This is very notable that the doctrine of original sin didn't come about until Augustine. Prior to him, the early church fathers taught that anyone could be saved. Thanks for all the research on this!
@reformedpilgrim it’s also notable that church fathers of great significance changed the way we understand Romans and other books of the Bible. The closer we get to what Paul meant the better.
@@GoodBerean But your standard is inconsistent. It is not lost on me that you're against Calvinism, so if Augustine teaches something new, it must be wrong. If an anti-Calvinist teaches something new, that must be good. So, newness is not actually your standard, even though that's how you frame your argument. It can't be your standard, because you don't apply it to your own position.
@reformedpilgrim it’s also notable that so many people are perfectly okay with Augustine bringing in Gnosticism teachings into the church and call it Biblical truth when that’s what many Apostles were fighting against, specifically John in 1 John.
Given that Paul wrote the book of Romans before the judgment fell upon Jerusalem in 70 AD and Augustine wrote many years after, also should be considered in who, what & why Paul was writing concerning the ELECT remnant who he was calling to Christ in that day. Before Judaism was fully over and the New Testament fully established.
Jason You just keep doing what your doing, it’s great work with old and new content, clearly God is empowering you with the talents that he has blessed you with. As for the criticism about your production and the way your presenting it, awesome, your show your way , for YHWH ✌🏼
In Romans 1:13 Paul is obviously talking mainly to the Gentiles,as planning to come to “YOU”, the “You”would be the Gentiles of Rome. So that Paul might have fruit among the “YOU” Gentiles of Rome, Just as Paul had fruit among the OTHER Gentiles of other cities. All “THREE YOU’s” in the verse that Paul is addressing is the same group, and that group Paul is addressing is the Gentiles. The whole flow of the verse is geared to the Gentiles. It’s obvious please stop twisting scripture! Romans 1:13 NKJV Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles.
Can I have a small clarification? Does this idea mean unbelieving Jews (I mean Jews who believe in Jesus' Father but not that Jesus is the Messiah or God's Son), are also the elect?
In the OT and 1st century Jewish worldview ALL of Israel was elect because they were the chosen people and God’s inheritance (Deut 32:9). So yes, to the Jewish believers in Rome, all Jews, whether they were Christians or not, were thought to be the Elect. Paul’s purpose in the first half of Romans is to show that 1) saving righteousness (faith) is individual, not corporate (based on ethnicity or observance of the Torah, 2) that God was going to graft the gentiles into the new covenant through faith.
We Gentiles have been a bit vain (some far more than others) in our interpretation of scripture, assuming it all speaks to us directly. It just doesn't.
One small point, when James White was talking about Luther changing his position on the Jews his change went from an earlier tolerance and hope that they would come into the church to being a full-on antisemite later in life.
@@EdwardPhaneuf-v6u and to be fair, I can understand why you would think James White was being deceitful here because he knew the time-line but didn't unpack it. He kinda created the perception that Luther softened later in life which wasn't the case at all!
Exactly! I thought the same thing and was disappointed that Jason didn't know that. My Sunday school teacher said exactly what White said - that Martin Luther repented in his later years which wasn't my understanding. I came home to research it and found several sources that it was in his later years that he turned on the Jews because of their unbelief. There's even a ligonier tape where Robert Godfrey & Steve Nichols are asked about it and they confirmed with NO mention of his repentance in later years. Nathan Busenitz in his video course on Historic Theology also confirms. White got it backwards. Luther supported the Jews at first, then in later years turned on them.
I am confused about the original sin concept. Do you not interpret Romans 5 as explaining that all men are born with a sin nature and the only proof needed for it is that all men die?
Thank you for this! I happen to be doing my own study of Romans right now, so this is very helpful. My husband has recently (5 months) converted to Calvinism and it has caused some division in our marriage, as we have always been on the same page with our theology and now we are not. I have appreciated your videos
@@GoodBerean Thank you. I have watched them. We go to a Reformed Church so it's very challenging for me. We have never been Reformed, and once we learned the church's theology (through taking the membership class) I have wanted to leave, but instead of leaving the church, my husband has now converted and I feel very isolated.
@krstnmarie3 hopefully he is open to reviewing people who have been and now are not and their reasons why. There are good people in leadership in Calvinistic churches, but they have submitted to a form of hermeneutics that I see as not Biblical. Heavy in philosophy and piety.
@@GoodBereanI agree with you. Currently, he is not open to that. In the beginning of his conversion I showed him your video on John and some of Leighton's videos, but he was very dismissive.
@@krstnmarie3 It's ok for you to disagree with your husband to an extent, but you are under his headship, not Jason's. I would encourage you to read 1 Peter chapter 3.
The Doctrine of original sin existed before Augustine, Clement mentions it and of course it’s in the Bible. Here is the proof. 👇 Source: Ante-Nicene Fathers Book volume 1. The doctrine of original sin was very much talked about in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Clement said in Chapter 17 verse 14, look it up: He says: Moreover, it is written of Job, Job was a righteous man and blameless, truthful, God-fearing, and one that kept himself from all evil. But bringing an accusation against himself, he said, “No man is free from defilement even if his life be but of one day.” Chapter 18 verse 8 Clement says of King David: For, behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in my sins did my mother conceive me, Psalm 51:5 NKJV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Clearly the doctrine of original sin is illustrated here in these two passages from Clement. So the doctrine of original sin did not start with Augustine. It’s in the Bible and it’s confirmed by more than one church father.
@@aletheia8054 You should take a closer look at what Clement says: Chapter 18 verse 8 Clement says of King David: For, behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in “MY” sins did my mother conceive me,
@@aletheia8054 What is meant by his sin, is original sin he was born with. The original sin of Adam passed along to every human that has ever lived except for Jesus.
OK, let’s assume there are no gentiles in the capital of gentiles. lol. So that means the doctrine in the book of Romans doesn’t apply to a gentile? I believe your answer is no . So what’s your point?
Great video! It is worth noticing the distinction between the Orthodox "ancestral sin" vs. the Catholic and Reformed "original sin". Even Orthodox affirm Augustine to a point but note moreso the earlier church fathers which spoke in different ways that align with this ancestral concept. Certainly, it's nowhere near "total depravity" doctrine.
