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

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. It 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 Testament Reliability.

And then tomorrow evening as well. I think that's supposed to be pretty much just with 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 said to me.

So, yeah, the the fridge is gone. So thankfully, and I almost pulled it.

I have one of those little like office size 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? I said, you know, that's the only way I'm keeping the perishable stuff from perishing.

Perishable -ing 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'll it was, you know, 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 now we're going to head into Kansas City, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and then heading home from there.

I can't wait to see the wife and the grandkids and the folks at church. Jeff, Jeff Durbin guy.

OK, 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 going to get back to Jared Longshore here.

I'm going to 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 and the subject of what's called the perpetual virginity of Mary and. The doctrines of the

Immaculate Conception, Bible 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 Trent Horne 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 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 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 Helvetius.

There's a clip I'll play you from, I think it was St. Michael's Abbey that will 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.

OK, I am three minutes ago. Rich says

I am. That's a 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 Jared, I need to comment a little bit on a tweet from this morning.

I am blaming Google. OK. I it

I don't really want to, but I think I need to and to do so collegially.

Scott Anuel posted a link to a

Thamelias article and the the article, in essence, makes the statement.

Let's just say it's. It's not written by someone who has a whole lot of post -millennial friends.

OK, 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.

I mean, sometimes. Yeah. No, sometimes it's just a small window. And the.

Abstract basically says in the following decades, many in Rush Juni'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, along with that opening, then you have

Scott saying, fantastic article demonstrating the exegetical deficiencies of post -millennialism.

Now. 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 he talks about I think he went after Kenneth Gentry for 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. His representation is that Gentry was saying that a particular aorist indicates that this was past tense.

Now, 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 a simple statement of the verb. And the argument that the article makes is, well, 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. So, you know, just the attitude was sort of like 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 ignoring these things or engaging in tendentious exegesis and stuff like that.

But what I wanted, what I felt needed to be addressed, he quotes from it, and I don't know where the quote ends.

There is 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.

Of course, I disagree. 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 it seriously to the other side. I think that's why a lot of people have found this to be less than helpful.

And I can't tell if this is Scott or he's quoting, because the quotes don't give you, it doesn't say.

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. Maybe it is, but, and I get the feeling it is.

I get the feeling it is. But anyways, but just 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 can 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, it focuses on this world. No, it doesn't. It focuses on 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 right there. But, you know, our hearts are naturally drawn to this world.

OK. It promises triumph in this age. No, it promises triumph of the church of Christ.

But there are many postmillennialists who labored diligently in centuries past without any expectation that they would see in their lifetime that final triumph.

It's a very long term vision down the road, unlike almost any other eschatological perspective.

And modern postmillennial movement leaders 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.

Postmillennialism rejects retreatism and denounces defeatism, offering a more compelling narrative instead.

Well, I'll take that. Nonetheless, postmillennialism'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 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 postmillennialism.

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 against any form of dispensationalism or even premillennialism, 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 world, 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. 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, the image of Christ and building the kingdom through, um, family and through holiness, um, and, 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, 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 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, no, 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 inter -Advental period.

Now this would definitely mean this is a direct quote. Um, and I have one of the, 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 1 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 as 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 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, ah, 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 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, 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 in 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, uh, 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's 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. Um, I'm not gonna 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 Reform 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, I'd have to find,

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, uh, 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 the covenant of grace itself.

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 two thousands.

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, 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 a fashion.

But I 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 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, the point of citation of this text by the writer in Hebrews eight, because that's consistent with Hebrew seven.

He's able to save to the uttermost. How many of them? Well, forever, completely all of them.

John six, same thing. Lose none of them. Hebrews nine, 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, 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, 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?

You're, 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 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 you're 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 an assessment of that indeed signals a better mediatorial ministry.

It is also in keeping with a central apologetic argument. 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 a 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 better 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.

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, well, 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 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? 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?

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.

So I don't know how you're avoiding basically going the same direction that Augustine did in saying, yeah, they're truly in the new covenant, which would make them regenerate.

But then they're going to lose that because they're not given the gift of perseverance unless you're just saying, oh,

Augustine was wrong. It's not the gift of perseverance. It's the gift of an obedient faith. And so the obedient faith is only given to certain people in the covenant in Christ's blood.

That's the result of this. I'm just trying to be consistent here.

The result of this position is that there are people in the new covenant, which is the covenant in Christ's blood for whom

Christ doesn't die and does not provide for them the gift of saving faith. Right?

And yet he's called their mediator. And exactly how that mediation works,

I don't have any idea. I leave that to Jerry.

Now, here arises the natural question, but isn't the condition of faith a gift from God given in the new covenant?

Indeed, but that giving of faith, let's call it God's effectual call, is not identical to the covenant itself.

I don't understand that. Who's saying it's identical to the covenant? It's necessarily definitional if we are defining the members of that covenant by biblical description.

That is least of the greatest. They all know.

They all know God. They all have the law written upon their hearts. They all have their sins forgiven. Can we agree there's only one group that that's true for?

