BOOK STUDY: The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom (Part Four)

Welcome, this is the fourth and final session. We'll be covering the last four chapters.

Really, Justin and I decided we're going to cover mostly just two chapters. The other two are great.

You can read those on your own, but there are kind of bookends,

I would say, to the two chapters we really want to focus on, but it's been great. If this is your first time listening,

I've been sharing this with some other pastors, but if this is your first time listening, you can go back and listen to the other three sessions.

Last one, last session was pretty lively. I enjoyed that one with Justin. We had a good time.

Um, yeah, so how this works is, uh, as we're going along, feel free to ask your question.

If you want to ask it live, then, um, just raise your hand and we'll, we'll, uh, we'll enable your, your mic.

Just know that, uh, this, this is being recorded and we are going to share it. So, um, don't ask us anything that's going to embarrass

Justin because we're not able to answer it. When I didn't crash, meaning like when my power went off.

Yeah, I forgot about that. That was fun. I forgot about it. Oh, I, I, I have not. I, I remembered it this evening as I was setting up my stuff.

So there you go. Yeah, that was fun. Yep. Agree. All right. It was a little, well, let's do this.

The two, the two chapters we're going to really focus on tonight. Are the covenant of redemption and then the new covenant, which is the fulfillment of the covenant of grace.

And that is chapters 11 and 12. So, um, the other two chapters, like I said, super helpful.

The mystery of Christ, really short chapter. And then, uh, the last really two chapters.

Um, yeah, really, really great stuff. But I think these are, these two chapters are kind of what are unique to covenant theology, unique to reform theology, and then specifically unique to 1689 federal, uh, covenant theology.

So that's kind of why we really wanted to spend some time in there. So Justin, why don't we start with covenant of redemption?

Give us a little bit of an overview, uh, to kind of let the guys know what we're going to discuss going forward, and then we'll jump in the new covenant as well.

And I'll, I'll give some thoughts as we go. Yeah. I mean, jump in as you want to bro. So, yeah, we'll begin with the covenant of redemption, the pactum salutis as it is sometimes referred to, and this is, uh, in terms of the covenant of redemption high level, there would be wide agreement amongst reformed people, uh, from various confessional traditions, but, uh, just to begin to summarize the covenant of redemption, it is the covenant that is made amongst the

Trinity, most pointedly between the father and the son before the world began. So this is an eternity past reality, an arrangement that is come to the father makes certain commitments to the son.

The son makes commitments as to what he will do in order to accomplish and fulfill this covenant of redemption.

Uh, passages that are very clear about this. You have like second Timothy one, nine, you've, you've got

Titus one, two that speak to things that happened before the ages began in Christ Jesus.

And maybe most profoundly and robustly, you get a lot of this language in Ephesians chapter one, um, in as far as new new

Testament passages that would give us a glimpse behind the curtain as to what was going on and what was agreed to between the father and the son.

There's also a number of passages in the prophets, including in Isaiah, the passages about the servant of God and what he will do that shed light on this arrangement as well.

And I think an important thing to state that I think Sam is very clear about in the book in a way that's helpful is that the covenant of redemption is a covenant of works that God, the son will fulfill and accomplish.

He will do it. There is a mission that he has, there is work to be done so that he can accomplish the salvation of God's elect.

And then, I mean, what, what I would want to move to from there, John, is how the covenant of redemption relates to the covenant of grace.

But before I do that, um, I want you to be able to jump in to make any high level comment about the covenant redemption that you would like to make.

Yeah. Yeah. I know there's a couple of guys in here, um, that are working through covenant theology, whether they're expanding what they already knew or really this is new to them and they're really trying to discover it for the first time.

And, uh, I know there's even those who are kind of trying to figure out where to land as far as, uh,

Westminster or, um, the 1689 and I will tell you, and I will tell you that the covenant of redemption is super helpful.

And, and almost both, both camps are going to agree on what's here. But I've like, for instance, we're about to go into the advent, uh, season and for the next few weeks,

I'm actually going to really just do a series on the covenant of redemption because the covenant of redemption is, is what gets you to the cradle and it's a, it's a beautiful ride from backing out, you know, really backing far out and understanding.

Now, my only thing, the only thing I would change about Sam's book, it's been great, but I think I would have put this more upfront, especially with, um, the kind of the overview he does with the biblical theology and redemptive historic understanding.

I know he alludes to it, but I think I would have developed it more because I think it helps really push covenant theology from the beginning.

I, I agree with that. And I think I understand why he put it where he did because he's going to, he's trying to do what

I'm about to do, which is connect the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace to one another in a uniquely 1689 covenantal

Baptist way. Um, yeah, which, which will, I hope spend some time on packing.

So in summary, the covenant of redemption is the covenant made between the father and the son. Though, as Sam says,

I think this language is good. The Holy spirit is present everywhere as this covenant is being fulfilled and accomplished by the son.

Uh, and it is a covenant that the father and the son make for the salvation of the elect.

So for the salvation of all of the children of God. And so we are going to have the benefits of this covenant mediated to us.

And in particular, we're going to have the benefits of this covenant mediated to us through the covenant of grace. Uh, which is,

I think why Sam puts these two things together. So from a 1689 federalist perspective, we understand the covenant of redemption to be essentially the pattern for the covenant of grace.

We understand the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace to be congruent, meaning that we understand the same people as far as God's children,

God's, um, elect people to be in view in both covenants. Uh, so we would understand that the elect who benefit from, you know, with the

Christ's work in the covenant of redemption are the ones who are under the covenant of grace. And so the covenant of grace from a 1689 federalist perspective is the establishment and the accomplishment.

Excuse me. I've, I've, I've misspoke there. The new Testament, the new covenant, right. Is the establishment and the accomplishment of the covenant of grace from our perspective, just to review what we've said before, we understand that the promise of the covenant of grace is revealed beginning in Genesis three 15, and then it unfolds throughout the rest of old covenant revelation, old

Testament revelation. And so there are ways that we see the promise of the covenant of grace become increasingly clear throughout the old

Testament and through the other covenants of promise and, and subservient covenants we would call them.

So we see, and we learn a lot more about the promise of the covenant of grace through the Abrahamic covenant, and even through the covenant of Moses and the covenant made with David.

And that was really last time session. So I'm not going to say anything more about that right now, but then we understand that the accomplishment and the fulfillment, the establishment of the covenant of grace occurs through Christ in the new covenant.

And so for us, it's a big deal that we want to try to explain this tonight. I don't feel like I've done a good job of it right now, but hopefully we can make it more clear as we move forward as to how these two covenants, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace relate and how, what

Jesus accomplished in the covenant of redemption, the benefits that he secured for the elect are mediated to the elect through the covenant of grace, which we understand to be proper, the new covenant.

So, there. That's good. No, I love it. I, and I think, you know,

Sam does a really good job in the book of arguing from scripture that it's hard not to see the covenant of redemption about even, even the opening chapters, 2

Timothy 1 .9, Titus 1 .2, before the ages began, even going to Ephesians.

So, I think it's helpful. And in the connection, which we're going to make here going forward, the concluding paragraph, he says, the covenant of redemption is a wonderful doctrine.

What the father planned, the son accomplished, and the spirit applies. The result of the father's commitments, the son's commitments, and the spirit's participation is nothing other than the eternal salvation of the people of Christ.

And that salvation is mediated to the elect through the new covenant of grace, right, which leads us into the next chapter.

