SRR 90 A Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian Debate

ThornCrown Network

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:02

I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone.

00:13

When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield exposing the error and combating the error.

00:24

We are unabashedly, unashamedly, Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make,

00:30

I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

00:37

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing.

00:57

It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said,

01:07

Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

01:13

As opposed to, Blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It is on.

01:23

We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. All right.

01:33

I want to welcome everybody back to the podcast. My name is Tim and you are listening to Semper Reformanda Radio.

01:40

So, I've got two very special guests with me right now. And I'm going to introduce you to them in a little bit and we've got a very good episode.

01:47

But before we do that, I want to make two plugs here. The first thing I want to do is promote a new series that Timothy Kaufman is doing.

01:57

And many of you know Timothy Kaufman. He's a longtime friend and contributor to the podcast and also to the network.

02:03

I highly recommend his stuff and I want to promote this new series he's doing. The series is titled,

02:09

The Diving Board. In which Tim is jumping, figuratively speaking, from the diving board into the deep end of history to show that many

02:19

Roman Catholic apologists and many Roman Catholic converts are merely swimming in the shallow ends of the kiddie pool when they speak of history.

02:28

We often hear Roman Catholic apologists claim that the Roman Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to the early church fathers and the beginnings of the church.

02:39

They claim that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And while many of these

02:45

Roman Catholic apologists will claim that the Evangelical Protestant faith is a novelty of the early part of the 16th century, it is actually the

02:53

Roman Catholic faith that is a novelty of the latter part of the 4th century. The Protestant Church needs to be aware of these false claims and needs to be equipped to deal with them.

03:04

Well, Timothy Kaufman is just the man to equip you. For example, I was recently told by Roman Catholic apologists that all of the early church fathers believed that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sinless.

03:18

However, Timothy Kaufman has rightly pointed out in the past that Mary's sinlessness was not proposed as an idea until 373

03:26

AD. It has no historical basis prior to the latter part of the 4th century.

03:33

Furthermore, her domition and assumption find no historical basis until the 5th or 6th century.

03:40

Her immaculate conception was not even defined as formal dogma until, get this, 1854

03:48

AD. And her bodily assumption into heaven was not formalized as dogma until 1950.

03:56

So, obviously, when they claim that all of the early church fathers believed these things, they're not representing history accurately.

04:06

Well, Timothy Kaufman has put out two episodes in which he goes over statements and arguments made by Father Ray Ryland.

04:14

And what you're going to see is that Ray Ryland is a bit of a historical revisionist when he's trying to defend the

04:22

Roman Catholic faith. If you listen to these two episodes, you're going to understand very quickly that Timothy Kaufman is a first -rate historian and a first -rate theologian.

04:32

I can't recommend this series to you enough, and I want all of our listeners to be sure to check it out.

04:38

Tim is diving from the diving board into the deep end of history. The other plug that I want to make is

04:47

I want to... I'm going to have to tell my friend Colleen Sharp that she's going to have to rebrand her podcast because I want to recommend people to...

04:59

One of the episodes that she did, one of the most recent episodes that she did, the episode is titled

05:06

Federal Vision with Dewey Roberts Part 1. Part 2, I think, is going to come out next week.

05:12

I'm not really sure what days they drop, but I do subscribe to them, and I got this yesterday.

05:19

I listened to it yesterday. It's very, very good, and it's episode number 76. So, Theology Gals is a podcast that's done by women and for women, but this is a great episode.

05:29

I think that everybody needs to be informed about the Federal Vision heresy. Dewey Roberts does call it heresy.

05:38

He's extremely knowledgeable, from what I gather. He just published a book, and you can find out more information from Theology Gals.

05:46

I want to just go ahead and plug that to our listeners. Be sure to check them out. I'm recommending this to men as well.

05:54

This is a great episode. So, Colleen, you might have to rebrand. I know it's a podcast for women, by women, but this is a really great episode.

06:03

Everybody should check it out. Okay, so let's go ahead and get started with today's episode. We are going to be talking about baptism.

06:10

Well, correction here. I'm not going to be talking about baptism. I brought on two very special guests to talk about baptism.

06:17

The first person that I want to reintroduce to the podcast is

06:22

Pastor Patrick Hines. Now, this is just a formality. Pastor Hines really doesn't need an introduction, but maybe you're listening to the podcast for the first time.

06:34

Pastor Hines does the Protestant Witness Podcast, and he's got some really, really good episodes.

06:42

If you haven't heard his episode on the Revoice Conference, that is an extremely good episode, and I want to encourage everybody to listen to that.

06:52

Pastor Hines is part of the network I found about Pastor Hines through Tom Giuditis from the

06:57

Trinity Foundation. Pastor Hines has been a tremendous blessing to us here at Thorne Crown Ministries, and I can't say enough about him.

07:06

But, Pastor Hines, let me give you an opportunity to introduce yourself, just in case, as I said before, maybe it's somebody's first time listening to the podcast.

07:15

I want them to get to know you, so can you just tell us a little bit about yourself? Yeah, sure.

07:21

My name is Patrick Hines, and I'm originally from Cincinnati, Ohio. That's where I've lived the majority of my 43 years thus far.

07:29

About six years ago, I moved to northeast Tennessee to take a Presbyterian PCA church down here.

07:35

I was a pastor at a Presbyterian church in Cincinnati for four years. I was also an elder there for six other years outside of those four years, and then

07:43

I've been here for the last six years. So now I'm the pastor of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, and things are going well here.

07:52

My 10th child is due in December, and that's about it.

07:57

I'm not an overly interesting person, but I appreciate your kind words, Timothy, for sure. All right.

08:03

Well, thank you for the introduction, Pastor Hines, and it is a pleasure to have you on the podcast again.

08:09

My next guest, his name is Brandon Adams. Brandon, I'm not really sure if you're the

08:15

CEO or general manager. Well, I guess you're more than the general manager, but Brandon is the president or CEO of the website 1689federalism .com.

08:31

Is that correct? Yeah, I'm just the guy that puts forward what everybody else says.

08:37

I just kind of collect it all together on the website there, so I guess that's the best description. Well, I heard about you,

08:44

Brandon, first when we started to deal with New Covenant Theology, and that's how I found your website.

08:51

And I want to recommend all of our listeners to check it out, but Brandon is new to the podcast.

08:57

He's never been on with us, so it's a real pleasure to have him here with us to talk about baptism and covenant theology with Pastor Hines.

09:06

Now, Brandon, for our listeners who may not know who you are, can you just give us a brief introduction about yourself?

09:13

Sure. I grew up in Idaho. I went to school down in California and started attending a

09:21

Reformed Baptist church plant down there. It turned out to be Reformed Baptist. I didn't know what that was at the time, but I was introduced to expositional preaching and really heard the gospel presented in detail there.

09:35

I was saved under that ministry and was baptized there. My wife was as well. We went to school together.

09:42

And we got married and stuck around there in Southern California for a few more years, about 10 years in total. And then eventually made our way back up here to Washington State, where we've been for about four years.

09:54

And we have two boys, five and eight, and I run a small video production company doing corporate videos.

10:05

So that's me in a nutshell. Well, Brandon, again, I appreciate you coming on to talk with us today and we're going to just jump right into this.

10:17

Let me go ahead and let everybody know what the general outline is. This is going to be an informal debate slash discussion.

10:24

But I do want both of these men to start off with a positive case for their position.

10:30

So we're going to start off with Pastor Hines. He can have up to 20 minutes to just make a positive case for his position.

10:38

And then we're going to ask Brandon to follow up with a positive case for his position. Brandon Adams is a

10:44

Reformed Baptist and Pastor Hines is a Presbyterian. Initially, we wanted to talk about baptism.

10:50

But from what I understand, they're also going to talk a lot about covenant theology, because that really sort of shapes the way in which each side sees baptism.

11:01

So after that, then we're just going to go into a discussion. Now, I'm going to sit back.

11:07

I'm not going to get involved. I really don't like when I see the moderator or the person who's just facilitating the discussion take sides.

11:17

And then you have a discussion with two people versus one. So I'm not going to get involved.

11:23

I think both of these guys are well equipped to discuss the topic at hand. And I'm just going to sort of remind them in the background about time issues or just try to direct the conversation if needed.

11:40

But again, I want to say thank you to both of you. And Pastor Hines, we'll just hand it off to you to get us started.

11:46

Okay, sure. Before I push start, I just wanted to thank Brandon for speaking with me on the phone yesterday.

11:51

I really enjoyed talking to him. And I watched your little short on YouTube called Useless. And it was just great.

11:58

I just loved it. I forwarded it to my whole family. Really great presentation of mercy and the gospel and a really, really remarkable job.

12:07

Brandon, you're a really, really unique and very gifted filmmaker. I just wanted to say that to you. All right.

12:14

You guys ready? I'm ready to go. I'm pushing start now. There are two primary covenants in Scripture, the covenant of works where in life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity upon a condition of perfect and personal obedience.

12:25

And then the covenant of grace was Mr. Confession of Faith. Seven point three says that after man fell, the

12:30

Lord was pleased to make a second commonly called the covenant of grace, wherein he freely offers under 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 life his

12:43

Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. The one covenant of grace was administered differently before and after the coming of Christ.

12:50

Westminster Confession Chapter seven ends with the excellent summary. Quote, There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one in the same under various dispensations.

12:59

End quote. Those are the grand organizing principles of God's word covenant of works, covenant of grace.

13:05

There is one gospel in Scripture and only one one church in Scripture and only one. Stephen called

13:11

Israel in the wilderness, the ecclesia, the church, the congregation. Verse thirty eight.

13:17

This one gospel was preached to Abraham as Paul teaches us in Galatians three eight. And the scripture preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying in you, all the nations shall be blessed.

