About that Postmill Shot, then, More on Jared Longshore's Reply

Postmillennialism, Exegesis, and the Limits of the Critique

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We're coming to you live from Sedalia, Missouri. I'll be speaking in just a couple hours, actually, two and a half hours. And the information's on the calendar.

Just notification happens all the time. I wish there was some way of turning it off. The church got a lot of calls asking about what time it is, because when they go to the calendar, it says it's 5 p .m.

It's not. It's 6 p .m. But that's the time zone thing. I don't know. I think, Rich, I think if you put it in, and you put in CST, then that overrides that, I think. At least it does in mine. I don't know.

But it was a time zone thing, and it's not the first time that's happened. So anyway, so we'll be speaking tonight. Looks like we're going to have a good group of new testing reliability. And then tomorrow evening as well.

I think that's supposed to be pretty much just college-age folks, but I don't know if they're just going to sort of open that up. We'll see. But we're here where it's nice and cool. Got down like 28 degrees last night, which is good when your refrigerator dies.

Yes, the refrigerator in the new unit has died. We don't know why. We've done everything we know to do to try to resurrect it. There's probably a 15-amp fuse that you can't get to unless you remove the entire refrigerator that just needs to be replaced.

I wish I could find some way of doing that myself, but Google. Google. Rich says Google with a capital. Google. I'm not sure what that means, but I think he's blaming the Google calendar. But anyway. Weird.

I have it set for 6 p .m. CST. Well, don't know, man. I can only tell you what they tell me. So yeah, the fridge is gone. So thankfully, and I almost pulled it, I have one of those little like office-sized ones.

This unit has an outside kitchen thing. I only use it for storage, to be honest with you. And I almost pulled that fridge. Why am I dragging this along? That's the only way I'm keeping the perishable stuff from perishabling on me right now.

And I've got some milk and stuff out in that section. So it's outside and it's barely up to 50 today. And it was 28 last night. I think it's gonna be like 32 tonight, something like that. So we'll see.

Might end up with food poisoning. Could be a fun trip home. I don't know. The RV life is just always figuring out how to make stuff work that doesn't want to work. It's mainly mad at you because you've bounced it around so much.

But then we're gonna head into Kansas City, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and then heading home from there. Can't wait to see the wife and the grandkids and the folks at Jeff Durbin guy. Okay. I look forward to seeing him.

And my kitties, including my new kitty Sophie. So looking forward to all of that. Excited about that. So I'm gonna get back to Jared Longshore here. I'm gonna try to do a program tomorrow. I got some extra stuff done today, which should free me up to do minimally an hour tomorrow, maybe an hour and a half, because I really, really, really want to address what I think is the Achilles heel, the really inarguable documentation of the error of Rome on the subject of what's called the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, by the assumption, are even further removed from anything that could even be remotely understood as being apostolic, biblical, anything like that. But the perpetual virginity of Mary is directly addressed.

There's nothing about Mary's conception in scripture. There's nothing about the bodily assumption in scripture. That's just all completely based upon the fantasy of tradition. But the perpetual virginity, there's stuff about Jesus's brothers in the Bible.

It's right there. And so I want to talk a little bit. We've done debates on the subject. You can go listen to the debates. But what we haven't done in the past is sort of talk a little bit about some of the major defenses that Rome tries to use.

And what it does, all this, what all this does is when you listen to, I was listening to Trenthorne from what he called All Saints Day, Reformation Day, and listening to their attempts to substantiate prayers to saints and angels and things like that.

It's amazing when Rome goes from, we are the infallible vicar of Christ on earth, to, well, it's possible that maybe you might see it this way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that. You see quickly when you have beliefs based solely upon partial tradition rather than anything that is demanded by scripture.

And I want to get into a lot of that kind of stuff and especially look at Jerome's early writing against Helvidius. There's a clip I'll play you from, I think it was Saint Michael's Abbey, that'll give you sort of the background on that.

And we'll have some more stuff to talk about. So hopefully I'll have enough time by tomorrow to put all that together. We'll see, we'll see. So with that said, I, oh, okay. I am, three minutes ago, I am.

