Responding to Reformation Red pill’s three answers

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

Black sheep among misfits, a misfit in the trailer park at night, a misprint with the sixth sense, been sick ever since my brother died of an

O .D. My two cents never made sense, either to me or anyone else inside of the sheep fence.

My 9th Smith on my right side, white staring at your cop dot sign and my

John Hancock on the dotted line. Tell me what's the bottom line, the bottom line is

I'm not right, I'm not left but the cellophane won't fight, there's nothing left but the spotlight, hold my beer, you can find me in the moonlight.

Moonlight. You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. You can say what you want, but you won't around me. I'm within the deep end and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in.

My theology don't fit in, black sheep of the reformation sheep pen. To the reformed,

I'm just another Baptist, baptized again, the bastard child of Anabaptist.

Host to child of reformation society, we don't need your education. Give me a

Bible and a bookshelf of dead men, cigars, bourbons and beer cans, bow ties, tattoos and bearded men making reformation great again.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Open Air Theology Show. My name is Jeff and I am one of the hosts of this train wreck that we created.

And I'm also one of the elders at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Tallahoma, Tennessee.

If you're ever in Tallahoma, please come check us out. And also remember, we have an Open Air Theology Conference coming up in February.

And if you don't come to it, like, I don't even know what you're doing with your life. Like, it doesn't even make sense.

So I'm going to pass it down here to this old man. Hey, guys, I'm the old man.

My name is Tom Shepard. I'm with Grace Bible Church of Burney, Texas. I head up the evangelism team out there, the

Sarita evangelism team. And we go out and we preach Christ and Him crucified. And we had our first evening service tonight.

It was great. And I'm going to pass it over to the left, this young guy with the huge hands.

Huge hands. My name is Brayden Patterson. I'm the pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Hagerman, Idaho.

We worship God on the Lord's Day Sundays at 11 a .m. If you live in the area of southern Idaho, we'd love to see you then.

Also, just a huge blessing to be a co -host here on Open Air Theology. Really looking forward to the conference coming up in February.

Also have a YouTube channel called Reformed Ex -Mormon. Go check that out. I just post sermons and evangelism and all that kind of good stuff.

And then I'll pass it up that way. You let the dog out.

Thank you. Hey, the dog's off the chain tonight, Jeff. You know, the wife, you let me off the chain.

So I appreciate that to the babe of all babes out there. My name is Jeremiah Nortier. I am the apologetic dog.

But you know what? All Christians, we're all apologetic dogs because we're to guard the gospel of grace.

So I just want to encourage people to check out my YouTube channel. I serve as a pastor and elder at 12 Five Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

So if you're in the northeast Arkansas area, come check us out. Cannot wait for the upcoming

Open Air Theology conference in February where I will be debating.

And the person I'm debating has a big question mark, but we think we have somebody. So you have to stay tuned.

All right. All right. So how was everybody's Lord's Day? Mine went well.

And I haven't listened to my sermon yet, but I felt like it went really good. I have several several people come up to me and we're speaking about how they needed to hear that message.

Like even my wife, which I thought like never happens. You know, she's like, that was a really good message that people need to hear.

And but the day was good. I was I was actually able to to to officiate a wedding

Saturday and then was able to worship with the saints today.

And it's just been an amazing weekend. And so grateful for what God's doing. I covenant reform

Baptist church. But Tom, I saw that you was at a conference. How did your weekend go?

It was great. So Mark Goodson, he is he is the he's one of the head writers.

He's the president of the Art of Worship and Grace and Truth Press. He held the conference in Longview.

We had some great speakers. We had Nick White. Who else did we have? Brandon was out there.

Alan. Golly, Weber was out there. Oh, Jacob Tanner.

I mean, all of them. It was it was a wonderful, wonderful time. So it was all on the sovereignty of God. And and then on the

I drove home. So I miss miss the morning worship, but drove home.

And I listened to your sermon, Jeff. Matter of fact, on the way to church this evening. And then what do you think?

You know, sometimes you hit home runs and sometimes you don't. It was really good.

It was really good. I liked it. Got to love him.

We got to keep him humble, guys. It was very good.

I love Braden. How's your Lord's Day go, brother? It was good. It was a blessing. I had the text

I was in. I was really excited about. I know I stuttered a little bit too much during the message. My wife said that she thought it went really well.

So same thing with you, Jeff. Like, that's always comforting. But next

I was in. Oh, man. Have a whole new love for Genesis 15.

Whole new love for Genesis 15. And I was preaching from Galatians chapter 3 verses 5 through 6, which is really near to the conversation that we're going to be having later today.

So I'm really excited for Genesis. Jeremiah, how was your

Lord's Day, brother? Wonderful. Definitely the highlight of my week being with the saints.

We're a church plant coming up on four years here in September. And so our third elder, the three elders at Twelve -Five

Church are myself, Nathan, and Keith. And Keith is preaching a series on who do you say that I am.

And he's covering the seven I am statements in John. And so he was talking about where Jesus says

I am the door and I am the good shepherd. He's actually making a sub series within that. And so we're all pumped.

But one of my favorite points that he's making is, you know, Jesus is the good shepherd. We are under shepherds.

But we are to be on high alert for false shepherds, right? Hirelings that try to deceive the sheep.

And so anyway, huge blessing. Something we do at Twelve -Five is we have a Koinonia feast, a love feast where we have all this home cooked meals.

So after the sermon, we go into straight. The service continues. It doesn't stop right at the sermon, but we do a love feast.

And then we have sermon Q &A afterwards. So it's just fantastic. Very good.

Yeah. We have a fellowship meal after ours as well, but we don't go back into anything afterwards, which at the moment,

I don't ever get home till like five o 'clock in the evening. So because I kind of do a lot of the counseling sessions and stuff like that directly after the meal.

But yeah, there's nothing like it, right? Directly after the

Lord's Supper, we sit down and partake in a meal together. And, you know, we can get into theological conversations or just making fun of one another.

It's all hands on deck. Oh, we got the gospel truth tuning in.

Man, we're getting big time now, son. Oh, Marlon. Marlon?

Marlon, we want you to schedule some debates for us, brother. I know I said I got done, but I kind of got the itch.

No, yeah. Yeah, you're not done. All right. So, yeah, you know, those pressbies, right?

I mean, they're just not stopping. They just keep saying the same old things.

Right. And so I just made it a point to myself that every time they say something, then

I'm going to say something right back. So, yeah, that's what this is. And so to kind of introduce.

So, you know, we like the guys from Reformation Red Pill. And if they listen to this, gentlemen, we get, you know, like it's all fun and games over here, man.

So we might say stuff to make fun of you, but we don't really mean it. You know what I'm saying? Like, I really do enjoy y 'all's podcast, but we have fun over here.

I mean, we make fun of each other and, you know, yeah. But you guys are wrong.

We still love you. We love you, but you guys are wrong. And so what we want to do is we want to answer, we want to give a response to your answer to the three questions.

So Gabe Hughes, I think is his last name, the guy from, how do we do that?

Asked three questions. I know, right? Asked three questions and they gave the response.

And so we want to hear that question, listen to their response, maybe not all the way in detail, but and then give a response to their answers to those questions.

And I'm not sure if we'll get through it all, but we'll just see what happens. So getting it up here right now for us.

Let me see if this works. And I think I messed up doing it like this last time.

So just bring it up. We'll try and see if you guys can hear it. Yeah, pull it up. So if I click this, it takes me there.

Can you guys hear that? I don't hear anything. Okay. Hold on.

Stop sharing for a moment. This is already kind of great. Hey.

You're doing good, man. Share screen. Jeff, I have to say

I like the fresh cut though. You got going on. I appreciate it, man. I'm starting. Like I used to wear it with the bangs come down, but plus I'm losing my hair.

Like I'm going bald. I don't know what to do about it. Well, I mean, yeah, we do need a

James White lookalike. Well, no, we don't. Yeah. The great white sharks all in his own lane.

I plan on just trying to keep it as much as possible. You know, I'm down for the comb over. Oh, man.

You got it, Brady. Yeah. All right. Let's see. Okay.

I might have to have it like this. Hope you guys are okay with that. Let me try to hit full screen one more time. See what happens. Oh, we got it.

All right. You guys ready? Boom. So this is the beginning when they ask their three questions.

Where does the Bible command baptizing infants? Classic Baptist question.

Can you be saved in your first birth or only by your second birth?

Great question. And number three, is Christ the federal head of your unconverted children?

So those are the three questions. Good, meaty questions for us to kind of talk through. We're going to take a few minutes.

Hopefully we'll be able to fly through these questions, and then we're going to get to some of our Patreon questions that goes backstage, and that's for Patreon only, but we're answering these for free.

Those are the three questions. So the three questions was, does the Bible teach infant baptism, or where in the

Bible do you find it? Yep. The second question was, are children regenerate in baptism?

Is that right? Which birth? The first birth or second birth saved you?

Yeah. Yeah. Which birth saved you, first or second? And what was the third question? The third question is,

Christ the federal head of unconverted children. So what do you all think about those questions?

Do you all think those are good questions, medium? I think they're good questions, but the gentleman, the way that – you're going to get their presuppositions that answer those questions.

They're not answering it the way that the Baptist wants, and so I would say that the first way to ask these questions is really to push back on their view of the covenants and undermine their presupposition to show that they have an incorrect view of the covenants before asking these harder questions, which

I still think are good questions, but you're going to see the way that the answer to these are according to their presuppositions.

Yes. That was my thought as well. I thought they were good questions. I just don't think that they were good questions for them with their presupposition because I – interacting with the

Presbyterians, I kind of just know where they're going to go with this. They're not going to be arguing in the way in which the question is asked.

Yes, you guys want to hear what – oh, yeah, sorry. Jeremiah, did you have something you wanted to add to that? Brayden, what was the second question?

Remind me. Second question is are children saved from their first birth or their second birth?

I thought that was the weakest of the three questions. I thought the first one was good. I mean we need to see the imperative, the command to baptize infants, if it's that important.

In my opinion, I understand it's going to go back to the Abrahamic covenant. The last one is a good question too.

I think that's one where we have the upper hand, but Presbyterians are reformed, and so they're going to affirm the second birth is what truly is what's important.

But I do think they struggle with that second one. So even though I think it's a weak question,

I still think it's a good one to kind of unpack. I think the weakest question is the third question.

If Christ is our federal head, if Christ is the federal head of the unregenerate, that's universalism.

It just makes no sense at all. I mean either we are—go ahead. I guess we're going to unpack it in a minute.

Yes. Now the reason why I like the third question is because it's heavily in our favor, and they struggle.

That's why I like the question being asked to the Presbyterians. The second question the

Presbyterians are going to easily own with us of saying, well, of course it's the second birth. But as we're going to get into it, they actually believe infants can have an infantile faith and be regenerate, and that's where I was talking with Jeff before we got on here of saying that's really close to another doctrine we all should reject, including

Presbyterians, which is baptismal regeneration. Right. All right.

