The Laborers' Podcast- Baptism!

Welcome to The Laborer's Podcast. We hope that you can stick around with us this evening to talk about baptism.

What we believe and why we believe it. Hope you will stay with us.

Thank you for joining The Laborer's Podcast. Remember, Jesus is King.

Live in the victory of Christ. Welcome to The Laborer's Podcast, which is a part of the

Truth in Love Network. Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ.

Subscribe and follow the Truth in Love Network on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and iTunes.

Now, let's join our laborers for tonight's broadcast. Welcome back to The Laborer's Podcast.

Good evening, brothers. How are you? Doing well. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Let me do some housekeeping real quick. I just want to remind everybody, if you are in the

Western North Carolina area, please go visit the Carolina Theater in Hickory, North Carolina.

They are so graciously sharing the gospel presentation that the laborers have put together, and they're showing it before every movie.

And so we would appreciate your support of the Carolina Theater in Hickory, North Carolina.

And mentioning that, I'll also remind you that if you are a church, a ministry, a business, if you're a

Christian business owner, say, hey, we like what you're doing on the Truth in Love Network.

You're exampling unity in Christ, and you're sharing the gospel, and you're teaching God's word.

We would like to support you as you support us in prayer and sharing the podcast.

So let us know so that we can support you. What we've done so far is we've put you on our website, and I've also put together this little montage of businesses, ministries, and churches that already say, hey, we support the

Truth in Love Network. And if you will bear with me, I'd like to share that with you right now. All right.

The comment line is open. So if you have any questions, comments, if you'd like for us to pray for you, all you have to do is type me.

We'd love to be able to pray for you tonight. We've got Dan with us on the Laborers Podcast. We've got

Keith Foskey with us tonight and Tyler Noe. Glad you guys could be with us to talk about baptism.

Myself and Keith, we are going to be coming from the Baptist perspective, and Tyler and Dan are going to be coming from the

Presbyterian perspective. So let's get started and jump right in.

Again, if you have any questions, comments, the comment line is open. So credo baptism.

We want to define our terms for those people who are not familiar with these theological terms.

Credo baptism. What is it and who practices credo baptism? Keith, we'll start with you.

Credo baptism, the prefix credo means I believe, and therefore credo baptism is the idea that baptism is to be preceded by a statement of faith and that the only people who are right candidates for baptism are those who can make a credible profession of faith with their own will and not be coerced into it or forced into it or even to be baptized before they're able to understand what baptism means.

So credo baptism means the baptism of disciples or believers alone.

All right, and who, as far as who, which denominations practice credo baptism?

Well, that's a little bit of a longer question because we would say that typically the first group that most people would think of is

Baptists, but also there are those of the Anabaptists, which would be the

Mennonites and the Amish and others who would fall into the Anabaptist category.

And then, of course, there are the Churches of Christ, which practice baptism upon profession of faith, even though they would hold a slightly different, or I would say quite different, understanding of what baptism accomplishes.

But they do only baptize believers or those who profess faith.

And typically this is also the baptism that you find in most Pentecostal churches.

You won't find many Pentecostal churches that I'm aware of that practice infant baptism or what my brother would define as credo baptism.

So yeah, so those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm leaving some out, and for those who I have left out, please forgive me.

I didn't have a list, so those were the ones I could think of. So the other one that is going to be the most talked about, the most understood, would be, as Keith mentioned, the credo

Baptist. Tyler, you ready to take a stab at this one?

What is credo baptism? Well, the stem there, credo, means child, or sometimes foot if you want to be really technical.

But we're not baptizing feet, we're baptizing children. But the idea of credo baptism is that the idea of baptism is for believers, but it's also for their children.

And there is some really technical footwork into how all that works, but bare bones that it is for believers and their children.

Okay. And Dan, which denominations most would be recognized as practicing credo baptism?

Oh, the rest of them. Namely, there would be Presbyterians, Anglicans, some

Methodists, the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Episcopalians.

Yeah, that's all that's coming to mind right at the moment. I'm sure there might be others. Yeah, gotcha, gotcha.

Did you mention Methodists? My screen cut out for a minute.

I didn't hear if you mentioned Methodists. I said some Methodists, because I've actually met some Methodists who

I asked them about infant baptism, and they looked at me like I had three heads. Okay. So I know that the

Methodist Church does allow for it, even the old Calvinist Methodists back in Wales.

