Calvinist Conversations: Baptist & Presbyterian Discuss the Covenant of Grace

I guess you just dive in, right? Yeah. Do you want your earphones on? No, thank you. I didn't want to say anything, because I thought maybe it was like hearing things. I just never feel them. Low-key hearing aid or something, you know?

I'm not deaf. I heard what you had to say last night. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. There were some points where I wasn't sure about that. After last night, I think I'm convinced. So I've got. External, you know, he's got someone speaking with his ear.

Right. I have. James is on the other end of that. That's what's going on. Five-month-old infant at home, and he will be baptized upon a profession of faith. Upon a profession of faith. This will be good.

We've got about a three-year separation between us, and that's something we determined on the way home last night. That's the great thing about Apologia. You guys don't actually practice your theology.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Well, I think we practice our theology very well, but. Just on that question. Jeff, I love you. You know, we've talked about this. A lot of the question, I think, is that, and we touched on this last night, and I think we covered it well enough for an introduction, but obviously with the constraints of time frame and such, you know, you can only get to so much.

Baptism, Regeneration, and the Sign of the New Covenant

Yeah. I think there's a misconception a lot of times, as far as my belief goes, that our Presbyterian brothers like yourself will think that we somehow think we have these regeneration goggles or that we can know with certainty that this person is regenerate, and therefore we only administer baptism to the regenerate, and that's not the position.

Now, obviously, do we seek to administer to the regenerate? Yes, of course, we seek to do that, and we do that according, and both of us would say this, that we seek to administer these things according to the word of God.

Right. Where the disagreement comes down, obviously, is, well, first of all, what's the sign of the new covenant? Sure. And that's something we've touched on briefly. I believe you would say, and correct me, baptism is the sign of that.

And I would say that regeneration, I find Old Testament circumcision finds its fulfillment in New Testament circumcision. Old Testament baptism finds its fulfillment in New Testament baptism. That what the, like circumcision is relevant.

It's not as if circumcision went away, it was escalated. It went from this physical, yeah, from this physical visible thing to an inner reality that was experienced not just after the incarnation of Christ, but the blessing actually flowed across history, which I think we both agree, from this sure promise, the sure work of Christ that flowed through history and was given to people all throughout history under different covenants.

Yeah, so just like, it's not, the consistency is that we don't think that we perfectly know the secret things of God, but we do know that here's what he has said as far as how to administer, who to administer to, and that's a common point.

And this wasn't even the topic last night, but it's so related, it's so related. It's gonna go there. Both sides can look at the other side and say, well, you're doing something that's not commanded. And we do.

Right? And that's where, from the Baptist perspective, you say, well, where does the Bible command baptizing infants? And from the Presbyterian perspective, you say, where does the Bible command that you only baptize people who have professed faith?

Well, maybe the weird Baptist, well, they were baptized in the Red Sea. It's just a different baptism, but... The wider question of what is the sign, well, that's probably more a semantic discussion on what does sign mean.

We actually both agree that the symbol of a regenerate community is baptism. We agree on that. Say that again. I don't know if we do. Well, okay, so... We might, but... Yeah, so you say that the new covenant sign is regeneration, right?

But that's not actually a sign, right? Well, sure, it points to the reality. But you just acknowledge that you don't actually know who is regenerate and who is not. Is it visible or is it not? So it's going from whose perspective is the question here.

Sure. A lot of times I think that... But how does that match up? I'm trying to understand how that matches up. It's not a gotcha question. How does it match up with starting with saying, okay, we don't have special knowledge as Baptists, right?

We don't have infallible knowledge. Correct, right? We don't have, we don't actually claim to know who's regenerate and who's not. We have infallible knowledge, but... Right, yeah, we don't know perfectly.

Correct, it's not a matter of ourselves. We don't know something that God hasn't revealed to us. And one of the things He hasn't revealed to us is who is regenerate ultimately and who is not. That's correct.

So how can something that you can't see be a sign? Do you know you're regenerate? No, not ultimately. You don't know that you don't... I believe that I am. You can't have assurance. Yes, you can have assurance, but that's the difference between no, right?

And when you say no, do you mean no as God knows? No, obviously not. No, we don't. No as well as a human can know? Yes. Based on His clear revelation. And so that's, I think, a lot where this difference comes from, right?

Yeah, and that's where discussing what is the visible church? What is the invisible church? And what are we commanded to do in relation to them? How are we commanded to relate to the visible church? How are we commanded to relate to the invisible church?