Rich says I am. That's a pretty high statement. I have no idea what he refers to because it's too late to know what the context was. So that's because it's on my phone. All right. I need, but I need, before we get to, uh, Jared, um, I need to comment a little bit on a tweet from this morning.

I am blaming Google. Okay. Um, I, it, it, I don't really want to, uh, but I, I think I need to and to do so collegially. Um, Scott Anuel, uh, posted a link to a Themelios article and the, uh, the article, uh, in essence, uh, makes the statement, uh, let's just say it, it's, it's not written by someone who has a whole lot of, uh, post-millennial friends.

Okay. It's by Jeremy Sexton. It's volume 48, issue three, but there's no date on it. I don't know why there's no date here. Uh, let me, sometimes, no, no, sometimes it's just a small window. Um, and the, um, abstract basically says, um, in the following decades, many in Rush Dooney's train added innovative biblical arguments whose interpretive methods do not withstand scrutiny.

This article examines the hermeneutical idiosyncrasies and exegetical fallacies displayed in defenses of post-millennialism by Greg Bonson, Kenneth Gentry, David Chilton, Keith Matheson, Douglas Wilson, and others.

Post-millennialists routinely keep textual details out of focus or interpret them tendentiously in service of the belief that the prophecies of worldwide righteousness and shalom will reach fulfillment on earth before rather than at the second coming.

Now, um, along with that opening, uh, then you, you have, uh, Scott saying, fantastic article demonstrating the exegetical deficiencies of post-millennialism. Now, um, there have been some pretty sharp post-millennialists in the past that knew a fair amount, you know, for example, in reading through the article, um, he talks about, I think he went after Kenneth Gentry for, uh, putting too much weight.

He said, I haven't had the time to go check Gentry. It takes hours to do this kind of stuff. Um, he, his representation is that Gentry was saying that a particular aorist indicates that this was past tense.

Now look, aorist is the simplest form of expression of the Greek verb. It doesn't necessarily mean the past though. It normally is in the past. That's normal usage, but it's not necessarily in the past.

It's the simple statement of the verb. And the argument that the article makes is, well, uh, and this is in the subjunctive and, you know, the idea is post-millennialists know so little about Greek, they don't know the time element primarily drops out in the subjunctive.

And of course I learned that in first year Greek, and then it was emphasized in second year Greek. Um, so yeah, you know, um, just the attitude was sort of like, um, not useful from the article's perspective at that point.

And it's like, yeah, a lot of us have taught Greek and we know about this stuff. And I just commented that it was actually exegetical stuff that, that brought me to the position, not, um, ignoring these things or engaging in tendentious, uh, exegesis and stuff like that.

Um, but what, what I wanted, what I felt needed to be, uh, addressed, um, he quotes from it. Um, and I don't know where the quote ends. There was only one opening quote. So it's a little bit confusing.

At every turn, post-millennialism runs around exegetically. It routinely keeps textual details out of focus or interprets them tangentially and naively in service of an appealing but biblically unwarranted quote worldview end quote.

Um, of course I disagree, uh, but what then is the appeal of post-millennialism if it is biblically indefensible? That's just triumphalism. That's just, that's not taking seriously the other side. I think that's why a lot of people have found this to be less than helpful.

Um, and I can't tell if this is Scott or he's quoting because the, the, the quotes don't give you, it doesn't say. Um, I'd have to go back and double check and see what he's pulling from to see if it is just a straight quote.

Um, maybe it is. Uh, but, and I get the feeling it is. I get the feeling it is. Um, but anyways, uh, it focus, but just this, these statements, it focuses on this world to which our hearts are naturally drawn rather than the one to come.

It's just not true. It's just not true. I mean that you could say this about any, you could, we could say about amillennialism and premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. We can do this kind of stuff all the time.

And sadly, the vast majority of stuff that appears online is just simply that kind of stuff. Just it means this, or it means that, or it's, uh, it focuses on this world. No, it doesn't. It focuses upon the building of Christ's kingdom.

And yes, it believes that that kingdom is built right now, that the kingdom is growing and that Christ is going to build his church and that the church is going to do these things and the kingdom is going to do those things.