I'm going to hit play and let you listen to something that's been said here. Let's hear it. Yes, let's do it. …go about even trying to answer this question because infant baptism is not a proof text type of go to this text.

Are y 'all having problems hearing it? Yeah. I'm not hearing it very well. It's breaking up bad.

Really? I must not have a good internet service right now. Sorry.

So this is him answering. I'm reading on top of this. Yeah, I can hear you.

According to it, it says we're selling arguments against infant baptism. Is that what he's doing right here?

Okay. So maybe I can just talk a little bit on this because I just watched this video, so I know exactly what you're going to say.

Right now, I'm on a hot spot. You're breaking up too, brother. You guys take over.

Uh -oh. Reboot. Thank you for that.

We can talk a little bit about that first question while he reboots if you want. Yeah. Yeah, so what was the command, right?

Right. I think this is a good question because it puts the burden heavily on the

Pato Baptist. And if anybody watched the debate between – I say debate – between John MacArthur and R .C.

Sproul, a lot of people were swayed by Johnny Mac because I don't know if you all watched that years ago, but his first and greatest point was it ain't in the text.

It ain't in there. And he's right. Now, they have to unpack what 1

Corinthians 7, the children being holy, they have to link that marriage passage family with the household baptisms and acts.

They got a lot of showing to do. And when I try to explain to people what R .C.

Sproul's position was about the Abrahamic covenant, how he implemented the covenant sign on Isaac, a lot of people are like, yeah, that's a tough sell.

And then you have to tie it to Colossians 2 with baptism and circumcision. It's a lot of the connecting the dots, you know what

I mean? But Braden made a really good point earlier. It's the presuppositions. It's the presupposition that there's one covenant of grace that has many different administrations.

And when I start to explain the Presbyterian view to other people that aren't Presbyterian, there's a lot of question marks that just fly up of like, where is this coming from?

Yeah, I rejected covenant theology for the longest just because of the one covenant of grace with different administrations.

Like that has never at any time made any sense to me. Coming to the understanding of Baptist covenant theology, 1689 federalism, that was the very first time

I picked up a hacky sack. I could have swore a light shone down from heaven and was shining.

I heard, oh, right? That's how I felt. Kidding, right? But that's how

I felt when I discovered the 1689 federalist view. And I was like, oh, this puts it together, right?

Like it was like God sent. Right, because all of us would agree that if there is one covenant of grace and it's just spanning all the way through the time that we actually should, we should baptize babies if there is one covenant of grace.

Would you guys agree with that? If there was one covenant of grace under a different administration.

I would say if there was one covenant of grace, the apostle Paul is a false prophet. What I'm saying is if that's the case, would it be consistent to say that if this is just one covenant of grace under different administrations, ultimately finding its fulfillment in a way that it's the same substance as it was in the old covenant, we would also say, okay, there's continuity there.

Go ahead and baptize. Yeah. If you can convince me that this circumcision, like infant baptism is the new covenant circumcision, then

I would concur. Yeah. What do you say? That would be a lot of convincing.

Well, there are reformed Baptists that take the one covenant of grace of you, but the administration of the new covenant is so much greater that it warrants those upon profession.

So I would probably default to that, even though what you're saying, Tom, is the greatest argument for the

Presbyterian theology. But when we read Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews application of who is in the new covenant,

I struggle. I listened to Jared Longshore debate

James White, and James White did good. James White does what James White does. He exegeted Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10.

And to me, that's the silver bullet. But we want to talk about the broader issues of the covenant as well that kind of were left on the table in that debate.

And that's what the Red Pill guys bring up. And going back to what Brayden said, those are the underlying presuppositions.

So, Tom, going back to what you said, I don't want to give up that the new covenant is exclusively the covenant of grace.

To me, that's where it's the most powerful argument. Yeah, 100%, 100%. Brayden, are we ready?

I think so. Let me put this on here because I don't know if you guys covered this while I was rebooting my potato.

Being in Idaho, that's the best. I got the russet potato internet. I hope you guys are able to hear me better now.

It's a little starchy. Is that really what it's called? No, dude. I'm just messing with you, dude.

Well, I don't know. I had you on the sarcasm, dude. That's good. Everything's taters in Idaho.

Everything's taters, dude. It's steak and potatoes, pizza and potatoes, mac and cheese and potatoes.

It's potatoes on everything, dog. Anyway, it's potatoes on potatoes.

One thing I was going to say in here that I don't know if you guys have talked about it. So something that they say in there is that there is not a proof text to talk about baptism for infants in the

New Testament. There just isn't. And so going back on what Tom said, if there was just one covenant of grace, we would suspect and expect that there would be ample amount of proof text to demonstrate this.

But out of every text that we do see baptism talked about, it is really trying to stretch that canvas beyond what the scripture lets you do to apply it to babies and infants.

And something that he said, and I don't know if he said it right here or if he says it later,

I think he might say it later. When you consider about all the texts that are talked about with proof texts of circumcision in the old covenant, you would expect, again, that to be the same amount in the

New Testament, in the new covenant. You're going to mess up my train of thought right now when you're combing your beard with a knife,

Jeff. What are you doing? What is going on?

Anyway, I don't know what I was going to say. So anyway, yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Don't interrupt me, Jeff. Put away the knife. Brayden, can

I chime in on something? Yeah, go ahead. This is jump a little bit ahead, but I just can't contain myself.

Plato Baptist failed to recognize that Abraham was circumcised based on faith.

So it was a creed of circumcision. So we're going to get more into that later.

But that's important to distinguish from Isaac, which was an unbelieving circumcision. Right. So one thing that I do think he says here, which

I don't know if we're going to listen. You want me to pull it up? Yeah, go ahead and pull it up. I'll get it.

But he brings up the pagan. He says the pagan convert to Judaism or to the old covenant.

They were baptized or they were circumcised after the conversion into the covenant. Right. That's exactly what we're arguing for.

Someone was born in the covenant. The natural was born into the covenant. And those pagans were brought in.

And then guess what? They both received after entrance into the covenant. The sign. The sign wasn't given to them first.

You have to make it clear that the old covenant was the earthly covenant, not the heavenly covenant.

The new covenant points to a heavenly reality that we have in Christ Jesus. Well, and also these covenants, they function.

The covenant of grace deals with salvation. The covenants of old were dealing with a lot of physical land promises and so on and so forth.

However, the makeup of covenants is consistent. It's entrance into the covenant and then the sign of the covenant.

Like that's that's what we see laid out. And so if we want to be consistent in the new covenant, regardless, if we want to say that it's one covenant of grace, which

I don't say, I think that's inconsistent with what the word of God says. But even in that, one has to enter the covenant first and then receive the sign.

So the favor is not in the Presbyterians boat anyway. That goes.

So let's get to the question. Okay. Let me go back to the response.

We'll see if it works here, boys. It's going to work. Yeah. Name and claim it.

And grab it. I can't hear it.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is not our night. Okay. Don't judge us off this episode.

Oh, wait. No, don't do that one. Don't do that one. Okay. Okay. I'm listening. Hold on. Don't click it. We're getting a lot of reaction because we got the apologetic dog on here.

We could always talk about this one. Johnny Cash's finger. Okay, go ahead.

Johnny Cash's chicken nugget. Johnny Cash's chicken nugget. All right.

That we are starting at Matthew 28 in the question to answer the question shows a significant difference in how we're going to go about even trying to answer this question because infant baptism is not a proof text type of just go to this text and clearly it's there.

Now, I do think there is one text that I would say is essentially a proof text.

And so I'll read that here. Yep. But that's not going to be what my argument or the reason that I believe in it is. It's first Corinthians 10 beginning in verse one.

It says, for I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that all that our fathers were all under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drink the same spiritual rock.

They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them. And the rock was Christ. And so he is drawing an overt connection to the sacraments here of baptism in the

Lord's Supper by going back to the practices of Israel in the passing through the

Red Sea and then feeding on the rock and the spiritual drink in all of Israel did that.

There was not another path for infants to get across the Red Sea. They were all baptized through that, according to Paul, in that sense.

And so if we're going to look for a proof text, I would say that that's one place to go. So I just wanted to include that to see if we want to interact with that because that's his answer to is there.

Israel. Israel. So that was a tie. Have I been saying it wrong? Yep. Well, the thing is, is that I think

I think we should go to 1st Corinthians 10 and keep on reading because I think 100 % answers what he's trying to bring up right here.

Because look at the look of the following verse in verse four or verse five.

Nevertheless, with most of them, God was not pleased. Yeah. Great point for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Now, these things took place as examples for us. Whoa. It sounds like there's some distinguishing things going on right here that we might not desire evil as they did.

Do not be idolaters, as some of them were, as is written. The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.

We must not indulge in sexual immorality, as some of them, and 23 ,000 fell in a single day.

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble as some of them did and were destroyed by the destroyer.

Now, these things happened to them as an example. But they were written down for our instruction on whom the end of the ages has come.

Again, what's being talked about in 1st

Corinthians is what we have is superior to then what they have when they were, they were sinning against God.

They were in a covenant of works is what it's talking about. And the question is, what is the substance of the faith in the old covenant?

What is the substance of the faith in the new covenant? It was not

Christ that pointed to Christ, it portrayed Christ. Let me ask you guys this, did any of us get baptized into Moses, you and I?

No. But one thing that he does do in here is he ends up accidentally saying they were baptized into Christ.

And the other gentleman corrects and says, well, it was into Moses, who was a type of Christ. The point of it is, is that Moses was their covenant federal head.

That was a covenant of works that, of course, the types and the shadows pointed to Christ.

The promises spoke of Christ, but it was still a covenant of works, which they continually sinned against God, which were written down.

I'll have the Greek with you to see how this baptized, this translated. Is it baptism, baptism, baptism?

OK, yeah. Yeah. And in verse two. Yeah. Which I just want to talk about the discontinuity here as they were immersed into the leadership and authority of Moses.

That's right. Right. This was, this was not a wet immersion. Literally the water split in two and they went down.

And to Braden's point, we are baptized. Paul would say elsewhere into Christ, the mediator of a better covenant that's superior in every way.

Right. Amen. Yeah, I think this text is actually a proof text against infant baptism.

It is. It's types and shadows. This is a type of shadows. Yeah. I mean, if you're going to have something as direct as, you know, using the word baptism, it needs to at least prefigure or point to what exactly it is that you're talking about.

And this does not be that. No. Jeremiah. Yeah. So what they're going to hear us say, they're going to say, you guys missed it.

Y 'all missed all the part that says, and all aided the same spiritual food and all drank of the same spiritual drink.