13:27

Genesis twelve, verse three is cited there. The gospel. This one and only gospel was also preached to Israel.

13:33

Hebrews four to four. Indeed, the gospel was preached to us as well as to them. Jesus taught us specifically and clearly what it was that Abraham himself was looking forward to.

13:43

John eight fifty six. Jesus said, your father, Abraham, rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad.

13:50

And Hebrews chapter eleven tells us that Abraham and the Old Testament saints were looking forward to heaven itself, to the city that has foundation, his builder and maker is

13:58

God. John the Baptist also taught that in the ultimate sense, one could not be born into the Abrahamic covenant.

14:03

And he sternly warned people against thinking that they could be born into it. He said in Matthew three nine.

14:08

And do not think to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

14:16

From the beginning, there has always been one and only one way of being made right with God. Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

14:24

What Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all of the Old Testament church believed was the exact same gospel message that we believe today.

14:31

The only difference between them and us is this, how much they knew about that gospel. That's why

14:37

Jesus said Abraham was looking forward to my day. He saw it and was glad. We know much more about the gospel than they do.

14:44

But it is still the same gospel, the same way of justification, the same promises and the same fulfillment of those promises.

14:51

Paul keys in on this central text, Genesis 15, 6, Abraham's justification repeatedly in Romans and Galatians.

14:57

That text says, and he believed in the Lord and he accounted it to him for righteousness. The call of Abraham brought about in advance in the one covenant of grace that was definitive for all time to come.

15:07

And the gospel of Luke, both Zacharias, John the Baptist's father and Mary herself both see the conception and birth of Jesus as the direct fulfillment of the gospel promise made to Abraham.

15:21

Mary says in her Magnificat in Luke 1, 54, he has helped to serve in Israel and remembrance of his mercy as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever.

15:31

Zacharias in his Benedictus says in Luke 172 to perform the mercy promise to our fathers and to remember his

15:36

Holy Covenant, the oath which he swore to our father, Abraham. God also promised land to Abraham and his descendants.

15:44

But there's a great error in the thinking of Reformed Baptist on this point. David Kington and Fred Malone say, quote, There is, after all, embedded in the covenant promise of Genesis 17, the promise of the land of Canaan.

15:54

But not even Pierre Marcel would insist that the infant seed of believers are now promised this end quote.

15:59

But of course, Marcel, Burkoff, Raymond, Dabney, Calvin, Warfield, the

16:04

Hodges, Miller and all the rest of us would insist this and should insist this. We are given this land promise because my 10 children and Lord willing, their children are heirs of the land promise, if they believe.

16:17

The fulfillment of the land promise is revealed in the New Testament as not limited to the typological land of Canaan, as it was prior to the coming of Christ, but to the entire redeemed created cosmos.

16:27

Romans 8, 21 and following and Romans 4, 13. Paul says for the promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

16:38

David Kington and Fred Malone both argue, along with Paul Jewett, that every Israelite was entitled to the land of Canaan by birth, regardless of their spiritual relation to God.

16:48

This is false. The entire generation of Israel that came out of Egypt in the Exodus died in the wilderness, with two exceptions,

16:54

Joshua and Caleb. And why? Why did they not inherit the land of Canaan if, as Kington, Malone and Jewett argue, they were entitled to it by birth?

17:02

They didn't enter because they did not believe. They did not have faith. Hebrews 3, 18. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

17:10

You didn't get justification or the land without faith. Not a single promise God made Abraham, not one, was guaranteed by birth.

17:18

One received neither justification nor the land without faith. The Abrahamic Covenant and the

17:23

New Covenant are, as Louis Burkhoff says in his Systematic Theology, essentially identical in the following way.

17:29

The unity and continuity of the covenant in both dispensations follows from the fact that the mediator is the same, the condition is the same, namely faith, and the blessings are the same, namely justification, regeneration, spiritual gifts, and eternal life.

17:43

Peter gave those who were under conviction on the day of Pentecost the assurance that the promise was unto them and to their children, Acts 2, 39.

17:49

Paul argues in Romans 4, 13 -18 and Galatians 3, 13 -18 that the giving of the law did not make the promise of none effect so that it still holds in the new dispensation.

17:59

And the writer of Hebrews points out that the promise to Abraham was confirmed with an oath so that New Testament believers may derive comfort from its immutability,

18:07

Hebrews 6, 13 -18. This is why we cannot and we must not look at the

18:12

New Covenant as a difference in kind. Rather, it is a difference in degree of knowledge.

18:18

We know more about the one true gospel that, as Paul says, was preached to Abraham, as Hebrews says, was preached to Israel.

18:28

We know more about it than the people did prior to the coming of Christ, but it was still the coming of Christ that their faith was in.

18:34

Paul hammers this point as hard as possible in Romans 4. Abraham was justified by faith alone in the gospel prior to the giving of the law,

18:42

Romans 4, 1 -5. David was justified by faith alone in the gospel after the giving of the law, but prior to the coming of Christ, Romans 4, 6 -11.

18:50

Just as we ourselves are justified by faith alone after the coming of Christ. Every believer before and after the coming of Christ had their faith in Christ, as Jesus said in John 8, 56.

19:01

And all believers fulfill directly the Abrahamic covenant. Count the stars if indeed you can,

19:06

God told Abraham in Genesis 15. So shall your descendants be. Paul quotes that passage in Romans 4, saying this refers to every single true believer for all time.

19:18

One gospel, one people, one way of salvation, one covenant of grace. And the visible church has always included professing believers and their children, their households.

19:28

This holds true before and after the coming of Christ. Now, Hebrews chapter 8 is critically important in terms of our understanding of the new covenant and its contrast with what that passage in Jeremiah 31 calls the old covenant.

19:40

Brandon, in his video, made the very serious error of arguing that the Abrahamic covenant is actually part of the old covenant.

19:47

Hebrews 6, 13 -18 is quite clear, however, that not only is the Abrahamic covenant based upon an oath sworn by God, but it is also immutable.

19:55

It is not subject to change in any way. It can't expire or be modified. Paul agrees with this in Galatians 3, 15 -18, when he said that the giving of the law in no way altered the promise made previous to Abraham, and is, in point of fact, fulfilled in Jesus Christ entering the very presence of God behind the veil as our high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

20:15

But the most serious error in conflating the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic slash Sinaitic covenant, what

20:20

Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 calls the old covenant, the most serious error in conflating the

20:25

Abrahamic covenant and the old covenant, is the very last verse of Hebrews 8. Verse 13 says, quote,

20:37

Folks, Paul said that the Abrahamic covenant is the gospel,

20:43

Galatians 3, 8. If the Abrahamic covenant is part of the old covenant, as Brandon says, then we are left with the intolerable error that the gospel is growing old, obsolete, and is ready to vanish away.

20:52

Jeremiah 31, verses 31 -34, which is cited in Hebrews 8, is that grand prophecy of the new covenant.

20:58

It is not like the covenant, singular, which God made with their fathers in the day when

21:05

I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. This is the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, the old covenant.

21:12

This is the giving of the law. The old covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31 is not the

21:17

Abrahamic promise. These are not one covenant. Rather, as Paul teaches in Galatians 4, 21 -31, they are, as he says specifically, two covenants.

21:27

Galatians 4, 21, Do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman.

21:35

But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise. Which things are symbolic?

21:42

For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai. Folks, that's what

21:48

Jeremiah 31 is talking about, Hebrews 8 is talking about, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is

21:54

Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But the

21:59

Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Nevertheless, what does the scripture say?

22:06

Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

22:14

This argument in Galatians 4, 21 -31 makes absolutely no sense if the

22:20

Abrahamic covenant and the Old Covenant are the same covenant. If they are one covenant and not two covenants, as Paul specifically says.

22:28

To assert that the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are the same covenant destroys Paul's entire explication of justification by faith alone on the basis of the promise to Abraham and not the law given at Sinai.

22:39

The law, Paul says in Romans 4, 15, brings about wrath. And that's why he says in Romans 4, 16,

22:45

Therefore justification is of faith, that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all to see.

22:52

Not only to those who are of the law, meaning Jews, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

22:58

Now what does this have to do with baptism? Everything. Everything. Genesis 17 is the passage in which

23:04

God institutes the sign of circumcision as the sign of the gospel that Paul, Jesus, John the

23:09

Baptist, and all New Testament writers tell us plainly that Abraham believed. Genesis 17, verse 6

23:31

And as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. God said to Abraham, as for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

23:40

This is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised, and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

23:51

And listen closely to verse 12. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations.

23:58

He who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. Paul's own understanding of circumcision is vitally important, as all of us are bound to agree with him, since he is an author of inspired scripture.

24:09

Romans 2, 28 For he is not a Jew who is won outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a

24:16

Jew who is won inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart and the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God.

24:23

How can the new covenant be the only covenant in which regeneration is promised when circumcision is a sign of heart circumcision, which means regeneration prior to the institution of the new covenant?

24:33

Paul says in Romans 4, 11 Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.

24:49

Far from being a mere temporal sign of earthly blessings, circumcision was the sign and seal of the highest spiritual blessing

24:58

God gives to sinners, regeneration and justification by faith. As Paul says, it is circumcision of the heart that it's a sign of.

25:06

And this is not a new covenant spin on circumcision. Circumcision was always a sign of regeneration and personal justification.

25:14

Deuteronomy 10, 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart.

25:20

Jeremiah 4, 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your hearts.

25:26

Circumcision is a sign of regeneration. I have heard many Baptists assert that circumcision is a foreshadowing of regeneration.