And you know, it's, it's right there. Um, but you know, our hearts are naturally drawn to this world. Okay. It promises triumph in this age. No, it promises triumph of the church of Christ. But there were many post-millennialists who labored diligently in centuries past without any expectation that they would see in their lifetime, uh, that final triumph.

It's a very long term vision down the road, unlike almost any other eschatological perspective. And modern post-millennial movement leaders, uh, from Rush Junior to Wilson, inspire their followers to fight for that victory or fight for the kingdom of God, slay sin, that kind of thing.

Post-millennialism rejects retreatism and denounces defeatism, offering a more compelling narrative instead. Well, I'll take that. Nonetheless, post-millennialism's this worldly conception of Christ's kingdom, not true, lays the theological and spiritual seedbed for, and then here's the list.

Now, I want to, again, want to look at this, not so much, has nothing to do with Jared, but because it was posted this morning. Um, there are, there are elements of truth to this, but it's primarily in regards to the excesses that I myself am seeing, uh, over the past number of months, over the past year or so.

Um, and I don't think it has anything to do with the necessity of post-millennialism. The question has to be, is this something that is a necessary element, or is this simply a movement? Can you not, can we not make as an argument, um, you know, uh, Blood Moon Hagee, uh, against any form of dispensationalism or even pre-millennialism, various forms of that?

I mean, uh, is that fair to paint that for everybody? I don't think that it is. Anyways, here are the things that are listed. A culture warriorism characterized by carnal warfare and worldly stratagems.

There is nothing inherent in the belief that Christ will subdue all his enemies and that this he is choosing to do by reigning now and building his kingdom now. So that really, it's almost like, is Christ going to do this by reigning and subduing now with the final enemy being death, or is it just, uh, all comes apart until the very end and then boom!

Instant return and bang, everything's done. There's the kingdom. Ta-da! And it's by, you know, lightning bolts and, you know, blood up to the bridles and, and it's not due to, um, conforming people to the image of Christ and building the kingdom through, um, family and through holiness, um, and evangelism.

Um, all that stuff is not even a part of the other eschatological systems as far as the actual bringing the kingdom to fruition idea. It's, it's like, no, can't happen before Christ returns. Boom! Then all this stuff is good.

And it's like, what are we supposed to be doing between now and then? Um, so anyway, there's nothing in the system that demands a culture warriorism characterized by carnal warfare and worldly stratagems.

Do I see that happening? Yeah. And I oppose it. And I, and people get angry at me. Um, is there something inherent in post-millennialism that has some dude in boxer shorts, standing in the snow with axes, uh, jumping off a cliff, um, into, uh, into a small pond below risking his life.

And undoubtedly, can you imagine doing a face plant spread Eagle splash into freezing cold water from that height? Um, you all saw it. If you didn't, you're not watching much on social media, I guess, but, um, there's nothing in post-millennialism that says you're supposed to be doing stuff like that.

Okay. So, um, you know, flooding the internet with AI created, uh, crusaders. Oh my goodness. That's something else I've had on the, the back list is, can we talk about the crusades sometime? Can we talk about the children's crusade?

Can we talk about the theology behind the crusades and the indulgences and the, the whoops, left-hand turn, sack Constantinople and weaken it, uh, so much that falls to the Muslims, uh, much faster than it would have otherwise.

Can we talk about that stuff? It's, it does scare me when I see, uh, people and there are a lot of people doing it going, Oh, that was great stuff. We were defending the West and I'm going, have you read much about what was going on and the motivations and, and really?

Wow. Okay. Um, that's the scary part, but there's nothing in post-millennialism that necessarily gives rise to that. Um, there just isn't. If you think there is, then document it. Oh, then why see it on Twitter?

Well, so what I see all sorts of stuff on Twitter and it would be very easy to go. That's because of their eschatology. No, it's because of other weird stuff they're doing. Number two, the nominal Christianity that North expects to develop worldwide during the interadvental period.