Sure. Those are the questions. And it's not, I think, so much, at least from my perspective, I don't actually, I'm not trying to speak for a Presbyterian perspective per se in that I'm here to represent my Presbyterian brothers.

No, I'm not. Although you are a good representative, brother. Yes. Well, thank you. Of some of them. That was very nice. Yeah. The question ultimately comes down to how do we relate to the visible church as opposed to the invisible church?

And it's not that we are, that I would think, well, you are claiming to have knowledge of something that you can't have. Right? It's that there seems to be a going back and forth, a substitution, that when we start talking about who is in the covenant of grace, right?

And that's where we started. There is sometimes we're talking about visible and sometimes we're talking about invisible without delineating which one we're talking about. I would always be talking about the invisible.

Okay. The covenant of grace. Interesting. So then on what basis do we baptize people? We do baptize upon profession. Upon profession. Is that invisible or visible? That's visible. Yeah. We do baptize, and so that's where I was hoping to come to.

We just went from one to the other without acknowledging it. But only one is a member of the covenant. Because you define covenant as regenerate. And I think this is good because last night... The format makes it hard to do this.

Well, no. I think last night was proof that we were hovering over the right target. Yes. Agreed. It came down to... But I'm able to go and put our finger right on it, too. Just time to time, and hopefully we can touch a little here.

But even on the car ride home, I think, we would say what you thought was your strongest point. I'd go, that was your weakest point, bro. That was my strong point. And vice versa. Which I think is good because that is where the discussion hasn't often been had.

And when it has been had, it hasn't been done well. I think something you did really well last night, and something that should be fleshed out and thought about by Baptists, understand visible and invisible distinctions.

We need to think about this. We need to understand what it means to be part of the covenant of grace, which I defined, but what it means from my definition here, to have justifying faith and to be justified before the Holy God versus to have that external connection.

And they aren't necessarily the same thing. They aren't necessarily the same thing. And I think where a lot of some people from my side have failed, but praise God, it's starting to come up more. We do need to think about that.

And I think if I was going to just praise you and go, hey, man, what you did really well last night was you drove home. We need to understand Ecclesia. And where I think you might have fallen a little short.

And what I would love to hear, whether today or just in coming discussions, it seems like, at least from where I'm coming from, you had either a hard time articulating or the format, whatever, but what is the covenant of grace versus these other covenants?

Like when we say that, for example, when you would say that Noah is an administration of the covenant of grace, whatever verbiage or phraseology you'd want to use there, what does that mean? And on my side, I think we'd need to dig in and go, all right, visible, invisible, how and why do you come to the conclusions that you do?

But you did a good job on that, and I think we can both. I appreciate that. I think there are many ways in which it comes down to a semantic discussion of terms that we have added to the entire debate.

And I'm not saying added to in a sinful way. You have to describe what you see. But I think that this disconnect comes down to a difference of opinion on the value of the terms themselves. The term covenant of grace, we did talk about a lot.

We talked a lot last night about the value or where that term comes from and whether or not that is a useful term and what should the process be in using that term. I strongly disagree with coming up with a term that we overlay on Scripture, and not necessarily in a bad way, but we are looking at Scripture.

But we impose upon Scripture. Correct, yes. We're saying, I'm observing these things, and I'm going to describe the grouping of these things as the covenant of grace. We're both doing that. Yes, we do.

There are two different ways of doing that. That's our conclusion, I would imagine. Correct, it's a conclusion. We're looking at it. But the problem is, there are certainly times when, in order to gain a Scriptural understanding of something, you have to do that because we aren't given clear direction.

This is where you look at it and you say, okay, I'm going to look in these different places, I'm going to assemble an understanding from them, and then I'm going to make decisions based on that understanding.

Which is something we all do, even if we're not aware of it. It's something we all do, and it's something that we must do in certain cases because there are things that God leaves to our freedom to decide.

And we're not free just to go, well then, great, I get to make it up as I go along. We are free to go to the Scriptures. Are you saying that us Baptists are not free to just follow our hearts? I'm saying that none of us are free to do that.

Okay, gotcha. Because unfortunately, there are Presbyterians who love to do it as well. We love to do it on the finer details, such as what exactly has God commanded regarding speaking an untruth? What exactly has God commanded regarding the Sabbath?

So my truth is only true if it's God's truth. Correct. Amen. See, we have a lot in common. There is an order of priority for making assumptions. That's why we call them good and necessary consequence.