11:45 There was *no* church split in Rome. A church split, as we use the term, is when there is a dispute _within_ a church, among _church members_ who eventually break fellowship with each other, one group typically remaining, and another group leaving the congregation. This could be a voluntary parting, or as the result of church discipline, but there are at least two groups that become separated over a specific issue. This is *not at all* what happened to the church in Rome. Let's look at some examples of the historical pattern of events in Acts to help shed some light on what happened in Rome. In Acts 12, Herod started to persecute the church. This made some of the Jews happy. James was killed. This pleased the Jews, so Peter was put in prison. Now we have to ask: were these Jews members of the church? No, they were Jews who rejected the gospel; these Jews were not Christians. Did killing James and jailing Peter constitute a church split? No, in no way was this a church split; one member was dead and another in prison. This is not a church split. In Acts 13, at Antioch in Pisidia, the Jews got angry with Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews persecuted Paul and Barnabas, stirring up devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city against Paul and Barnabas. Were these Jews members of the church? Absolutely not. These Jews were not Christians. Was this a church split? No, this conflict was between unbelievers and Christians. This is not a church split. In Acts 14, at Iconium, unbelieving Jews stirred up Gentiles to abuse and stone Paul and Barnabas, actually stoning Paul at one time, and leaving him for dead. Were these Jews members of the church? No, these Jews were not Christians. Was this a church split? No, when unbelievers attack Christians, such an act is not a church split. It is persecution. In Acts 17, at Thessalonica, the unbelieving Jews gathered a mob and a riot ensued. Were these Jews members of the church? No, these Jews were not Christians. Was this a church split? No, when unbelievers get angry at the gospel and start a riot, it is not a church split; it's persecution. So, we see that unbelieving Jews tended to get angry at the preaching of the gospel. These unbelieving Jews would lash out against Christians. How can this inform us about what happened in Rome? If "Chrestus" in Suetonius' account is actually Jesus Christ, then we can expect that unbelieving Jews were stirring up trouble against Christians, because of what we saw in Acts. If this is the case, then Claudius would have seen the Jews as the culprits, and thus had them expelled from the city of Rome. If Jewish Christians felt compelled to leave the city along with the trouble-making, unbelieving Jews, then Gentile Christians would be left behind in Rome. Does this constitute a church split? No, it does not. Claudius' was not a member of the church; Claudius was not a Christian. He was expelling an ethnic group. He was _not_ responding to a dispute _within_ the local church. Indeed, as we saw in Acts, _unbelieving Jews_ were the problem, not Christians. Unbelieving Jews represent _external_ strife, not an _internal_ dispute. Claudius' expulsion order _cannot_ be viewed as having anything to do with a church split. There was no church split at Rome. What would make this a church split? If Gentile Christians wanted the Jewish Christians to leave the city along with the unbelieving Jews--and made a point to tell the Jewish Christians as much, and if the Jewish Christians argued that they should stay--then you'd have something resembling a church split. Does Paul's letter to the church a Rome say a dispute _within_ the church occurred? No, it does not. Do Paul's other letters indicate problems within other churches? YES! 1st Corinthians and Galatians immediately come to mind. The members of the church are receiving correction for wrong they have done, such as being divided over leaders, having disorderly worship, getting drunk at communion, allowing immorality amongst their members without discipline, and giving in to Judaizers. (In Colossians, it seems more like that congregation has been the victim of false teaching, and Paul is trying to gently point them to Christ; it's less of a letter of blunt correction than 1st Corinthians and Galatians.) The problems at Corinth and Galatia were obvious in those letters. There is no such obvious problem at Rome that Paul was addressing. Claudius' actions had absolutely _nothing_ to do with interactions between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. There was, therefore, nothing to reconcile. Rather, the return of church members after a long absence should be seen as a reunion, not a reconciliation. Reconciliation implies sin. There is no evidence that the Gentile Christians sinned against the Jewish Christians in Rome, or vice versa.
Thanks for the for that must have gone into this Jason. Considering the consequences of proliferating such a significantly different understanding of the Biblical texts is overwhelming. It’s beyond sobering, it’s horrifying. ( I speak of Augustine and those who subscribe to his theology)
3:45 - as I stated on your last video, John's Piper's video did clearly state that Paul wasn't writing to all in Rome, but that doesn't mean and Piper didn't say that the audience was Jewish one.
I haven’t read Lay’s book, but does he also talk about Ephesians 1:1-12 possible speaking first exclusively to the Jews and then the Gentiles in verse 13 to the church at Ephesus?
@@theidolbabblerthedailydose33 I have 2 videos on Ephesians. I do believe that 1:1-12 are not Gentile focused. I would lean they are Apostle specific. Here’s the link: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Ephesians 1 #bible study th-cam.com/video/waOm6lAgNqw/w-d-xo.html Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Ephesians 1 | Part 2 th-cam.com/video/1IG3hW9qI9E/w-d-xo.html
3:35 - you gotta address Ch 16 Vs. 8, 9, & 12 which used "beloved" when speaking directly to individuals who are clearly non-Jewish, i.e. Gentile because your whole argument falls apart there.
For me, A thumbs up for the video……As I continue to read and study pre-Nicene history, meaning reading the Apostle’s disciples, then their disciples, then their disciples, then there disciples, the Didache and other works by certain historians of those centuries going into the 300’s; to see Jesus and the Apostles teachings past down to generation to generation. However, as well as when, who, why and where the veering off from Jesus and the apostles teaching begin to be made by individual(s) or groups. Historical context, what’s is going on, the environment/what is happening(war, fights, the power and who is in power climate), For me every follower of Jesus needs to read 1st -3rd century history. This has been the most Neglected, most important to get a Historical and contextual understanding of the Apostles writings and teachings passed on, as well as the life of the Ecclesia as it begins to spread. Gnostics were calling themselves Christians then, Gnostics calling themselves Christians today…..
Jason told me in a comment that there were no gentiles in the church at Rome. Yet there’s a list of gentile Christians in Rome in chapter 16 of Romans. Go figure This is embarrassing, Jason
@@GoodBerean in the comments of this video when you first put it out as a members only. I can’t see your complete answer because I can’t get back to the comments . I asked you if you thought there were gentiles in the church at Rome . Just say yes or no.