Now this would definitely mean this is a direct quote. Um, and I have one of the primary things that I raised with Doug Wilson was this idea of nominalism and mere Christianity. Um, and what that's supposed to mean and what I don't believe it can possibly mean, if it's going to be anything that's going to be glorifying to God.

Um, but again, why, why my understanding the fulfillment of Isaiah 42, Psalm 2, Psalm 110 cannot, cannot be found in some massive explosion of nominalism. Just a bunch of people calling themselves Christians, even though they have no sense of the Lordship of Christ or obedience to him or anything along those lines.

That nominalism can't do that. So, um, yeah, no, uh, the first of these, some form of which has become integral to the task of disciple making for most, for many post-millennialists, at least says many, logically paves the way for the second.

Cultural engagement, political resistance, and social activism that are deficient in humility, patience, and cruciform piety, and that rely on human ingenuity more so than the work of God's spirit. Well, so it's a, it's specifically a part of the post-millennial system that God's spirit is not involved in.

Obviously not. Um, any eschatology that's deficient in humility, patience, and cruciform piety, whatever that's being defined as, um, is going to fail. Uh, these have been perennial lures for believers, particularly for those living in spiritually declining societies.

Okay, there are a lot of temptations in, uh, spiritually declining societies. Um, but it doesn't seem to me like the major temptation is post-millennialism. It seems to me it's escapism. I mean, isn't that what we've been doing pretty much big time for decades?

Is, yep, here it comes. You know, I mean, my own dad died absolutely convinced that Christ was going to return prior to the time he would die, and he was disappointed in that. Um, but it was, that was a part of the system.

That really, really was. And I was raised with that. I mean, every time you'd see some, you know, major, uh, what was the sun-kissed orange juice thing with the sun-kissed lady and the homosexuals and, uh, Anita Bryant, all that stuff.

Ah, it's getting as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean, it's, it's over with, you know? And, and, uh, the, the idea wasn't, so we need to be building more schools and, and, and investing in our great-grandchildren.

That's not what it resulted in. In fact, which eschatological system, specifically as a part of the system, says to you, invest in the future? Invest in laying the foundations? Invest in your grandchildren, in your great-grandchildren?

In which one is that something you have to explain why you'd have to do that? And in which one of that is just the natural? I think that's pretty obvious to me. Um, but such fleshly endeavors, and any fleshly endeavor in any eschatological system is going to be subject to this kind of criticism.

No matter how clever or empowering, are powerless to save souls, sanctify Christians, or transform cultures. Who's going to disagree with this? And so I, I reject the fleshly, let's all be crusaders and put a cross on our armor.

Yeah, that's silly. It's childish. Um, but that's not a part of the system. I mean, people can, people glom onto all sorts of things. And I've said over and over again, these guys doing this stuff, you know, 10 years from now, they're going to look back at it and go, oh man, I wish I could delete all the tweets.

It's like, there were some people who tried to tell us and we just called them pietists and wrote them off and blah, blah, blah, blah. I've said that over and over again, but it's not a part of, of the system.

Um, so you can't blame any eschatology specifically with that. All believers, perhaps post-millennialists especially, must resist the pull to become so earthly minded that we are of no heavenly good.

Well, wow, have we all heard that one before? Um, because the other opposite is just as true. Uh, becoming so heavenly minded, we're no, no earthly good is actually where it originally started, but nothing in that demonstrates there's something in the system specifically, uh, that, that results in all that.

So, you know, I, I, I just basically, you know, my, my response was, uh, I would simply like to say that some of us are well aware of the time element dropping out of the subjunctive, for example, astonishingly, some of us adopt this position because of, not in spite of exegesis.

That's sort of important to me and to most others I know, but it did not seem to me that the author of this article even considered that a possibility was my commentary on, uh, on that. So, um, yeah, I, I think we need to, uh, listen to some of those concerns.

And when I do, I recognize that it's not an inherent element of the system that's being addressed, uh, in those, uh, objections. Okay. So, uh, we go back to, um, okay. I can see all of Rich's messages now they're covered over.

Yes. He's blaming Google. Well, it's, I like blaming Google. Google is a good thing to blame. Uh, so back to Jared Longshore's article for James White about those children in the new covenant, the response.