The spiritual rock was Christ. Now this gets into Braden's earlier point. There are deeper presuppositions that they are operating on that we're operating on as we're reading this text.

Right. So what I would say is we can't artificially construct a covenant of grace, and it's administered through certain, you know, sacraments or whatever, because we're going to say, sure, all the promises in the

Old Testament pointed to Christ. Now by faith in those promises, you can be benefactors of the new covenant.

You know, we'd all agree in some measure, but we are grounding the covenant of grace, not in an umbrella, you know, construct, but in the new covenant itself.

So that's the underlying presuppositions that are going on for both sides as we approach the text like this, because they're going to say, well, the children in the wilderness, they partook of Christ.

And we're going to say, yeah, under old covenant standards, and that matters because this is a mixed covenant.

The new covenant is not a mixed covenant. Well, not only that, what were the results? What were the results of that old covenant?

What was the old results of the old covenant promise to stay in the land of Canaan? What's the results of being in the new covenant?

Eternal life. Well, and I would also just say on what

Jeremiah said there, yes, they did eat of these spiritual things, right? Undoubtedly they did.

That's the point that Paul is making right here is that they had a greater light demonstrated to them, and they still treaded down on the blood of Christ.

They still rejected him. So the children that were part of that covenant that never placed faith in Christ, a greater light, a greater demonstration of the gospel was given to the children of Israel than the pagan nations down the road.

Yet they still fell short of the glory of God is what it's talking about in there.

I've been sitting here trying to hold my tongue, and it's just trying to wait for a greater, as the questions unfold that I can touch on this.

But, I mean, there's no way to not really. I mean, this is pointing to our argument concerning Baptist covenant theology, 1689 federalism, right?

All these things are what Paul is revealing here is how these things in the old covenant were pointing to something greater, the new covenant.

And if they have faith, so if these Israelites would have had that faith and that seed that all these things were pointing to, then they would have eternal life through the new covenant, even though they're in the old covenant, right?

Key is through the new covenant. Through the new covenant, yes. That's right. So these things are basically making our argument for us.

Absolutely. That's what I said earlier. Like when you asked me the question, if there's one covenant of grace with different administrations,

I would say, well, if that's true, then Paul will be a false prophet. Because Paul is always pointing to the type, looking to the type that's pointing to the anti -type and explaining his position.

Paul was a 1689 federalist. That's right. All this dude is doing is giving us ammo.

And I was trying to save a little bit of that for later. But, you know, I just think that maybe it's best right off at the very beginning.

We point that out, that all he's doing is building our argument that these things are pointing to a greater covenant, that the old covenant is not.

Bryce brought in the new covenant. I, Jeff, I think I think what you brought up was excellent because you just recently preached in John that these

Old Testament people ate of the bread and they died. Christ says, eat of me and you will never die.

Right. Right. So that the spiritual in that Old Testament text was having faith in Christ.

But there were people who ate of it that didn't actually ever believe in that message. They still rejected the

Christ. And by doing that, you guys want to listen.

So the next person I have just as a minute marker, I'll just tell you is 1355. It's up right now. It's on Genesis 17 and they refer to it as the everlasting covenant.

Do you guys want to go over that or go to the next one? But so to answer the question,

I would want to go to Genesis 17 where it says, the

Lord is saying to Abraham, I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be

God to you and to your offspring after you. And then verse 10, this is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you and your offspring after you.

Every male among you shall be circumcised. And so we have these two categories.

And I think this is really important in clearly in the old covenant that I would say we have no reason to think

God is working differently in the new covenant. Which this is even kind of a slam against dispensationalism that tries to break up redemption history into all these different.

One covenant. This is an everlasting covenant, a covenant of grace given that was already established essentially with Adam.

But we see basically really bringing it into history and redemption history in a unique way with Abraham.

But it's one covenant everlasting. That's why we say there's the one covenant of grace that spans the

Old and New Testament. It's really important because something that I would even challenge even the Reformed Baptists who are watching.

I often hear them breaking up the covenant. I don't think they subscribe, at least not in the same way we do, to the one covenant of grace, which

I would ask them then. What do you do with these promises? Do you say that's one covenant and then there's successive little covenants?

It seems to me that we've got the one covenant of grace. We've got different administrations. This is where it gets really interesting.

In Galatians 3, when it says, One, the gospel was preached to Abraham.

This is biblical theology where it's one story, covenant theology, that is unfolding over the entirety of Scripture.

The gospel was preached to Abraham. What was it that the gospel was? In you shall all the nations be blessed.

What is that a seedling of? The Great Commission. The Great Commission didn't begin in Matthew 28.

The idea of baptism didn't begin at Matthew 28. This is the flowering of the gospel that was preached to Abraham.

How did the Lord instruct Abraham to administer this covenant?

There's really two categories that are still in play, I would say. There's pagan conversion.

Somebody who is not part of the covenant community, not born into it, but through the proclamation of the gospels is grafted in.

They are to be baptized. Absolutely. Also, the faithfulness of covenant members, of covenant children.

I'm probably skipping to the third one a little bit here. This idea of unconverted children, based on our understanding of the entirety of Scripture, we don't have that category.

We don't have that category of unconverted children. Okay, let's pause it there.

There's a lot of stuff to go on with that. A lot of stuff. Who wants to go first, because I've got a lot to say about this.

I'll go first. That's cool. Yeah, go ahead. So we do believe in one covenant of grace.

We believe it's exclusively the new covenant. And Galatians 3 does not help their case, because it does mention the promised gospel that was to come.

So two terms I want to help our Presby brothers, this is charitable love, is they need to be sensitive in the

Old Testament to promise, and I would argue for conditions, because that's what we see going on in Genesis 17.

I would say this is a further extracting of what was promised in Genesis 12.

We see that this was a covenant cut in animal blood in Genesis 15.

So I know Brayden can kind of speak to this, but this is a unique covenant that was one of promise and conditions.

Now I would submit to the Presbyterians, you have to be so careful that you do not conflate grace and conditions or grace with works, because this is the direction they're going down, and I believe

Presbyterians miss what's being communicated with the Abrahamic covenant. A couple examples

I want to throw out. We notice a dual nature happening with the Abrahamic covenant.

There's two things going on in chapter 17. God is saying, I will do this, I will do this, and this is an everlasting covenant.

Sounds like God's going to fulfill His promise of the proto -evangelium, right? We're saying, yeah, that's the new covenant promise that is to come.

Abraham can put his faith in that promise because it's a guarantee, and because God can't lie, He can be justified even back in these

Old Testament times. But it's by faith in the promise of the new covenant. That's the everlasting covenant gospel of peace, grace.

That's the new covenant. Then the second aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is a conditional side that is for all the male offspring to be circumcised.

So you have promise and you have conditions. I got a lot to say about this, but I just want to kind of wrap this up.

So real quick, what is the promise? What is the promise? The promise is Jesus Christ, who is a perfect mediator of a covenant that cannot fail.

That everlasting covenant is the new covenant, and that fulfills the promise of the

Abrahamic covenant. I would argue the Mosaic covenant that Christ fulfills is what fulfills the conditional aspect of the physical offspring here in Genesis because it's all the male children and the offspring to come.

The circumcision is going to signify this covenant of works, this covenant of conditions that they always fall short and is condemned.

So the Abrahamic covenant is unique to itself. It just has a promise and conditions.

The conditions are fulfilled in Christ fulfilling the law, all the conditions, and he inaugurates the promise of the new covenant that is to come.

That is how the Abrahamic covenant gets fulfilled. Were there other promises besides that were tangible in the old covenant by keeping the conditions?

Yeah, that had to do with the new covenant? No, there were two conditions.

So there was a spiritual promise, a spiritual condition that God was going to do. The covenant of works that man was to do, there were promises if he was to be obedient, if he was to -

Well, if he's just going to stay in the Abrahamic covenant, it was circumcision. Right, and what were the promises?

What were the benefits of that? Was it a part of life? No, it was being a part of that covenant, people.

And there were benefits of being able to stay in the land, right? Yeah, verse 8, I will give you and your offspring after you land.

Yes. Even the promise of offspring, children, is a physical promise in one sense.

We'll get into how it's not just a physical promise as well. That's where I wanted to go. There's several places, there's several things that is talked about with this.

Romans 4 argues this for us. Was Abraham justified by circumcision or by faith?

Yeah. Romans 4, because in the day when Paul is writing that letter to the

Romans in there, right, there was no chapter breaks or division breaks with verses, right?

And so Paul is essentially doing exactly what I'm going to do right here. What comes first, chapter 15 or chapter 17?

Chapter 15. 15 does, right? And 15 is where Abraham is credited with righteousness.

So if we want to say that Abraham was saved through this old covenant, well, then let's go look at 17 where this old covenant is continually instituted.

And the conditions are scary, brothers and sisters. Look at verse 17, verse 1. When Abram was 99 years old, the

Lord appeared to Abram and said, I am God, the almighty. Walk before me and be blameless.

So I'm going to say that this is a covenant of grace. You have a terrible definition of what grace is because grace is the unmerited favor of God.

This is a conditional promise to Abraham that consists of land and offspring.

Go to Genesis 15, which if the audience would, please do verse 4 and 6.

And we're going to then go to Galatians. But verse 4 and 6, 4 to 6 in chapter 15 says this.

I'm going to read this really slowly for us. And behold, the word of the

Lord came to him saying, this man shall not be your heir.

Your very own son shall be your heir. And he brought him outside and said, look toward heaven and number the stars.

If you are able to number them. Then he said to him, so shall your offspring be.

And he, speaking of Abram, believed the Lord, believed Yahweh, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Look at verse 4 again. Behold, the word of the

Lord came to Abram. You consider that and tie that to John chapter 8.

When Jesus is standing before the Pharisees and he says, Abraham saw my day and was glad.

What day is that that he's talking about? When the pre -incarnate Christ, the word, John 1, 1 in the beginning was the word.

The word was with God and the word was God. In verse 14, the word became flesh. The word stood before Abraham.

And Abraham looked at him with faith. His day was glad. And that's why

Abraham says before Abraham was or why this, why Jesus says before Abraham was, I am the word of the

Lord. This is listen. Abraham was saved in the covenant of grace by looking forward to the covenant.

He was saved by that covenant of grace. We're saying that there's only one means of salvation. And that one means of salvation is

Jesus Christ. And that's found for the members alone in the covenant of grace, which Abraham was made a part of by looking to the word.

But then how does the word come about? Well, Abraham, you're going to have an heir.

And Abraham, he's going to bless the nations. Turn with me now to Galatians chapter 3.

Galatians chapter 3, verse 5 and on. It says this. Does he who supplies you or excuse me, let me just go to verse 6.

Just as Abraham. So just as meaning our faith is just as Abraham's faith. Just as Abraham believed

God and it was counted to him as righteousness. No, then it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the gospel.