@@aletheia8054 I would have to go back and look. I might have meant no Gentiles originally in the Roman church. I certainly do not believe there were no Gentiles in Rome.
In the Preface of the 2015 version of his book Two-Part Romans (Jason promotes the 2017 version), Brent Lay says the discovery of Two-Part Romans occurred to him "on Thursday, June 6, 2013 about 10:15 in the morning while on vacation in Florida." Keep in mind that Jason argues that Original Sin can't be true because it was introduced in the 4th Century, long after the Bible was written. Let's apply this standard to Brent Lay's new idea Two-Part Romans. If a standard has any meaning, it must be applied consistently. That was the standard applied to Augustine, and thus should be the standard applied to Brent Lay. Therefore, Brent Lay's doctrine Two-Part Romans can't be correct because it is new. I discuss this briefly on my channel in a video entitled "Inconsistent Standard | Response for @LivingChristian."
@@reformedpilgrim Oh dear, didn't notice your tagline. Your definitely coming from a Calvinistic perspective. I may have to be a heretic in your view. Because I adamantly believe God sent His Son to redeem/deliver EVERYONE who will & CAN call upon Jesus from the sting of death caused by sin...not just a special favored pre-selected elect. Maybe we will cross paths someday & chat over coffee. Blessings, praying we both hear "Well done good & faithful servants"
So , are you proposing that up until Augustine the early church were lacking and not fully functioning and only came to being fully complete and functional when Augustine introduced unknown gnostic theology into his circle, is that you proposal? and who cares about your “ new to true vs old “ red herrings
Exactly MS. I can't believe people will not only be ok with, but will be purveyors of "Individuals are born doomed from the womb to a certain death and are to glorify Him by their destruction" He taught it's by arbitrary selection & reprobation, not God's foreknowledge. Read his evil Augustinian influenced works. (👿 "That was the idea all along...ever since Hath God indeed said? Surely, God hath not sent His Son to redeem everyone from the sting of death caused by sin... but only an arbitrary pre-selected few...the unelect will fry for His glory don'tcha know"
Interesting, I memorized Romans chap 1-8 and it drives me crazy how easily the Jewish Christian context gets dismissed by most believers interpretations. Most notably the second half of Romans 7 which gets taught as a believers struggle with sin.
Well done sir, I don’t know if I can see the differences you are pointing out but the historical background is fascinating. With regard to Luther and his anti-Jewish behaviour, consider this He believed God was angry at sinners and was planning to plunge them into eternal torment and they deserved it because they rejected the truth and killed Jesus. So He was nice to Jews at first in his own life but when they didn’t believe him he did what his God was planning to do, only he didn’t do as much as he imagined God would do. So there was no real change, only a maturing of the view. “Love me and I’ll love you back but reject me and you’ll see what I’m capable of.” The Jews proved they were not elect to Luther’s mind and he showed them what will happen to those not elected by God
200 years before Augustine even lived, Tertullian wrote: "“Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”
@@mikeschaller9233 Right. But some say there was no original sin [at all] until Augustine created the idea, and that is what I was "getting at." He certainly did not.
Augustine didn’t pull it out of thin air, but refined it. I don’t agree with his interpretation, and most wouldn’t know his version of the doctrine because it has been smoothed out over the years and is much closer to the original understanding with most of the church, in my opinion anyway.
Interestingly, those of us who are elect and born from above by Gods effectual grace, and MADE utterly new creatures, and being conformed more in the image of Jesus Christ through sanctification of the Spirit....don't need anyone interpreting texts for us we know the Truth of by the Spirit within us. No Spirit : No Truth. Free will is the imaginary belief one is equal to God, and is the curse from the fall.
Still watching, but wondering why you believe the returning Christian Jews were the troublemakers. I would think the returning unbelieving Jews were the original troublemakers. Or do you believe the returning Christian Jews did not like how the Church changed in the years they were gone and began causing trouble for the Gentile believers upon their return?
In Claudius’ eyes all Jews were the troublemakers causing riots over Christ. The Roman church began as a Jewish Christian church since the gospel came to the Jews first. Those that didn’t believe were arguing and causing riots with those that did believe. So when the edict ended and the Jews could return. The believing Jews were coming to their original church that was now a Gentiles church. So in the eyes of the Gentiles it is very likely they revered or assumed more riots and trouble could take place upon their return.
37:00 the writings of Luther whether antisemitic or not do not matter. What matters is the Scriptures, and you've not adequately proven that Romans Ch 1 clearly states that the audience is Jewish. And so Luther's writings 1500 years after Paul penned Romans are irreverent.
Concerning Augustine: The historical facts shows Augustine became a heretic, false teacher, created a god in his own image, preach a different gospel. Enough said! He reverted back to paganism worship( the Manichean Gnosticism teachings which are just more expounded Valentinus/Valentinianism Gnosticism. Why So many in the scholarly arena are so quiet to admit this? For one, The Academic world is also an Unbiblical Hierarchical institution that many individuals have placed in a sense of “Higher class”. It’s also a system not immune to demonic influence. Yet I am grateful for the some/many individuals that don’t surrender to the bias, self-interested, the lies, payoffs, the bargains, just to keep the system as if it’s the source or interpreters of Truth. For some/many individuals that are reluctant to call out Augustine and individuals like him throughout history, the usual reasons would be they don’t want to be ostracized, loss of friends, loss of money, loss of career and that could be…. Yet, the Real Reason is those individuals would have to admit their past works and teaching were wrong. It’s the BIG EGO!!! “To admit I was wrong” is the issue for many of them and look how many people they influence into Gnosticism. When James said” Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly…. I look at that more seriously than ever today. ……Yet, I do hope that Truth continues to spread like wild fire in our last days, especially with resources been made known that was not known to the citizen and videos like these for the time being. ….For me, literally no one can come up with an excuse why they choose not to believe in the One and Only True God(father, Son, Holy Spirit) in our day with so much evidence we have in our faces. So much truth as well has history has been neglected or submerge under Gnosticism intentionally in about every generation since what took place in the 200-400’s. Lying and promoting lies is how you keep people from not knowing the truth and having control over them.
Keagan Chandler denies the divinity of Jesus, and calls the Trinity a gnostic belief. Paula Fredriksen says Luke & Acts are works of fiction and that Jesus is a failed prophet. (She's not a Christian) These are not reliable sources for truth.