So, all of this is, is a structure. And I would say this is what drives my preaching, drives

Justin's preaching, that we see scripture from a covenant of redemption perspective or a redemptive historic understanding of scripture.

Right. And we see, we see this congruity between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace to be wonderful news that God will, and I mean, every reformed person agrees with this,

God will save his elect and he is going to do it through what Jesus accomplished, the benefits that he secured for the elect, and he's going to mediate them through the covenant of grace.

And in our perspective, he is doing that particularly through Christ in the new covenant as Christ accomplished and established the covenant of grace itself.

So, yeah, really, really sorting stuff, it's assurance and rest producing stuff.

It is, I mean, this is part and parcel of the good news, right? I mean, this is a framework with which we understand scripture that does justice to the entire witness of the text and it comes up out of the text, but then we can also take that framework with us as we understand all of scripture and I think it's a very edifying and useful and helpful thing.

Yeah, I mean, I think a couple of comments on the covenant of grace, just very, very quickly, the covenant of grace from our perspective is going to be the only one of the covenants revealed in time and space.

So the covenant of redemption is amongst the Godhead in eternity past, but of all the covenants revealed in time and space, it is the only one that is completely unconditional for God's people.

There are no conditions to be met. They have all been met by Christ, his merit, his righteousness, his atoning work, his satisfaction for sins, eternal life, eternal blessedness with God forever.

All of those things have been secured for us by Jesus and all we do is then receive it by faith.

And I think the language, Sam has a footnote where he cites John Owen. I think that's really helpful.

I may even try to find the page reference for us because I think that Owen's language about whether or not the covenant of grace has conditions in it is really good.

So John, why don't you while I look for this quote, why don't you say some stuff? Yeah, no problem.

I did. I remember reading that quote tonight. It is good. Now I found it. So you did it already, John. Wonderful. There you go.

Read it away. This is footnote number four in the chapter on the covenant of grace.

It begins over on page 167, but then what I want to read from Owen is actually on 168.

So Owen says, unto a full and complete interest in all the promises of the covenant, faith on our part from which evangelical repentance is inseparable is required, but whereas these also are wrought in us by virtue of that promise and grace of the covenant, which are absolute, it is a mere strife about words to contend whether they may be called conditions or no, let it be granted on the one hand that we cannot have an actual participation of the relative grace of this covenant in adoration and justification without faith or believing, and on the other, that this faith is wrought in us, given unto us, bestowed upon us by that grace of the covenant, which depends on no condition in us as unto its discriminating administration, and I shall not concern myself what men will call it.

I think that's a good word that we can say that our salvation, our redemption, it is conditioned upon faith.

I mean, that's an entirely fine thing to say, and at the same time, we understand that as a part of the covenant of grace,

God will work that faith in us and he causes regeneration. And so in that regard, it is unconditional because God will do all of that.

We are monergistic in our understanding of salvation. And so I think

Owen's words are helpful. They're apt for us. So yeah, we understand that the new covenant is the unconditional covenant of grace established and accomplished by Christ, and the covenants that came before it were subservient to it and were pointing to it, but were not the covenant of grace itself.

Right. So going through some of the high points in here, some of the points that he makes, like for instance, underneath justification, those who are a part of the new covenant are justified.

He quotes here Romans 5, 17 through 19. So this is a pretty big point, understanding the differences between the old and the new.

In the old covenant, you could be a part of the covenant and not be justified. And those who are a part of the new covenant, if you're a part of the new covenant, you are justified, which is a pretty big distinction between the old and the new.

This is why even in Jeremiah and Ezekiel where it talks about the new covenant being a new heart, a new flesh, a new heart of flesh, regeneration, basically what he's describing, spirit and dwell, putting the law in our hearts through the power of the spirit so that we actually walk in them, which in the

Old Testament and going, I mean, Justin, you brought this up beforehand before we got on, John 14, that they had the presence of the spirit, but they didn't have the indwelling of the spirit.

So there's a lot of differences between the old and the new. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit in John 14, 17, that you know him and he dwells among you and will dwell in you.

So there is, even in the mind of Christ, some distinction. We talked about this.

I mean, I trust this may come up at some point. John and I talked about this before we hit record just very briefly. Obviously, we understand that Old Testament saints are all saved under the covenant of grace.

They are all saved by Jesus, even though they're living before Christ comes. They are saved by the merits of Christ and the work of Christ in their place, and all the benefits of Christ are applied to them, and they are saved by faith.

They're trusting the promises of God and Messiah. This faith, like our confession would say in 11 .1

on justification, is not of ourselves. It's a gift of God, and that would be true for Old Testament saints as well as New Testament saints.

It's just whatever their faith was and however the spirit worked on and with them, the regenerating, even the work of God that would produce faith, we understand that their faith would have been

God wrought, there is a distinction still in the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect under the old covenant versus under the new.

The scripture is not entirely clear as to all the particular details of that, but it's clear enough that we understand that there's still a distinction that exists.

Even chapter 12, point C, adoption and preservation. I'm just giving you guys some more things to think about.

If you want to discuss these things, ask questions. Underneath here, he's talking about adoption and preservation.

Under the old covenant, did you have something, Justin? Justin Perdue No, I'm going to let you go, John, and then I may just kind of come in on the back end.

Underneath the old covenant, they maintained this relationship they had with God through the blessings of the covenant, this relationship as father, as far as God being their

God, and them being the people of God. The old covenant was the mediation by which that took place, and their obedience and disobedience determined that.

Well, Christ's obedience is what earns our position as adopted children.

So, we inherit the obedience of Christ in the new covenant because he accomplished the old covenant, the covenant of works, and so those who are a part of this new covenant, they're being described as adopted.

So, we have a secure position, and then also preservation, right?

So, even Christ talks about those whom the Father has given me, this adoptive language, I will lose none.

So, God's the one, you know, he who began a good work in you will complete it. So, God, through the power of the

Spirit, is preserving us. Those who are a part of the new covenant are being preserved, and so these are two really important distinctions compared to the old covenant.

The old covenant was to prove that no one could earn their adoption, no one could preserve themselves.

In the new covenant, Christ says, I will earn your adoption, and it can't be earned.

So, you will gain adoption, you will be adopted, and I will preserve you in that position.

So, initial thoughts there. Yeah, so a few comments on that, and I think this is where, again, we're going to be presenting tonight from Sam's book and then even from my mind and heart and John's mind and heart as well, a 1689

Federalist perspective on covenant theology, which is why you guys are here. And so, it's important that with our understanding of covenant theology high level, and in particular, as we talk about the covenant of grace, which we understand to be, again, the new covenant, members of the new covenant, which means members of the covenant of grace, all of them would have experienced several of the things, and maybe even a couple of other things, the several things that John listed, and then maybe even one or two other things that I might say now.

So, without exception, every member of the covenant of grace would have experienced justification, as John said, would have experienced regeneration, and is experiencing sanctification.

If you're alive now, if you lived before, you would have experienced sanctification in this life, adoption into the family of God, and preservation, as John articulated, and then finally, every member of the new covenant has been vitally united to Jesus by faith.

They've been vitally united to Christ as their covenant head, as their federal head. And so, that is a difference in how we would understand and articulate some things over and against the way that some of our other

Reformed brethren might articulate things with respect to who comprises the people of the covenant of grace.