To Abraham saying, and you shall all the nations be blessed. So then those who are of the faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Abraham was not saved by walking and being blameless in the covenant of old. He was saved by faith in the gospel that was revealed to him there that day when he was glad.

On debit. On credit. We're on debit.

And I would also add Galatians 3 will go on to say that the mosaic is added to the

Abrahamic and they were only until Christ. Yeah. Speaking of the old covenant, that old covenant was only until Christ.

And we read in Hebrews that it's vanishing away. It's becoming obsolete.

Why? Because of the work of Christ. The one that was promised to Abraham would inherit the land.

How? By keeping the covenant, he would inherit the land and bless the nations.

And this this keeper of the covenant was going to take the covenant curses that we then see in Genesis chapter 15 with the cutting of the animals and God walking through them again.

This is predicting and prophesying and pointing Abraham to the future, not in his current works of the covenant that is conditioned to him.

Galatians 3, verse 16. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say into offsprings, referring to many, but to one and to your offspring, who is

Christ. Verse 29. And if you are Christ and you're Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The gospel was not preached to Abraham through circumcision. Sounds like we're very clear in saying that.

The gospel was not preached to Abraham by circumcision. That's right.

Abraham looked to the word. In faith. In faith.

One hundred percent. In faith. To say that the gospel was preached in circumcision, it would,

Jeremiah, I know it's going to get your hair standing up, but it would be works. Right.

It would be Aragon. Right. The gospel is now something we do.

Can I hop in there real quick? For sure. I was trying to get your attention. Oh, thank you.

You did. You know how to do it. When we talk about old covenant, new covenant. So, you know, a lot of times we're talking about the old covenant.

We're kind of pointing directly at the Mosaic covenant, but we are also talking about the historic covenants of old.

And I want to point out 2 Corinthians 3 talks about the old covenant as a ministry of condemnation and death.

How are you going to tell me this old covenant brought about life and righteousness?

It didn't. It condemned. Galatians goes on to say, you know, the law, which is synonymous for Moses, which

I would say the Mosaic law had conditions. 613 of them.

Right. It's a further expounding upon the conditional side of the Abrahamic covenant.

It was dual nature. Right. You had the spiritual offspring, those by faith that are resting in the promised seed, singular.

And then you had all the male physical offspring of Abraham that were to be circumcised. The circumcision signified the condition that condemns man.

That circumcision pointed to a deeper heart issue, namely that man cannot circumcise his own heart.

So us as Reformed Baptists, we do see Old Testament, Old Covenant, New Testament, New Covenant.

The old covenant was a covenant of works that condemned and taught us our need for a savior.

And the new covenant is showing us a better covenant of salvation. And so I could speak a lot, but I want to highlight the conditional aspect of the

Abrahamic covenant that was won by works. Circumcision in Romans four is described as a work.

And Abraham was justified by faith apart from his circumcision. Now, I do want to kind of touch on a few things.

If there are conditions, then it's your you have to respond to your works and your works are always going to fall short.

Galatians three talks about if you try to keep a little bit of the law, you're actually going to be required to keep the whole thing.

And oh, yeah, good luck, because ain't no one on this earth born in Adam was able to do that.

That's why you need a perfect savior. Galatians chapter four talks about there's there's two covenants going on and you cannot mix grace and law.

Right. There's a hard distinction. And as we continue to press into this, this is the fatal flaw of Presbyterian theology is because they make the covenant of grace and all of its different administrations.

One that's dependent on conditions. And like I said, once you're looking to yourself to respond in certain conditional works, that is that damages the gospel.

So I don't want people to mishear us and say that we think Presbyterians are heretics. We think they're wrong on this, but they would actually switch gears.

Many of them will talk about some exceptions here, but they would say, no, justification has always been by grace through faith.

And we're saying, whoo, thank goodness they conclude that. But the means that they get there, they have to take the the conditional side of the

Abrahamic covenant and just call it grace. They look at things like the Mosaic covenant and say, oh, it's it's grace.

And really by that same principle, they should be looking at the Adamic covenant and calling it grace.

When all of it says, no, that was one on conditions and therefore works. Well, you know, also you look at, at who the, who it was made with.

And Rinehan in his book, the mystery of the covenant or the Christ covenant says, said that the promises were nationally guaranteed, but they weren't individually guaranteed.

God kept his promises. Abraham's descendants did multiply. They did inherit

Canaan. The promised seed was born, but not every Israelite enjoyed the full benefits of God's blessings.

They did not, they did fulfill their, their commitments. The promises were nationally guaranteed, but not individually guaranteed.

The wilderness generation, Moses is a good example where it says that the wilderness generation did not entertain in because of their disbelief, but it was still promised.

So they did, God fulfilled his promises. Yeah. And if I can answer

Melissa real quick, Presbyterians do conflate the two covenants. And also Troy asked the question, what was the importance of the land of the nation of Israel?

And do you want to, y 'all want to tackle that or I can get it? I got it right here. I'm trying to space it out for you.

I don't want to, I do want to, I want to talk in this next section. So if somebody else wants to, they're more than welcome to.

But I have it up in Hebrews 11, if you want me to. Yeah, we covered it last week.

I think it was, but go ahead. Hebrews 11 verse 10, for he was looking forward to the city that has foundation, whose designer and builder is

God. Verse 13, these all died in faith, not having received the things that things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on earth.

Verse 16, but as it is, they desired a better country that is a heavenly one.

Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

And so the land promises, very true physical promises that the people enjoyed when faithful and lost when, when broken, because it was a conditional covenant of works.

But ultimately, even those land promises pointed them to something that was greater and better, just like the bread that they ate from, just like the rock and the water that they drank from.

It all pointed us to Christ and what he is doing for us in heaven right now and what he's done for us on earth.

Yeah, I can't find out where it is, but Joshua tells us that they received the promises, all the promises that were given to them.

And also, yeah, yeah. And also as, as, as Reformed Baptists who hold to Baptist covenant theology, we look at these things with a two tier typology that the land promises, the land promise had its fulfillment, right?

It was promised to the Jews to bring about the offspring. All right. So once the offspring kind of came and he fulfilled that covenant, that covenant was only until Christ, that promise land fulfilled its purpose.

And so that promise land that fulfilled its purpose is pointing us to a greater land, which is what

Braden was just reading about in Hebrews. And also Romans 4, 13 for the promise to Abraham or his seed, that he would be the heir of the world, the world.

Not the land. Remember that verse in the Beatitudes, the meek shall inherit the earth, not the land.

That's right. Through the law, through the righteousness of faith. Yeah. Amen.

All right. Y 'all want to get to the next one? Let's do it. Because this one to me, I think is one of the most important parts that I would like to address here in a moment.

So listen to it. Let's, let's talk about it. Just how the, how the Lord has always spoken about these things.

Right. And so. It comes to the fact that you, what we're arguing here is that you need a very clear point in scripture to point to, to create the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant.

We would need very, very clear instruction. And I do not believe that the burden of proof is met for, for that discontinuity in how we understand and view our children.

Right. Yeah. So basically. All right. So we can just read the book of Hebrews.

So Brayden, I wanted to just take a moment and read the portion where the writer of Hebrews quotes

Jeremiah 31. Yeah, please do. You know what I mean? Because that would be perfect for what I'm going to read. Yeah.

Well, I'll just kind of, you know, shorthand just say God, God's people, he knows them the least to the greatest of them and forgives all their sins.

They shall know God relationally, have their sins forgiven. How about that for a radical discontinuity from new covenant all the back to old covenant where it was a mixed rabble where you had unbelievers, right?

Who failed constantly. How about we look to the book of Hebrews that says we have a perfect mediator who cannot fail.

That's better than Moses that represented the old covenant. I mean, if how about we go to Galatians four that talk about two different covenants that are radically different.

One represents grace and one represents law. How about we don't conflate those categories and say, yeah, there is a major discontinuity there.

But I rest my case. My drop. Right. No, Hebrews eight is exactly where I was hoping somebody would go, because I will build off of Hebrews eight right there, because Hebrews eight is the argument that the reformed

Baptist is making is the covenant of grace that consists of all the elect. That is not a mixed covenant with both unregenerate and regenerate people.

You enter that covenant through new birth, and then you receive the sign. That's the one on one reformed

Baptist text, right? I just preached a message from Hebrews 12 verse 18 through 24, which

I would ask everyone to please turn there at a church in Southern California called Grace Bible Church in Moore Park.

If you live in that area, you should start going to church there and you'll hear why in the future. But verse 18 verse 24 says this.

For you have not come to what may be touched a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice who were words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them for they could not endure the order that was given.

If even a beast touched the mountain, it shall be stoned. Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said,

I tremble with fear. I want to pause there and just say what the author of Hebrews, what

I would say is Paul writing this Paul preaching. This is saying you have not come to something that is previously recorded for us in Exodus chapter 19.

When Moses is a mediator on the Mount, when God comes down and touches the Mount on the third day.

And the people, according to Hebrews, saying, I cannot endure this, this covenant that's being talked about in here by Moses, that where Jeremiah just talked about that Moses was the mediator of that covenant.

And it's referring back to Exodus 19 and on. Right. They could not endure it, meaning it was a covenant of works.

Right. And that's not what we've come to. Is the Exodus 19 where the people kind of unknowingly say, yeah, we'll do these things.

Yes. Yep. What you're getting as they're like, oh, no, what have we done? Listen, this is before any scripture has been written.

Moses and the people are there and they're like, no, we don't want anymore. What's the difference between that and believers today?

God, let me understand your word. I want more of it. And yet what's being told to us is those covenant of works individuals back then desire, not a single more word to be spoken to them.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, covenant. Moses, you go talk to God. We'll stay over here. New covenant. God, please speak to me.

Right. We're all priests and kings in the new covenant. Why? Why does it say in verse 18, you have not come to you have not come to what may be touched.

That is referring to Mount Sinai and where the covenant of works is given to Moses.

And it says that if anyone touches, if anyone comes upon the border of the mountain, they will die.

If you want a clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, like this gentleman here in this video in the

Reformation, Red Pills asked, this is a clear one. We have not come to something that if we touch it, we will die.

Because listen to what it then says in verse 23. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living

God and heavenly Jerusalem and to innumerable angels and festal gatherings and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven and to God and the judge of all into the spirits of righteous made perfect.

And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, talking back to what

Jeremiah read from Hebrews chapter eight, but it says, and to sprinkle blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

I give that example that you gave in that message concerning the child.

Yep. Listen, I'm just going to do it to say this. Imagine you were there that day with Moses.

Exodus 19. You have heard that here is God. That's going to come down on the third day, which is a beautiful typological event that is pointing us to Christ being raised on the third day.

God is coming down upon this mountain on the third day in Exodus 19. And you're so excited, right? Here you're a family.

