two-Part Romans is false.

Well done, brother! This is so necessary! Indeed, the conclusions of the "2-Part Romans" theory is "all for naught".

The distinction between being "in the flesh" and "of the flesh" is significant in understanding the believer's identity and experience. Being "in the flesh" refers to the state of an unbeliever. In Romans 8:9, Paul makes it clear that believers are not "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit," if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them. This means that as believers, we are no longer defined by the flesh or its desires. Our identity is now rooted in Christ, and we live by the Spirit. On the other hand, "of the flesh" refers to actions or attitudes that are characteristic of the flesh. Even though believers are not "in the flesh," they can still act "of the flesh" when they choose to walk according to old patterns or habits. Galatians 5:19-21 lists the deeds of the flesh, which are actions that go against the Spirit's work in our lives. However, as believers, we are empowered by the Spirit to choose differently and walk in the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). In summary, being "in the flesh" is a state of being that applies to unbelievers, while "of the flesh" refers to actions or attitudes that believers can still exhibit if they choose to rely on old patterns rather than their new identity in Christ. As believers, we are called to live by the Spirit, recognizing that our true identity is in Christ and not in the flesh (Romans 8:5-9).

The natural man, or the person who is not yet in Christ, does indeed struggle to accept the things of God on their own. This is because spiritual truths are discerned through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). However, this does not mean that a person is incapable of responding to the Gospel. The invitation to believe in Jesus is open to everyone, and God desires all people to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4). The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). When someone hears the Gospel, they are given the opportunity to respond in faith. The Holy Spirit works to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, drawing people to the truth of Jesus Christ (John 16:8-11). Ultimately, while the natural man may initially resist or misunderstand spiritual truths, the Gospel message is a powerful invitation that can penetrate hearts and lead to salvation for anyone who chooses to believe (Romans 10:13).

Dynamic Omniscience creates interpretive issues where there were none, and certain distinctions it offers are functionally the same as the Reformed view that its proponents detest. For the reasons stated in this video, and my other video called "Open Theism: An Analysis", I reject Dynamic Omniscience.

A baby having just been born is unclean, ceremonially or otherwise. When you think of clean, a newborn baby isn't it.

Btw, crank the volume next time. It was a little low

I appreciate the response. I was actually really shocked that he tried to make the text go that route. My point was that this text perfectly proves compatibilism. God determines the day I die and the means to bring that about is often my own free will decisions such as smoking or driving recklessly. I think he knew where I was going to go and was trying to avoid that.

Be sure to read Job 14 on your own, diligently searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Remember: I'm not a pastor, preacher, teacher, elder, or theologian; I'm just a guy on the internet. Dive into God's word and speak with your pastor if you have any pressing theological questions about any matters addressed here.

Hey bro, I’d love to have u on my channel sometime

Be sure to check the description to check out the Literary Life Podcast episodes discussing this book!