We would all agree on the covenant of redemption that the people of the covenant of redemption are the elect, but then there might be some distinction because, for us, the people of the covenant of grace are also the elect, and some would maybe articulate or argue for a different subset of people in particular, in more paedobaptistic traditions, where there would be not only believers who have professed faith, but then also their children.

And in saying this, guys, I mean, of course, we are not claiming to be God and knowing that everyone we baptize into Christ Jesus is elect, but we baptize based upon a profession of faith, given that regeneration produces faith.

And we can maybe get into some of that more. So, for us, in saying that Christ is the mediator of the new covenant,

Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, we mean that he is mediator in truth for all those who are under that covenant and that none who are under that covenant will be lost, which is different.

So, in the old covenant, the priest was mediating on behalf of the people, but his mediation was limited.

Now, Christ is the once for all sacrifice of all time, and now he is the mediator between God and man.

And the question is, what is he mediating? What's this mediation? And does

Christ fail ever in his mediation? And so, what we see from the New Testament is that Christ is mediating for everyone who is in the new covenant, the covenant of grace, and his mediation is perfect.

It's without fail. And he accomplishes that which he starts. And so, this is the type of language that's being used from Sam in the argumentation here in a lot of the passages, but the people of the

New Testament, I'm sorry, the people of the new covenant, along with even the kingdom of the new covenant, is given this language that you have adoption, you have justification, you have union, you have this mediation, all of this language is really,

I would say, a finality when it comes to the relationship between God and those who are a part of this new covenant relationship.

And all you have to do is compare this to the old covenant. So, the old covenant, there was a relationship between the two of them, but there was nothing that was final about it because of the temporal nature of it.

It was always going to go away where the new covenant would come, and the old covenant would give us a picture of the need and the necessity of this new covenant and the fulfillment of this new covenant of grace, which is

Christ. Justin Perdue Yeah, and we would have to, I mean, if it comes up in the Q &A, we'll answer these questions, but we would absolutely refer people to the last session.

Like, if you weren't here for session three and you haven't listened to it yet, go listen to that if you want a more full -ordered presentation of how we understand the covenant of grace to be in the

Old Testament and to be revealed in increasing ways and in various ways through the subservient covenants made with Abraham and Moses and David.

We don't need to rehash all of that material tonight. We leave that to you.

I don't know that I've got any other comments to make, John, as far as the front end or anything like that.

I think we can open it up to questions. Yeah. So we've got 20, 25 minutes. Yeah. Did you want to hop on?

Here he is. Yeah, he's waving, baby. Hey, brother. Welcome.

Hey, man. Hello. It's Matt. Oh, Matt. Yes, I know Matt. I recognize your voice right away.

No problem. I've actually been waiting to answer for you guys to delve into dive into this the whole time.

It's something I've bumped into covenant theology in the beginning. And I just, there's no discussion out there on this,

I find. So I really would love if you guys can get into this. All right. So my question is,

I'll read it out here. There have been some in the reformed world who have held to a particular view of covenant theology that folds the covenant of redemption into the covenant of grace.

And for instance, Thomas Boston in the 1700s, I think it was. And I've come across with an

RTS professor, Dr. Stephen Myers holds that position as well. And there's probably a couple others as well.

Could you seriously interact with this minority view? Because I see it's a minority view, but what are its pros and cons?

And are there any pitfalls or dangers for holding this view? Right. So somebody will need,

I've read Thomas Boston to some extent, but I'm not as familiar with exactly what you're pointing out in his writing.

And then I don't, I don't know Stephen Myers and others. So Matt, it might even help me if you articulate more specifically, what, what, how exactly do you say the covenant of redemption is folded into the covenant of grace, unpack that for a minute, and let's just have that conversation.

Okay. So the way that I've heard it, is that instead of a tri -covenantal idea of covenant of redemption, covenant of works, covenant of grace.

Works and grace. They fold the redemption, covenant of redemption and covenant of grace into one.

And so you only have two covenants. So it becomes bi -covenantal. Um, like, as I said,

I'm not an expert or, um, but I've, I've come across this and I'm wondering what is the problem?

If like the way they think of it, typically I find is that the covenant of redemption is the outside of time part of the covenant of grace.

And then the temporal part of covenant of grace is what Jesus Christ did on the cross. I mean,

I'm happy to, go ahead, John. Yeah, I guess. If there are other brothers on the call that have some insight on this too, please feel free to wave at us.

Yeah, feel free, raise your hand and join the convo. I mean, I initially, it doesn't bother me.

Um, like for instance, there's like the new covenant theology guys, they mess with the covenant of works, which is,

I think is not good. It has a lot of ramifications. Folding these two in together,

I can see what they're doing and what they mean by it. But the problem is, is that you have, you have different parties.

And so it really is two unique, different covenants because, um, what's being, what's being covenant and the participants of the covenant in the covenant of redemption is the

Trinity and the, and what's being the, what's going on as far as the participants of the new covenant, we're the recipients of it.

And so, I mean, I understand what they're trying to do. It, look, the two are closely connected.

I think like we already said, one is, one flows out of the other, right? So for instance, covenant of redemption, what naturally has to come from that, right?

Go ahead. Yeah. So I agree that the, the parties of the covenant is, is really important because they are different.

So in the covenant of redemption, the pacram salutis, the covenant is really, it's between the father and the son.

Now the son is going to save the elect, right? He's going to accomplish and secure eternal life for the elect.

But the covenant is between the father and the son, most pointedly. Whereas in the new covenant, it's actually a covenant between God and us.

Right? I said that the parties are different. I mean, and so the, the new covenant, the covenant of grace is a covenant between God and us.

But the conditions of the covenant have been met by Christ, right? So, but it, so they're not one in the same in that regard.

The arrangement is different. And so I, I I'm sympathetic to the language on the one hand of how one is an outside of time reality and, and the other is kind of,

I think it is fair to say that the entire revelation of scripture from Genesis one, one through, you know, revelation 22,

I think it's fair to say that that is the unfolding of the pacram salutis and the unfolding of the covenant of redemption, because that's been

God's plan all along, you know, is to save the elect through Christ, but to then kind of make the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, literally one in the same thing is

I'd think inaccurate and doesn't do justice to the biblical witness. That would be my initial answer.

I don't think it's dangerous. Um, I think it can be confusing and it would, it, it clarifying that is, is difficult, you know,

I kind of have categories of like heretical, unbiblical, not helpful, and I'm, I'm just kind of like, I don't know if that's a helpful explanation,

I wouldn't say it's heretical. I might, it's not, I w I might put it in the unbiblical category though, because again,

I think that it would, it would not only confuse some things, but I don't think it does justice to it.

The, the witness of the scripture, uh, in particular, it would confuse, at best, it would confuse who the covenant of redemption is between, right.

And who the covenant of grace is between. And I appreciate what they're trying to do. I think, and some of the things that I've even said tonight and John has said tonight, we see so much, you know, congruity between the two in that, you know, the elect in one sense benefit from each, uh, of them, but we're not saying that they're one in the same covenant.

And, and I do think those distinctions matter. You know, Aaron, Aaron, please brother.

Yeah. Hi. Really, really like that question from Howard family. Um, I've been reading,

I've been reading Thomas Watson and also listening to Dr. Myers with that same question, uh, for the last couple of weeks.

So, uh, Thomas Watson's view is, uh, he looks at Christ as the mediator. So the covenant of redemption is made, made between the father and the son.