You have your three kids with you. Your wife is with you. And you guys are thinking this is where we're going to see

God. God's coming down. He's going to be here. And as you approach the mountain and you remember the words of Moses, you look down and you see only two of your children there.

Where did my son Shepherd go? Are you excited to be at this mountain or what are you doing?

You're going to go running around to every family and every camp and every group of people shouting shepherd, shepherd.

Where are you at? Shepherd? No. Shepherd. Don't tell me you went and touched the mountain.

Why? Because death was involved with the breaking of God's word in this covenant.

What's the difference between this covenant where children died and the covenant of grace?

Is that no one dies in the covenant of grace. We now ask God, God, can my child please come and touch

Mount Zion? Can he please come and grip upon the cross? Can he please live rather than die?

That's a clear, Pastor Brooks and Pastor Joshua of the

Reformation Red Pill. This is a clear text that shows there's a discontinuity between the old covenant and the covenant of grace.

The old covenant, you're gripping your hand, you're gripping your child's hand and not letting them go.

New covenant, you want to throw them at the mountain. That's right.

I like that. I like the illustration. I might have to steal that from you. Please do.

I appreciate it. I was almost in tears, man. I was listening to it, just imagining it.

Because I got a three -year -old. He's hard to get control of sometimes.

He thinks he's a baby tiger. He's running around. He's running on his hands and legs.

But seriously, this type of fear that it's talking about in here is not godly fear that produces wisdom.

This is godly fear that produces death. This is a type of fear that says,

I'm going to grip onto my children's hands because I don't like it. I actually hate this experience.

I don't want another single word. God, you told me not to touch the mountain. What else are you going to tell me now?

You're going to tell me all these other things? This covenant produced death, whereas what's being compared to us is the covenant that Christ establishes that brings life.

And so that's the whole point of this is no one in the covenant with Moses was saved by the covenant of Moses.

That's right. It was all through Christ and what he was going to bring, which was the covenant of grace.

Because his was by the works of the law. And through the works of the law, no flesh will be justified. That's right.

Yeah. If you compare that to Hebrews 8, again, I would argue every Presbyterian needs to go and open and read faithfully through the book of Hebrews.

But Hebrews 8 is very clearly that there's a different covenant that Christ mediated than that of Moses. And then

Hebrews 12 that I just demonstrated just shows a clear discontinuity between that of the old covenant and the new covenant.

Oh, and by the way, a new priesthood, by the way, too. When the priesthood is changed for the necessity of the place change also in the law.

Good stuff. All right. You want to move forward? Yeah. So this is the second question.

You don't want to get into really the continuity and discontinuity. If you go back, me and Braden have already addressed this.

We're writing a book on it. Yeah, we're actually writing a book on it. And they do not want to have that conversation, at least with us, because we will totally hand them their rear concerning the continuity and discontinuity.

But that's not what this is about right now, so we'll press on. Can you be saved in your first birth or only by your second birth?

Yes. You have to be born again to be saved. Everyone must be born again.

Yeah, no doubt. I'll pause there, because that's a pretty quick, straightforward question.

So something that Steve Lawson always kicks at the

Presbyterians on, because, as you know, he's a part of the league in there now. And his biggest problem has been, and he's called him out for this.

He says that you do not call your children to be born again. You raise them as if they are.

You do not call them to repentance and faith. Right. All right.

So if you believe that your child is in the covenant, like if I believe that my child was in the covenant, as a

Baptist perspective of the covenant, I would not call them to be born again. I would not call them to repentance and faith.

And that's the biggest thing, that we have different views in the covenant. And I know that they're not saying that even though they're in the covenant, that they are born again.

But yet, they're not calling their children to believe. They're waiting for their children to respond, because they expect them to believe, because they're in the covenant.

So they're presuming salvation, because they're in the covenant. Well, presuming that they are

God's elect and will come to faith. Exactly. But not actually calling them to repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

Like on almost a daily basis, when I'm having these conversations with my children, I'm calling them to faith and repentance.

Amen. Like I hear my daughter witnessing to her friends, and I'll say something like, why are you witnessing to your friends?

Because I want them to be Christians. And I'll say, but you have not repented and put your faith in Christ.

Listen, that's the throwing our children at the Mount of Zion, right? Like run to God.

Be saved by him. Be a part of this covenant. It's good stuff.

One thing. Yeah. I mean, you think the whole born again statement that is quoted often rightfully so.

In John chapter three, we remember who Christ is talking to. He's talking to the old covenant follower,

Nicodemus, right? Who has all hope in Abraham. And guess what else? His circumcision.

And Christ looks at him dead in his eye and says, I don't care who your father, your papa is.

You got to be born again. That's essentially what Christ says. So even in that, there is

Jesus saying, you're good. You're in the covenant. You're part of the covenant status. No, he says no.

It's just an administration. You know, it's just something you tacked on to. You're good. Just flow right on in.

No, you must be born again. And Pauline is going to see it needs to take place. Jeremiah? Yep.

Go ahead. I don't know if it's on this question. They get into infants can be regenerated and have an infantile faith.

But here's something that I see a lot of problems. I think one of the proof texts here for infants, if you're in the covenant family, you have a promise that they're going to be one of the elect.

And a lot of my conversations, it comes to Acts 239 for the promise is for you and your children.

And so how this conversation goes is, well, the promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the forgiveness of your sins.

And oh, yeah, let's just link it to baptism. Right. And that that first clause or the second clause in Acts 238.

And there's there's two things I want to point out. And a lot of this, Dr. James Wyatt has pointed out a lot in his debates is there's another imperative going on in that.

And it's to repent like Jeffrey has been talking about. And they seem to forget that imperative.

What's going on in Acts 238. So you got to be consistent. And two, I like to really ask, what are you saying that promise when you're baptizing your child is that they will be saved?

Because if you say yes, and most Presbyterians are razor thin saying, yes, this is an absolute promise.

I'm saying functionally you have a the same doctrine as baptismal regeneration by another name.

You're not saying that the waters of baptism regenerate the child, but they receive the symbol of the new covenant, which replace circumcision and therefore promises their call and election.

And I'm saying you functionally have committed, you know, one of the sins of Rome, if you will.

And they've abused the context that verse altogether. So for you and your children, you and your offspring, that is a very

Jewish term. Why? Because under the old covenant, you know, circumcision, you had to set apart this national people for the land and so forth.

Right. But verse 39 says, and all who are far off. Well, if you look in Isaiah, look in the

Psalms, this is a Gentile term. So this promise of the forgiveness of sins to repent and believe the gospel is for the

Jew first, then the Gentiles, the Greek, and for everyone whom the

Lord God, our God calls to himself sovereign election. Yeah.

So I just want to throw that caution out there of what does the Presbyterian do with the promise?

Now, if we're just talking about a that God uses means, well, as a reformed

Baptist, I can pray over my son. I can train him up in the ways that he should go. And I'm going to trust in the general wisdom of God that he's not going to leave from the faith.

Is my household a household of faith and a Christian household? Yes, because I'm the federal head. Right. And so I'm trying to steward up my children.

They are set apart in a very special way because they are in a Christian household. But, Jeff, like you said,

I'm going to be calling baby JJ, the apologetic puppy, to repentance. I'm going to pray that the Holy Spirit would regenerate his heart.

I'm going to teach him about baptism, the Lord's Supper by saying, oh, yeah, those that profess faith in Christ, those are the ones that get to come to the table.

You know what I mean? And so here in a little bit, they're going to mock Baptists about functionally raising up our kids as Christians.

We carry that distinction. Yes, you might be in a Christian household because I'm the head. But the term

Christian is for those who have tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious. So you would say that they are set apart in a specific way, in a beneficial way, but not necessarily a salvific way.

100 percent. Yep. And you think about those that were coming to have faith in the Old Testament. Right.

It was more. I would argue that there were probably more coming to have faith, a genuine faith in God under the banner of Israel, under the banner of being a child of Abraham in the pagan nations.

Right. There's there's obviously benefits to being in closer proximity to God's word.

Right. And so, however, going back to something that Jeremiah just said there, too, we can't.

If the term Christian, we got to be really careful when we use these terms. Christian, if Christian means a person has been born again and saved or whatever that term is, that definition it is.

When we start watering down that definition to then like tie Christian to all these other titles, we're really robbing what we initially meant

Christian to be in the first place. And it's lessening what that word was originally meant in the in the

New Testament. And it's it's robbing the definition that what we would mean as Christian, just because a child is raised in a

Christian household, does not mean that they therefore are Christian. Right. I think we'll cover that.

Braden, Braden, Demas, Demas left the faith. I don't know if y 'all listen to their whole video, but they use that as the defeater for Reformed Baptists.

And I just anyway, I want to talk about the whole idea of apostasy.

Right. Like because that seems to be what Jared Longshore kept throwing up.

And these guys will touch on it as well. Right. They're right because they believe that you can apostatize because you're in the covenant.

Like they don't see that there's a separation between God's covenant and God's elect people.

Right. Which. Yeah. You know, like like I always tell people, you know, like in Romans chapter 10, 9 and 10, you see two things take place.

Those who call upon the name of the Lord and then you have believing in your heart that Christ Jesus was raised from the dead.

Right. Right. So so if someone so like in our Christian experience, we've met a lot of people who supposedly walked out, shook the hand, signed the card, prayed the prayer.

Right. And we'll have walked away from the faith. Right. But that just shows you that they did not believe in their heart that God raised this

Jesus from the dead. Right. Because that right there is what changes you to know that God took on flesh, entered into time.

All right. Live the life we cannot live. Die the death that we should die was buried and actually did rise from the grave three days later.

Like that changes everything. And then you look at the passages that they're pointing to in Hebrews and Peter.

Well, these things have a context like, you know, Hebrews.

You have these Christians that are running for their lives that, you know, they're basically looking back to the glorious temple.

And Paul, who I believe is the writer here, is telling them, listen, if you go back and you make that animal sacrifice after the once and for all sacrifice has been made, you are crucifying, once again, the son of God to your own harm.

And for anyone that can go back and do that, let me tell you what they did. They walked out, shook the hand and signed the card.

They did not truly believe that God raised this Jesus from the dead. So there's no way that you can go back after truly believing something that is scientifically impossible.

That is the absolute miracles of miracles, the death blow to Satan. So I've heard

Doug Wilson say, you know, he has. So making the sign, my wedding band that I married to my wife with, this is the sign of my marriage, my covenant sign of my marriage.

And so they would say, I could take this off and I could go be unfaithful. And therefore I'm going to be outside the covenant.

Here's the difference. My salvation isn't dependent upon me.

My salvation is dependent upon the God who died on the cross for my sin.

So it's not, I can't take off this ring. I cannot take off this sign. I am sealed into the day of redemption.