The New Covenant, Hebrews 8, and the Nature of Saving Faith

Um, I'm not going to go back over all of this. Let me just simply state once again that a concern I've had for a long, long time, and it remains, um, a concern for me is that, uh, most of the time that reformed people address the issue of baptism.

And when, um, Credo Baptists debate with Pato Baptists, and of course, for many people like R. Scott Clarke and like that, it's not even a, not even an issue. You can't be reformed unless you believe like him.

I've got to be careful with this. I took a shot of this somewhere. It's just regular sparkling ice stuff, but it's so fizzy. You get that going down the wrong tube and you are going to be, we, I'd, I'd have to find, I'd, I'd have to go to a screen and start playing music for about five minutes to stop the coughing.

Um, most of the time that we have these debates, it ends up being, um, my quote of famous reformed author from 250 years ago versus your quote, um, from another famous reformed author. And you end up throwing Spurgeon cigars at people.

And, and I, I don't think that gets us anywhere. Uh, I think that's pretty worthless, honestly. And so, uh, I believe not only in Sola Scriptura, I also believe in the sufficiency of scripture. And I, I, I do believe that we should be able to come to answers on these things by looking to scripture.

And so my focus on baptism has always been the same, to look at the nature of the new covenant and to go, to ask the question, all right, if we're going to give this covenant sign, what is this covenant about?

Hence we look at Hebrews chapter eight and Hebrews chapter eight is a part of an argument. Um, there's nothing to go back to. It's a, Hebrews is an apologetic book and the apologetic argument is found in the supremacy and the perfection of the work of Christ.

And so the better covenant, better promises, better mediator is found in Christ. Now, Christ's blood is not just better than goats and calves. It is of a completely different nature. And so it's not that the blood of goats and calves, uh, could only do 30 and the blood of Christ can do 90%.

That's, that's not what the betterness is. Uh, the, the betterness is laid out in the fact that we have a high priest who, because he holds his priesthood permanently, uh, is able to save Aistop Panteles forever to the uttermost, those who draw nigh unto God through him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.

And so that's Hebrews seven, uh, Hebrews eight shows us what the result of this perfect salvific act on the part of the savior, uh, is, uh, that those who are in the new covenant, they don't need to be taught to know Yahweh.

Um, their sins are forgiven. The law of God is written upon their hearts. And of course, this is the fulfillment of prophetic, um, prophetic understanding of what is to be, what is to be coming in the new covenant.

So that's what we were looking at. And so we didn't actually get to, uh, Jared's response. He, uh, he says, uh, before answering each point in turn, we must start with the definition of covenant of grace itself.

To keep it simple, let us call the covenant of grace, God's solemn oath of salvation in and by Jesus Christ, conditioned upon obedient faith that bonds his people to one another and himself. And I just, I outlined the line conditioned upon obedient faith because, uh, I think I saw people, um, focusing upon that shortly after he posted this and saying, okay, here's the federal vision.

And it could be, um, because that certainly came up in the federal vision era, uh, back in the early 2000s. Um, and I, and I understand what the issues are. If from, you know, Rome sneaks the entire sacramental system into the phrase faith working by love from Paul, faith working by love.

And so working by love becomes the doorway through which the entire sacramental system and all of its assurance robbing activity comes. And certainly the first description of saving faith is, uh, an accepting faith.

In that first instance, it, it's the empty hand of faith. So it doesn't bring anything with it. Uh, anything, any claim of merit, anything like that at all. It's just, there's, there's no, you can't have it.

Um, but on the other side, when you then emphasize that, then the other side goes, well, we're certainly not talking about a disobedient faith. We're talking about a faith that is brought about by the spirit of God.

Um, and therefore it's, it's going to be an obedient faith. It's a living faith. It's a spirit born faith. It's why, uh, it's, it's the gift of the spirit of God given to the elect. And therefore, um, it is going to be obedient.

It's going to be lasting, uh, all, all the rest of those things. So you have to hear everything. What's everything that someone is saying. And so to talk about the nature of justifying faith as obedient, um, I think is a misnomer.

