Inconsistent Standard | Response for  

Wow, just, WOW... Well done, brother! So important to point out the inconsistencies of the "former Calvinist for 10 years" crowd.

@@ryangallmeier6647 Thank you for the support, brother! I appreciate it. How many new ideas will anti-Calvinists chase in order to keep from being Calvinists. The irony is, we’re not even saying they even have to agree with the doctrines of grace. They could just say they don’t agree, then move on. But here we are, with another attempt to purposely argue against it. How many bad hermeneutics can one man adopt before he realizes he totally disagrees with Scripture on all basic, foundational truths?

@@reformedpilgrim foundational truths? Everything about calvinism is a systematic philosophy derived from one man in the 1500's and then applied to scripture. Presuppositions are laid over top of scripture and understood as "foundational truths" by Calvin's converts.

Yeah, that old gnostic accusation is never presented with evidence. It’s just asserted as if it’s a given fact. Absurd.

I have made this exact argument. Anyone who had any view other then biblical Christianity prior to their regeneration has a flawed hermeneutic and cant be trusted. Therefore Leighton cant be trusted by his followers. It is so funny when their own claims are self defeating.

@@reformedpilgrim Yep. Just saw Jason do it in the comments on his part two video.

@@sevencrickets9258 Yes, classic red herring. All that needs be done is hammer away Brent Lay’s own pronouncement that he came up with Two-Part Romans doctrine in 2013.

@@reformedpilgrim 💯 I'll be bringing it up often now that I'm aware.

James shared it on Twitter. He must have ordered Brent Lay's book before he saw my video, though. I ordered both of Lay's 2PR books on Monday, and I'm supposed to get them today. I will NOT be able to do nearly as good a job as James in any analysis that I might offer. But I wanted to be able to evaluate the books myself, rather than get the info third-hand from Jason. I don't agree with James on everything, but he'd be a welcome guest at my dinner table.

@@reformedpilgrim Well at the very least, you could say that great minds think alike 😎. He specifically brought up the same conclusion you came to, which is that you will not find much in the way of consistent standards with provisionists. Throwout Augustine, it was new to the church.....but check out this doctrine cooked up in 2013! I will for sure appreciate any analysis you throw up here!

@@sevencrickets9258 I was encouraged to find that the Greek says exactly the same thing as reliable English translations do. And that's what baffled me. Jason, much less Brent Lay, should have enough facility with English to be able to see that Brent's claim defies basic grammatical constructions. Pray for Jason and his followers who have fallen for this nonsense of "Two-Part Romans".

@@reformedpilgrim 💯 same here. May they see the scriptures for what they are and come to the plain reading of the text.

To be fair that is not what Protestantism was or had in mind. It was not intended to be a new church nor a new revelation. It didn't even intend to separate from the catholic church. It was a response against the corruption of popes who veered the church in the wrong direction from what was the intention of Christ and the apostles. Whoever says that the reformers thought they suddenly "got it right" doesn't know what the reform was all about. Now, what goes to show you that Jason has no clue of church history is that (just like the doctrine of Trinity), although believed and taught by the apostles, the doctrine of predestination as reformers know it was not discussed and developed the way it was by the likes of Augustine (or Aquinas later) because there were more pressing matters for Christians at the time, like staying alive while being a believer. It was not that they suddenly "got it". They just had no chance to focus on it. This is why the ecumenical councils (except Jerusalem) happen after the edict of Milan which protected Christians.

In point of fact, he believes the first several verses of Ephesians 1 are only about the apostles, who were Jewish to a man. He has a couple videos on it. He is creating a two-tiered Christianity, where it’s better to be a Jewish Christian than a Gentile Christian, and where Calvinism is true, but only for Jews.

@@reformedpilgrim I share your concern. Certainly the Jews were God's elect people in a corporate sense in the Old Testament. But on an individual basis, only some Old Testament Jews were elect. King David is a good example. Under the New Testament, both individual Jews and individual Gentiles are chosen by God. (Romans 9:23-24)

​@@reformedpilgrimPaul's entire ministry was in defense of the gospel - the unity of the body of Christ though faith in Jesus Christ, for there is no longer any distinction between Jew or Gentile. The Jews were in stark contrast to this and we read it plainly in the book of Galatians. Why then are you opposed.? We read clearly that Paul often addressed different issues and towards different people... But he was not segregating into two classes of Christians. Calvinism on the other hand is a whole other issue, and just plain UNbiblical

@@SheepDog1974 You asked, _"Why then are you opposed.?"_ Opposed to what?

@@reformedpilgrim it appears that you are opposed to Jason's notion that Paul divides his epistles between different groups -jews and gentiles. If one reads in context, Romans and Ephesians is an excellent example.