But that's the description of the new covenant members in Hebrews chapter 8, which happens to be identical to the work of Christ for the elect.

So now all of a sudden we veer off in saying, but that giving of faith, let's call it

God's effectual call, well it's regeneration, all based upon the finished word of grace, is not identical to the covenant itself.

No one's saying it's identical to the covenant. It's definitional of the covenant. It's definitional of what the covenant does.

That's Hebrews 8. Herein lies all the rub. Honestly, if you were to look up the new covenant in the

Credo Baptist dictionary, it would be essentially the effectual call of God to an individual sinner that always gives new birth and eternal life to that individual.

Jared, got to really go, this is part of the convert syndrome, okay?

You can sort of tell, in my opinion, you can sort of tell when someone moves positions as Jared has, you can tell what sticking points there were for them by how they address them once they're on the other side.

And so this individualism that he's talking about, and it occurred up above, we can't talk about forgiveness of sin, knowledge of God, the law being written upon the heart without making individual application, but we can speak in covenantal terms as a group and have to.

Jesus gives us the example of doing so in John 6. And so in John 6,

Jesus can talk about those that the Father draws that Jesus will raise up at the last day.

But then he'll use a neuter pronoun to wrap the whole group up. I will lose none of it, the whole group, but raised up on the last day.

Being raised up the last day is individual, but it is universal for an entire group.

So you can do both, and I don't think it's appropriate to say, well, the Credo Baptists are just being individualistic here.

I think non -reformed Credo Baptists, Credo Baptists who don't even think about election, predestination, the decree of God.

Sure, they're going to just default to a very individualistic perspective, but that's not us. That's not where Reformed Baptists are.

And so he says they would build out that definition, of course, but this personal effectual call will be right at the heart of the very definition of the new covenant self.

Very definition of the new covenant self is Jeremiah 31, applied in Hebrews 8, and it's focused upon Christ as the one who is able to save the uttermost.

That then is the foundation for the application and the definition of to whom the sign of the covenant should be given.

And we're simply seeking for consistency in the application of that sign of the covenant. Whereas the

Pedo Baptist, generally speaking, who holds this very same effectual call that the Credo Baptist does, simply does not equate that effectual call with the new covenant self.

I don't see why you keep making this statement. It's not a matter of identifying the effectual call with the new covenant.

It is simply allowing that which defines the new covenant scriptural language to speak for itself.

And so this is where I ruin my chance to be invited to a lot of conferences by going, this is where we have to disagree.

This is where we have to go, no, you're taking meta -narrative definitions and instead of going, you know, it would be best to just let scripture define the nature of the new covenant.

And when scripture does that, we know that it's from the least of the greatest of them, they all know

God, they all have their sins forgiven, and they have the law of God written upon their hearts.

And then consistently go, what group is that? Rather than going, well, you're making that identical covenant.

No, I'm not. I'm just letting scripture speak for itself. So then he refers you to John Ball for the treatise of the covenant of grace.

Okay, again, trade you this person for that person. No, let's stay with scripture.

Um, he says that, um, the 1689 Westminster, they both say that God made the covenant of grace wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his

Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. Notice that according to language of confession, faith is a required condition in the covenant of grace and is implied that not all but those that are ordained unto eternal life will be made willing and able to believe by God's effectual call.

Uh, again, this seems to be doing the, the Augustine thing and saying that it, it sounds like it's undercutting the idea that when you have

God's elect, that Christ provides everything for their salvation so that in their regeneration, they are granted the gifts of faith and repentance, and this is saving faith.

Let's, how about we use saving faith? Because obedient faith is a discussion of sanctification.

Obedient faith is talking about what is the nature of the work of, of God amongst his people, but it's not talking about how that person appropriates

Christ. And the unregenerate cannot have obedient faith outside of regeneration.

They're spiritually dead. Um, so summarizing the second point,

Christ indeed has a better mediatorial ministry in the new covenant, but the superiority of his mediatorial ministry centers on him being an unchangeable undying priest who ministers from the heavenly tabernacle, not a merely earthly one.

Thus, his superior ministry simply does not require that each and every new covenant member be actively regenerate. And here, brother, there's tradition getting in your way.

It may be a new tradition for you. You may have had to read a lot of books to obtain it, but there is, it, look at what you're saying here.

When it says it is not when the superior, the superiority of his mediatorial ministry centers on him being an unchangeable

Hebrew 724 undying priest. Stop for a second. He was 724 25 unchangeable.

He holds his priesthood unchangeably. Where by he is able to save ice top

Panteles a certain people because he, and his ability to save is because of what is unchanging life.

He is able to intercede for them. So who is he interceding for?

I really, I really believe there is a, a major inconsistency. Um, Calvin was right about predestination election.

It was wrong about paid baptism. So when he tried to put them together, they don't perfectly fit.

And here's a good example of it is that here you have someone arguing that the mediatorial ministry of Christ is superior, but that's not including the specificity of his intercession for the elect, which is based upon the presentation of his life given in their place.

This is where the union with the elect comes in. This is where a substitutionary atonement comes in.