It's good and necessary because what is good and necessary in the question of should I spank my children or not is different from the question are my children included among the covenant community or not.

Those are two different questions. The reason they're different is because there are varying degrees of revelation to answer that question. So when we deal with the question of are children in the covenant community, which to me, if we're going to say covenant of grace, covenant of community, this is the same thing because we're talking about the visible church.

To you, when you say covenant of grace, you are talking about the invisible church. I am talking about the invisible church. Right, and that's where the terms of the debate are going to be challenging because the term itself, covenant of grace, means two very different things.

Covenant of Grace, Visible and Invisible Church

Well, here's why I think it's I'm glad that we settled on the, I don't know if we call it thesis, but the topic that we did for the debate last night is a lot of times, especially up here where you live, right, you'll deal with people who say they believe in Christ.

Right, and they mean something very different. And they mean something so different. Now, that's not the case with us. We could go and hold our confessions next to one another, which neither of us hold to 100%, I don't think, but we're really close.

They're good representations. Yes. And that really is a section where we're using this term differently, but when we especially, listen, Presbyterians have written such great stuff, and Baptists and Presbyterians alike, we want to go read that stuff, right?

Sure. But this can become a problem. Yes, it is. I won't even necessarily say problem. This can be difficult because we use that particular phrase all the time in our writings, whether you and I do or not, but this phrase comes up all the time, and it's just, I think it's kind of just assumed by both sides that we're using it in the exact same way, whereas it's like, well, this is a conclusion of a theological system, which we all must do, which hopefully, if we're being consistent, that we all strive to do that, that hopefully we're not imposing upon.

Let's be charitable here, but this is a conclusion of a whole lot of other work that we're using to wrap up an overarching idea of how Christ is taking dominion over the world. He's placing everything under His feet, and it's all His, and He's done this for all time by grace through faith.

Here's how He does this, and here's how He does this in history. They're not the same terms, but what's the difference then from where you're coming from from talking about a redemptive historical approach versus...

Right, and I think that's the difference, right? And this is something that I probably was not clear on, and I think that it does need to be more clear. I do not believe that the definition of covenant of grace is actually determinative in who is included in the covenant community.

You do, because to you covenant of grace means invisible church. You're talking today, as far as who's... I'm talking right now, in order to go to the Bible and say, okay, how do we know whether or not children should be included?

We do not need to say, well, first of all, we need to decide what the covenant of grace is, because the Bible doesn't use that term. That is a summary term. We need to go and ask, what does the Bible say about how God relates to the children of believers?

Now, we can say that's a gracious covenant. We can say it's a covenant. We can say, you can describe it any way we want, but those are all extra biblical terms that are very good for things like figuring out, what is the bigger picture here?

How does Christ take dominion over the earth? How does this work? Those are very beneficial terms as we describe what we see God doing. But then to take that and turn around and say, now we're going to answer this question of, how does God relate to the children of believing parents?

And say, well, first of all, we have to define what the covenant of grace is. That's, I believe, where the stumbling block is. And it's not because we used that term in the title of the debate. It would have come up because of the varying understandings of what the covenant community is.

You want to use the term covenant of grace to describe the ecclesia. The biblical term is ecclesia. The extra biblical term is covenant of grace and who's in it. We could say even the biblical term is Israel.

The biblical term. Well, ecclesia of Israel to be specific. I think we both were touching on that, but we're coming at it from different sides here. We both agree with continuity. We both agree with discontinuity.

Where are we coming at this from? I tried to touch on that by illustrating, here's who the parties are in the Abrahamic covenant. Here's who the parties are in Moses. Here's who the parties are under the New Covenant.

And then look in, and I don't know that we have time to exegete Romans 11. It'd be great, but we could touch on it. But if nothing else, what we are going to both affirm, there's one olive tree. There's one people of God, and the question is what defines who is in that ecclesia.

Does God get to determine? Of course, you'd say, yes, this is a setup question a little bit, but something we can both agree on is that does God get to determine who's in that? Of course, we will say yes.

And then the question is how does he determine who is in that? How do we know who he's determined what is in that? Visible or invisible. That's the only question. And then the connecting point there that I would love to see spelled out is we can see a continuity of this is God accomplishing his eternal purpose that was established before the foundation of the world between him and the sun to redeem a certain people to his glory.