And the elect in the sun. And, and so he sees that one covenant.

Um, and so I was struggling with that too. I mean, uh, why, why has, have these covenants been kept so separate in, in, uh, historical theology?

And then this might complicate it a little more, but I also was going through some of the stuff by, yeah, some stuff by Meredith Klein.

And he has three reasons why he wants to keep them separate. And, uh, we love our pedo

Baptist brothers. Uh, but, uh, no, the, the one reason has a lot to do with pedo baptism, but the first one he says is the parties to the covenant

Christ in the first, in the covenant of redemption is the second party. And then the covenant of grace is the first party.

He makes that, uh, as an, he's coming in the kingdom to the, uh, to the elect in, in the covenant of grace and the second distinction, and here's where the pedo

Baptist theology comes in. Um, uh, and we would, uh, kindly disagree.

Uh, he says that, um, uh, in the covenant of redemption and Justin touched on this, and so I was really happy.

Um, he says that in the covenant of redemption is the, the elect are only in view, it's only the elect that in view in Christ, well,

Christ it's made with Christ, but the elect. And in the covenant of grace, you have the visible church and the invisible church, and that's why they want to keep that distinction between the two.

And the third distinction that Klein wants to make is that, uh, the covenant of redemption for the son, uh, for Christ was a covenant of works and for the church is a covenant of grace.

Um, And I agree with that. I would agree with one in three, certainly. Yeah. Same here.

Same here. That's good. That's a good insight. Uh, Matthew, did you have any other thoughts or follow up to that?

Matthew, is this like helpful at all? This conversation? Yeah. Yeah.

I just want to open it up. I just want to hear people's thoughts. Cause as I said, there's no one out there really talking about it.

And I just wanted to hear. I'm glad you raised that. There's two reasons. There's two reasons no one's talking about it.

First of all, uh, it's covenant theology and there are a very small group of people who talk about covenant theology.

And secondly, it's a very, uh, nuanced part of covenant theology.

So Google isn't going to be your friend on that one. Yeah, no,

I mean, that's, I'm glad you raised it though, man. Uh, I was not, I mean, I was not as familiar with that and, and, and, but just in processing with you guys on the fly,

I mean, I'm, I've been, I always like questions like that because it forces me to think and, uh, and wrestle with the distinctions that, that exist in my own mind as I seek to, you know, refine and reform my theology according to scripture.

So that's great. Um, yeah, I think there is some like in your preaching and in your teaching, there's going to be some category confusion.

Um, cause the way, I guess the way you would have to describe it as this is the covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace in time past in present time,

I'm not really sure. Um, yeah, there's one thing that I think the only thing that I've really come up against it, that can be dangerous is that I think if you confuse the two, that then

Christ has paid, purchased our salvation before time, and then you get the eternal justification stuff in there,

I think is the only, um, problem or pitfall I could find in that view.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he, I mean, the thing is this, like Jesus, Jesus accomplishes,

I mean, and even, and this is where we have to be precise in how we use language, right? The covenant of redemption is made between the father and son before the world began, before the ages began.

But then Jesus actually comes and accomplishes that mission, fulfills and accomplishes that covenant of works that, that does secure the covenant of redemption.

I mean, he does that in time and space. And then, you know, I mean, it's not done in eternity past.

I mean, it was certain, right? It was planned. It was ordained. Amen. But Christ actually came and did that.

And accomplished those things and secured those benefits. And then in the covenant of grace, unconditionally to us, you know,

God in one sense makes that covenant with us and Jesus is the mediator of the covenant of grace where his benefits and all of those things are the fact that he has fulfilled everything that God has required of us is then mediated to us and it is unconditional for us, you know, in that we receive it by faith.

It's not based on anything we do, but there are distinctions between those things. And I do, I just think that for my own money, right, that tri -covenantal covenant of works or excuse me, covenant of redemption, covenant of works, covenant of grace does the most justice to the biblical witness and keeps the categories as clearly defined as we can to help people have the best understanding of this as possible.

Good. Great question. I think that's also a good observation about Christ's justification beforehand.

All right. Let's jump over to Cody's question. I don't know if Cody wants to answer or bring that on.

How cold is it right now? We don't have snow here. Oh, okay. Yeah. We don't have snow here, thankfully. So I'm very happy about that.

And that's a big deal for me because Justin's been to my house. If it snows and it legitimately sticks,

I can't leave my house. I get stuck. So I was glad to see it melt away.

So anyways, well, my friend, good to have you here. Read your question. All right.

In 1689 covenant theology, is there an understanding or belief that the old covenant people of God were the church in its infancy and the new covenant people of God are the church in its maturity?

Would this be a way to understand the distinction between the Holy Spirit's work and the old and new covenant?

Yeah. So I think the way that we would frame the church conversation, and this is probably not even all that unique to us as Baptists, is we would say that in one sense, the church, the called out ones, have always existed within, for example, in the

Old Testament, the church would have existed within Israel. I mean, so picking up on the language of Paul even at various places in his writings, how there's a subset of people within the covenant people of Israel who are actually elect, who are actually the church.

And then I think what we would see, I mean, to say the infancy of maturity, I don't know, I think what we would use is more fulfillment language as the plan of God and the redemptive work of God unfolds through time and space, where the church was always existing within Israel.

Then as you get to the new covenant, the covenant of grace established and accomplished, you have most clearly the church established, where there were kind of pointers to the church and all that.

And Israel in one sense was a, I mean, I hope this isn't confusing, but in one sense, Israel is a type of the church.

And then we see some fulfillment of that in the new covenant, the covenant of grace, so I don't know about the infancy and maturity language.

I don't know that that's how I would frame it. I'm just processing this on the fly. I mean, the confession doesn't have language specifically about it.

I mean, this is where you may get slightly different answers from 1689 guys on this. John, I mean, you want to take a swing at that as we process this?

There's definitely some varying views on this, depending on who you read. And I think some of it is, they're kind of their best attempt.

And the differences, like the traditional background that I came from, the dispensational background, they're going to say the church and Israel are completely separate, unique.

The church began in Acts, the day of Pentecost, some would say it began with the disciples,

I don't know. But I think what makes it a little bit unique, well, let me back up.

You always have the people of God, right? You always have the called out ones. So Adam and Eve are the people of God.

You have those who fear, love the Lord, and believe in Him, which is going to get to Aaron's question here in a minute about professing believers under the old covenant.

And then you have the establishment of God's people, whom God is going to make a unique covenant with, and He calls them

His people. But even within that subset of people, they aren't guaranteed salvation underneath the old covenant.

The old covenant did not promise salvation. The old covenant guaranteed that salvation would come through it, which is the promise of the covenant of grace, right, given to Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon.

But the actual substance of that salvation, which saved them, they believed it would come, and that's what justified them, didn't come until the

New Testament, which then God establishes a new covenant with His people and does away with the old.

And there is definitely differences between the old and the new.

And to describe it as a church, I would definitely have no problem saying it's the people of God, the gathered people of God, but to say that it's the same as the church,

I do see the people of God in the Old Testament, the people of God in the New Testament, and the way in which

God identifies them and what He does with them is uniquely different. Justin Perdue I think,

Cody, if you were going to push me on it to say, okay, if you're going to articulate it one way, how do you view this kind of relationship between the people of God in the old covenant and the people of God in the new,

Israel in the old, the church in the new? I think my answer is going to be a typological answer where I think the church is the anti -type and Israel is the type, so that for me,

I think is the framework that's most helpful as I think about the differences between the two, and then obviously

I'm going to want to try to hold together the biblical witness, as I mentioned earlier with Paul, how within Israel there were the elect, there were

Abraham's spiritual children, there were children of promise, whereas in the church, in being the anti -type, we would understand that the church is comprised.