It will be obedient in sanctification in the Christian life. Uh, the gospel is, is calling the Gentiles unto obedience. There's nothing wrong with the term obedience, but when you're talking about the nature of saving faith, especially in the context of the Jewish emphasis upon works of law, uh, then I would suggest that that is better put at a later point in time in describing the long-term activity of saving faith and to emphasize in speaking initially of saving faith as receiving and resting in the promises of Christ.

Now, the biblical teaching is that kind of faith will be an obedient faith. It will, uh, desire to know what God's purposes are and will motivate said person to live in such fashion. But I want, wanted to talk about that.

Um, first, the new covenant is better than the old covenant, not because a single new covenant member cannot go out from the new covenant, but because the new covenant maintains a greater measure of the spirit, greater liberty, greater clarity, and the cause and completion of our salvation arrives in the person of Christ.

What do you mean by greater measure of the spirit? So the better promises is that the spirit was available under the old covenant, but at, at only one megabit download speed and the new covenant is going to be 50 megabyte download speed.

Is that the kind of greater that we're talking about? Is that what it means to have the law written upon the heart? Is that what it means that none of them will teach their, their neighbor, know the Lord for they shall all know him from the least to the greatest of them.

It says from the least to the greatest of them. And that's, that's the point of citation of this text by the writer in Hebrews 8, because that's consistent with Hebrews 7. He's able to save to the uttermost.

How many of them? Well, forever, completely all of them. John 6, same thing. Lose none of them. Hebrews 9, Hebrews 10, by this will perfected. Okay. So the new covenant maintains a greater measure of the spirit because every new covenant believer is indwelt by the spirit of God because they are regenerated by the spirit of God.

So that's not just a greater measure of the spirit. Uh, that's not just a, well, it's a little bit better than it was before. Uh, greater liberty. Well, greater clarity. I mean, we know who the Messiah is and we're looking back at fulfillment, I suppose.

And the cause and completion of our salvation arrives in the person of Christ. That's only relevant to whom? To the elect. So if we're saying that this is in regards to the elect, to those who are regenerate, then we are going, we have to go back.

We circle back around to, so why exactly do you give the covenant sign to those who give no evidence as of yet of being elect? Are you doing this because you feel that they are of necessity? So that all Christian children born of Christian parents are of the elect?

Or is this a hope? Is this an expression of, um, an eschatological hope for the future for this particular individual that may or may not come true, but hey, most of the time it does, so we're good. Is that what's being said?

I'm not sure. Um, it is also better in that it will never vanish like the old, and this is the central point of the apologetic argument. I don't think it's the central point of the apologetic argument.

It will not vanish like the old only because of its perfect mediator who holds his priesthood permanently. So it's not a focus upon, um, the nature of the covenant. It's a focus upon the fact that this covenant is summed up in being in Christ, and so do we give that covenant sign to those that are not in Christ, or do we go all the way and say, yep, as long as it's, uh, as long as that child's born of Christian parents, they're in Christ, and then you have to start, you know, what do you get to do the Augustine thing, and if you're going to make a distinction, you don't want to go all the way to say, yeah, every single child of Christian parents is of the elect, so then you can do the Augustine thing because Augustine believed that children were regenerated by infant baptism, and so he had to explain how do you put that together with a belief in divine election that only the elect are going to be saved.

Gift of perseverance. The gift of perseverance is given to the elect. It's not given to the non-elect, therefore the non-elect true regenerate person will fall away and be lost. I don't know how that works.

It doesn't work. I mean, it's just another example of how traditions can get started, and that if you're a Baptist, you're a Biblicist. I don't care what topic you're talking about. If you're a Baptist, you're a Biblicist, and if you pretend you're otherwise, you're just pretending.

That's all there is to it. Second, Hebrews says that Christ has obtained a more excellent mediatorial ministry, and that indeed is the case, but it need not follow that each and every member in the new covenant that he mediates be actively regenerate, and I say, yes, it does.