This is the covenant of redemption. They have not yet been fully revealed. They have not been fully revealed yet. Because we do not yet know. I agree with that. And so when we say, well, we can't baptize people because they haven't professed faith yet, that isn't based on whether or not the New Testament commands it or forbids it one way or the other because it doesn't do either.

Well, here's where I was going with that is we agree his eternal purpose is the same. And what he's doing throughout history through the covenants, which is one of the large ways that he organizes scripture and reveals himself and his purpose to the world, is he's accomplishing something through all that.

God's purpose remains the same throughout all of these covenants, and he's bringing to pass the fulfillment and bringing into history the Messiah. And so where I would love, if we look at, we must look at how it was revealed to us.

We look at something like the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosaic covenant, and we understand there's one olive tree, so we're not talking about the parties. We're talking underneath that. What are the promises that are made in this covenant to those parties?

What are the rules that they need to obey to obtain covenant blessing? Or is this the type of covenant that is a free good gift of God, like in Abraham, that God is doing all this, he's walking through the pieces, or is this another one where you can bow down to foreign gods?

And so why, then, would you assume that what is done in one covenant under that administration by using typical Presbyterian, that it must therefore be done in this other historical covenant? We can agree that God's eternal purpose is the same, but why do we say, what's the merit for saying that just because it was done this way here, that in this separate covenant, which is connected, but is a separate covenant with different promises, why, then, would we say that it has to be done the same way here?

Great question. That's a great question. It's because we are commanded to assume that what we are told in the Old Testament remains the same unless we are told it has changed. The way we know that parts of covenants have been replaced with other parts of covenants is not primarily the terms of the covenant and our, then, human assumption that, well, I think this cancels this, and that gets down to the typology question.

It does. The typology question, and I should have elucidated further last night, and that's something I did poorly. I know you agree with that at the time, man. Right. So now that's the advantage here.

Typology is very valuable when we allow the Bible to define the types. Agreed. And it's not just, well, I observe that this thing looks like this thing, so I'm going to call them a type. That's bad. It's abusive, and it leads to all kinds of stuff.

And from my perspective, Renahan does this not intending to do evil but allowing his eisegesis to mix. That was my point last night. While I was influenced a lot by his work, I'm not here to defend it entirely, but, broadly speaking.

The reason I mention it now is because I defined my answer last night. I was unable to know. The question was, what do you think about typology? And my answer is, well, I'm not sure, but I'm assuming you're using the word the way Renahan used it based on the question.

And I believe Renahan's typology is eisegetic. But that doesn't mean that there's no typology. There is typology. It's just that we're not free to observe and create the types. We're not free to then link the types we've created.

We have to look at the types. It's told, this is a type. I agree with that. Adam is a type of Christ. Great, now we have a type. Would you agree, like... I'm sorry. Go ahead. Because you asked a really great question in the core of that, and I kind of got distracted with types.

So, how do we know that this part of the Abrahamic covenant, I shall be God to your children, applies under any other covenant? It's because we are told that the entire Old Testament is necessary for our perfection.

In other words, in order to be perfectly equipped to be a perfect man of God. That means that we have to accept the other parts of Scripture which remove things, and then allow the things that are not removed to stay.

And we can't say that because this covenant had different terms, yeah, but it's an assumption. It's a false assumption to say, and therefore it wipes out everything in the other covenant. That's like saying that because this covenant of marriage between these two people and God, these three parties, is different parties than this covenant, involves different parties than this covenant of marriage between these two people and God, that the terms are different.

No, the biblical terms of marriage are the same. Yet they are different covenants. They are different covenants, but the terms remain the same. What's different about them is that they involve exclusively, they exclusively involve different people.

They do, yes. But we wouldn't say that because these people are different, the terms are different. That guy, this covenant, they decided that they could have an open marriage, and they could sleep around, and that would be fine.

No, we would say no because God defines the terms of the covenant. And just because the covenant individuals are different, the terms remain the same. Now, I'm not saying that that locks it in. I'm saying it demonstrates that we can never say that because this is a different covenant that the terms are automatically different.

That's not automatic. That they automatically replace things. But we would agree that two different covenants could have two different terms. Yes, and how do we know? Because the Bible tells us. How do we know the Aaronic priesthood has been replaced with a better priesthood?

Because the Bible tells us. How do we know that the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law have been replaced? Because the Bible tells us. How do we know that the covenant membership…. But not just replaced, though, right?