Now, again, we can have a conversation between visible and invisible church and all that kind of stuff because even as Baptists, we're going to make that distinction, of course, because none of us are

God, but in the covenant of grace, the new covenant, for us and our view, we're going to speak more in terms of everybody that's under that covenant in the church in a general sense, being the children of God legitimately, children of promise, those who have been united to Christ.

As far as what that means for the distinction between the Holy Spirit's work in the old and the new, I'm not sure that I'm going to draw a ton from that typological relationship in trying to make that distinction.

I think I'm just going to use the language of Scripture more, that there is a distinction, clearly. I mean, even

God is saying that what's going to happen in the new covenant is new, the way that His Spirit is going to work is different, the internal realities are different.

Jesus, again, in John 14 is pointing to a difference in terms of how the Spirit dwells and works.

Exactly what all that means in terms of all its finer points of detail, I don't know, and for me,

I'm not going to speculate on the specifics of that. I'm content with the distinction that seems clear in the prophets and in Christ and in the apostles.

I don't know, that's probably a completely unsatisfactory answer. John can come in and sweep in and say something better.

I'm going to let him respond. No, I thought that was good. I think this shows a little bit of the difference between a

Westminster view of covenant theology and 689. So just for clarification, you wouldn't call

Israel the old covenant church, but you'd call it a type. Yeah, correct.

Okay. So, from my understanding, what I learned in seminary is that the

Westminster would say that Israel is the old covenant church, and then you have the church, the

New Testament church. So, we wouldn't view it as a type, but just, it would be, that's where you get the same substance, different administrations, which

I know, that's Westminster view of it, so I appreciate your guys' comment on that.

Helps me kind of see the distinction and differences there. And really, the reason why this becomes important,

I had to wrestle with this for a long time, I guess it was about four years ago, maybe even five.

People always ask theocasts all the time, all the time, when are you guys going to become Presbyterian?

And we laugh and we think it's funny. And our Lutheran brothers, they're like, hey, you're like two steps away. Come on over. We get made fun of a lot.

Oh man, it's like we're the redheaded stepchildren of apparently a very small theological world.

So, the struggle I have is that the language of the prophets and of Paul in the

New Testament, that the newness of the new covenant is so starkly different, the way in which

God makes the promises to the old. And the language of Hebrews as well.

Oh yeah, right. So, union, mediation, if Christ is the mediator of everyone in the new covenant, what is he mediating?

And that's a very important question. And does he ever fail as a mediator? Well, in particular,

John, what you might say, if Jesus is mediator for everybody under the covenant of grace, more broadly to use the common term, what does that mean?

Yeah. Right. So, there is a stark difference between the priests of the old testament and Christ, the final sacrifice and final mediator of the new testament, and that difference being that Christ does not fail, that those who are part of the covenant of grace are fully in union with him and receive the adoption of sons.

And so that difference, for me, it was really hard to think that you could have some a part of the church that are a part of the covenant of grace, but may not be regenerate, may not be fully adopted, and may not, that Christ is mediating for them, but I don't know what way, like what is, how is

Christ their mediator? So, that's where most, I would say, covenantal

Baptist struggle is that the language of the new covenant is harder for us to make some of the, to include non -regenerate children in it, like you would in the old covenant.

And I think where we, I agree with that. And then I think where we would, you know, and you've already said this,

Cody, you know, the language of our Presbyterian brothers and the Westminster kind of languages is one substance, you know, one covenant, two administrations, whereas for us, there is a substantial difference between the old and new covenant.

And we understand the old covenant to be comprised of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

And we absolutely see the promise of the covenant of grace in a very pointed way with Abraham. And we understand that the gospel was preached to him, you know, in Genesis 12, three to pick up on Paul in Galatians three, and then we just understand that the, even the purpose of God's covenant with Abraham is ultimately going to be realized through the promise seed.

And I know we all agree on that. And so I don't want to cover last time's material, but yeah, there are some things that I think for us, we just, we can't get beyond biblically.

And I know the same is true for, for our Presbyterian brothers and sisters as well, you know, coming the other direction anyway.

No, it's really good, good conversation. And yeah, it's always good to clarify and have charitable dialogue.

Yeah, man. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Thanks Cody for hopping on.

Let's see here. And feel free, anybody has a follow -up conversation or question to that before we go to this next one or any other thoughts,

Luke's got his hand up. So come on in brother. Did you have a question, a follow -up to that Luke?

Uh, no, I thought we were moving on to another question, although it's kind of related, sort of as you guys have been talking about, you know, how we talk to our

Presbyterian brothers and sisters. Um, my question actually is how could this idea of the covenant of redemption, the covenant of grace, help us talk to our dispensational and our

Arminian brothers and sisters to try to show that, Hey, here's, here's what the

Bible says. And here's where you're inconsistent because of what you believe about, you know, dispensations or about man's free will or things like that.

Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, I have a lot of pastor friends of mine that are dispensationalists.

Um, I came from that background and I've met even more through Theocast. There are, there's that, believe it or not, there are a lot of dispensationalists who listen to us.

Which is great. I love it. I think it's fantastic. Um, you know, one of the things that I've learned, like even dealing with Cody, uh,

Justin and I could be completely wrong and that's great. You know, we'll, we'll, we're, we're going to do our best to try and, and, you know, and I know

Cody is, and man, I've got so many Presbyterian friends. Um, I love them to death. Just to be very clear, like my, my best pastor friends locally, or I mean, are

Presbyterian and Lutheran. I mean, I don't have like Baptist pastor friends. We Baptists are hard to get along with apparently.

Um, so one of the things that I have done recently is really learned to see where we agree and work from there.

And believe it or not, there are dispensationalists out there. I, I very rarely meet hardcore dispensationalists, like people who are writing books on it.

Um, most of the people I interact with are very surface level. And, um, you know, they've heard some buzzwords like, um, do you believe in replacement theology, which they don't even know what that means.

And when they describe it to you, I was like, no one believes that. It doesn't like no one believes that. So it's, and then they call it a heresy, the heresy of replacement theology.

And I said, first of all, the church has never deemed it a heresy. So it can't be one. Secondly, that's not what we believe.

Um, so the, the, um, my response to that would be,

I always try and get them to see the perspective that we're trying to get out, like for instance, um, they would agree that the whole

Bible is about Jesus, it's kind of hard to deny that. Like if you say it's not, then

I don't know if you're reading the same Bible. So I always try and start there. And then the question is,

I, I try and I started Genesis 3, 15. I said, now you would agree that historically the church has seen

Genesis 3 as the, the introduction to the gospel that Jesus is being promised and they would agree to that.

And then what I try to do is try and help them, uh, without using language like trigger words and words that they've heard that are bad, you know, covenantal language,

I just try and use the Bible to try and help them understand this connection that's going on between Paul and Genesis 3, uh, between the prophets and Genesis 3 and how it just kind of flows.

And when they logically begin to see this flow and this connection, uh, and you're, they're not using these big buzzwords,

I do the same thing with people who are struggling with Calvinism. I try not to use big buzzwords. I just try and work with them through the text on certain things.

