Answering Two-Part Romans | A Review of David L. Allen's Book 'To the Jew First' | Part 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- This is a brief overview of my thoughts on David L. Allen's book, To the Jew First, released on October 31, 2024.
#theology #bookreview #booktube #2PR
Videos mentioned in this review:
James White @AominOrg Debates Jason Breda @GoodBerean
• DEBATE: The Reformed D...
Breda's Two-Part Romans Video Series
• TWO-PART ROMANS (2PR)
Breda demonstrating natural use of "the rest of"
• Two-Part Romans | Sess...
The Importance of The Ambiguous Antecedent in Breda's video
• Two-Part Romans | Sess...
Playlist: Answering Two-Part Romans
• Answering Two-Part Romans
Two-Part Romans relies upon an ambiguous antecedent in Romans 1:13;
The antecedent is not ambiguous:
Therefore, Two-Part Romans is false.
So glad I found your channel, you have a new sub and I'm excited to watch the rest of your videos.God is Great
@@CBALLEN God is great! Thank you for the encouragement. Lord willing, I can put together more videos on this topic, and others.
@reformedpilgrim Please do! The more Biblical truth,the better.Have you ever visited Rogue Calvinists, channel? He does a lot of reaction streams to these false teachers and debates with them,he is solid like you.
@@CBALLEN Yes, I believe I've interacted with a few of your comments on Rogue's channel. He's got a ton of content. I appreciate that he keeps posing the question of how one goes from not believing to believing. People who reject the idea of the internal working of the Holy Spirit in the individual to bring conversion have no answer to Rogue's question.
Additionally, I personally find it frightening when folks straight-up reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In so doing, they are rejecting Isaiah 53 outright, particularly, these verses:
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned-every one-to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
@@reformedpilgrim Amen,those who reject Substitutional Penal atonement, until the end,are those who'll hear, DEPART. We must worship in Spirit and in Truth,so if there is no Holy Spirit indwelling, they can know no truth.
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.
Thank you for the encouragement, Danny. You're right that clearly that's the goal of Two-Part Romans. The system offers no clear method for determining which passages apply to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, while reserving chapter 8, specifically verses 29 & 30 to Jewish Christians alone. It's telling that Paul's other letters addressed to churches are understood as speaking to those churches, but Romans is treated differently by anti-Calvinists. Just like they reveal their understanding that the ambiguous antecedent doesn't apply to Romans 1:13, this is a giveaway that they know full-well what chapters 8 & 9 of Romans are saying.
There is, of course, no ethnic hierarchy in the New Covenant, but Two-Part Romans imposes such a hierarchy onto Scripture.
Has anybody noted yet that the 1:13 antecedent argument is undermined by 2Pet.3:16 ?
Yes, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Here's a video addressed to Jason Breda @GoodBerean which cites that very passage. th-cam.com/video/DcT7W12UXA0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rVNa7MhUQXIwdx92
@reformedpilgrim Thanks! 😁
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).
Brent Lay uses Romans 8 for Jewish Christians exclusively, meaning that predestination, election, and foreknowledge are only for Jewish Christians, not Gentile Christians. It's a sort of Dispensational view that, though it pays lip-service to unity of all believers in Christ, it ultimately creates a two-tiered Christianity, wherein it is better to be a Jewish Christian than a Gentile Christian. In such a view, all believers have eternal life, but it is Jewish Christians that are "beloved of God," not Gentile Christians.
I'm not against the idea of Paul taking time to address either group in the church; I'm against the creation of two classes of Christians. We can't all be one in Christ, with no distinction between Jew and Gentile if one group is more distinctive in Christ.
@@reformedpilgrim Ugh. That's exactly backwards from the point I see clearly in the "Two-part Romans." The two parts are just the medicine needed for each part to remember they're not separate any more (Rom 15:15). My chapter breakdown is something like this: 1 speaking to all (about Gentiles), 2 turns to believing Jews, 8 goes back to speaking to all (about Christians in general), 9:17-11:36 turns to believing Gentiles, 12:1 - end goes back to speaking to all believers.
@@GospelNerd My breakdown is a little more simplified. Since Paul said he was eager to preach the gospel to the church in Rome (even though they were an existing church, making this an unusual exercise for him), that's exactly what he does by letter, until such time as he can do it in person.
I. Introduction (1:1-15)
II. Indicatives (1:16-11:36)
III. Imperatives (12:1-15:21)
IV. Closing (15:22-16:27)
This is very generalized, of course, for there are some passages that cross the border, so to speak. Not all the imperatives are in section III. Not all indicatives are in section II. But generally, this is the overall flow of the letter. It's not too dissimilar from Ephesians, which has three chapters of indicatives, and three chapters of imperatives, more or less.
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.
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.
Well done, brother! This is so necessary!
Indeed, the conclusions of the "2-Part Romans" theory is "all for naught".
Thank you very much for the encouragement, Ryan! I have enjoyed your example of diving into analysis of propositions and arguments, and have attempted to bring more of that to the forefront, as it helps generate a clear focus in such an effort, that God may be glorified.
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.
And that's where we would find sharp division with David Allen. While the New Testament negates an ethnic hierarchy in the New Covenant, Allen upholds it. In fact, that he assumes the Dispensational view to be correct prejudices his findings in Romans. He skipped over Romans 10:12 (For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him), and instead focused on how Paul still identifies himself as a Jew.
Election to service isn't a thing unless they claim that everyone is Elect since the Lord made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.
@@CBALLEN For some reason, TH-cam is hiding your second comment that starts with "Election to service". It only shows up when I sort by newest. I have no idea why that's happening. It's not in my "held for review" section on TH-cam Studio, so it should always be visible. If TH-cam could join the 2020s, and have it's comments section function like Twitter, or Facebook, that would be great.
@reformedpilgrim I know, I sure hope Trump puts an end to censorship .Since the Lord created everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil, that would mean every one is Elected to some type of service, so that cannot be what election means.
@reformedpilgrim I left another message and they zapped that one too.