And it's all of God. It's all of Christ. So you can be unfaithful. God is going to be faithful.

So it's just like you said, if God saved me, what can I do? What can

I do to lose this salvation? If it was dependent upon me, I would lose it.

But since it's dependent upon Christ and His work on the cross, I'm guaranteed that promise.

Now, Tom, I would, yes, and I'm in you. I know the Presbyterian, and it goes back to Brayden's point, is there's deeper presuppositions of what a

Christian means. For them, the Christian new covenant community is both regenerate and unregenerate.

You know what I mean? So that's always a deeper presupposition of how we understand the covenants, which we kind of tackled already.

But what's interesting, I would say we share a kind of principle with the Presbyterians because they're going to say, oh, well, you know, the child that's, you know, non -elect that grew up in covenant community and apostatized, they were just superficially attached to the vine.

Well, this is where we would say, well, people upon their profession, right? Like Simon Magus, you know,

Simon the Sorcerer and Acts 8. You know, they can get baptized and want to buy the

Holy Spirit and totally miss the heart altogether. Yeah, that happens all the time where people have superficially attached themselves, we would say, by faith in Christ or professed faith by Christ.

1 John 2 .19 says, yeah, they weren't really actually of us. They didn't possess that regenerated heart.

So that's a point where we kind of agree of saying you can superficially attach yourself to the vine.

They just don't mind to say that that can start with the infants, and we would say that can start with someone that makes a false profession.

We wouldn't say that that person was in the covenant. We would say that they are members of it.

They can be a member of the church, but we would never, like in hindsight, we would never say that they were in the new covenant.

Right. They superficially attach themselves in the visible church, and we can't see that.

They were never a part of the covenant. What was your question? Yeah, I don't want to get too quick.

I was going to ask you, Jeremiah, when you were talking about this whole partial infant regeneration, what does that mean?

Almost say that they're close to having Christ's blood covering their sin. What does that mean? What does that look like?

Braden might can do word search, and they talk about it. But they get into, oh, well, if you think infants can go to heaven, and we look at Jesus saying of such that infants are the kingdom of heaven.

Well, you believe in an infant kind of faith. And he also said the Baptists are famous for saying viper in diapers.

It's their view that says that infants can have an infant kind of faith.

And to me, that's a hard sell. You can't point to the passage of John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb by the

Holy Spirit. I mean, John the Baptist is being set apart from the womb like the prophet Jeremiah or the apostle

Paul, he says in Galatians 1. That's a setting apart providentially by God.

We can say the Holy Spirit. But to say that an infant can have an infant faith in Christ alone, to me, is absurd.

Now, I believe someone can be four years old and make a valid profession in Christ, and we should honor that.

That's the kind of fruit that we're looking for is a clear articulation of the gospel and a professed repentance and faith in that.

But does that make sense that that's something that they're pushing for is that infants can be regenerated by an infantile faith work of the

Holy Spirit? Yeah, it makes no sense. Which infants can be regenerated as far as elect infants go.

That's what our confession even says. But if they're putting forth that they can partake in this infantile type of faith and then lose that faith to only regain it then in the future, that's absurd.

Right. Yeah, there's no faith that they can muster up. I mean, how are they going to be able to articulate?

Number one, how are they going to understand their condition? Right. Infant condition of, oh,

I'm a black, brown diaper. I wanted to echo what

Brayden is saying. We acknowledge as elect infants, and there's a whole conversation about what that means.

But yeah, to say a child can instantaneously be regenerated and therefore have an infant kind of faith.

To me, the scriptures don't speak of that. It doesn't mean that infants can't be saved and a part of the elect, but they need that,

I guess, in their system. But I wanted to raise a question that pertains to apostasy,

Jeff, if that's OK. Sure. So Hebrews chapter 10, I wanted to get y 'all's take on this because maybe we don't all see this the same way.

But to me, it's something good that's worth talking about. For those that don't know, me and Jeremiah, we talk and argue all the time.

I love it. I told Jeff, the benefit of us talking and arguing is when the presby comes along and hears our conversation, they're going to be like, oh, they're way further down the road than some of my small objections to covenant theology.

So verse 29, the writer of Hebrews, which I'm in favor of appalling authorship here.

How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has trampled under underfoot the son of God and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has outraged the spirit of grace?

You know, I've heard Dr. White, John Owen. They kind of talk about how the one being sanctified here is the son of God in this passage.

Johnny Mac, my favorite dispensationalist back here, you know, kind of takes the same view, I think, parallels it to John 17, 19, about even

Jesus was consecrated unto the Father. But as I've really tried to study this out more, understanding the overall arcing teaching of the book of Hebrews, verse 28 helps me think,

OK, this kind of tells us more who the people that were sanctified in some way that have trampled underfoot the blood of the covenant would be the

Jews that are reverting back to the old elemental things. That's my answer, man.

That's my answer. It's speaking to the Jews who were underneath that old covenant. I was going to say the verse before seems to set that away because the

Jews were set apart from the pagan world in external ceremonial ways, but all that was being fulfilled.

Does that mean that they were sanctified internally? No, the sanctification happens to the believer from the heart and being conformed more into the image of Christ.

The old covenant people externally were being set apart and being taught about Christ. If you would have only read 29, and I didn't know what came before that,

I would have came up with a different interpretation. You read 28, yes, absolutely, I agree with you.

I think that's right. Well, on apostasy in general, not necessarily just in Hebrews 10.

I think one thing that always gets overlooked by people is that we're still, even though the word of God is inspired and infallible, it's still written by men that have limited understanding or limited knowledge in people.

So let me give you an example of this. James 2 actually demonstrates this for us. If we were there that day in Genesis 15, and we were there, we saw

Abraham get walked out by the word and look at the stars, and we hear Abraham have some profession of faith, could we confidently distinguish him having a profession of faith from an apostate who had a profession of faith?

There is no supernatural way that another individual can look at somebody and say, ah, yes, you see, that was faith right there, and that wasn't, right?

Profession is profession, and that's what James 2 is going about showing, is that we can then demonstrate that Abraham had faith because in chapter 22 he continues to obey

God. However, that is after several sinful things that Abraham does, right?

The key difference is that there's an ongoing repentance and desire to be obedient to God after Genesis 15, which is consistent with genuine believers.

So when you look at, for example, Galatians 3, 1,

O foolish Galatians, who have bewitched you? Who is Paul talking to right here? The churches of Galatia, the very churches he helped plant.

So he's writing a letter to people he knows vividly looking at them in their eyes.

And he most likely helped administer the sign of baptism to these people. And yet what has happened to them?

They have been taken away, been tricked and duped by Judaizers to undermine the authority of the apostles by teaching a different means of salvation.

Does Paul quickly jump on there and say, you see, you were never saved in the first place? No, he says, look, if you don't recall the first gospel that I preached to you and you place it faith in righteous works, then you're saying

Christ died needlessly. You're acting like morons right now. Stop being retarded and come back to the one true faith is what he's trying to say.

What he is not just trying to say is what he is saying. O foolish Galatians, who have bewitched you? Before whose eyes

Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. And so so Paul, Paul talking to Christians that he knows oh so well.

He's listening. Let's say those churches of Galatia did not repent from following after the

Judaizers and they kept on following the Judaizers. Guess what they would have demonstrated? They were never saved in the first place.

Paul went off the professional faith like what we would have if anybody said, I now have faith in Christ.

However, you and I are not above sinning. You and I are not above messing up.

This is the importance of preaching Christ crucified daily to ourselves and reminding us that it's the first gospel that saved us in the same gospel that keeps us.

And that's therefore why we have to continue. That's that's why the means of grace are so important to us to revive our soul and to encourage us in faith is that these churches of Galatia needed the reminder that Christ saved them and that it is

Christ alone who will keep on saving them. And so so that's what Paul is doing in that text, which again, then you look at that.

Oh, fallen from grace. And then you compare that to John. They went out from us because they never were of us.

Right. And so in Hebrews things, there's several other passages that are brought up that people try to use to talk about losing your salvation or losing covenant status.

Well, you got that Hebrew. I mean, that Peter's chapter, first Peter, is it first Peter or second Peter? I can't remember. There's several, right?

We all know him. And the point of it is, again, does Paul know the hearts of man?

No, for sure. No, the Lord knows the heart of man. Well, so I would say yes and no.

He knows that it's wickedly deceitful above all things. That's right. That's true. Amen. But you can't.

He doesn't know the heart of a man. That's right. Yeah. That's right. Can I piggyback real quick on something you said,

Brayden? So, you know, that's an excellent point that, you know, I can have assurance of my salvation.

God knows my heart. I know my heart, you know, understood in the context of the word of God. I can have assurance, but I can't have assurance of someone else's salvation.

Right. That's why church discipline could—someone could end up, you know, being given over to Satan, and we pray that they'd be brought back.

And you mentioned the book of James, which seems to be written from a human -to -human vantage point, especially from chapter 2.

Absolutely. Yeah. And so the closing verses of James chapter 5, this is interesting because I've watched so many debates where people, you know, say you can lose your salvation.

What they mean is you can be regenerate, have the ring, and you can take the ring off. And they'll say, but it says, my brothers,

Adelphos, right? It's Christian community. And then I'm like, you've got to be careful how you understand this context.

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, okay, we're talking about a distinct people that have claimed to be brothers, right, who have claimed to know the truth, and someone brings him back and let him know that whoever brings back a sinner—this is a term for, you know, someone who's unregenerate, essentially—from wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

If someone says, see, you can lose your salvation and come back, well, that's someone who claimed to be a Christian, right, and went out from among us to some degree, maybe through church discipline, maybe they chased after the world, things of the world for a while, but through prayer and then they respond to the gospel, they come back.

And I think that's key in understanding the points that y 'all are talking about. We can't see the heart of an individual.

That's why we pray, you know, for repentance, that God may grant them repentance leading to knowledge of the truth.

But yeah, there are many demises, many apostates that have left. And here's the strong warning.

I don't know, y 'all take on kind of the unpardonable sin. I do think that had a unique context back, you know, during Jesus performing miracles by the

Holy Spirit. But when I look at Galatians—or Hebrews chapter 6, where it's impossible for someone who has, you know, partook to some degree of the

Holy Spirit, tasted of the ages to come, right? Very interesting eschatology going on there.

But they tasted, right? They partook of the Holy Spirit. I would say other people that have been regenerate, right?

But if they have a full knowledge of the gospel, understand it to the nth degree, and reject it altogether, well, to me, that is the closest thing.

Someone today that it's impossible to renew them to repentance. They have a full knowledge of the gospel only to chuck it over the shoulder and say, hey, no thanks.

Could that be a child that grew up in church that left? Maybe, right?

Very, very possible. For someone that spent many years, you know, think about the false teachers, right?