Um, they become a little bit more open and they really, you know, and I always tell people you're a hybrid dispensationalist, it's like you're halfway there and they laugh and it's good.

Um, I find that to be more beneficial and I'm seeing more and more dispensationalists become more sympathetic to a 1689 perspective, um, because they understand the continuity and really the glory and beauty that's connected, um, from all of scripture from a covenant of redemption perspective.

Yeah. I don't have anything unique to add. I want to just agree with John that my instinct, whether it is covenant theology or Calvinism or, or whatever, um,

I want to avoid buzzwords. I think that's always wise. And what you want to do is always, because if you're dealing with somebody who's sincere in their questions, um, and they mean to trust

Christ and they mean to deal with God's word, then go to the Bible with them and show them overarching, like long arc meta narrative type stuff.

So like meta narrative is a, is a word that's useful, I think, in this covenant theology conversation, because meta narrative is not a uniquely covenantal word, if anything, it's a broad evangelical kind of Calvinistic word that's used.

And so then you can just talk with people in terms of the grand story of scripture and, and the, the, what

God is accomplishing from Genesis to revelation and all this kind of stuff. And I don't think it comes across in as offensive of a way.

Uh, and it, and the alarm bells aren't just going wank, wank, wank in people's ears as soon as you start to talk about it.

Hey, Luke, were you a dispensationalist at one point? So, yeah, I mean, I used to be a youth pastor at a

Calvary Chapel. Um, and then I got into Spurgeon and then

I had a free fall into covenant theology, um, from there.

And it's really, uh, I just, um, at least on one sense, um, it's just trying to relate to some of the people from our old church, uh, that I, that I meet with just, uh, trying to think about how to, especially for dispensationalism.

Um, the more that I've studied covenant theology, especially like reading this book and things like that, the more convinced

I've become that one thing that dispensationalism does without maybe realizing it is it breaks up the one story of the

Bible into unhelpful sections. And I know that that's definitely what the, like the old

Schofield Bible did and Darby and all those guys. And so it's really just trying to think about, you know, how can

I explain in a way that says, Hey, look, you know, if there's a covenant made within the

Godhead, that by definition means that the whole Bible is, is, is a working out of this one idea from there that leads to the covenant of grace that leads to these other things too.

Right. Well, there's, there's a couple of things too. So, um, I've gone back and I've actually listened to some of the old lectures that I used to be when

I was in seminary. They're on YouTube now, believe it or not. And, um, there,

I wanted to refresh my mind on just some of the, I would say more prominent positions because they are shifting again, they're changing again.

Dispensationalism has been shifting a lot. Um, and people could say that about covenant theology. I mean, to be honest, we have a newer view of covenant theology than was first presented in document form than the

Westminster view. So you could say it's been shifting. It's this position, the

Westminster versus 1689, um, like it's been like pretty established for a long time now.

And the new covenant theology really does not fit in the, not new covenant, but the new covenant theology movement doesn't fit in there.

There are, there are three things that, um, that happen within dispensationalism. And, um, you have to know these upfront if you're going to work with someone.

First of all, um, I, when I was being trained in dispensationalism, covenant theology was, was like a four letter word.

It was a bad word. Um, it was dangerous. You could, um, uh, basically it was

Catholic. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff that was being said about it that's not helpful and not true. So understanding that a lot of times if someone has been trained very heavily in the dispensational world, that the distinction between the church and Israel is like, it's like a non -negotiable for them.

And so I really try and stay away from that. And they really want to press that in. Um, and it, it, it's almost like trying to argue that oil and water are the same thing, like it doesn't even work that way.

Like they don't, they don't mix. It's not a good argument. The second thing that happens is that, um, they, they don't see this and understand it, but Israel becomes the main point of the

Bible. Uh, so the promises made to Israel are like the ultimate fighting point for them because they are just going to flat out tell you, does

God still have a plan for Israel? And those are the kind of arguments that I think, you know, if someone, let me put it this way, when you're evangelizing someone and they're like,

I just can't believe the Bible because I don't see how God got all those animals on the ark. Well, do you think it's the best solution to their soul of convincing them that God got all the animals on the ark?

I don't think so. So I think they need to understand something that's much bigger and much broader than did

God get all the animals on the ark? So same thing when you're dealing with dispensationalists. I try to, I try to, as Justin and I have said, help them see the broader aspect of the

Bible and how the Bible is actually more connected and not so disconnected, a lot of times they don't have any use for the

Old Testament other than to prove that no, God made promises to Israel and he will fulfill them. That's all the use they have for the

Old Testament and moralizing the text. They don't really have any other use for it. We can come in and show, man, there's so much more to the

Old Testament than just that. So I think I've rambled a while. Yeah. I mean, John, you've got a background in dispensationalism that I do not have.

And so whenever dispensationalist questions come up, I always just let John talk because my experience is much more mixed and I think that the stuff

I deal with is just a little bit different, like even in our local church context. We've got a few people that would have been dispensationalists at some point, but most of the people that come to us honestly are kind of like, they don't really, some of them are at this point in their church's life are already covenantal, but most of them come in and they're just kind of like, yeah, we believe the

Bible and we're Calvinistic and that's about it. And nobody's ever really shown them covenant theology before.

So I still try to avoid some use of terms that I feel like is just going to confuse the issue or maybe set off alarms that I don't need to, but then

I pretty quickly will begin to just chalk the field with some of the high level terminology and then just immediately explain, like just disarm it.

And so now when I say this is what I mean, and then I start, I'm pointing them to texts and passages and just trying to,

I always speak about it in terms of covenant theology as something that we get from the text that then helps us understand the whole

Bible and how it hangs together and what God is aiming to do, and people generally respond to that fairly well.

And it takes, I mean, one, just this is not unique to covenant theology. I trust every man on this call agrees with this, but just as a pastor, patience is so winsome with your people.

I mean, you want to love them, you want to be humble, you want to be charitable, you want to be kind, and you want to say in their own heart, you know what?

If it takes people 10 or 20 years, okay. You know, if they're trusting Christ and they don't have subtle disagreement with our confession, and we think they can defend the doctrine of this church substantially enough, then praise be to God, and we're all going to grow and learn a lot, and yeah,

I think that patience is incredibly winsome when it comes to teaching your people theology over the course of years and decades.

And so don't be short -sighted about it, and not that I think anybody on this call is, that's just my experience, you know, up to this point in ministry and dealing with people, so, and especially, go ahead.

I was going to say, and a note to that, I have so many people that are from all over the backgrounds when it comes to our church,

I think I have one or two families that have come from a Reformed background, and what

I'm realizing is that they have been trusting in a particular boat to carry them theologically safe through these tumultuous waters, and when you walk over and tell them you're going to dismantle that boat, that's not the best solution.

I think it's replacing some stuff slowly. You know, here's a new oar, here's a new seat, we're going to start dismantling and putting new wood on there.

They seem to do better with that than asking them to jump out of one boat into the other.

It's just, that's just too much for some people to do. And one thing that I always try to do in addition to this is when it comes to covenant theology, or even when it comes to Calvinism, I end up making it, at the end of the day,

I emphasize and make it about the sufficiency of Christ to save sinners, and that's the lead.

I mean, that's really what I'm trying to drive it all down on, because every Christian, by definition, is trusting

Christ and not themselves. I mean, that's what it means to be a believer. And so that's what you want to do.