Thanks for sharing. For the record, I never said I agree with or understand all that these people believe. But because they have done extensive research on the man Augustine I use them as references for the session. I am not friends with these people nor do I understand all that they believe. But just like John MacArthur uses Suetonius to make the case of historical context, I can use Paula and Keagan to make a historical context point about Augustine. Suetonius, whose full name was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, was not a Christian. He was a Roman historian and a civil servant who lived from approximately AD 69 to AD 122 and yet John MacArthur uses him as a reference of truth for his sermon.
@@GoodBerean But there is a notable difference: You placed reliance on Chandler & Fredriksen to draw a _theological conclusion_ about the doctrine of Original Sin. MacArthur quoted Suetonius for _historical context;_ he didn't cite Suetonius in order to examine the validity of a doctrine.
@@reformedpilgrim they cite Augustine who is a historical figure about what he taught, when his theology changed, and what impact that had on the church. This is also in my opinion, historical evidence that Augustine changed the landscape and set up a gnostic view of the Scriptures to be redefined. This later was adopted and even more cemented by the Protestant reformation (Calvin and Luther, among others.)
@@reformedpilgrim if it is historically factual that Augustine brought out original sin then the point is valid. The point that Augustine brought this out is what they are stating. That is the point I am making as well. This session was not intended to go into all of the verses where one could support original sin, the point was to point out that Augustine was the first to bring this out. I am the one who is insinuating that original sin is not true. I will later in the series go into that in more depth as to why. But for now the focus was just to reveal that Augustine was the first to bring this out.
Here's my main contention - in 75 minutes of talking you've not yet laid out your grand assertion. You keep hinting at and breadcrumbing that there's something earth shattering here. Yet we're still waiting for you to lay out your premise. If you're right that the audience is Jewish and not Gentile - so what? What point are your trying to make? Since you debated White, I'm assuming you're trying to dismantle something about Calvinism (which I am not). But I'm losing interest because I don't have a clue where you're going. Just clearly state why this all matters, please.
In the book, Two-Part Romans, Bent Lay says that foreknowledge, predestination, and election are just for Jewish Christians only, not Gentiles. That’s the what this is building up to.
In a nutshell Romans 8 - where the calvinist asserts the "golden chain of redemption" - it is specifically for the Jewish people and and not NT gentile believers and thus deconstructs calvinism.
@@SheepDog1974 The only thing that Jason has deconstructed is his credibility. This NEW movement of his is totally heretical, and should be called out as such by anyone with any reading comprehension skills.
@@Chad-no3uz why are you so upset? If your calvinism is correct, then God decreed everything - including Jason's view of Romans. Becoming a Borean doesn't mean you check your brain in at the door, but assert your God given right to free will studying of scripture and "working out one's faith" with fear and trembling.
@@SheepDog1974 I hate false teaching because God hates false teaching. And I expose the things of darkness to warn others of a false teacher, and to avoid them. Ephesians 5:11 Titus 1:10-11,13 I came to believe in reformed doctrine by studying scripture, as opposed to believing the free will nonsense that my former church taught, I came to believe in reformed doctrine before I had ever heard of John Calvin, because reformed doctrine can be clearly seen and demonstrated in many many places in the Bible. Someone has to actually have “true saving faith because it is a gift from God,and not everyone possesses true saving faith” before they can work it out with fear and trembling for everyone to see that they have been changed by the new creation that God gives.
Who, if anyone, is advising you on the elaborate introduction to these videos? They are ridiculous. If you are looking for credibility this isn't the way to go.
There are many series that begin with the same theme song or trailer of the series. I am taking that artistic approach with this series. It’s a creative choice.
@@GoodBerean and of course that's your right. I'm just pointing out that if you're looking to increase credibility in your conclusions by the production value you misunderstand your opponents. It's the Bible and nothing but the Bible. Indeed, historical context is important. However, your conclusions aren't new or innovative. Ultimately, you are going to say the same thing that all detractors do. And those arguments are proven wrong by the text.
@bucky91361 appreciate the dialogue. I will be walking through the entire book of Romans in this series breaking things out for chapters at a time as the sessions continue. It will be great to engage with you as we press on into the study!
@@GoodBerean one last thing and I'll let you get back to makeup for your next scene (just being funny, sorry)..... The idea that the church earlier than Augustine didn't address or discuss original sin is verifiably wrong. Was he probably the 1st to use the term or shape the concept you're right. But, to try and use him to make an argument that he originated the thought is wrong.
Why the reluctance by some to consider that the “dreadful doctrine” may in fact be wrong?
This is very notable that the doctrine of original sin didn't come about until Augustine. Prior to him, the early church fathers taught that anyone could be saved. Thanks for all the research on this!
It's also notable that the doctrine of Two-Part Romans didn't come about until 2013.
@reformedpilgrim it’s also notable that church fathers of great significance changed the way we understand Romans and other books of the Bible. The closer we get to what Paul meant the better.
@@GoodBerean But your standard is inconsistent. It is not lost on me that you're against Calvinism, so if Augustine teaches something new, it must be wrong. If an anti-Calvinist teaches something new, that must be good. So, newness is not actually your standard, even though that's how you frame your argument. It can't be your standard, because you don't apply it to your own position.
@reformedpilgrim it’s also notable that so many people are perfectly okay with Augustine bringing in Gnosticism teachings into the church and call it Biblical truth when that’s what many Apostles were fighting against, specifically John in 1 John.
@@GoodBerean Who told you that's what Augustine did?
I could just cry (with joy and gratitude) that you are exposing this. Finally, the truth is getting out.
Very well done, Calvinism falls apart when the verses they rely on are read in the historical context and the entire context of the Bible
Bravo!! Brilliant!! So glad this will be available over time on TH-cam to those seeking truth on Romans.
These are amazing! They're paywall quality. Great God Breda!
Given that Paul wrote the book of Romans before the judgment fell upon Jerusalem in 70 AD and Augustine wrote many years after, also should be considered in who, what & why Paul was writing concerning the ELECT remnant who he was calling to Christ in that day. Before Judaism was fully over and the New Testament fully established.
Thank you Jason for your great and “rightly divided” teaching!!!
I appreciate that!
Jason
You just keep doing what your doing, it’s great work with old and new content, clearly God is empowering you with the talents that he has blessed you with.