25:33

But as many times as I have heard this, I have never heard a text cited in support of it. Brandon, in his video response to me, made the assertion that circumcision is not what

25:40

Paul says it is in Romans 4, 11, but rather is, quote, an oath of loyalty to keep the law of God perfectly, unquote.

25:47

No biblical texts were provided to substantiate this. And I really wonder how circumcision could be an oath to keep the law perfectly when it was instituted 430 years before the law was even given.

25:56

Surely we're not going to be told that it was an oath to keep the law of God written on the heart or something like that. If so, based upon what text of scripture.

26:03

But let's now focus on the last couple of minutes upon one of the key differences between us. We have profound differences in our ecclesiologies, our doctrines of the church.

26:13

We do not believe the visible church is defined in the same way. I, as a Presbyterian, believe the visible church is all who profess the true religion together with their children and that only believers upon profession of faith ought to be baptized and then their households as well.

26:28

Baptists hold that the visible church is those who profess the true religion, period, and therefore only professing believers ought to be baptized.

26:35

This is, of course, a radical termination, not a mere modification, mind you, but a termination of the principle that the visible church would include professing believers in their households.

26:45

And this would have caused an incredible stir among God's people had it been the case. We believe the 2000 year old household principle believers and their children carries very clearly into the

26:54

New Covenant era. There is, I would assert, no evidence of any kind that this principle established and commanded by God himself has changed, and there is, in fact, much positive evidence that it has continued.

27:05

In Genesis 17, 6 -12, I just read that whole passage, you have the institution of the sign of circumcision.

27:11

Abraham believes and then is circumcised as a sign of his justification by faith,

27:17

Romans 4 -11. Now, had Abraham been thinking like a Baptist, he would no doubt have objected to God's insistence that this sign of justification be given to his infants who lack the mental capacity or physical capacity to make a profession of faith.

27:29

So why did Abraham circumcise his infants and give them this sign of personal justification by faith? Because God told him to.

27:36

The appendix to the 1689 London Baptist Confession asserts the following about circumcision. Quote, therefore circumcision was of right to cease when the

27:44

Gentiles were brought in to the faith. This is also clearly, biblically, an error.

27:49

Recall that when the tenth plague is about to happen, God institutes the Passover, and a provision is made for Gentiles to join themselves to the church and to partake the

27:58

Passover. Listen closely, this is Exodus 12 -48. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the

28:04

Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as a native of the land, for no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

28:13

If the authors of the London Baptist Confession appendix were correct, this would never have been said, and any

28:18

Gentile who approached God's people wanting to be part of the church and to take the Passover would have been told, sorry, Israelites only, aloud.

28:25

Thus Exodus 12 -48 demonstrates the London Baptist Confession divines are simply wrong. As far as God requiring

28:31

Gentiles to be circumcised with their households before they could join the church and partake of the Passover, I would ask, does this remind us of anything?

28:38

Yes, baptism. Clearly, the assertion that circumcision would cease as soon as Gentiles were brought into the faith is false, since provision was made for Gentiles to receive it way back in Exodus 12 -48.

28:49

In Acts chapter 2, where you have the first Christian sermon ever preached, you have the sign pronounced, baptism, just like circumcision is pronounced in Genesis 17.

28:57

And you have the same three categories that are listed in Genesis 17, 6 -12. You, your children, he who was born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendants.

29:10

Acts 2 -39, you, your children, as many as are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.

29:15

Personally, I agree with Ligon Duncan when he said in his seminary course on covenant theology, quote, if Peter is really trying here to emphasize the termination of the household principle and the radical individualism of the administration of the new covenant, being limited only to professing adult believers, this is quite literally the worst possible way he could have put this, end quote.

29:36

I can only say amen. Some have argued that circumcision was rightly administered to terrible people like Ahab and Manasseh.

29:43

This is also false. Church discipline was in place in the church prior to the coming of Christ as well.

29:49

The Old Testament contains numerous church discipline passages where the Sabbath breaker and the idolater were to be cut off from the people.

29:55

In fact, Paul quotes those very church discipline passages from Deuteronomy in the book of First Corinthians when describing church discipline after the coming of Christ.

30:04

First Corinthians 5 -13, Paul wrote, but those who are outside God judges, therefore, quote, put away from yourselves the evil person.

30:12

There he's quoting Deuteronomy 13 -5, Deuteronomy 17 -7 and 12, Deuteronomy 21 -21, etc.

30:17

Sadly, the church prior to the coming of Christ was about as good a church discipline as we are today.

30:23

What we see clearly in the New Testament is that the household principle is still in place with regard to the administration of the one covenant embrace and its post -advent sign, baptism.

30:33

Those who profess faith are baptized, like Abraham was circumcised after he believed, and like households were circumcised after they professed a belief to partake of the

30:42

Passover if they were non -Jews and wanted to. We're all familiar with the household baptism passages, so there's no need for me to read them all, and that household baptisms were the order of the day in the

30:49

New Testament, plainly. Question, how does that fit with the Baptist's insistence that the household principle has been terminated, not modified, terminated?

30:59

What about our children and their place in the church today? Obviously, no Baptist would argue that we should leave our children at home on Sundays, but are they to be instructed that they are participants in the corporate worship of God, or are they mere observers and non -participants?

31:12

I have heard of one Baptist, one Reformed Baptist, who very consistently does not allow his children to pray, either at home or at church, since only the regenerate can do so, and also does not allow his children to sing

31:23

God's praises at Sabbath worship services. This is tragic and sinful, but very consistent, I'm afraid, for only true

31:28

Christians can pray and worship God, right? I'm curious about this and just how consistent Baptists are, or not, with their state of beliefs.

31:35

The organic household component of the administration of the covenant of grace clearly has continued into the new covenant era.

31:41

Children are just as much a part of the visible church as they ever have been. Paul addresses children directly in Ephesians 6 .1,

31:47

Colossians 3 .20. In closing, I wanted to address why I generally speak of these things the way

31:53

I do, the thing that Brandon misunderstood and misrepresented repeatedly in this video. As a pastor and as a teacher, clarity and understanding are my goals.

32:00

I want to be understood clearly. Now, there's a couple of ways that one could describe this. You tell me which one is clearer.

32:07

Number one, to put it this way. You could not be born into this covenant, and you could be born into this covenant.

32:13

Or to say, you could not be born into this covenant, but you could be born into this covenant's visible administration.

32:20

Which one of those is clearer? The second, obviously. That's why I use it. What about this idea of 1689 federalism?

32:25

In a dialogue that Brandon had with Reformed Baptist theologian Dr. James White, Dr. White asked Brandon, quote,

32:31

Are you suggesting modern Reformed Baptists have misunderstood their own confession? Brandon's response, yes. I'm asking because 1689 federalism teaches that Abraham was a member of the

32:41

New Covenant because regeneration is a blessing exclusive to the New Covenant. It rejects the multiple administration's view of the

32:46

Covenant of Grace and identifies the New Covenant alone as the Covenant of Grace. To which Dr. White replied, quote,

32:52

I see. I would think the writer to the Hebrews would have mentioned such a claim, end quote. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr.

32:57

White. Not only the writer to the Hebrews, but the rest of the apostles in general, and Paul in particular, had every conceivable opportunity to mention this and simply does not.

33:06

Also, we already saw in Deuteronomy 10, 16, Jeremiah 4, 4, Romans 4, 11, that circumcision was a sign of regeneration and justification.

33:13

Therefore, regeneration is not exclusive to the New Covenant. But as far as this idea of Abraham himself being in the

33:18

New Covenant, Hebrews 9, 15 to 18 contradicts this very forcefully. Hebrews 9, 16 says,

33:23

For where there is a covenant, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a covenant is in force after men are dead since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

33:33

The death of the testator of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ, is what historically enacts the New Covenant. It is a covenant that goes into effect at the death of Christ on the cross.

33:43

An effectual covenant only with the elect is therefore nothing new. Paul's own understanding, Jesus' understanding, Job the

33:48

Baptist's own understanding of the Abrahamic covenant is that while one could be born into its visible administration, one could not be born into what it actually promised.

33:55

Paul in Romans 4, 16 to 18 cites Genesis 17, 5 and Genesis 15, 5 and argues that the fulfillment of those promises is in every single believer in Jesus Christ that would ever come to know him.

34:08

The administration of this one covenant of grace has always included adults who profess it together with their children. This is very clearly continued in the

34:15

New Covenant era as we see individuals repenting and believing and then households being baptized. Very simple, very consistent.

34:21

If this radical termination has happened where children are no longer to be in any sense part of the visible church as they have been for the previous 2 ,000 years, where is the evidence?

34:32

For 4 ,000 years God's people have brought their children to receive the sign of God's one gospel.

34:37

That gospel was preached to Abraham, to Israel, and now to us. The New Covenant is not a difference in kind but in degree of knowledge.

34:44

The visible church for the first 2 ,000 years from Abraham to Christ was professing believers and their children. From Christ to today, the visible church is still believers and their children.

34:54

Household circumcisions and now household baptisms. Simple, straightforward, and clear. And that's the end of my presentation.

35:01

Alright, Pastor Hines, thank you very much for starting us off. And Brandon, why don't you go ahead and take it away.

35:09

Sure. Thank you, Patrick, for taking the time to prepare that and prepare a summary of your views there and put it forward for us to consider.

35:16

And, you know, thank you for doing this dialogue here. Just before I start there,

35:23

I just wanted to mention that I had a chance to listen to some of your podcasts, not all of them, but some of them. And I appreciate what you've said about John Piper and some of his problematic views of justification.

35:34

They echo the same things I've said for a number of years on my blog. And, you know, I especially appreciate that you understand that what happened at the cross was the eschatological judgment brought forward and rendered here in time.

35:47

And I think that's just huge for people to understand. So, yeah, just my presentation is going to be a bit shorter because I want to spend more time kind of back and forth here.