John was saying earlier, start with points of agreement. Well, what better point of agreement could there ever be amongst

Christians than that Jesus saves? And so let's start there and use that to then help people understand some of these other theological categories and how, for example, covenant theology or Calvinism or whatever is biblical.

I mean, we want to show them that because it doesn't matter if it's not biblical, but also how it is so inextricably linked to the sufficiency of Christ to save, and I find that kind of a presentation and argument over the course of years is quite fruitful.

Luke, any other final thoughts? I mean, pray for people, my goodness.

Yeah, I mean, no, I completely agree about the sufficiency of Christ, and I think even with our synergistic brothers and sisters, they do agree that we trust in Christ alone, although they believe we do it in a very different way that we do out of our own free will.

But yeah, I was just curious, what were you guys' thoughts for? I did appreciate that.

I do have another question, but it's probably a good end of conversation question. Yeah, shoot it, and we'll answer it.

Let's get Aaron's question that he put up, and then we'll be able to come back to that. Yeah, type it up on the question.

We'll definitely answer that on there. Thanks, brother. Aaron, you would ask this question.

What would a credible profession of faith have looked like under the old covenant? I mean, well, I'm not trying to be snarky either, but I mean, the model that we have, of course, is

Abraham when it comes to faith, and what is Abraham believing? I mean, he's trusting the promises of God made to him, but he's trusting in a pointed way that the gospel is preached to him.

He's told about the promised seed that would come from him, and I think he's trusting in that, and I think we get that not only from Old Testament revelation.

We not only get that from Paul and what he says about Abraham in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 and places like that.

I think we get it from Jesus in John chapter 8, where he says that Abraham rejoiced to see my day.

He saw it and was glad. Well, what's that about? I mean, I think he's, again, Abraham is believing

God, and we all understand this, that what we're given in this book is sufficient for us in terms of our faith and practice and everything else, but we are also not revealed every detail of everything that happened in all of redemptive history,

I mean, obviously we're not, and so that's where some of this is not revealed to us in all of its specificity, and so my general answer is going to be the saints of the

Old Covenant would, under the Old Covenant, would have been trusting the promises of God realized in Messiah, and this is why the language of typology matters a lot, because the writer of the

Hebrews just sort of pulls back the curtain and makes this all very crystal clear in terms of what all of these things existed for, and Paul does some similar things too in his letters, but we trust that by the work of the

Spirit amongst the elect and amongst the people of Israel under the Old Covenant, that saints of old would have seen the promises of God.

They would have been looking for the Messiah. They would have been learning from God through not only the promises made to Abraham, but also the law given to Moses and the various kinds of law,

I mean, not just the moral law, but also the ceremonial and the civil law, and then the covenant made with David. We've talked about this before, how through farther steps, it becomes increasingly clear who this promised seed would be and that Israel was always going to be looking to one who would come and do what they couldn't, and I trust that that's what saints of old would have been believing and hoping in, though they would not have known with specificity exactly who and exactly when the

Christ would come. That's my best shot. I think Abraham is a great example of a good

Baptist, right? So here's the gospel. Oh my goodness. He obeys, like he has, like my dad used to say.

Cody is going to lose his mind. Well, listen to what I'm about to say here.

So this is not good for Baptists. This is bad. This is bad. So all of a sudden,

Abraham is out of the gates hot, right? He moves his family, he's showing he's dedicated, and then what ends up happening, right?

He loses his luster, loses his fire, and what, you know, and people would even begin to question, like,

I don't know, is Abraham really a Christian because his dedication, he's not demonstrating the fruits of what a true believer should be.

And people wouldn't really consider Abraham to be a believer until he took Isaac up on the mountain.

They would say, now he is a radical. He is clearly a follower.

He's proved it and baptized that boy. Because he's a real, or circumcised that guy because he's a real believer.

And that's what it made me think about it when you said, what is it credible? Well, most people today would not consider

Abraham to have a credible faith because his life was not one of obedience and dedication of radical life going forward.

And even the guys that we love to, like even Joshua or Gideon, we do these moments of like, oh, they had such radical faith in God and radical not faith in God at the same time.

So, you know, a credible faith I think is, you know, the way in which the

New Testament described it as by faith, by faith, by faith, they trusted God and these things happened. I think that they, in the frailty of their flesh and living underneath the law, they trusted

God and God saw their faith. The thing is, here's what irritates me.

God is never surprised by who believes in Him and who does not. It's not like all of a sudden

Abraham shows up at the gates and he goes, man, I was worried because this whole thing with your wife twice and man,

I don't know. I didn't think you were going to make it. It's really good to see you here. So those type of things, you know, that I just,

I don't, I just, they bother me. It's not a very, it's not a very, now to that point,

Paul makes it a point to say the gospels preached to Abraham, he was justified because he believed.

Abraham believed and he was justified. What does he use with that? He says in the New Testament, there's no difference between those, the old and the new.

They believed they were justified. So I think it's, I think it's important and I know people are really concerned about, but John, if you just, if you give people justification by faith alone, they'll go live however they want.

Well, Abraham kind of did that. This is going to turn into a Theocast episode if we don't watch out. Watch out, brother. Watch out.

Stuff's going to start flying around. But I think it's an important discussion when we're coming down to understanding covenant theology. I think there is a difference between the new and the old and Abraham would have loved to live in a new because he wouldn't have had to live underneath the old covenant because his flesh would have been governed by the spirit.

You know, so there you go. That's it.

I'm not going to start, I'm not going to start talking about any of those things that you just said, because we don't have time.

Yeah. Luke had another question. I suppose he just wants to wave at us and ask it. Yeah, we can do that.

Or he can type it up. If not, we'll, we'll get into our closing. Oh, there he is. I mean, why, why type it when he could just ask it and bring it on us?

That's right. That's my man right there. All right, brother, lay it on it. You got the last one. Well, I was going to say my, my question is completely off topic of this.

So if you guys want to close out, you're more than welcome to ask the question and we'll decide. Ask the question and we'll decide.

That's right. We, you know, it's a quick, cause I was just, I was just having a day. It's a question about M &Ms.

If you guys have tried something and, uh, one of the topics, you mean literally has nothing to do with theology.

Well, M &Ms could be a theological topic, but I thought you meant the rapper at first.

I was like, all right, no. All right. Pretty good, but I can get my take on rappers here in a minute.

Yeah. In terms of who the, who the great names are in my lifetime. Anyway, go, go ahead,

Luke. Oh, um, yeah, I don't really have any other questions as far as our topic goes.

No, that's fine. What's your question on M &Ms? Here's the thing. So just because I've listened to your episodes and it's come up periodically and today

I just thought about it. Uh, this is kind of a recommendation and also an ask if you guys are trying to, have you guys tried the coffee in the

M &Ms? Uh, not. I have not, but they sound good.

I'm not, they are by far my favorite, um,

M &Ms. Jason affirms people, people are.

Yeah. People are jumping off the rooftops for coffee, whatever M &Ms they are. Yeah.

Coffee. Yeah. So essentially they're peanut M &Ms, but the chocolate has coffee flavor in it.

It's really good. My favorite. All right. So just truth in advertising. I've said this before, and I think

John has too. I don't like to mix the coffee in the sweet so much. So it's, it'll be interesting to see what

I, what I think about it. And that's where you'll just have to extend grace to me. All of you guys that think these things are the best final, like, cause

I'm, I never put sweet anything in coffee. Like I am convictionally opposed.