I think we would agree on this. New and better. It's better. Correct. It's replaced in this sense. With something better. Like the words of when Christ says He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Now, it might sound like this to your ears that I'm going to abolish that. I don't think that…. Sure. Well, He did abolish certain things. And that's why fulfill can mean amplify. That's where I'm going.

And it can mean replace. This is where I'm going. But it's a fulfillment not in the sense of like, hey, that didn't work. Right. Let's try plan B. God has had plan A from…. That would be dispensationism.

Exactly. And so He's always had the same plan. And what He's doing is He's bringing to fruition and He's filling this all up to this consummate point of Christ finishing the work of the Messiah. And do you hear, just so we can maybe wrangle this in a little bit, while you might think I'm inconsistent, do you hear me saying that we just do away with the Old Testament?

No, I hear you saying that in one thing that you don't like, we do away with it without warrant. Where do you hear me saying that? Because I wouldn't affirm that. Right. And I realize that you wouldn't and I love and respect you.

And I want to be very clear. I know where you're coming from. I know where apologia is coming from. And you are some of the most consistent Christians in America. And just real brief on that. I don't want to get you off topic.

This is actually important just because I promote a certain view. I think the London Baptist Confession, for example, which once again isn't our primary standard. It's our secondary standard, but it's a standard.

It is broader in its allowance. It can allow for a view of the covenants like you would hold. Or it can allow for one like I would hold. And I think that was done so on purpose by its framers. And I appreciate that.

There's been a lot of people who, I won't name names, but there have been a lot of people who I think have been a little contentious in the past going like, Hey Baptist, if you don't see it this way. No, that's wrong.

And I've also seen that change and people grow over time and have a wider understanding. So in presenting my understanding, there's a lot of Baptists that would hold the same understanding that you do as far as covenant.

Well, yes. And actually, we had great debates just last week online. A brother who's a friend of a friend jumped into a debate on his friend's Facebook page. We had a fun debate. We friended one another afterward after having a good discussion.

I think I mentioned it last night. But his perspective is that, well, yes, our children are in the covenant, but we don't baptize them until they profess faith. And from my perspective, okay, it's inconsistent.

But I believe it is less inconsistent than trying to claim that they're not in the covenant at all. So back to what you pointed out a spot for myself. You're saying, yeah, Eric, you're not doing this, but on this one point.

Only in this one point. That's a great question. How and where am I doing that? And I appreciate your humility, brother. I want to be very clear about that. I would not want to be mistaken to say or to be mistaken saying.

How do I say that? You're saying I'm inconsistent. I was saying you're trying to do away with the entire Old Testament or that you're trying to assume that the Old Testament doesn't apply unless the New Testament repeats it.

I realize that's the furthest thing from your mind. But there's one little place. And in fact, when it comes down to what's the value of the Old Testament in defining whether or not women should be allowed at the table, right?

We all actually agree that the value of the Old Testament is great. That the way we know for sure is from the Old Testament. I think we would agree. So there and that's where some of my other Baptist friends have pointed out.

We do believe in good and necessary consequence. They would say we Baptists believe in good and necessary consequence. And we can reason our way by assembling these different passages. But when it comes to the inclusion of children in the covenant community in the visible church, not the invisible church.

We are told that they are included in no uncertain terms. We actually agree that before Christ came, Esau was born a member of the covenant and later was proven to not be part of the invisible church.

The definite article is where I think we get hung up. When I say the covenant community, you immediately go to invisible. I don't there. I don't there. Not when you're talking. And that's something that we just probably won't get to the bottom of.

And I think we're both so conditioned through our studies and traditions. Right. To hear that a certain way. But the definite article, the, matters. You're saying excluded from the covenant. What covenant am I saying there?

If I'm going to say they're excluded. If I'm putting on my baby kicking shoes and I kick babies out of the covenant. Which covenant am I kicking those babies out of? Sure. So there is there's there's a difference.

Right. This comes back to the idea that the next covenantal revelation is how I would say it is actually its own separate thing. And that is distinct and very different from everything before or everything after.

The problem is that it is always generally applying to the people of God. There are no covenants that we want to discuss. Of course, you can talk about other contracts and other covenants. But the covenant as we're defining it for this debate.

Is there one that did not involve God's people? Now, we can say that the covenant of redemption was not specifically with God's people. We might look at Adam and Noah. But I generally. Yes, absolutely.

Even those. What are we talking about? Was there application outside the covenant community? Absolutely. There always is. But this is not. These are not. OK. This covenant is going to be with Ammon. And this covenant is going to be with the Philistines.