As for the criticism about your production and the way your presenting it, awesome, your show your way , for YHWH
✌🏼
In Romans 1:13 Paul is obviously talking mainly to the Gentiles,as planning to come to “YOU”, the “You”would be the Gentiles of Rome. So that Paul might have fruit among the “YOU” Gentiles of Rome, Just as Paul had fruit among the OTHER Gentiles of other cities. All “THREE YOU’s” in the verse that Paul is addressing is the same group, and that group Paul is addressing is the Gentiles. The whole flow of the verse is geared to the Gentiles. It’s obvious please stop twisting scripture!
Romans 1:13 NKJV
Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles.
Can I have a small clarification? Does this idea mean unbelieving Jews (I mean Jews who believe in Jesus' Father but not that Jesus is the Messiah or God's Son), are also the elect?
In the OT and 1st century Jewish worldview ALL of Israel was elect because they were the chosen people and God’s inheritance (Deut 32:9). So yes, to the Jewish believers in Rome, all Jews, whether they were Christians or not, were thought to be the Elect.
Paul’s purpose in the first half of Romans is to show that 1) saving righteousness (faith) is individual, not corporate (based on ethnicity or observance of the Torah, 2) that God was going to graft the gentiles into the new covenant through faith.
Excited for this.
We Gentiles have been a bit vain (some far more than others) in our interpretation of scripture, assuming it all speaks to us directly. It just doesn't.
Amen Amen,
Very interesting.
Let’s Go!
One small point, when James White was talking about Luther changing his position on the Jews his change went from an earlier tolerance and hope that they would come into the church to being a full-on antisemite later in life.
Do you have a reference for that? I was thinking the same thing but couldn’t believe such a deceitful tactic would have used
@@EdwardPhaneuf-v6u you can find some videos about this on Dr. Michael Brown's TH-cam channel.
@@EdwardPhaneuf-v6u th-cam.com/video/DDqfFr4uOpM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QAHL7cEA9QwUqk3t
@@EdwardPhaneuf-v6u and to be fair, I can understand why you would think James White was being deceitful here because he knew the time-line but didn't unpack it. He kinda created the perception that Luther softened later in life which wasn't the case at all!
Exactly! I thought the same thing and was disappointed that Jason didn't know that. My Sunday school teacher said exactly what White said - that Martin Luther repented in his later years which wasn't my understanding. I came home to research it and found several sources that it was in his later years that he turned on the Jews because of their unbelief. There's even a ligonier tape where Robert Godfrey & Steve Nichols are asked about it and they confirmed with NO mention of his repentance in later years. Nathan Busenitz in his video course on Historic Theology also confirms. White got it backwards. Luther supported the Jews at first, then in later years turned on them.
I am confused about the original sin concept. Do you not interpret Romans 5 as explaining that all men are born with a sin nature and the only proof needed for it is that all men die?
Respectfully, I think you need to spend more time learning the Bible, and less Time jazzing up the video.
You're off on both.
Great work again brother!
Thank you for this! I happen to be doing my own study of Romans right now, so this is very helpful. My husband has recently (5 months) converted to Calvinism and it has caused some division in our marriage, as we have always been on the same page with our theology and now we are not. I have appreciated your videos
Praying for you. I have a video on couples when they disagree theologically, specific to Calvinism.
@@GoodBerean Thank you. I have watched them. We go to a Reformed Church so it's very challenging for me. We have never been Reformed, and once we learned the church's theology (through taking the membership class) I have wanted to leave, but instead of leaving the church, my husband has now converted and I feel very isolated.
@krstnmarie3 hopefully he is open to reviewing people who have been and now are not and their reasons why. There are good people in leadership in Calvinistic churches, but they have submitted to a form of hermeneutics that I see as not Biblical. Heavy in philosophy and piety.
@@GoodBereanI agree with you. Currently, he is not open to that. In the beginning of his conversion I showed him your video on John and some of Leighton's videos, but he was very dismissive.
@@krstnmarie3 It's ok for you to disagree with your husband to an extent, but you are under his headship, not Jason's. I would encourage you to read 1 Peter chapter 3.
The Doctrine of original sin existed before Augustine, Clement mentions it and of course it’s in the Bible. Here is the proof. 👇
Source: Ante-Nicene Fathers Book volume 1.
The doctrine of original sin was very much talked about in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Clement said in Chapter 17 verse 14, look it up:
He says: Moreover, it is written of Job, Job was a righteous man and blameless, truthful, God-fearing, and one that kept himself from all evil. But bringing an accusation against himself, he said, “No man is free from defilement even if his life be but of one day.”
Chapter 18 verse 8 Clement says of King David: For, behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in my sins did my mother conceive me,
Psalm 51:5 NKJV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Clearly the doctrine of original sin is illustrated here in these two passages from Clement. So the doctrine of original sin did not start with Augustine. It’s in the Bible and it’s confirmed by more than one church father.
It says in sin my mother conceived me not I was conceived guilty of sin
@@aletheia8054 You should take a closer look at what Clement says:
Chapter 18 verse 8 Clement says of King David: For, behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in “MY” sins did my mother conceive me,
@@Chad-no3uz that’s not the Bible
Being born is not a sin
@@aletheia8054 What is meant by his sin, is original sin he was born with. The original sin of Adam passed along to every human that has ever lived except for Jesus.
@@Chad-no3uz people aren’t born guilty of Adams sin. That’s a pagan concept.
OK, let’s assume there are no gentiles in the capital of gentiles. lol. So that means the doctrine in the book of Romans doesn’t apply to a gentile?
I believe your answer is no .
So what’s your point?
Thank you! Excellent job. I loved part one and part two was just as interesting, eye-opening and informative. Keep it up.
Thanks so much!!! Blessings in Christ
Great video! It is worth noticing the distinction between the Orthodox "ancestral sin" vs. the Catholic and Reformed "original sin". Even Orthodox affirm Augustine to a point but note moreso the earlier church fathers which spoke in different ways that align with this ancestral concept. Certainly, it's nowhere near "total depravity" doctrine.
Well done! Hitler used Luther’s anti-Semitic writings to justify his actions.
Why the robot voice?