I agree. I will put coffee. Like if I'm making a chocolate banana, peanut butter shake, and there's leftover coffee,

I'll throw it in there. You know, are you kidding me? Like I, so, so there's coffee's good for you.

Fried egg on a pancake with syrup. Sure. I mean, I'm, oh dude, that is, um, that's all, all this.

I will mix a sweet and savory stuff or sweet. I mean, I'm all for some of that stuff. I'll put a,

I'll put a fried egg on a hamburger in a second too. But, um, yeah, anyway, the coffee thing, we should probably close this down.

This is getting out of control. Way to go, Luke. Thanks for, uh, thanks for, uh, bringing that up, brother.

That's why I said it was off topic now that we all right. Exactly. Well, this has been great.

Justin, do you have any, um, kind of parting thoughts just on, you know, preaching, pastoring? I know we've mentioned a little bit and then we'll, uh,

I'll give some thoughts and we'll close it down. Um, on preaching or pastoring as it relates to the stuff we're talking about.

Yeah. Just having a theology, you know, final thoughts. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this is like, as I think about preaching, um, obviously

I trust every man here. We want to, we want to always deal with the texts that we're preaching.

Uh, John and I did a, did an episode the other day that will release in a few weeks, um, where I think,

I think there may be guys out there that do this though. I don't know any who do, you know, who immediately take broad theological categories and just kind of run away from the text and start preaching theological categories rather than allowing the text to drive their, their preaching and their sermons.

Uh, I always want the text to drive my preaching, um, exegetic, you know, exegesis is going to drive homiletics, all that kind of stuff for sure.

But I definitely go to the text with these big theological categories in my backpack. Right.

So covenant theology is one of the big tools that I always have with me. It's always kind of sitting on my shoulder, you know, during sermon prep, um, you know, the, the grand story of scripture, you know,

God's eternal plan. I mean, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the sufficiency of Christ and how all these things hang together.

Uh, the main takeaway and application of scripture every week is trust in Jesus, right? Because he alone saves.

And so those things are always on my mind and absolutely will, will tent, uh, every sermon

I preach. And I am not afraid in preaching. This is where you got to know your own people though. You, you've got to know where, where the sheep are.

You got to know where the saints are and you don't want to do things in the pulpit that are going to be distracting. Um, that would, that would actually take people's attention off of Christ and off of the word and put them on something abstract or over there, maybe work them up, but I will use covenantal theological terms in preaching, uh, and I will explain them and I will help people see how, like I said this earlier, how these things are just part and parcel of the good news and how this is inextricably linked to the sufficiency of Christ and the message of the gospel.

And, um, I think I can say just from my own experience in the church where I'm the lead pastor, covenant theology has been mega helpful in edifying for the people.

I mean, they, even the people that can't articulate it as, as distinctly, or they can't use all the language, it's helped them.

And there are plenty of people in our congregation who are like highly aware and love it and are thankful for it.

And so be patient, preach the text, preach Jesus, but help your people see these things over the course of years.

And, and I think it, I think it will bear good fruit. So yeah, that's a thought.

Amen. No, I couldn't agree more. Um, we're about to take the covenant theology series that we did for Theocast and we're going to go through it with our church in our, in our men's and women's

Bible studies and, um, just to try and give the church a bigger foundation, a lot of people come in to the reformed faith from evangelicalism.

And all it has been handed is your personal efforts, your devotions, your Bible study, and they go in and they get all, they get more questions than answers.

They're more confused than help. They moralize and they over -spiritualize parts of the Bible that, you know, uh, if my people, which are called by my name, they love that verse, which they don't even understand why it's so important in its original context.

And what covenant theology does, I think is if you, if you use it appropriately, it gives people, um, it lets them know that where they're at in biblical history.

Uh, is nothing worse than coming into a middle of a sitcom, a middle of a movie, and you have no idea who the characters are, what's going on, and you're trying to gain some knowledge of what is this even about, and this is how most people feel their entire journey through the

Bible. And what I want to try and do is not overnight, but slowly just help them see.

So when I preach, often I preach the text and then I back out and understand, help them understand the greater context and why it's important and why what's being said in this text matters to the rest of the

Bible. And it's very, it's very often I won't do that. I always try and help people understand the immediate context, the greater context, and then the context, which is the gospel, which always allows me to get to, um, the gospel from any text because I understand the greater context being about Christ.

So, um, it says, did you guys finish the paperwork for intro to covenant theology? Not yet.

We are working on it. Some of that's a issue with finances. We just, um, we don't have the money for the editor at the moment.

So we're hoping by the end of the year, maybe we'll see how the end of the year giving goes. So we'll, we'll find out how that goes.

So, all right, Justin, we're going to go close it down. I know these guys got a lot to do guys. Thank you so much. Um, I've been encouraged.

I don't know if we'll do this again. Matt's asking how much do we need John? That might be a, I mean, this is a safe space.

I don't know, John, you can go for it. Yeah. I mean, uh, we'd,

I don't know. I'd have to look at it again. Um, we're trying to do things a little bit cheaper.

Uh, the last book I think cost us like $1 ,200, um, maybe even $1 ,500 just because of all the editing and setup and all that kind of stuff to make it print worthy.

Um, I think we're looking at doing it cheaper than that. We're trying to find some ways. So Theocast may appear to be a really large ministry.

I warn you, it is not. It is very small. We work on a shoestring budget around here.

No, we do. So, Hey guys, I don't know if we're going to do more of these. A lot of this has to depend on what Justin and I's schedule looks like in the future.

We may do one offs where we pick a subject we want to talk about and we will do a forum or whatever.

Right. I think, I mean, just for my John and I have not even had this conversation at length, but I think for my two cents,

I think those are probably going to be more doable for us. Um, and, and a lot of this man is you guys understand this is tethered to Theocast and budgetary considerations and, and other things.

Um, but yeah, I mean, this is obviously a side gig for both of us. And, um, and I think one offs can definitely be done because this is fun to get on here and be able to talk theology.

And so we could basically just do topics like John's saying, like here, you know, in, in six weeks, we're going to do a

Thursday night Zoom conference thing, webinar on this.

And guys, again, one of the things that Justin and I are working for and are praying about and Patrick, who's on this call,

Patrick Crandall, we would love for there to be a pastor's conference and a Theocast, that large conference.

But we really want to encourage you guys. We want to strengthen you. We are strengthened by you. I can tell you,

Justin and I, at times, what keeps us going are the comments in the emails that say,

Hey, what you guys doing are matters. Cause sometimes we feel like we're just speaking out into the abyss. And, um, you speak like you're speaking out in the abyss and then a lot of people shoot at you.

I mean, it's just, it is what it is. We were shot at today. Sure.

Um, and that, that's fine, but no, really grateful for you brothers and, and feel a lot of solidarity with you.

Um, and it's, this is, uh, one of those things, like even for me tonight, um, it's been a wearying season and there's been a ton going on today.

And getting on here has been an encouragement to me, you know, to be able to, to have these conversations and to interact with you men.

And, um, so I'm grateful for that. And, and it's not lost on us, um, at all.

So we're appreciative. Yeah. Keep praying for the ministry and, and we want to do more things like this. So don't think that it won't happen, but just might not always be a four -part book study.

So, yeah. All right, guys. Um, we'll talk to you soon and, um, stay faithful.