35:58

Let's see. Tim mentioned that I hold to a view known as 1689 federalism. That's just a reference to a view held by the vast majority of particular

36:08

Baptists in the 17th century. Just real briefly here in the 20th century, confessionalism kind of fell out of favor amongst

36:17

Baptists and amongst some Presbyterians as well. And it was recovered kind of in the 50s, 60s.

36:23

And some of this historic Baptist covenant theology was lost in the process. And what was developed was something a little closer to Westminster.

36:33

And so 1689 federalism just kind of refers to this older view that's slightly different. I'm going to be presenting that view.

36:40

I'm going to be presenting my own personal take on that view. Not everybody who holds to 1689 federalism will necessarily agree with everything that I say here.

36:49

I'm not necessarily representing every single detail the way that historic particular Baptists might have.

36:55

I'm presenting my own view informed by Scripture first and foremost, but also by these

37:00

Baptists historically and other Baptists today. So Patrick opened with the important distinction between the covenant works and the covenant of grace.

37:09

This is the law gospel distinction of the Reformation. It refers to two different ways of obtaining eternal life through works of the law or through faith in Christ apart from works.

37:21

And as the Reformation developed, this became solidified in what's known as the covenant of works, covenant of grace distinction.

37:29

So there are only two covenants that deal with eternal life.

37:34

The covenant of works with Adam and the covenant of grace in Christ. The covenant of works with Adam is that Adam did not have eternal life as he was created.

37:41

He was offered eternal life upon the condition of personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience to the law.

37:47

That was the covenant of works. In the predetermined wisdom of God, Adam fell.

37:53

Now, knowing this would happen before time began, the father offered the son a kingdom and a people to redeem if the son would take on the form of man and do what

38:03

Adam failed to do and also to bear the curse that Adam brought upon man. And this is known as the covenant of redemption.

38:11

So because the son had agreed to do this in the covenant of redemption before time began, when Adam fell,

38:18

God had mercy. He did not immediately cast Adam and Eve into hell, but he delayed that judgment.

38:25

He had mercy upon them. The full extent of the curse was delayed, and the hope of the Redeemer was revealed and preached to fallen man in Genesis 3 .15.

38:37

And then in the course of time, the son came to earth, he obeyed the law, bore the penalty that we deserve on the cross, and thereby established the covenant of grace, which

38:47

Scripture calls the new covenant. Now, the benefits that Christ earned for his people are applied to them by the

38:54

Holy Spirit in the effectual call. And this is when the covenant of grace is made with the elect.

39:03

The covenant of grace is union with Christ. Union with Christ is a legal covenant union wherein we share our sin with Christ and he shares his righteousness with us.

39:13

Regeneration, faith, forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ's righteousness all flow from union with Christ.

39:20

All of the elect who have been united to Christ are part of the assembly of the firstborn, the kingdom of Christ, the body of Christ, the church.

39:29

Now, this assembly can be seen from two perspectives, from God's and from man's. God's infallible perspective is what we refer to as the invisible church.

39:40

Man's fallible perspective of this same church is what we call the visible church.

39:46

So God sees it as it is, we see it through our fallible perspective. Because union with Christ is invisible,

39:54

God has instructed us to identify members of the church through their profession of faith, even though this may be fallible.

40:02

Baptism is a sign of union with Christ, a sign of the person's fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into him, of remission of sins, and of giving up into God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life.

40:17

The proper subjects of baptism are those who have professed faith in Christ. This visible sign of union with Christ was not given to the church until the covenant of grace was established in the death of Christ and promulgated at Pentecost.

40:30

The question then becomes, what about Old Testament saints?

40:35

What about Abraham, what about Moses, which scripture clearly testifies, believed the same gospel as Patrick explained.

40:42

Well, we completely agree. The gospel was absolutely preached. The same gospel was preached to them, although more darkly and with less clarity and fewer details.

40:50

The same gospel was preached to them. They were saved in the same way. They believed the promise. They believed the gospel.

40:57

They were saved in the same way we are, which is through union with Christ, which is the new covenant of grace.

41:05

Christ is mediator of the new covenant. The benefits of his atonement are applied through new covenant union.

41:12

Old Testament saints were members of the new covenant. They had this new covenant union with Christ.

41:20

It's the only way they could be saved. Christ benefits were applied to the elect in the

41:26

Old Testament in anticipation of Christ's work because Christ's work was a legal certainty.

41:32

As promised in the covenant of redemption, you can consider this an analogy that sometimes used is a payday loan.

41:41

Your actual payday is not for two weeks, but you need money. Now you can go to a payday loan center and get an advance on your paycheck and get the money now.

41:53

In the same way, Old Testament saints could benefit from Christ's work, which was yet to come.

41:59

And sharing those blessings because Christ's work was a guaranteed legal certainty. And this idea that the

42:07

Old Testament saints were members of the new covenant and received its blessings and its benefits is really no different from the question of how the

42:16

Old Testament saints could benefit from Christ's atonement prior to the atonement actually happening.

42:21

How could they be forgiven for their sins by the blood of Christ if Christ had not yet shed his blood? The two issues are intertwined and they're really one in the same.

42:30

Now, in addition to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, God also made various other covenants with men throughout history.

42:39

The Noahic covenant was not the covenant of grace, though it revealed various things about the covenant of grace through typology and prophecy.

42:48

It was made with all of fallen mankind under Noah, including creatures. It did not promise eternal life.

42:55

It promised common preservation. The Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant of grace, though it revealed various things about the covenant of grace through typology and prophecy.

43:06

It was made with Abraham and his natural offspring through the line of Isaac and Jacob. It did not promise eternal life.

43:13

It promised numerous natural offspring who would inherit the land of Canaan. And these were to be a type of Christ and the church and heaven.

43:22

And it promised that Abraham would be the father of the promised Messiah who would bless all nations by establishing the new covenant.

43:31

This is what Paul refers to when he says the gospel was preached to Abraham. Just as the gospel was preached to Adam and Eve after the fall in Genesis 315.

43:41

What that means is that the coming redeemer was revealed to Abraham.

43:47

Insofar as the Abrahamic covenant promised that he would be the father of this Messiah who would come and bless all nations.

43:53

In that way, the gospel was revealed to Abraham. That doesn't mean the Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of grace because the specific

44:01

Abrahamic promise was that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah. That's not a promise of the covenant of grace.

44:08

The Mosaic covenant was not the covenant of grace, though it revealed various things about the covenant of grace through typology and prophecy.

44:15

It was an addendum or elaboration of the first promise of the Abrahamic covenant, specifying the terms upon which the offspring of Abraham would inherit the land.

44:25

It did not promise eternal life. It promised temporal blessings in the land of Canaan upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law, and it threatened temporal curse and exile for disobedience.

44:36

The Davidic covenant was not the covenant of grace, though it revealed various things about the covenant of grace through typology and prophecy.

44:43

It was a reiteration and elaboration of both the first and second promises of the

44:48

Abrahamic covenant. It did not promise eternal life. It promised that David's offspring would rule over the kingdom of Israel in the land of Canaan with God dwelling in their midst in the temple his son would build upon the condition of his offspring's obedience to Mosaic law.

45:06

However, it also promised that in spite of his son's disobedience, their failure to obey Mosaic law, he would yet have one offspring, the same one promised to Abraham, that would rule forever.

45:19

So these three covenants together reveal the work of Christ by way of typology and analogy so that we would be able to better understand what

45:27

Christ had accomplished when he came to earth and died on the cross. But we want to be careful not to blend the type and the anti -type together.

45:33

They revealed great things about the gospel by way of typology. But a type and an anti -type are two separate things.

45:41

They are not one and the same, and we want to be careful not to blend them and smash them together. We need to clearly distinguish between the two of them.

45:50

In a nutshell, that's the Baptist response to the Reformed Paedo -Baptist arguments.

45:56

There are a lot more we could go into detail, a lot more things that Patrick brought out. But really at the heart of it is the belief that the

46:03

Abrahamic covenant is the covenant of grace, and it is the same covenant as the New Covenant. And so if that's not the case, then the rest of the arguments don't follow.

46:12

We don't believe that the Abrahamic covenant is the New Covenant. We don't believe they are the same covenant. We believe they are two different covenants, although the

46:20

Abrahamic covenant certainly relates to and is anticipatory and preparatory and subservient to the covenant of grace.

46:29

Yet it is distinct from it. And so that's all

46:34

I'd like to say for my opening statement there. And the rest of it we can just get into a back and forth.

46:40

I think that'll be a little more profitable. All right. And we are going to get into a discussion in just a little bit.

46:45

But first, let's go ahead and play a quick commercial from the Trinity Foundation, and we will be right back.

46:53

Hello, this is Tom Giuditis, president of the Trinity Foundation. Thank you for listening to Semper Reformanda Radio.

47:00

For more information on the Trinity Foundation, please visit our website at www .trinityfoundation .org.

47:09

There you can read, download, and or print over 300 articles or listen to over 200

47:16

MP3 audio lectures and check out our over 65 titles of books and other media.

47:22

And if you are between the ages of 16 through 25, you can enter our 2018

47:28

Christian Worldview Essay Contest on the topic of the book, The Emperor Has No Clothes, Richard B.

47:35

Gaffin Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification by author Stephen Cunha. Thank you.

47:40

And remember, the Bible alone is the Word of God. All right. I want to say thank you to Tom for that.

47:46

I want to encourage our listeners to check out the Trinity Foundation. And let's go ahead and continue with the discussion.

47:53

Pastor Hines, I'm going to ask you to lead us off, and I'll just give it over to you. All right.