They're really pushing it, peddling it for their own agenda. Eventually, they just leave altogether. My point is, there is a greater condemnation, not for those who have sinned more, but those who have a greater knowledge to only suppress.

Absolutely. And if you really think of the context, and I kind of touched on it earlier, it was not that they were just saying they didn't believe.

It was the Jewish context for these people who are running for their lives, being chased by the religious

Jews, who go back to the temple and sacrifice. And at this point, it's not just a sacrifice.

It is the abomination of desolation. That's right. They are crucifying, once again, the

Son of God to their own harm. Every sacrifice that was made after Calvary was basically like the true version of the

Catholic Mass. Right? They were crucifying, according to the

Scriptures, once again, the Son of God to their own harm. That's why we say that about the Catholics. In your

Mass, which you think is worship, you're actually crucifying, like it's a picture of the crucifying, once again, the

Son of God. These people who heard this truth, who heard the gospel, the same Son that hardens clay, melts ice,

I just spoke about it today, that gospel message caused them to go back.

There was foolishness to them. And crucified, once again, the Son of God to their own harm. So the sacrifice wasn't sufficient enough to save.

Right. So Jeff, let me ask you this. You're saying in verse 29 of Hebrews 10 that these were Jews who had a profession of faith, but then later on went back to the sacrificial system.

Well, that's the context of Hebrews. I agree 100%. The reason

I didn't say 100 % earlier, which I agreed, I thought that you were saying that these were not individuals that had a profession, that these were just Jews.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. If you're being wrote to in this, if you're hearing these words, you have jumped ship from Jerusalem and you're running with the

Christians. That's right. And the persecution is so bad and the temple is so beautiful.

You think, how can this be God's plan? Right. How is this better?

And that's why Paul is saying in Hebrews 12, you have not come to something that produces death.

You've come to something much greater than those things. And so that's why he's encouraging the

Hebrew converts that are being weighed down by the word or by the world and are contemplating the sword of Christ.

That's what. And you can see that context also in Peter, right?

Peter is an apostle to Jews. And then the

Jews and the Gentiles, like it wasn't like good things, right? It was kind of, it was a lot of infighting.

The Jews didn't want anything to do with the Gentiles and the Gentiles didn't want anything to do with the Jews. And so this is constant combative taking place.

And almost every one of the letters, if you read it well enough, you'll see that there's something going on, but some infighting between Christians, but it would be

Jew versus Gentile. And you see Peter addressing the Jews and every once in a while, he'll address the

Gentile, but for the most part he's speaking to a Jewish context. And Paul is speaking to a

Gentile context, but also has Jews in there. So it's kind of like the majority thing going on. Y 'all want to go to verse or chapter three or not chapter three, question three.

Yeah, that's fine. So I wrap it up. So let's move on to the last question.

Question three, is Christ the federal head of your unconverted children? That's a great question. It's a great question.

It is a great question. A couple of thoughts here. One, this goes back to your, how you interpret scripture.

And covenant theology, all roads lead back to covenant theology, because what this presumes is more of an individualistic understanding of, of salvation.

And again, we've already talked about unconverted children, but it's, it's the default that children begin as unconverted.

We want to reject that. But Christ is the covenant head of his bride, the church.

Right. And baptism is admission into the visible church, his bride.

And so he is the covenant head of his bride. Now the question is, is it part, is it possible to be in a sense, tethered to the church, really part of the visible church, which

Christ is the covenant head of, and then fall away. And the answer to that is yes.

A couple of texts. This is our Lord in John 15. He says, I'm the true vine.

My father is the vine dresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit.

He takes away. Wow. Every branch that does bear fruit. He prunes that.

It may bear more fruit down to verse six. If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away like a branch and withers a branch that was in a real sense, connected once to the vine, but they proved to be unfaithful.

And so they are from something they really were in a sense attached to. No, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but again, you have this context, right?

And so in the context of John 15, and the context of John 15, he's talking about the vine who at that time would have considered themselves to be the vine

Israel. Jesus is saying that I am the true vine.

He is the true Israel. And whoever does not abide in him, speaking to the

Jews, right? He's speaking in John. He is speaking to a Jewish context.

And he was saying that he, he, he is, he's going to remove that from him, meaning they're not going to enter in to the new covenant.

And Jeff, how do you, how do you get grafted in that vine? By faith, by faith in Jesus Christ.

And it talks about abiding. and, and funny enough, first, John chapter two, and then chapter three, speak of abiding.

But let me first kind of read verse three. It says, and by this, and by this, we know that we have come to know him.

So what it's about to say is not how you come to know him, but how you come to know the, how, you know, you've come to know him.

It says, if we keep his commandments. Uh, yeah. If we keep his commandments, whoever says that I know him, but does not keep his commandments is a liar.

And the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word in him, truly the love of God is perfected by this.

We know that we are in him. Whoever says that he abides in him all to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Now you turn over to chapter three, look at verse 23. Uh, hold on.

Yeah. Chapter three. Oh, I got lost. Okay. So chapter three, verse 23, and this is his commandment that we believe in the name of the son,

Jesus Christ and love one another as ourselves. So how do you keep this commandment? So the 10 words, the first four are fulfilled by believing in Jesus Christ.

Yes. And then you have, we love our neighbors, right? If I love you, I'm not going to steal from you still, still from me, lie from me, try to sleep with your wife, so on and so forth.

Right? Sorry. First 24. And whoever keeps his commandment abides in God and God and him.

And by this, we know that he abides in us by the spirit and he has given us. So, so, so how do we know that we are abiding in this

Jesus from chapter 15 by believing in Jesus? That's first believing in Jesus and loving our neighbors.

And Jesus is saying, listen, the book of John is about believing in Jesus.

These Jews are not believing in Jesus. I guess what they're not going to enter into. The new covenant, they are cut from the vine.

They are removed from the tree that we see take place in Romans chapter 11. Like it's, it's really, it's truly that simple, but you got to know the context and where things are better explained at in the text.

I was going to say something that was really good years ago, Jeff Durbin interacted with the

Mormon and he was trying to get Jeff to go to John 15 to prove you can lose your salvation, right?

And what Jeff did a masterful job at is saying, all right, let's look at the context leading up to chapter 15 in, in John six, you know, that's the longest chapter in John.

It's beautiful. Jesus very clearly is talking about being the bread of life. Whoever eats his flesh, drinks his blood, all in the context of believing in him, whoever comes to me,

I will by no means cast away, right? No one can come to the, to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.

And my whole point is John's imagery with, you know, the, the, the vine and the vine dresser and fruit is not going to contradict what he has clearly taught earlier in John's gospel.

And so I think all of this is built on presuppositions. Presbyterians want to call

Christians. They're, they're unregenerate children. They want to be able to teach them Christian principles and call them a

Christian in the meantime, and then call them to remain in the vine. And so this is all a misunderstanding.

I think it goes all the way back to the Abrahamic covenant. So yeah.

The twist, the twitchy theologian, and you just heard me explain it, bro. Like that cannot be combated.

That's historical context, son get jiggy with it. I just gave you the historical context of how it's laid out, man.

That's not speaking. It's not speaking about Christians being removed from the vine. It's speaking about, covenant

Jews, not entering into the new covenant. I Jeff, the twitchy theologian is also a post -millennial just to let you know.

It's all right. Keep on watching open air theology. Keep on watching us, homie. We love it. No, but John 15 is also most likely

Christ looking at the old, the old temple there with for sure. Yeah. A hundred percent in line around it.

Yeah. That's what they would consider themselves. Divine. Right. Israel can consider themselves the vine and Jesus comes as the truth is true.

Is that's right. In order to abide in him, you have to believe in him.

Right. And those that don't believe him don't enter into the new covenant. I mean, even the, even going back to something that they mentioned in the video earlier, first Corinthians 10, they tasted of the spiritual of this.

They tasted of these things, but yet they still rejected Christ. They had an appearance and tasted of the vine in that sense, but they were never of the vine because Christ himself even says, if you abide in me, you will bear fruit.

Did the Jews bear fruit? No. Yeah. I mean, those that abide in Christ, right.

But not in the, not in the Jewish rejection of Christ. Right. Brayden, what's next.

That's all I got. I got to get going to guys. So I think we need to wrap things up.

When it's the same time zone. It's 10 55 here. It's nine 55.

It's 10 55. 10 55. I like to remind people, different blood, different covenants.

That's, that's helped me show that, you know, the Abrahamic covenant was cut in animal blood.

The new covenant was cut in the, the son of God's blood.

That's eternal. And in Jeffrey Johnson's book, the fatal flaw, he shows how that dual nature with the

Abrahamic covenant is pointing to the mosaic covenant and the newcomer.

That that's what you see being contained in the Abrahamic covenant. Well, we share with Abraham real quick, give some book shout outs to people.

So I got, yeah. Yeah. I mean, so the fatal flaw by Jeffrey Johnson got it right here.

The kingdom of God by Jeffrey Johnson. I got it right here. And I do a shameless plug on that last book.

I interviewed Jeffrey Johnson on the kingdom of God last week, early last week.

And we touched on so many things. I would encourage people to go check out the interview is very helpful.

I've read that book, the kingdom of God multiple times. And to me, that is the only way to kind of look at the relationships between the covenant works.

He shows the 1689. Amen. And I would also,

I would also, anything done by the Renehans. I can't think of the, I had the book.

Yes. Yeah. That's a good book. And if you look up Brandon Adams, he has, he runs the website, 69 federalism.

But if you just look him up on YouTube, Brandon Adams, he, he covers a lot of stuff with, with the theology that us four would hold.

So if you want more on that, but as always, we're going to continue to do stuff. Cause every time someone spits off about anything, covenant or infant baptism, getting them wet, don't have something to say.

Yeah. I know what my favorite part of the live stream was that I think the, the presby guys, hopefully they hear us is when they asked us to show, to prove the discontinuity.

That was easy sauce for us. I mean, that was, and listen, we could keep going on that one.

Like the cut, the continuity is something they don't want to play with over here. So, well,

I think the simple fact that they don't have a proof text to go to, to talk about paid off baptism, which he said that that's not how they come to the conclusion.

They're coming at it as more of a covenantal redemption. I don't know how to preach anything or talk about anything without a proof text and no, without the proof.

Yeah. Context. Yeah. The foundation. Yeah. So if we can, so this is my challenge for their affirmation, a red pill.

So please, if anybody on this, this stream that is watching this, send this to these guys.

And I hope that they watch it and do a response back to us because the question that was posed, show us a discontinuity verse.

We have shown you that very clearly and, and without, and how about we ask them three questions or four questions?

Oh, I'm I'm in, but that's going to be rough. Three questions. Let's do it. All right. I got one for you.

Okay. All right. We're at Genesis chapter three. It's the covenant of grace.

Cut. No cutting of a covenant. You know what I'm saying? So there's the, well, let me not say cutting, but there has to be the do this and live.