11:45 There was *no* church split in Rome. A church split, as we use the term, is when there is a dispute _within_ a church, among _church members_ who eventually break fellowship with each other, one group typically remaining, and another group leaving the congregation. This could be a voluntary parting, or as the result of church discipline, but there are at least two groups that become separated over a specific issue. This is *not at all* what happened to the church in Rome.
Let's look at some examples of the historical pattern of events in Acts to help shed some light on what happened in Rome.
In Acts 12, Herod started to persecute the church. This made some of the Jews happy. James was killed. This pleased the Jews, so Peter was put in prison.
Now we have to ask: were these Jews members of the church? No, they were Jews who rejected the gospel; these Jews were not Christians.
Did killing James and jailing Peter constitute a church split? No, in no way was this a church split; one member was dead and another in prison. This is not a church split.
In Acts 13, at Antioch in Pisidia, the Jews got angry with Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews persecuted Paul and Barnabas, stirring up devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city against Paul and Barnabas.
Were these Jews members of the church? Absolutely not. These Jews were not Christians.
Was this a church split? No, this conflict was between unbelievers and Christians. This is not a church split.
In Acts 14, at Iconium, unbelieving Jews stirred up Gentiles to abuse and stone Paul and Barnabas, actually stoning Paul at one time, and leaving him for dead.
Were these Jews members of the church? No, these Jews were not Christians.
Was this a church split? No, when unbelievers attack Christians, such an act is not a church split. It is persecution.
In Acts 17, at Thessalonica, the unbelieving Jews gathered a mob and a riot ensued.
Were these Jews members of the church? No, these Jews were not Christians.
Was this a church split? No, when unbelievers get angry at the gospel and start a riot, it is not a church split; it's persecution.
So, we see that unbelieving Jews tended to get angry at the preaching of the gospel. These unbelieving Jews would lash out against Christians. How can this inform us about what happened in Rome?
If "Chrestus" in Suetonius' account is actually Jesus Christ, then we can expect that unbelieving Jews were stirring up trouble against Christians, because of what we saw in Acts. If this is the case, then Claudius would have seen the Jews as the culprits, and thus had them expelled from the city of Rome. If Jewish Christians felt compelled to leave the city along with the trouble-making, unbelieving Jews, then Gentile Christians would be left behind in Rome.
Does this constitute a church split? No, it does not. Claudius' was not a member of the church; Claudius was not a Christian. He was expelling an ethnic group. He was _not_ responding to a dispute _within_ the local church. Indeed, as we saw in Acts, _unbelieving Jews_ were the problem, not Christians. Unbelieving Jews represent _external_ strife, not an _internal_ dispute. Claudius' expulsion order _cannot_ be viewed as having anything to do with a church split. There was no church split at Rome.
What would make this a church split? If Gentile Christians wanted the Jewish Christians to leave the city along with the unbelieving Jews--and made a point to tell the Jewish Christians as much, and if the Jewish Christians argued that they should stay--then you'd have something resembling a church split.
Does Paul's letter to the church a Rome say a dispute _within_ the church occurred? No, it does not.
Do Paul's other letters indicate problems within other churches? YES! 1st Corinthians and Galatians immediately come to mind. The members of the church are receiving correction for wrong they have done, such as being divided over leaders, having disorderly worship, getting drunk at communion, allowing immorality amongst their members without discipline, and giving in to Judaizers. (In Colossians, it seems more like that congregation has been the victim of false teaching, and Paul is trying to gently point them to Christ; it's less of a letter of blunt correction than 1st Corinthians and Galatians.)
The problems at Corinth and Galatia were obvious in those letters. There is no such obvious problem at Rome that Paul was addressing. Claudius' actions had absolutely _nothing_ to do with interactions between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. There was, therefore, nothing to reconcile. Rather, the return of church members after a long absence should be seen as a reunion, not a reconciliation. Reconciliation implies sin. There is no evidence that the Gentile Christians sinned against the Jewish Christians in Rome, or vice versa.
Fantastic thank you ,my wife and I would like to be supporters
Wonderful! 😊
Thanks for the for that must have gone into this Jason. Considering the consequences of proliferating such a significantly different understanding of the Biblical texts is overwhelming. It’s beyond sobering, it’s horrifying. ( I speak of Augustine and those who subscribe to his theology)
3:45 - as I stated on your last video, John's Piper's video did clearly state that Paul wasn't writing to all in Rome, but that doesn't mean and Piper didn't say that the audience was Jewish one.
That's a fair point. Piper surely assumes it's only to the elect. Partial agreement, but clearly not full alignment on that point.
I haven’t read Lay’s book, but does he also talk about Ephesians 1:1-12 possible speaking first exclusively to the Jews and then the Gentiles in verse 13 to the church at Ephesus?
I’m not 100% sure.
@@GoodBerean
What are your thoughts? Both Tim Mackie and Carmen Imes read it that way.
@@theidolbabblerthedailydose33 I have 2 videos on Ephesians. I do believe that 1:1-12 are not Gentile focused. I would lean they are Apostle specific. Here’s the link: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Ephesians 1 #bible study
th-cam.com/video/waOm6lAgNqw/w-d-xo.html
Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Ephesians 1 | Part 2
th-cam.com/video/1IG3hW9qI9E/w-d-xo.html
@@GoodBerean
Yes, “apostle specific,” I should have said that, thx…
It just shows that this audience specific addressing is not unique to Romans.
3:35 - you gotta address Ch 16 Vs. 8, 9, & 12 which used "beloved" when speaking directly to individuals who are clearly non-Jewish, i.e. Gentile because your whole argument falls apart there.
For me, A thumbs up for the video……As I continue to read and study pre-Nicene history, meaning reading the Apostle’s disciples, then their disciples, then their disciples, then there disciples, the Didache and other works by certain historians of those centuries going into the 300’s; to see Jesus and the Apostles teachings past down to generation to generation. However, as well as when, who, why and where the veering off from Jesus and the apostles teaching begin to be made by individual(s) or groups. Historical context, what’s is going on, the environment/what is happening(war, fights, the power and who is in power climate), For me every follower of Jesus needs to read 1st -3rd century history. This has been the most Neglected, most important to get a Historical and contextual understanding of the Apostles writings and teachings passed on, as well as the life of the Ecclesia as it begins to spread. Gnostics were calling themselves Christians then, Gnostics calling themselves Christians today…..