Right. And this. No. It's always about the people of God. It's about the ecclesia. So it's always about the ecclesia. So it's to say that because which covenant. Well, these are all with. They're all going somewhere.

They're all about Christ. They all include the covenant community. And it's all God saying, I am going to do this and you're going to do that. We agree on all that. And so when we say covenant community, it is the visible church.

That's what we're talking about. Now, ultimately, when we get to heaven, we will have much more special knowledge about who is in and who is out. We're going to look around and go, well, I guess we know who's here now.

Right. Sure. That doesn't mean it's going to be absolute. I'm not proposing that each individual will suddenly have will know everybody in heaven. I don't know. We're not told. But we will have a lot more knowledge as to who is actually in the invisible church.

I would hope at that point we would know. Yeah. And I'm not sure. But OK. So and but then there are some individuals, interestingly, that God tells us point blank. Esau is one of the most dramatic. He was born a member of the visible church.

Yes. The ecclesia. And we're told that God hated him. Yes. And rejected him. Yep. And so he's not part of the invisible church. This is actually a good point, is just because you say the assembly, the ecclesia.

Sure. Does not necessarily follow. It might. But it doesn't necessarily follow. Yes. You can take every instance of ecclesia and go, clearly, that's the covenant community. Right. So I think there needs to be, not even that we broadly disagree, just that sometimes we got to be a little more, I think, I hate being this guy, man.

But sometimes you got to be a little more nuanced. Well, true. To broadly go, well, it says. Or specific, maybe more in the nuance. Yeah, maybe nuanced is whatever. You have to be specific. You have to be specific.

And we have to kind of drill in on this a little bit. And it can seem pedantic, I think, to a lot of people. So I'm thankful that, just broadly speaking, like this is happening in front of your fireplace with love and affection for one another.

Understanding we're both purchased by the same blood of the same Savior. And then we can look at this. And maybe we can't drill down a little. But one of the issues I would have is it's one thing to say that this community is called in the Septuagint, the ecclesia, the assembly, right?

And then in the New Testament, we also have the assembly. Okay, this group was identified as the ecclesia. This group was identified as the ecclesia. But who is included in the ecclesia? This is where it comes back to the olive tree.

And it comes back to Romans 11. And we look, like we can't, whatever our interpretation of Romans 11 is, and there's a couple interpretations that are popular. Whatever our interpretation of it is, it can't do damage to the golden chain.

Like there's a whole context being set up here from chapters 1 to chapter 8, culminating in this beautiful fact that Christ has done this for His people. So however we, His people, is ecclesia. Whoever we see included and being talked about in Romans 11, whatever our interpretation is, Paul's not going to be talking in such a way where he contradicts himself from just a couple chapters earlier.

So we have to both, and we would both acknowledge, those who are called are ultimately glorified. It's the same group that those who are elect, because we can use those terms different too. So in Romans 11, when he says, here's who's in the olive tree, that he's saying, look, beforehand there was this dual connection, because there's dual aspect, agree or not, I would argue, there's this dual connection of those who are in Abraham were those who were his physical seed, but not just his physical seed.

There were also those who had the faith of Abraham, and this is why, you know, before he was circumcised, etc., he's the father of the circumcised and the uncircumcised. There's the physical seed, and there's the spiritual seed, and sometimes there's a blending there.

But in Romans 11, I would argue that what we see here is those who do not have faith, those who are in the ecclesia who don't have faith, God prunes off of that. So we would say, at least at some point here, this tree has now been pruned of the faithless.

Right. It's the wheat and the tares, right? One, who's doing the pruning of that tree? We visibly express that through the visible church, but the tree itself, who's doing the pruning of that tree? I would argue it's God who pruned those without faith off of that tree.

And now, this is actually a really important thing. I'll finish my little point here is, I'm not saying that infants can't be in the tree. I'm not saying that a newly conceived baby can't be in the tree.

God elects who He elects. So it's not a question, like, that's the invisible church. And not only does He elect who He elects, but He can regenerate them at any point that He desires, in the womb, or on the deathbed, or anywhere in between.

They may very well be in the tree, but the difference here is the visible expression of that. God ultimately prunes off those who don't have faith. Right. When does He do that? I think there was a time thing that He was pruning certain people off and grafting in.

Right. When Christ came, if you did not acknowledge Christ, they were pruned. Which I think is a John type of thing, too, the vine, and we could talk about that, but it's the same general concept. Right.