They were infant Baptists, but then they allowed for both a credo

Baptist or a pedo Baptist position eventually. So I don't know where a lot of them stand today, but historically

Methodists have engaged in infant baptism. Yeah. Yeah, and Keith, if you need to consult any of your friends, like the representative of the

Methodist Church, you're welcome to do that if you need to. Well, he may make an approach from time to time.

All right, here's a question that when this topic first came up several months ago, somebody was asking about the means of grace.

So we want to define what the means of grace is, what we mean by that, and if you believe baptism falls under that category, why or why not?

So we'll start the circle back around. Keith, if you could define what we mean by when we say that's a means of grace.

Well, this is actually, again, something to consider as far as defining terms, because when

Rome uses the phrase means of grace, they use it in a different way than the

Reformers would use that term, because Rome believed that the church was the dispensary of grace and that there was a treasury of merit that they were able to dispense grace from.

They call it the thesaurus meritorum and that they are able to dispense grace through that channel.

I say it's like a spigot where the church has the ability to turn on or turn off this spigot of grace and dispense through these means, and Rome uses seven sacraments to dispense grace, one of them, of course, being the sacrament of baptism.

When the Reformers used the term means of grace, it was a little bit of a distinction because they were not defining the means of grace in the sense of being some form of sacramentalism, which is the idea that the church dispenses grace in the way that Rome saw it, but they still saw these activities as ways to procure for oneself the grace of God, and then again by the idea of means, receiving

God's grace through this means. At our church, we actually don't use the term means of grace.

We may say it is a means of growth. We'll say it's a means of... because we do have some concerns about the attachment that that has to the

Roman system. So just personally, we don't use that term means of grace, even though I understand what the intention is from the

Reformation perspective. That's just one of the areas where we would differ. Any other additions to that definition,

Tyler, Dan? No, it's a pretty good definition.

The way I've always thought of it—well, maybe not always, but the way I've come to think of it is that God has spoken to mankind and allowed— there are certain places where he will be found and always found, through prayer, baptism, the

Lord's Supper, when approached through faith. So where will you find the

Lord? You'll find him in the means of grace, which are those things that have been laid out for us where God has spoken to us.

It's not like our brother said. It's not like a spigot that you turn on and off, and you get some sort of grace poured down onto you.

You can fill up a cup with it or anything like that. It's just that if you want to hear God speak, the means by which

God has ordained for us to hear him is through his word or through the word preached. We receive that by faith.

If you're going to hear—if you're going to— like, for instance, you seek the

Lord by accepting through faith the sacrament of the

Lord's Supper. You go there, you find Christ when you receive it by faith, not because of anything special in those things, but because God has ordained those means by which he has communicated to us his grace.

So within that, what comes to my mind is creation. So where would creation fall under that definition that you're giving us,

Dan? Because, you know, Scripture talks about how creation reveals the glory of God.

It speaks that there is a creator, and it gives at least a general revelation that there is a

God. So how does creation fall under that type of means of grace? You know,

I hadn't thought about that. Creation does, in some respects, speak to mankind.

I don't know if I'd categorize it under the means of grace, but I really hadn't thought about that one.

So I'd hate to speak too much on it. Okay. All right. Keith shared with us that, associating means of grace, he said means of growth.

And as I was thinking about means of grace—and Tyler, you can respond to this, and let me know what you think and share your thoughts on it.

When I was thinking about means of grace, I was thinking about it from the other side of salvation.

And I think it would be very similar—my thoughts were very similar to where Dan was going, where he says this is where God is located and where I can find him.

I was on the other side of salvation. And you can tell me if you agree or disagree. So a means of grace would be that place where—or that mechanism to where God is leading us to faith in Christ.

Is that—am I in the ballpark? Do you think? What do you think,

Tyler? Can you run that by me one more time again?

Yeah. So Dan was talking about where God was located, where we can find him through his word, through prayer, and through the other means that he mentioned would be means of grace, places where we can find

God and hear him speak. And Keith was talking about how he used the term means of growth, which would be more on the sanctification side on the other side of salvation.

I was also—when I was thinking through this subject, I was thinking of the place before salvation, means of grace, the places or mechanisms that God would use to lead us to faith in Christ.