This is where the decree of the father that defines who the elect are that's been given to the son.

He dies perfectly in the place that he raises them up perfectly to eternal life.

Um, this, this is, this is reformed theology, but you have to open a door because of paid baptism to apostasy to people who you have to go.

Well, they were in the new covenant because we gave them covenant sign and now they're not any longer.

And apostasy is real, but we view it very, very differently as to what its nature actually is.

And it becomes really, from my opinion, rather dangerous when you get to the point of, of saying his superior ministry simply does not require that each and every new covenant member be actively regenerate because his ministry is to forgive all their sins, write the law upon their hearts, give them true knowledge, um, from the least to the greatest of them.

That's what his ministry is. That's, that's what happens in his mediation for the elect.

So do we have different kinds of mediation, mediation for the elect and mediation for the non -elect new covenant members?

Where do you get that? Certainly not from Hebrews, certainly not from Hebrews. Um, and so, um, the, the line, thus his superior ministry simply does not require that each and every new covenant member be actively regenerate.

I, I strongly disagree. I think it disconnects, um, where the writer of Hebrews is going and what we would get from the exegesis of Hebrews.

Um, and the big question is why, what's, what's going on there? Okay. So, um, he has, uh, there's five, was it five points?

Well, of course five, five points. And there's more than that. Um, you know, so later on there'll be, who does

Christ, James asked, who does Christ intercede for in the new covenant? Answer, all new covenant members is clarified above.

He does so according to the condition of the covenant, not contrary to those conditions. In other words, he intercedes for all the fish in the net of his kingdom.

At the same time, he intercedes for the good fish in the net in a way he does not intercede for the bad fish in the net.

Fundamental denial of from the least to the greatest. It's, it's an analogy to get around the inconsistency or the contradiction.

Um, so he doesn't intercede for the bad fish in the net.

Okay. If they're not the elect, then he couldn't intercede for him because he didn't die in their place. So it's not from the least of the grace to them.

So what has, what does he mediate as the better mediator of the better covenant in which they are in?

See, those are, those are things we also need to get to because they're in the rest of the article.

And I took too much time talking about the other stuff at the beginning. So we'll either continue with this or mix that together with, if I have the time, because I, I've got to go speak now.

Um, looking at, cause I just really want to help people there. There's so much discussion.

I had a good friend contact me today from overseas and he started reading the

Roman Catholic controversy because there seems to be more and more interaction between us.

And I'll be honest with you. Let me say one thing as we wrap up, we'll go a minute or two over.

I think if more of my Pato Baptist brethren interacted more with Roman Catholics on soteriology, they would see why

I am as concerned as I am about certain aspects of this particular debate.

Um, I think it would help to clarify things just a little bit. And, um, so anyways, okay.

Uh, there you go. I think, uh, at least as far as I can tell from seeing the, um, uh, the thing up there, um, we, we didn't have any, uh, dropouts today.

So I saw, I saw a signal drop out a couple of times, but I did not see any cash developing.

Uh, so we may have, may have gotten through this. Um, let's, uh, let's hope that it's, uh,

Rich says it was rock solid. So, uh, the stream was, whether the content was, we will leave to others to decide.

So having done this for an hour, I'm now going to jump in the truck and, um, and do another topic for 90 minutes or more.

Uh, and that's why we do what we do. It's so neat. I got to get a, uh, an adjustment, uh, local chiropractor saw me and, uh, got me put back together again.

And, uh, uh, he did that for free, which I really, really appreciate. That was very kind of him, uh, to do that.

And, uh, that helps me to get home in one piece without popping an Advil, everyone's well, which I try to avoid like, like the plague.

Um, but, um, just getting to meet new people and, um, being places

I wouldn't get to go otherwise. And, um, so pray that we, we get all the stuff we need to get fixed, uh, between now and February, uh, new roof and get the refrigerator going.

And, uh, man, I've, I'm, I'm, I'm this close to either saying, let's just get a different refrigerator that like has a reset button on the outside.

You don't have to pull a thing out to find a fuse somewhere. I mean, is there such a thing?

There's gotta be such a thing. Can't people think about stuff like this? Uh, you know, but anyways, um, and, uh, the, the, the electrical thing, here's the problem.

It's not a problem anymore. It's working fine, which means

I'll never be able to find it to fix it until the next trip when it'll go back and do it again.

As always, we had a leak. We had a leak. I've got pictures of the icicles that formed from the leak.

It won't leak anymore. So we had a repairman come out and it's like, well, sorry, buddy.

There's no, and I, I said, I know you can't fix a leak that you, that's not leaking. He says, yeah, that's sort of how it works.

I was like, okay. Um, so pray we get all that stuff fixed up because, um,

February, I have committed myself to far too much and I don't want to do a bad job.

I really don't. I really, really, really don't. But, um, we've made the commitment.

We got to go, go through with it now. So, uh, if you're a praying person, please be praying about, uh,

February. It's going to be a super duper challenge. We'll see you next time. Hopefully tomorrow on the dividing line.