48:00

Brandon, thank you for your presentation. I have some questions about your understanding of the

48:05

Abrahamic covenant. You said the Abrahamic covenant, I think I wrote this down the way you said it, is that he would have natural offspring and that those natural offspring would inherit the land of Canaan.

48:15

Did I hear that right? Yes. OK. How do you understand, then,

48:20

Paul's citation of Genesis 17, 5 in Romans chapter 4, verses 16, 17, and 18?

48:30

Paul says, Therefore, justification is by faith that it might be according to grace so that the promise might be assured to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

48:41

As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations. That's Genesis 17, 5, the promises made to Abraham.

48:47

And then in Genesis, or in Romans 4, 18, the next verse, he says, Who, contrary to hope and hope, believes, so he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, so shall your descendants be.

48:57

Now, that's Genesis 15, 5. That's where God took Abraham outside and said, look at the stars and count them.

49:03

Paul's understanding of that is that is fulfilled by every single elect believer that would ever, ever be saved.

49:09

But are you saying that what God meant in Genesis 15, 5 was that you will have physical offspring that will physically inherit

49:18

Canaan? Yeah, the answer there is that Paul's elaborating upon the typology of Israel, and that's what he does throughout his letters.

49:27

Most of the time when he's interpreting, quoting the Old Testament, he's doing so in a typological manner. How do you know that?

49:34

That it's typological only? Well, let me finish explaining how it's, I mean, are you denying that there is typological interpretation in any of Paul's quotation of the

49:44

Old Testament? Or are you just challenging this particular passage? No, I'm challenging this particular one. There's definitely a typological stuff there.

49:50

Yeah, so I'm just... Yeah, okay. So, as I explained, the first Abrahamic promise is the way I articulate it.

49:56

The first Abrahamic promise concerning Abraham's physical offspring in the land of Canaan was given as a type of Christ and the church and heaven, which relates to the second

50:09

Abrahamic promise that Christ would be born from Abraham. And so the reason

50:14

I would understand Paul to be interpreting that typologically is because that promise was fulfilled in the nation of Israel.

50:22

They were enumerated as many as the stars of heaven and as many of the sands of the seashore.

50:29

That's repeated in scripture several times and says that the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled. So there was a letter fulfillment to that promise to the nation of Israel.

50:41

There was a secondary meaning, a secondary fulfillment. So there is a typological fulfillment and an anti -typological fulfillment.

50:52

And so I would say that that promise was fulfilled in the nation of Israel. You see that referenced in Solomon's dedication to the temple, for example, and a few other places.

51:03

And then it is also fulfilled insofar as at the same time

51:08

God promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who would come to bless all nations. Therefore, this gospel was revealed to Abraham.

51:15

He saw beyond the nation of Israel. He was not limited. He didn't think this was just about his physical offspring.

51:21

It was beyond that, but it was also about his physical offspring. It was both.

51:27

One was the type of the other. And so that's where the physical where the physical offspring of Abraham guaranteed the land by birth upon condition of their obedience to the law.

51:36

It was guaranteed that some of Abraham's offspring would inherit the land, but no particular offspring would inherit the land apart from obedience to the law.

51:48

So their inheritance of the land, like going into and inheriting the land, was conditioned on their obedience?

51:54

Correct. So it wasn't a promise that God made. God's promise in Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 of land is conditioned on their obedience to the

52:07

Mosaic law? Yeah, let me pull up a verse here. One second. Verse here is beginning of Jeremiah 11.

52:25

I will at first be the man who does not hear the words of this covenant that I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt from the iron furnace, saying, listen to my voice and do all that I command you.

52:34

So shall you be my people and I will be your God that I may confirm the oath that I swore to your fathers to give them a land flowing with milk and honey as at this day.

52:44

Then I answered, so be it, Lord. And the Lord said to me, proclaim all these words to the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem.

52:51

Hear the words of this covenant and do them. For I solemnly warn your fathers when I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, warning them persistently, even in this day, obey my voice.

52:59

Yet they did not obey. Therefore, I brought upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but they did not.

53:06

Right. I understand they're being allowed to stay in the land as conditioned on their obedience because all the covenant curses are pronounced by the prophets.

53:12

I'm just talking about their initial possession of the land that was conditioned on obedience. Well, that's why the first generation didn't enter.

53:19

Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Did you want to ask a question or?

53:26

We can just have a conversation. I don't want to try to keep track of who's asking what. Hey, I wanted to ask,

53:33

I mean, do you agree with the appendix of the London Baptist Confession when it says circumcision would become known void as soon as Gentiles embrace the faith?

53:43

How do you understand that in the light of the fact that that provision is made at the Passover for Gentiles to join the church if their household is circumcised and they can take the

53:55

Passover then? The provision is made for non -Jews to receive it right at the Exodus event.

54:01

Yeah, I would have to review the appendix. I don't recall the particular context that they're in there.

54:07

I'd have to review it to comment specifically on that. I think they're just referring to the era of the

54:13

New Covenant. Okay. I think that's probably what they have in mind there is that once Christ had come and the gospel went out to all nations, that's probably what they're referring to there.

54:27

And so with the Passover stuff, just understand that the perspective you're coming from, the presupposition or based on your study of Scripture, is that Israel was the church.

54:38

And so when you see Gentiles joining with Israel, you see that as Gentiles joining the church, professing, saving faith in Christ and receiving the sign of the covenant of grace.

54:48

We wouldn't necessarily see that. We would see Gentiles who want part of this great blessing that it is to be

54:55

Israel, these great temporal blessings. I mean, if I was a believer during that day and God was dwelling in the midst of a people,

55:01

I would want to be there. Yeah. It doesn't necessarily mean that that's the church from our perspective.

55:07

I understand there's other factors involved there. How would you understand Stephen's reference to the ekklesia in the wilderness in Acts chapter 7 in his sermon?

55:15

He calls Israel in the wilderness the ekklesia, the church. Well, I think the translation, the church, there has a long history of controversy there.

55:24

I haven't had time to dig into it fully. But basically what it means is a congregation or an assembly. That's what kahal means in Hebrew, and that's what ekklesia means.

55:34

And ekklesia is used 70 times in the Septuagint, referring to Israel, the church. Yeah. That's where Stephen's getting that.

55:41

It's a congregation. It's an assembly. Yeah, right. That's what the word church means. Right. So the word church, the word church here has a certain connotation and baggage associated with it.

55:51

But my point is that it's an assembly. It's a congregation. Yes. It's the congregation of Israel. And so I have no problem referring to it as the congregation in the wilderness, the assembly in the wilderness.

56:01

It doesn't mean it's the same thing as the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, referenced in Hebrews 12.

56:10

We would see the congregation, the assembly of Christ, as different from the congregation, the assembly of Israel.

56:15

Well, that's obvious. And Hebrews 11 is talking about the elect who are actually in heaven.

56:21

This is talking about physical human beings on earth right now, the ekklesia in the wilderness.

56:26

There is no difficulty with the translation of that word. Ekklesia is one of the simplest words to translate. I'm just referring to the word church.

56:34

The word church has certain baggage. That's all I meant. So it's literally just congregation or assembly.

56:39

That's my only point. Assembly, congregation, and church are all acceptable glosses for the Hebrew term.

56:45

I understand. I'm just commenting on the origin of the word church. It has a certain history around it.

56:51

Okay. Well, you said that—well, you think, based on your study of Scripture, that that thing in the Old Testament was the church.

56:57

I agree with Stephen when he calls it the church. That's all I'm saying. He calls it that. I agree with him.

57:03

Okay. I have another question. Did David have a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith?

57:11

Can you define seal for me as you're using it? It's the Greek term thragas that's used in Romans 4 .11.

57:19

It's the efficacy of the seal, the stamp of God. Meaning what? Just like Abraham, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness he had by faith.

57:28

We know that David was a believer. He was justified by faith alone, too. Did David have the same thing Abraham had?

57:33

Did he have a seal of the righteousness he had by faith? Can you just elaborate on what you believe the word seal means as you're using it?

57:42

It is like the imprint, the impress of God, like the stamp on an envelope.

57:48

The seal of God. That's what thragas means in Greek. Okay. And so Abraham had circumcision.

57:54

It was a seal of the righteousness he had by faith. Did David have a seal of the righteousness he had by faith? Okay. I'm just trying to draw that out because we have a different interpretation of what seal is referring to there.

58:04

So I believe seal refers to a guarantee, a stamp as a guarantee. So I believe that God guaranteed his promise to Abraham when he made the covenant with him.

58:16

And that's what that refers to. I don't believe that it was a seal. Circumcision was a seal to everybody necessarily.

58:23

It was a seal to Abraham of the promises that God made to Abraham. So circumcision means something different for other people outside of Abraham.

58:33

Does it mean something to him it never meant to anyone else? It means to everybody else that God sealed in circumcision that he would fulfill his promise made to Abraham.

58:43

It means that for everybody. Okay. So did David have a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith?

58:50

He had. He received circumcision. It's not I would not say that that was a sign and seal of his personal individual faith.

58:59

No, I believe it was a sign of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant and all of the blessings and conditions that that entailed.

59:07

And it was a seal that God would fulfill his promise made to Abraham. So Abraham had a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith with his salvation.

59:15

But David did not. However you want to try to phrase it, circumcision as Paul refers to in Romans 4,

59:22

I would understand it as God guaranteeing that he would fulfill the promise that Christ would come and bless all nations and therefore establish the righteousness that Abraham's justification was based on.

59:35

Okay. Genesis 17 verses 10 and 11 where you have circumcision instituted says,

59:42

This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin.

59:50

And it shall be the sign of the covenant between me and you. Every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised.

59:56

Is there any indication in Genesis 17 that circumcision was a sign or seal of anything different to Abraham's infant seed that it was to him?