Jason told me in a comment that there were no gentiles in the church at Rome. Yet there’s a list of gentile Christians in Rome in chapter 16 of Romans.
Go figure
This is embarrassing, Jason
What? When did I say that?
@@GoodBerean in the comments of this video when you first put it out as a members only.
I can’t see your complete answer because I can’t get back to the comments .
I asked you if you thought there were gentiles in the church at Rome . Just say yes or no.
@@aletheia8054 I would have to go back and look. I might have meant no Gentiles originally in the Roman church. I certainly do not believe there were no Gentiles in Rome.
@@GoodBerean if you say yes, I’ll delete this comment.
@@GoodBerean I’m talking about at the time this letter was written. The letter we call the book of Romans.
In the Preface of the 2015 version of his book Two-Part Romans (Jason promotes the 2017 version), Brent Lay says the discovery of Two-Part Romans occurred to him "on Thursday, June 6, 2013 about 10:15 in the morning while on vacation in Florida."
Keep in mind that Jason argues that Original Sin can't be true because it was introduced in the 4th Century, long after the Bible was written. Let's apply this standard to Brent Lay's new idea Two-Part Romans. If a standard has any meaning, it must be applied consistently. That was the standard applied to Augustine, and thus should be the standard applied to Brent Lay. Therefore, Brent Lay's doctrine Two-Part Romans can't be correct because it is new.
I discuss this briefly on my channel in a video entitled "Inconsistent Standard | Response for @LivingChristian."
So is a new work/commentary on the Joys found in Philippians irrelevant to the text?
@@mikelyons2831 What standard did Jason apply to Augustine in this video?
@@reformedpilgrim Oh dear, didn't notice your tagline. Your definitely coming from a Calvinistic perspective. I may have to be a heretic in your view. Because I adamantly believe God sent His Son to redeem/deliver EVERYONE who will & CAN call upon Jesus from the sting of death caused by sin...not just a special favored pre-selected elect. Maybe we will cross paths someday & chat over coffee. Blessings, praying we both hear "Well done good & faithful servants"
So , are you proposing that up until Augustine the early church were lacking and not fully functioning and only came to being fully complete and functional when Augustine introduced unknown gnostic theology into his circle, is that you proposal?
and who cares about your “ new to true vs old “ red herrings
Exactly MS. I can't believe people will not only be ok with, but will be purveyors of "Individuals are born doomed from the womb to a certain death and are to glorify Him by their destruction"
He taught it's by arbitrary selection & reprobation, not God's foreknowledge. Read his evil Augustinian influenced works.
(👿 "That was the idea all along...ever since Hath God indeed said? Surely, God hath not sent His Son to redeem everyone from the sting of death caused by sin... but only an arbitrary pre-selected few...the unelect will fry for His glory don'tcha know"
Interesting, I memorized Romans chap 1-8 and it drives me crazy how easily the Jewish Christian context gets dismissed by most believers interpretations. Most notably the second half of Romans 7 which gets taught as a believers struggle with sin.
Well done sir, I don’t know if I can see the differences you are pointing out but the historical background is fascinating.
With regard to Luther and his anti-Jewish behaviour, consider this
He believed God was angry at sinners and was planning to plunge them into eternal torment and they deserved it because they rejected the truth and killed Jesus.
So He was nice to Jews at first in his own life but when they didn’t believe him he did what his God was planning to do, only he didn’t do as much as he imagined God would do. So there was no real change, only a maturing of the view. “Love me and I’ll love you back but reject me and you’ll see what I’m capable of.”
The Jews proved they were not elect to Luther’s mind and he showed them what will happen to those not elected by God
4:28 - then your entire argument in subsequent videos is going to fall apart since your 3 initial points are grossly hermeneutically flawed.
200 years before Augustine even lived, Tertullian wrote: "“Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”
What are you getting at, that is not Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, but it is the orthodox teaching.
@@mikeschaller9233 Right. But some say there was no original sin [at all] until Augustine created the idea, and that is what I was "getting at." He certainly did not.
Augustine didn’t pull it out of thin air, but refined it. I don’t agree with his interpretation, and most wouldn’t know his version of the doctrine because it has been smoothed out over the years and is much closer to the original understanding with most of the church, in my opinion anyway.
@@mikeschaller9233 I'd have to agree with Tertullian's articulation here.
Interestingly, those of us who are elect and born from above by Gods effectual grace, and MADE utterly new creatures, and being conformed more in the image of Jesus Christ through sanctification of the Spirit....don't need anyone interpreting texts for us we know the Truth of by the Spirit within us.
No Spirit : No Truth.
Free will is the imaginary belief one is equal to God, and is the curse from the fall.
These are statements, not arguments.
Amen. Missed you yesterday, brother
@aletheia8054 We decided we have to come for the chili cookout in October...just didn't work out. My whole family was disappointed
@@ManassehJones ok how are things otherwise?
Still watching, but wondering why you believe the returning Christian Jews were the troublemakers. I would think the returning unbelieving Jews were the original troublemakers. Or do you believe the returning Christian Jews did not like how the Church changed in the years they were gone and began causing trouble for the Gentile believers upon their return?
In Claudius’ eyes all Jews were the troublemakers causing riots over Christ. The Roman church began as a Jewish Christian church since the gospel came to the Jews first. Those that didn’t believe were arguing and causing riots with those that did believe. So when the edict ended and the Jews could return. The believing Jews were coming to their original church that was now a Gentiles church. So in the eyes of the Gentiles it is very likely they revered or assumed more riots and trouble could take place upon their return.
37:00 the writings of Luther whether antisemitic or not do not matter. What matters is the Scriptures, and you've not adequately proven that Romans Ch 1 clearly states that the audience is Jewish. And so Luther's writings 1500 years after Paul penned Romans are irreverent.