And if you don't do this, or if you do something, you'll die and be removed from the land. I can take you through every covenant in scripture and show you those three things.

Even the covenant. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Every covenant. And you'll see the do this in order to live.

And the, if you do this or don't do this, you'll be removed from the land or die conditions.

Where is the conditions? Where is that in Genesis chapter three? If, if anyone can show me that I will become a

Presbyterian. So go ahead. My question is, is the mosaic covenant.

A covenant of works or a covenant of grace, because it can't be both.

And if you dare make it both, then you have conflated law and gospel. Someone said both.

No, I mean, that's, that's the route of federal vision. You have no law and gospel distinction.

You have no cost long gospel distinction. The gospel is not the law. The law is not the gospel. Yeah. Galatians four.

That's, that's reformed Baptist. The law and grace can't be more diametrically opposed.

That's also, I think it's Romans 11 verse six, that if it's no longer on the basis of grace and it's on works, so then you've destroyed grace altogether.

You can't have conditions in a covenant of grace. That's the whole. Right. Exactly. Tom, you got a question?

Well, that's one. How about that? Go ahead. No, you do it. I don't got one. I don't have one.

Gosh, dang it, Tom. Ah, um, how do you sleep with yourself at night?

Knowing that you're mishandling the word of God. I got another question. I love you guys.

I'm just kidding. I love you. Well, yeah, we just play hard, man. So I got one last question.

Why? Why would any Presbyterian have a problem with infants no longer being under a covenant of condemnation?

Because the critique is so infants are in the old covenant, but infants are no longer in the new covenant.

And I'm saying you're upset that infants are no longer born in a covenant of condemnation like we see with with Israel.

So I just tell them there's there's not. Um, it's, it's not the same with the new covenant.

Yeah. Yeah. Pastor would say the mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. Well, there's conditions in the mosaic covenant.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, the mosaic covenant was only until Christ. So to say that as the covenant of grace, you're saying that the covenant of grace was only until Christ.

I mean, Galatians chapter three, you know, in verse 15, mosaic covenant that was added to the

Abrahamic covenant was only until Christ. And then chapter four, let you know that, that the, the old covenant is pictured as Hagar, new covenant,

Sarah, Sarah, not Hagar. Right. That's going to be my question is, is why in Galatians four versus 21 and on, does it refer to the standing

Jerusalem people in temple as Hagar? Whereas us in the heavenly is referred to as Mount Zion in that text.

If these covenants are the same, just read different administrations.

And, and if they see the mosaic covenant as a covenant of works, that somehow, you know, a republication of the

Adamic covenant, we're saying you're one step closer to being reformed. Okay. I got a question.

I have questions. I got a question. Can anyone be in Christ out?

Well, let's see here. Let me, let me put it this way. Can, can anyone be in the covenant outside of Christ?

Can anyone, I mean, using their, using their, what you was talking about, other presuppositions, they would say, yes, they have to, they have to Christ.

I'm, I'm in the covenant and I'm outside of Christ. But, but the covenant doesn't, and now press bees, my dear brothers, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I was out, you know, I need to, I need to know when to call an ace and ace. And sometimes I don't know, right?

So they wouldn't consider those in the covenant as someone who was going to heaven. And when they pass away, you can be in the covenant and not be born again.

So that means you can be in the covenant, die and not enter into eternity. So I could be in the covenant of grace outside of Christ.

You have to be Romans chapter eight covenant, right? That's the whole thing.

Mixed covenant, have the spirit. You do not have Christ long as you're baptized in the triune name, because for them, that's the only thing that counts far as being in the covenant.

And then that opens up a huge gate of, and I'm just going to remind people, uh,

Doug Wilson. I think he's being more consistent with Presbyterian theology. Number one, when he allows communion, right?

Because if you're members of the covenant of grace, why would you prevent him from coming to the table?

If you say, well, they can't discern the body. We're saying, of course not. They can't repent. They can't profess faith in Christ.

When Doug Wilson lets, you know, a full preterist come to the table that, you know, is, is to be anathema and believes in a false

Christ, right? As long as they were baptized into the triune name, then you can come to the table.

Roman Catholics that preach a false gospel, Presbyterians, many will receive their infant baptism because it was in the triune name.

I want to recommend people go watch the debate between Doug Wilson and James White. Could a

Mormon take of the Moscow table? Okay. I mean,

I have a lot of Presbyterian friends and this is something that they talk about at their Presbytery meetings.

No, but on this, because the Mormons baptized in the triune name and half of them say, yeah, but it's a different God.

They believe in multiple gods. It shouldn't be wrong. It should be a hundred percent of them. What do you mean?

Half of them? You freaking me out. Are you kidding me right now? This is a conversation they're asking. Because Mormons are baptized in the triune name.

This is the whole point. Are you kidding me? A different God and their view of triune is different.

They believe in mixed covenants. They would say, yeah, that's false, but they're baptized in the triune name and mixed covenants.

So I'm just saying, where does it end? Where does it end? We don't have these problems with. Are you kidding me right now?

You gotta believe in the right Jesus. You have to be baptized biblically, right? Could you name names on that?

Who would name names? Let's hear it. Let's call them out right here. Right now. Well, this is garbage.

You're allowing a Mormon to take of a table. You are failing as an elder and a pastor and admitting people into the table.

That should have no part with your church. And listen, if you don't know you fit into, because he was a

Mormon for how many years? 19 years. That's a bunch of the Mormons. Yeah.

He was poster boy for Mormon. He wanted to draw a mustache. So he left.

He was the Kevin Hay of the TMS, but for Mormons. How do you feel about full preterists being able to come to the table?

It's wrong. It's a rejection of the gospel. You should not be taking in the table. If you reject the gospel period.

But here's the problem with Presbyterian theology. They believe in a mixed covenant. And so for them to say, yeah, they may be a false teacher.

They're just as unregenerate as our children. But if they were baptized in the triune name, they can be disobedient.

This was Doug Wilson's whole point. They are disobedient brothers because they carry the triune.

This is the disobedient brothers. gosh, this is how

I get you fired up this late. This is the new covenant in my blood. My my blood in the

Jesus. That's not the brother of Lucifer. The Jesus that that's coming back for his bride.

Not the one that's not coming back. These are the things that I get frustrated about.

I have to deal with in Arkansas land over here. I'm about ready to say I got a sick.

I met a lot of people from Arkansas at this last conference, and I was really impressed with how many good churches there are in Arkansas until now.

Yeah, you should. No, everybody that I talked to that was from from from Arkansas.

I mean, these guys were were studied up. They're going to good churches. I mean, it was, it was great.

I was like, wow, Arkansas is blessed. Y 'all are letting Mormons take of the table.

You ain't smart. You're straight up stupid. Who, but foolish, dumb dumbs, you know, look, you see what

Jake just said. He said, JW is baptized, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yeah, Jake, you were in the covenant the whole time, bro.

Just disobedient, meaning. Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait a second. Wait a second.

So does that mean that Jesus is now being obedient to the covenant? Wow. Wait, timeout.

It was a part of the covenant before having faith in Christ. Is it then conflating?

But he was just a disobedient brother at the time. Is that conflating the idea that faith is a work that brings you into righteous obedience to Christ then?

Because if you were a covenant member before you had faith, what?

Wow. And look what he says, what they mean by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, Jehovah, Michael, the

Archangel and a force for Star Wars. I'm not happy right now.

And this is coming from an ex Jehovah witness. Yeah.

Jake is an ex Jehovah witness for those of you that don't know. Yeah. We got to end this guys.

I'm about to blow right here. I've never thought about the mixed covenant in that way.

That's why you can't do that to the covenant of grace is making a mixed covenant. Well, I'm glad we had you on tonight.

Yeah. Jeremiah, that's you're welcome Arkansas. Yeah. That's the only good thing you said all night.

I know until the end and now I'm all riled up and won't be able to go to sleep.

Sorry. You shouldn't be. All right. Any last words, Jeremiah, how can they get in?

Paul, you get in touch with you. Yeah. Love y 'all brothers. Thanks for letting me be a guest on y 'all's podcast.

If you watch this at any point, check out the apologetic dog. Got a lot of awesome ideas. Got a lot of debates coming up.

I really want to express to people. Reform Baptist covenant theology is the backbone of having the right view of God and his sovereignty with how he covenantally relates to man.

And so I've done plenty or I've done many interviews done, especially lately with Dr.

Jeffrey Johnson. Go check out that on the kingdom of God. Check out the apologetic dog website.

Got a lot of cool things on there. And then if you're in the Arkansas area,

Jonesboro, Arkansas, Northeast, Arkansas, I serve as a pastor and elder at 12, five church. People say,

Jeremiah, what's a 12, five. I'm saying, look, Romans 12, verse five is a reference to all the saints.

We are one together in the body of Christ. And Oh yeah, that's the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, excluding Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses.

Yes. My goodness. Yeah. Wow. Tom, you have anything you want to say, brother?

Any last words? Yeah, man. I'm ready for a cigar. Well, this is asking for more of this.

Like she wants to drink some more or something. Jeff. Thanks again for having me on.

Yeah, man. I appreciate you. I get off the chain. I'll try. This is ready for cigar too. Hey, Melissa is a trooper.

She's been on the whole time. She's a trooper. Fire your tech guy, meaning me, Melissa. We got a bone to pick you.

And I, it's not okay. Well, I am saying I, I, I honestly believe that Melissa is going to be reformed after soon.

It's not going to be long. Is she presby? No. We don't talk about that though.

Johnny, who is this twitchy theologian? Jerry Duckworth in the building.

Hold on. Hey, he entered. You'll see. His probably most good video is when he interviewed me.

You're welcome, Jerry, which he theologian. So Jerry interviewed me about the church Christ. Oh, was it church

Christ? Yeah. Well, what's his last name? Duckworth. Duckworth. I really like Jerry guys.

I got to get off. We got to say bye -byes. All right, man. Last words. Cause I think he's wanting to debate.

And if he wants to come home. Yeah. We need to set up a debate. That'd be good. Yeah. Yeah. We've been talking about doing this anyway. So I pity the fool.

You know what I'm saying? Braden last words.

You are a covenant member through being a part of the body of Christ. Who's the mediator of the covenant of grace and that covenant of grace and consists of all the elect people.

Consider consistent of Abraham, Isaac, me, you, if you have faith in Christ today, have faith in Christ, be a part of this covenant of grace.

And that is the only means that you can be saved is through the work that mediator performed. Amen. Go check out reform decks.

Amen. Yeah. And thanks for everybody for stopping in, checking out, asking questions, interacting with us.

Remember again, in February, we're having the open air theology conference. You need to come. Every one of us are going to be speaking.

I being the least of these gentlemen here and with some more great speakers, but also if you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee, come hit me up.