01:00:05

It doesn't make any sense to me. Circumcision is what it is, regardless of who it's given to. The point is,

01:00:11

David did have a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith, and he received it as an infant. My point is,

01:00:16

I don't see any indication that circum—this is a problem. This is one of the main reasons that I never did find the

01:00:25

Reformed Baptist position to be compelling, is their attempts to create different meanings for the covenant sign.

01:00:34

It always means the same thing to everyone it's given to. Fred Malone is very, very crass.

01:00:40

He just says, yeah, it meant something to Abraham. It never meant to anyone else after him. I'm just like, where is the biblical proof that circumcision means something different depending on who it's given to?

01:00:50

It means what God says it means. Yeah, I think that we don't want to limit the meaning of circumcision simply to Paul's reference in Romans 4.

01:01:00

I think it meant more than that. I think it meant what he said, obviously, but I think it meant more than that as well. And I don't have a problem—it meant the same thing to everybody.

01:01:11

It didn't mean they were to be considered a Christian. Yeah, right, but they were part of the church, though, right?

01:01:18

Well, no, we fundamentally disagree there. What were Gentiles— No, it was not a sign of union with Christ, as baptism is.

01:01:26

But it was a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith. What righteousness did Abraham have by faith?

01:01:32

Whose is it? It's Christ, who was yet to come. And so the Abrahamic covenant promised that Christ would come and bless all nations.

01:01:39

That's what it's a sign of. Right, but—of Christ to come, but it's still his righteousness.

01:01:47

So what is your—I don't get what you mean. This is referring to the historius salutis, if we want to use those terms. It was a sign of Christ's righteousness in the historius salutis, not in the ordo salutis, as baptism would be.

01:01:58

So where was the church? What is the church prior to the coming of Jesus Christ?

01:02:04

I mean, if it's not Israel in the wilderness, what is it? Who is it? Where is it? It's all those who believe.

01:02:09

It was the believers amongst Israel. It was not organized as the church until Pentecost.

01:02:15

Why is the term church used? Why is Qahal used and translated as Ecclesia 70 times prior to the coming of Christ?

01:02:24

Because Israel was a type of the church. I mean, they're both called the nation as well. Does it mean that we are the nation of Israel living in the land of Canaan?

01:02:30

No, it's a type -antitype relationship. The word assembly or congregation is not specific enough to say that they are the same entity.

01:02:39

It's a type -antitype relationship. So how can Israel be the church and be a type of the church?

01:02:48

Israel was not the church. Israel was a type of the church. But there were believers there, right?

01:02:54

Yes. There are believers in America. That doesn't mean America is the church. But Israel is referred to as the church.

01:03:02

It was the people who were set apart by circumcision and by their profession of faith. Like I mentioned, church discipline was there.

01:03:09

Again, you just try to understand the presuppositions you're bringing. I understand it's based on your study of Scripture, but you're just completely importing your perspective into your questions here.

01:03:22

As you are to your answers. Okay, but you're baffled here because you're assuming your perspective.

01:03:28

I'm not baffled about a thing, David. I'm not baffled about a thing. Okay. The church, there is a church prior to the coming of Christ.

01:03:36

It was primarily made there in Israel. Yes, there were definitely false professors of faith there in Israel, without a doubt, just as there are today.

01:03:45

Your question was, where was the church? And my answer was, the church was all those who were united to Christ.

01:03:53

The nation of Israel was not the visible church as such. So it wasn't. It was a different entity.

01:04:01

So the church prior to the coming of Christ is not those who profess faith in the coming Messiah, or those who profess the faith of Abraham.

01:04:09

Not in an organized manner, according to God's command and directions for worship and things like that.

01:04:16

John Owen has a real helpful explanation of this in his commentary on Hebrews 8, where he talks about what the word established means with regards to the

01:04:25

New Covenant. He goes into detail on all of this and explains how it operated invisibly prior to this, without any external forms of worship or ordinances until Pentecost, until the

01:04:35

New Covenant was established. Well, the Old Testament church did have external forms of worship and ordinances, didn't they?

01:04:42

Okay, but you just keep asserting the same thing over and over in your questions. I keep asserting the same answer.

01:04:48

Didn't they go to Jerusalem three times a year for the feasts? Didn't they meet at synagogues for the reading of Scripture?

01:04:54

There's a disconnect here. There's some kind of misunderstanding. Yes, absolutely,

01:04:59

Israel had ordinances for worship. You just said they didn't. No, no, I said the church didn't.

01:05:06

Okay, that's where you're not listening to what I'm saying. I understand you disagree with me. Right. Right, but you're not hearing what

01:05:13

I'm saying. Israel, the nation of Israel, had external forms of worship. Absolutely.

01:05:19

Israel was not the church. So I understand you disagree with that. You're just asking my perspective.

01:05:24

I'm trying to explain it here so you can understand it, even if you disagree with it. Okay, what does the term Kahal assembly congregation church mean in the

01:05:34

Old Testament when it's used over and over and over again? It refers to the nation of Israel, the assembly of Israel under the

01:05:42

Old Covenant. But that's not the church. Correct. I see. It's a type of the church.

01:05:50

I mean, it's really—I don't know why that's such a bizarre concept. It's—throughout Paedo -Baptist literature, you can find them affirming that the nation of Israel was a type of the church.

01:06:00

It is a type of the church. Okay, then how can it be a type of the church and be the church at the same time? It is certainly not exclusively a type, because there are true believers in that church.

01:06:11

And that gathered people of God. And it's a mixed bag, just like we have today. There are unbelievers in the church who have made professions of faith, who are baptized, who really are not part of the visible church.

01:06:22

Or actually, they're part of the visible church, but they're not part—they're not of the elect, and they're not truly regenerate and true believers. Right. And at this point, we're kind of going to go around in circles a little bit here, because we just have different definitions here.

01:06:34

I would say that the terms for being an Israelite are not the same things for being a member of the visible church.

01:06:42

What about—Brandon, did you have something specifically you wanted to ask me? Yeah, if we only have 10 minutes, I'd love to get into some other things.

01:06:49

But if you've got one more, go for it. Oh, what is your take on households being baptized?

01:06:55

And you and your children, you have covenant -signed baptism. You, your children, as many as are far off.

01:07:01

In Genesis 17, you have covenant -signed circumcision. You, your descendants, and those who are not your descendants. All three categories.

01:07:07

If the new covenant is emphasizing this really significant break with Old Testament practice, why would he put it that way?

01:07:16

You and your children. And why do you see individuals believing in households being baptized? Yeah, that's a great question.

01:07:22

So, again, I think that in your presentation originally, there was just a lot of your perspective presuppositions bleeding into that.

01:07:31

You know, why wouldn't it be such a hard break? Well, you're assuming your understanding of the Old Testament coming into the

01:07:36

New Testament. With regards to the household baptisms, I don't think they hold a lot of weight because they rest upon a prior understanding of the covenants that I disagree with.

01:07:47

The household instances themselves are inconclusive. It can simply mean that everyone in the household believed and was baptized, as it indicates in certain passages,

01:07:58

I think Acts 8. With the repetition of the phrases, to you and your offspring, those who are far off,

01:08:06

I don't think it's quite the same as you're making it out to be. You have to stretch a little bit to make it exactly match Genesis 17.

01:08:13

I would refer to Kal Beisner's comments on Acts 2, 36. I think he has some good comments there.

01:08:21

I can send Tim a link to put it up there. Well, why don't you share it with us? Hang on, let me pull it up.

01:08:30

Just trying to be quick here because I didn't realize we only have 10 minutes left. I mean, Brian, with all due respect, it's easy to say that kind of stuff.

01:08:36

Let me refer you to, you know, 15 articles, and here's the guy who's refuted you. I'd rather just hear it now.

01:08:42

Okay, well, the reason I do that is because people just like to dismiss anything that Baptists say. So, if we can put it...

01:08:49

It's true. It's true. We're dismissed as just not understanding covenant theology and things like that.

01:08:54

So, I always try to substantiate the point with quotes from Paedo -Baptists, showing that, you know, this is not just nonsense that Baptists make up.

01:09:02

Right, and I just invite people, read Genesis 17, 6 through 12, and then read Acts 2, 38 and 39, and just look at it and ask yourself the question, doesn't this sound awfully similar?

01:09:12

Especially given the fact that the New Testament refers repeatedly over and over again to the Abrahamic covenant as the very thing that's fulfilled every single time someone becomes a believer in Jesus Christ.

01:09:22

Okay, so I've got a question for you along those same lines. The promises to you and your offspring after you, what specifically is that promise?

01:09:29

The Holy Spirit. Okay, and so that is a promise made to who? That was the promise that God specifically made to Abraham, according to Paul in Galatians 3, 14.

01:09:39

Let me read it here for you. Galatians 3, 14.

01:09:45

In order that in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles so that we would receive the promise of the

01:09:52

Spirit through faith. Generally speaking, God works through the family unit.

01:09:58

God works covenantally, and that was the promise made to Abraham. That's what Paul thought. Was the promise made to Abraham, and it says the promise was made to you and your offspring after you.

01:10:09

Who specifically is that offspring? Our children, the children of believers. So God promises to give the children of believers the

01:10:16

Holy Spirit? No, if they believe, just like Galatians 3, 14 says, that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

01:10:22

They're heirs of that promise, but it does not come to fruition that they don't believe, just like it was prior to the coming of Christ.

01:10:28

So the promise is conditional. If you believe, you will receive the Holy Spirit. Okay, so is there any difference?

01:10:35

Is there any way in which God is promising something to the children of believers that he's not promising to everyone in the world?