He says, Paul makes plain wherein lies the superiority of his ministry, for he said the Old Testament priests, and they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, but this man, because he continued with ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood, whereby he is able to save to the uttermost those drawn, because he ever lives to make intercession for them.

That indeed signals a better mediatorial ministry. It is also in keeping with a central apologetic argument in Hebrews. Do not go back to the Old Covenant, because there's something to go back to, and don't go back to the Old Covenant priesthood, because there is no old priesthood to go back to, but in Christ, we have an unchangeable and better priesthood.

I can imagine a guy saying, but seriously, are you saying that Christ is the better mediator of the new covenant, and he doesn't mediate eternal life effectively to every member of the new covenant? Well, again, it's the new covenant.

What? What's the phraseology? What's Jesus' phraseology? It's the new covenant in his blood. If we are reformed, that automatically goes particular redemption. That automatically goes Christ dies for those whom the Father has predestined and elected.

The Son dies in their place, and the Spirit comes at the ordained time and applies what has been accomplished for the elect in their regeneration, and sanctification, and eventual glorification. It's a triune act, and it's focused upon a specific people.

That's supposed to be reformed theology in regards to the elect. So, are you saying that Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, and he doesn't mediate eternal life effectively to every member of the new covenant?

So, the real question is, what's that mediatorial work about? Because it says, mediate eternal life. Is that a real proper term? I mean, I know what's being said, but the assertion of Hebrews 7 is, he saves perfectly because he ever lives to make intercession for them.

It's the Christ stands before the Father having accomplished perfect redemption in behalf of his people who are united with him. So, as long as we are in him, we have eternal life, and we have his righteousness.

And so, that mediation is not trying to change the Father's mind, but it is the singular presentation of that finished work. So, what else could it mediate? He continues to say, well, yes, I am saying that.

He is saying that Christ does not mediate eternal life effectively to every member of the new covenant. He says, and one reason this point is hard to get across is that we think of Christ as merely a personal mediator, a point which I do not deny to the elect, but the elect are in Christ as a group, but the elect are in Christ personally.

It is a personal mediation. It's not an impersonal, you know, you do these things, you get into the elect, and therefore Christ will intercede for you. That's the class election foolishness that's out there.

It's very common, but that depersonalizes the actual substitutionary action of Christ. And so, it seems like what he's saying here is, yes, I'm saying Christ does not mediate eternal life effectively to every member of the new covenant.

So, Christ will mediate for them, but what's he mediating? I don't know. So, he says, and one reason this point is hard to get across is that we think of Christ as merely a personal mediator, a point which I do not deny to the elect, but the text says he is the mediator of a better covenant, Hebrews 8 .6.

In other words, it is no offense to Christ's more excellent mediatorial ministry that some of the new covenant will not endure until the end for Christ mediates the new covenant according to its terms and conditions, not contrary to its terms and conditions.

And as seen above in the definition of the covenant of grace, that condition is obedient faith. Okay, and I will bend over backwards to go, okay, we're talking about obedient faith rather than disobedient faith with all the caveats that I had the last time as to talking about that.

But here's the problem. You're saying, if we were deriving our terms from the text of scripture rather than from 17th and 18th century reform scholasticism, which didn't always do that, unfortunately, we would go from the least to the greatest of them, and we would interpret that as the writer to the Hebrews is making application of it.

So, we already have those who draw nigh unto God by him. Who is that? Who draws nigh unto God? Who? What's the teaching of the New Testament on this subject? We're reformed. We know this. He's the elect.

And so, he ever lives to make intercession. He mediates for the elect. There's no mediation for someone else. But here we have the idea, well, for the new covenant, there is mediation for those who have obedient faith, but those who do not, what does he mediate?

I guess wrath. I guess judgment. But here's the problem. If the least of the greatest of them are the elect, then they're all going to be given the gift of obedient faith. Right? I mean, we do believe that that's why obedient faith is obedient, why it persists, why it lasts, is because that's the work of the Spirit of God amongst the elect.

Right? That's where it comes from. So, if you're going to say, well, there will be some in the new covenant that will not endure until the end because they didn't have obedient faith. Obedient faith always comes from the work of Christ by the Spirit of God in the first place.