Concerning Augustine: The historical facts shows Augustine became a heretic, false teacher, created a god in his own image, preach a different gospel. Enough said! He reverted back to paganism worship( the Manichean Gnosticism teachings which are just more expounded Valentinus/Valentinianism Gnosticism. Why So many in the scholarly arena are so quiet to admit this? For one, The Academic world is also an Unbiblical Hierarchical institution that many individuals have placed in a sense of “Higher class”. It’s also a system not immune to demonic influence. Yet I am grateful for the some/many individuals that don’t surrender to the bias, self-interested, the lies, payoffs, the bargains, just to keep the system as if it’s the source or interpreters of Truth. For some/many individuals that are reluctant to call out Augustine and individuals like him throughout history, the usual reasons would be they don’t want to be ostracized, loss of friends, loss of money, loss of career and that could be…. Yet, the Real Reason is those individuals would have to admit their past works and teaching were wrong. It’s the BIG EGO!!! “To admit I was wrong” is the issue for many of them and look how many people they influence into Gnosticism. When James said” Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly…. I look at that more seriously than ever today.
……Yet, I do hope that Truth continues to spread like wild fire in our last days, especially with resources been made known that was not known to the citizen and videos like these for the time being. ….For me, literally no one can come up with an excuse why they choose not to believe in the One and Only True God(father, Son, Holy Spirit) in our day with so much evidence we have in our faces. So much truth as well has history has been neglected or submerge under Gnosticism intentionally in about every generation since what took place in the 200-400’s. Lying and promoting lies is how you keep people from not knowing the truth and having control over them.
A novel interpretation indeed
4:07 no you most certainly did not use exegesis to prove any such point.
Keagan Chandler denies the divinity of Jesus, and calls the Trinity a gnostic belief.
Paula Fredriksen says Luke & Acts are works of fiction and that Jesus is a failed prophet. (She's not a Christian)
These are not reliable sources for truth.
Thanks for sharing. For the record, I never said I agree with or understand all that these people believe. But because they have done extensive research on the man Augustine I use them as references for the session. I am not friends with these people nor do I understand all that they believe.
But just like John MacArthur uses Suetonius to make the case of historical context, I can use Paula and Keagan to make a historical context point about Augustine.
Suetonius, whose full name was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, was not a Christian. He was a Roman historian and a civil servant who lived from approximately AD 69 to AD 122 and yet John MacArthur uses him as a reference of truth for his sermon.
@@GoodBerean But there is a notable difference: You placed reliance on Chandler & Fredriksen to draw a _theological conclusion_ about the doctrine of Original Sin. MacArthur quoted Suetonius for _historical context;_ he didn't cite Suetonius in order to examine the validity of a doctrine.
@@reformedpilgrim they cite Augustine who is a historical figure about what he taught, when his theology changed, and what impact that had on the church. This is also in my opinion, historical evidence that Augustine changed the landscape and set up a gnostic view of the Scriptures to be redefined. This later was adopted and even more cemented by the Protestant reformation (Calvin and Luther, among others.)
@@reformedpilgrim if it is historically factual that Augustine brought out original sin then the point is valid. The point that Augustine brought this out is what they are stating. That is the point I am making as well. This session was not intended to go into all of the verses where one could support original sin, the point was to point out that Augustine was the first to bring this out. I am the one who is insinuating that original sin is not true. I will later in the series go into that in more depth as to why. But for now the focus was just to reveal that Augustine was the first to bring this out.
@@GoodBerean Just read Augustine yourself and quote his works if you want to make claims about his theology.
Here's my main contention - in 75 minutes of talking you've not yet laid out your grand assertion. You keep hinting at and breadcrumbing that there's something earth shattering here. Yet we're still waiting for you to lay out your premise.
If you're right that the audience is Jewish and not Gentile - so what? What point are your trying to make? Since you debated White, I'm assuming you're trying to dismantle something about Calvinism (which I am not). But I'm losing interest because I don't have a clue where you're going. Just clearly state why this all matters, please.
In the book, Two-Part Romans, Bent Lay says that foreknowledge, predestination, and election are just for Jewish Christians only, not Gentiles. That’s the what this is building up to.
In a nutshell Romans 8 - where the calvinist asserts the "golden chain of redemption" - it is specifically for the Jewish people and and not NT gentile believers and thus deconstructs calvinism.
@@SheepDog1974 The only thing that Jason has deconstructed is his credibility. This NEW movement of his is totally heretical, and should be called out as such by anyone with any reading comprehension skills.
@@Chad-no3uz why are you so upset? If your calvinism is correct, then God decreed everything - including Jason's view of Romans. Becoming a Borean doesn't mean you check your brain in at the door, but assert your God given right to free will studying of scripture and "working out one's faith" with fear and trembling.
@@SheepDog1974 I hate false teaching because God hates false teaching. And I expose the things of darkness to warn others of a false teacher, and to avoid them.
Ephesians 5:11
Titus 1:10-11,13
I came to believe in reformed doctrine by studying scripture, as opposed to believing the free will nonsense that my former church taught, I came to believe in reformed doctrine before I had ever heard of John Calvin, because reformed doctrine can be clearly seen and demonstrated in many many places in the Bible.
Someone has to actually have “true saving faith because it is a gift from God,and not everyone possesses true saving faith” before they can work it out with fear and trembling for everyone to see that they have been changed by the new creation that God gives.
This is embarrassing.
It sure is
Take a look in the mirror
@@Runtherace247 take a look at the video
You are quite childish. Find something productive to do with your time.
@@aletheia8054I saw your other posts. Why so negative and angry?
Who, if anyone, is advising you on the elaborate introduction to these videos? They are ridiculous. If you are looking for credibility this isn't the way to go.
There are many series that begin with the same theme song or trailer of the series. I am taking that artistic approach with this series. It’s a creative choice.
@@GoodBerean and of course that's your right. I'm just pointing out that if you're looking to increase credibility in your conclusions by the production value you misunderstand your opponents.
It's the Bible and nothing but the Bible. Indeed, historical context is important. However, your conclusions aren't new or innovative. Ultimately, you are going to say the same thing that all detractors do. And those arguments are proven wrong by the text.
@bucky91361 appreciate the dialogue. I will be walking through the entire book of Romans in this series breaking things out for chapters at a time as the sessions continue. It will be great to engage with you as we press on into the study!
@@GoodBerean one last thing and I'll let you get back to makeup for your next scene (just being funny, sorry).....
The idea that the church earlier than Augustine didn't address or discuss original sin is verifiably wrong. Was he probably the 1st to use the term or shape the concept you're right. But, to try and use him to make an argument that he originated the thought is wrong.
@@bucky91361 open to hear your argument about this. Please share.