01:10:41

Yeah, because they are heirs. They're born into families that have those commands in Psalm 78,

01:10:47

Deuteronomy chapter 6, Deuteronomy 11, Deuteronomy 17, Deuteronomy 21, Ephesians 6. Their parents are covenantally charged to raise those children in the fear and admonition of the

01:10:56

Lord. And so we teach our children to pray. We call them to repentance and faith. We teach them that they are participants, not observers, in the worship of God in churches.

01:11:05

Just like Joshua said, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I'm going to serve the Lord, and I'll bring my kids with me, and they're not really going to be part of this, but hopefully at some point they'll be part of it.

01:11:15

No, because of the household solidarity, you teach your children they are heirs of that promise, but it doesn't come to fruition if they don't believe.

01:11:22

Okay, so I'm just, I'm not quite clear in the answer there. How is the promise to your children different from the promise to everyone else?

01:11:31

Because generally speaking, God works through the organic principle. If parents are faithful, generally speaking,

01:11:36

God saves their children. It's not a guarantee. It's not a guarantee. So God's promise is not a guarantee?

01:11:43

It's always conditioned on faith. I mean, the Abrahamic Covenant itself is conditioned on faith. Again, it's just kind of dancing around.

01:11:52

Yeah, you're dancing around, you're doing suppositions, I mean, in the way you're asking the question. It's like, what does a

01:11:58

Baptist do with all this you and your children stuff? I mean, how does that fit anything that you guys believe?

01:12:05

I would love to elaborate, given the time. We're trying to focus on some specific things here, and we've only got a few minutes left.

01:12:11

So the promise is that if you repent and believe, you will be saved and receive the

01:12:18

Holy Spirit. That promise is made to everyone in the world. Yes, but not everyone in the world is born into the covenant family, as children are.

01:12:30

Okay, so their situation is different, but the promise is not different. No. No, what you see is continuity there in the administration of the covenant.

01:12:43

Okay, so the promise of Genesis 17, I will be a God to you and to your offspring after you, that's the promise of the

01:12:53

Holy Spirit, that God will be a God to them if they repent and believe. Yeah, that's what Paul thought, and I agree with him.

01:12:58

Okay, and so the Genesis 17 promise is made to everyone in the world. At the time of Abraham, there was no sense in which it applied to Abraham and his children, that it didn't apply to Melchizedek and his children, or anyone else in the world?

01:13:13

I don't understand. God promised, I will be a God to you if you repent and believe, and to your offspring if they repent and believe, and I will be

01:13:22

God to anyone in the world if they repent and believe. Right, no, you're just dancing a jig, because you have your

01:13:29

Baptist presuppositions in place. Well, I'm not, I'm asking you a direct question about the content of the promise.

01:13:35

Right, the promise was to him and to his descendants, yeah, if they believed. It's the same as it is now.

01:13:43

The visible church has always included, just like it did then, just like it does now, those who profess to know the one true

01:13:48

God, those who profess to know Jesus Christ along with their children. That's why children are addressed directly in the

01:13:54

New Covenant Scriptures as part of churches. Okay, so it's, my point here is that if you believe that the promise is that God will be a

01:14:04

God to you if you repent and believe, then there's nothing uniquely Abrahamically covenantal about that promise.

01:14:10

It's the same promise that's been since Genesis 3 .15, and applies to everyone in the world.

01:14:15

It's not a unique covenant promise. Yes, and that's why it was open to everyone in the world. And God wanted his people to be a light to the

01:14:21

Gentiles. And God made a provision for them to be able to partake the Passover and join the church if they were circumcised and their households were circumcised in Exodus 12 .48.

01:14:31

And circumcision is based on that promise. Those to whom the promise is extended are those who should be circumcised?

01:14:38

Yes. Okay, so the whole world should be circumcised. If they came in contact with the people of Israel and heard the gospel and heard about the coming

01:14:47

Messiah, yes, definitely. Don't you think? I mean, what does Exodus 12 .48

01:14:52

mean? If a sojourner, if a stranger, a non -Jew wants to join with you all and partake of the

01:15:00

Passover, let him be circumcised and all the males in his household. So, yes, the whole world needed to be circumcised unto

01:15:07

God and become part of the church. You bet. Okay, and your comment there is not all those to whom the promise goes out should be circumcised, but all those who respond to the promise in faith should be circumcised is what you're answering there.

01:15:21

And their children, yes. This is another very common error. This is a very common error that you guys make.

01:15:28

You guys make this error constantly. You think that we're saying that everyone in the whole world should just be baptized.

01:15:35

No. What we're saying is that adults that understand the faith and profess belief in it should be circumcised before the coming of Christ or baptized after the coming of Christ and they bring their household into the visible church with them.

01:15:49

That's what I spent most of that opening statement trying to show, that there is no evidence that that has changed at all.

01:15:55

None that I'm aware of. Okay, let's move on here because the time is short.

01:16:00

I appreciate your answers here. What do you understand the Old Covenant to be? The Old Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is the covenant

01:16:09

I made with them when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. That is the Sinaitic Covenant.

01:16:14

That's the law. That's not the Abrahamic promise. It can't be. If you look in Hebrews chapter 6, just two chapters before this, we're told that the

01:16:23

Abrahamic Covenant is immutable. No part of it can be. Yeah, I heard your presentation there.

01:16:29

So you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is the same as the New Covenant. No, that's an error.

01:16:34

That's a misrepresentation. Brandon, that's a misrepresentation that you've made over and over and over and over again.

01:16:40

I do not believe the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant. One is the pre -advent administration of the gospel.

01:16:47

The other is the post -advent administration of the gospel. They're not the same covenant, but they have the same benefits, clearly.

01:16:54

That's why Paul belabors the point in Romans 4. Abraham was justified by faith prior to the giving of the law.

01:16:59

David justified by faith after the law. We're justified by faith after Christ. The historic

01:17:05

Reformed tradition understands it as one covenant. That's why I'm using that language. But you believe the Abrahamic Covenant and the

01:17:10

Mosaic Covenant are two different covenants. They are not the same in kind, not the same in substance, not the same in essence.

01:17:18

Is that what you believe? That's what Paul says in Galatians 4, 21 to 31. They are two covenants.

01:17:24

One gives rise to children of bondage. The other, who are children of promise. If you think that those are the same covenant, like I said,

01:17:32

I don't know. How do you make any sense out of what Paul says about justification? The law brings about wrath. We're justified on the basis of the promise that we received by faith, just like Abraham believed and was justified by faith.

01:17:44

Okay. A couple comments here. First of all, we're just short on time. I was planning on getting into all of this in much more detail.

01:17:50

I didn't realize we got to stop here. But I would encourage everybody to read the

01:17:58

OPC report on republication, where they specify very clearly that the idea that the

01:18:05

Mosaic Covenant was different in kind and substance from the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant is contrary to the

01:18:11

Westminster Standards. I would encourage everybody to read that report and understand the reasoning there and why that view is contrary to the

01:18:18

Westminster Standards. Right, and I don't hold to the republication view. Again, that's another misrepresentation.

01:18:24

I'm not misrepresenting you, brother. I just asked you. Why do you keep saying that? Go read this

01:18:29

OPC report to see why Mr. Hines is wrong. I don't believe in the republication. The Old Covenant is definitely given in the context of grace.

01:18:38

It's given in the context of redemption. Exodus chapter 2, verses 23 and 24. God hears the people groaning in Egypt and goes to redeem them and bring them out in response to the

01:18:48

Abrahamic Covenant. Yes, indeed. But when you look at the way that those two covenants are laid out and explained in the

01:18:54

New Testament, you can't see them as the same covenant. Paul doesn't see them as the same covenant. One is promise.

01:19:00

One is law. Now, they're both part of the unfolding of the covenant of grace, but they clearly have different functions.

01:19:07

The law is there to show us our sin. If you start saying that the law is actually, in its essence, gracious, then you're going to end up believing

01:19:16

Rome's gospel, that we're saved by a gracious acceptance of our obedience to the law or something like that.

01:19:21

You do have to keep them distinct, as Paul does in Galatians 2 .21. If they're the same covenant, how can one give rise to children of bondage and the other give rise to children of the promise?

01:19:33

That's all I'm saying. I understand. I would just encourage people to study more on this issue because you're not quite—based on your answers here, you're not quite grasping or indicating you understand the depth of the republication debate.

01:19:49

Hey, Brandon, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't talk to me like that. I'm just saying, based on your answers—

01:19:56

The majority of what you said is indicated to me. There's a lot you don't understand. I'm not going to sit here and say that. I'll leave it to the listeners to decide that for themselves.

01:20:04

Okay, that's fine. Do you distinguish between law and covenant?

01:20:16

You referred to the Mosaic Covenant as the law. Do you distinguish between the law and the Mosaic Covenant in any way?

01:20:22

Well, they're certainly related to one another, because the giving of the law certainly is a covenant, except it's different from the

01:20:28

Abrahamic promise, because you have three times in Exodus chapter 19 and then in Exodus chapter 24, verses 3 and 7, the people swear an oath of obedience to it.

01:20:38

When God makes the oath to Abraham, he passes through the severed halves of the pieces all by himself. The smoking firepot and the oven pass between the severed pieces, and Abraham is off to the side asleep.

01:20:48

So the law—it definitely is a covenant that requires obedience to receive its blessings.

01:20:54

Okay, what were its blessings? Of the law? Well, of the

01:20:59

Mosaic Covenant. They could live and dwell on the land and not come under those curses, and they're spelled out in Deuteronomy 27 and 28, the covenant curses and the covenant blessings.

01:21:09

And that was not by faith, but through obedience to the law? Yeah, do this and you shall live.

01:21:15

Do this and you shall live is the basic message of the law. That's why Paul says in Romans 10, the law is not of faith, but the one who does them shall live by them.

01:21:26

It required obedience for blessing. I don't get—I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying there's a hard distinction between law and covenant?

01:21:33

I mean, this is—sorry, go ahead. You don't get what? Are you saying there's a hard distinction between law and covenant?

01:21:42

Yes, that's correct. Based on Westminster 7 .1, also held by the Lenten Baptist Confession, there's the moral law, which is a rule of righteousness, a rule of obedience for all image bearers.

01:21:54

And the covenant of works is something above and beyond that. Covenant—a law can be given as a covenant, but the law itself is not a covenant.

01:22:05

And so the way that the historic reform position would explain the Mosaic Covenant, that it was a law given not as a covenant.

01:22:13

It was given as a rule of righteousness. It was the covenant of grace. And that various Judaizers abused that.

01:22:20

They abstracted the law from the Mosaic Covenant itself and abused it in that way.

01:22:26

They would deny that it operated upon a basis of works for Israel in any way that was only an abuse or abstraction or misunderstanding of the law.

01:22:36

And that's specifically what the OPC report on republication explains. That to hold the view that you just described, that the law was given to Israel to govern their land and life in Canaan upon a works principle contrary to a faith principle is contrary to the

01:22:55

Westminster— No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, obviously, even their obedience had to arise from faith.

01:23:00

I'm not holding that view that you're trying very hard to attribute to me. I understand— Well, I'm just trying to understand your view is all.

01:23:07

I understand that perfectly. So you quoted Leviticus 18 .5 as—

01:23:12

Are you saying the law did not require obedience at all? No, that's certainly not what I'm saying at all.

01:23:18

You said—what was your quotation of Leviticus 18 .5 for? What did you mean by that? The one who does them shall live by them.

01:23:26

To be justified before God by law requires absolute perfect obedience to it. The one who does them shall live by them.

01:23:32

You quoted that in the context of explaining the condition of the Mosaic Covenant. Did I misunderstand you? Is that the condition of the

01:23:39

Mosaic Covenant? The Mosaic Covenant required obedience to everything God said in the book of the covenant that was given to the people of Israel in order for them to dwell in the land.

01:23:49

And it arose from hearts that were purified by faith. Yes, indeed. Okay, so Leviticus 18 .5—I'm

01:23:56

just trying to understand you. Leviticus 18 .5 lays out the condition for those within the covenant of grace who have been born again.

01:24:04

That's how I would understand it, yeah. How do you understand it? What does Leviticus 18 .5 mean?

01:24:11

Leviticus 18 .5 would lay out the condition of the Mosaic Covenant that life and blessing in the land of Canaan is conditioned upon obedience to Mosaic law.

01:24:20

That's what I just said, and you're saying that's an error. That's republication. That's the republication error.

01:24:26

Isn't that what you just said? It's a complicated argument. I'm trying to trace out the threads here and understand what you believe about the

01:24:35

Old Covenant because it's central to the disagreement between us here. And a lot of paedobaptists that I have talked to don't understand the implications for the paedobaptism debate for certain views of the

01:24:50

Old Covenant. So I'm trying to draw out your understanding, nuances of your understanding here.

01:24:57

So Leviticus 18 .5, Paul quotes that in Galatians 3 .12 as being a condition, a principle contrary to the condition of faith.

01:25:09

You would agree with that? Okay, so Leviticus 18 .5

01:25:16

is a works condition, a works principle contrary to a faith principle.

01:25:25

Is that what you're saying? That's how I would understand it, yeah. I'm looking at Galatians 3 .10

01:25:32

-14 here. When it comes to justification... Go ahead. So the condition of the

01:25:39

Mosaic Covenant was a condition contrary to the principle of faith.

01:25:47

Is that how you understand it? When it comes to being made right with God, that's how

01:25:52

Paul explains it. What is

01:25:57

Paul's understanding of Leviticus 18 .5 in its own context? He who practices them, the law is not of faith.

01:26:04

On the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.

01:26:11

Are you asking me, how does Paul understand it as it was originally written in Leviticus?

01:26:18

I'm trying to understand what you believe Leviticus 18 .5 means. In the context of the

01:26:25

Mosaic Covenant compared to the Abrahamic Covenant. Okay. In the

01:26:32

Mosaic Covenant, the laws that are given there in the Pentateuch, they had to obey those in order to live in the land.

01:26:40

And that's why they're eventually exiled, because they fail to obey those. And all those covenant curses that are pronounced by all the prophets come down on them.

01:26:47

The prophets explicate the covenant curses that are spelled out in Deuteronomy 27 and 28.

01:26:55

Is that how you understand it, I guess? Yes. So the

01:27:00

Mosaic Covenant is different in substance, different in kind, from the Covenant of Grace.

01:27:07

Yeah. But it comes under the broader heading of the

01:27:12

Covenant of Grace. It just has a different function. But it's not the

01:27:17

Covenant of Grace. It's not. It is part of the unfolding of the

01:27:23

One Covenant of Grace. Yes, it is. Well, that's different. Is it the Covenant of Grace, or does it serve the purpose of the

01:27:29

Covenant of Grace? No. I would look at the Abrahamic Covenant as the Covenant of Grace. Okay. But the Mosaic Covenant is not.

01:27:35

Right. Okay. So how does the Mosaic Covenant relate to the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham?

01:27:45

Because Christ fulfills the law perfectly, and we inherit not the typological land, but the entire cosmos itself, the new heavens and the new earth, in Christ.

01:27:55

Okay. But on the typological layer, how does that relate? The promise that God made to bring

01:28:03

Abraham's offspring into the land of Canaan. You said faith was the condition.

01:28:09

Right. And then you believe it became—works was the condition after that? Well, the law was added to it later, yeah.

01:28:20

And their disobedience to it is what got them exiled. But they had to have faith.

01:28:26

I mean, Hebrews 3, 18 and 19 says that, that the generation that died in the wilderness, they did not enter because of unbelief.

01:28:34

So you didn't get justified, you weren't justified before God, and you didn't enter the land unless you believed. Yeah. There's a lot more we can get into, but you keep going back to Galatians 4 here.

01:28:45

Just to explain our perspective here, we would see Galatians 4 as referring to the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, rather than contrasting the

01:28:52

Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenant. We would say that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant both flow out of the

01:28:57

Abrahamic Covenant. The Old Covenant refers to the first typological Abrahamic promise, and the

01:29:04

New Covenant refers to the second anti -typological Abrahamic promise concerning Christ's coming to bless all nations.

01:29:12

And so we would see Paul in Galatians 4, and parallel there in Romans 9, explaining the difference between the

01:29:19

Old and New Covenant. And the mention there of Isaac as the promised seed is a type of Christians as a promised seed.

01:29:28

They're not one for one. Isaac would be a type of Christians who were the promised seed.

01:29:34

So anyways, there's a lot more, but you can comment if you want. I know you have to get going. I'll send a link.

01:29:41

I've preached all the way through the book of Genesis, and I try to go to the passages in the New Testament where the passages are cited.

01:29:48

So I did an entire sermon on Galatians 4, 21 to 31. I can send you a link to that, and you can put it in the show notes if you'd like to,

01:29:55

Tim. Yes, of course. Whatever you guys give me, I'm going to put up in the show notes, and I want to encourage all of our listeners to look into the show notes.

01:30:06

Become familiar with both sides. I think that there's so much more that could be said about this, and we just don't really have the time.

01:30:14

You know, I want to leave on a positive note, because as it says in Proverbs 27, 17, iron sharpens iron.

01:30:23

And as Carlos and I always point out, what happens when iron sharpens iron? Well, sparks fly and it gets hot.

01:30:30

So we saw a little bit of that today, but I think that we can end on a positive note. I know that you two affirm each other as brothers, and you all are grateful for each other.

01:30:40

So, Pastor Hines, thank you for coming on, and Brandon, thank you for coming on. Yeah, you're welcome, and thanks,

01:30:47

Brandon, for the conversation. It's okay. I am a pretty hard person to offend, so I'm not upset or offended at all.

01:30:56

I enjoyed the interaction and certainly regard you as a dear brother. And I've always valued what my

01:31:02

Reformed Baptist brethren say. When new books come out, I usually try to pick them up and read them, because I do value what you guys have to say, and it definitely keeps us on our toes.

01:31:11

Well, I appreciate your time as well. It's a huge conversation, because we're really talking about all of Scripture, and that's a lot to talk about.

01:31:21

So from my perspective, we really just kind of touched the tip of the iceberg here, but I appreciate the time.

01:31:28

If you notice, even in our opening statements, both of us actually said very little about baptism. Even when

01:31:35

I wrote this up, I thought, man, I haven't even gotten to baptism yet. We're just talking about covenant theology and the way we understand everything else, because all that goes into it.

01:31:45

You know, Pastor Hines, you're right. You guys really didn't talk too much about baptism, but it was still a great discussion on covenant theology and baptism.

01:31:56

There was some stuff mentioned about baptism, but I'm probably going to have to figure out what to name this.

01:32:01

It's probably a discussion on covenant theology and baptism. But Brandon, I know that Pastor Hines wanted me to put some stuff in the show notes.

01:32:10

Was there anything else that you wanted to add? Let me just throw in one more comment.

01:32:16

This is just such a huge conversation. If somebody wants to understand more of where I'm coming from on all these issues, they can go to my blog, contrast2 .wordpress

01:32:27

.com, and that main page will break down a bunch of posts by category. The New Covenant, the

01:32:33

Old Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, et cetera, et cetera. So anyway, if somebody wants to dig in more and understand where I'm coming from.

01:32:41

All right, and we will go ahead and close it out with that. I want to say thank you again to our listeners, and we will check everybody next week.