Do you think I'm in the ballpark by thinking of means of grace in that way? Well, I believe—I think

Abraham Kuyper called it common grace, right? That there's an element of God besowing grace on lost people through giving them good things, through—it rains on the just and it rains on the unjust.

So I think there's definitely—I think there's room for that, absolutely. I think it gets dicey when we get stuck in these categories of it's a means of grace, kind of like Keith was saying with it sounding like the church is bestowing these things.

And I think if we get out of that box that we might be tempted to draw there and just say, this is how

God creates growth, I think we're able to better be friendly to that idea,

Rob. Okay. All right. So the next question is— Well, I— Yeah, go ahead.

I would just simply, in response to what you said, I would caution a bit by saying if we say that these are means of grace prior to salvation, then are we saying that these are things that are in addition to faith?

And are we then saying that justification is not by faith alone but is through these things?

And therefore, I do think that's—you come into a problematic issue when you begin to start saying, well, for me to come to Christ, it must be faith plus these things.

And so I think that's—I think you have to think through that a little bit because when you begin to say, well,

I can come to Christ through these means, the means that we come to Christ is faith and faith alone.

And all of these other things are important, they're valuable, but they are not to be replacements for or additions to faith.

I'm totally on board with what you just said, absolutely. So if I restate it like this and get it a little closer to where Dan was, let me know if you think it makes more sense.

So I'm thinking about the Scripture that says faith comes by hearing, and Dan brought up finding

God in his word. So the word and hearing, would that be a means of grace leading us to understanding our sin and understanding our need of Christ?

Well, yeah, but because faith has to have an object, you can't simply believe in belief, so faith requires something to believe in or, in our respect, someone to believe in.

So the content of the gospel has to be proclaimed. This is what it means when it says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.

We have to hear the gospel to believe it. But would we say that baptism is a requirement for salvation or that it is a sign of someone who has been saved?

And then we get into, again, going down the path of our friends, the churches of Christ, who have made salvation five parts.

If you read the Church of Christ documents, they don't believe in justification by faith alone. They believe that salvation comes in five parts, which includes,

I believe, if I remember correctly, it's baptism, repentance, faith, holy living, and enduring to the end,

I think, are the five. And I could be off on the last two, but those five things are the things that bring about salvation.

You notice the first one is baptism. And so for them, baptism is what brings about regeneration.

And that leads to another question. Does regeneration come through baptism? I would say no, but our

Lutheran friends would disagree, and so would our Catholic friends, and so would our many others.

So as Baptists and Presbyterians, neither one would affirm baptismal regeneration.

In fact, we would say that such a thing is not what the Scripture teaches. So how would you define my approach if you're saying the means of grace are things post -salvation, things that help us to grow in sanctification?

How would you define, if not means of grace? Honestly, it's not a term

I use. It's not an issue for me, and that's not what

I thought. We can talk about it, but I really don't think this is the direction.

If we keep doing this, we're never going to get to the issues that divide us. Real quick before we move on.

I think one of the things that defines the means of grace, so I would have to give an answer to the creation question.

Means of grace are going to be more closely tied to God's special revelation,

His revelation that He has given specifically to mankind in a special sense, over and against His, not against, but in contrast to His general revelation of creation.

Because while His general revelation of creation is enough to give us a knowledge of Him, so that way we're without excuse, it's the gospel that's the power of God and the salvation.

So where do we find the gospel? We find the gospel where God has revealed it to us, in His word, in the preaching of the word, and in the sacraments that He's given to us through His word.

So where has God specifically spoken to us about our salvation? That's where we find the grace of God, obviously when received by faith.

So I think we want to make that distinction. But like our brother down here said, we don't need to dwell on it too awfully long.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be—I just think we have some other things to get to, and this could lead us down a tricky definition of terms path that we may not be able to find ourselves out of.

Yeah, the nine part series or something. Yeah, well, someone brought it up and was kind of curious about it, and some people may see baptism in that light, so I just wanted to touch on it.

So before we jump into the covenant theology questions and how it relates to baptism,

Dan, just give us kind of a visual of what covenant theology is, because us here are more going to represent that side of things as opposed to dispensationalism.

So like a large, overarching definition of covenant theology?

Yeah. We'll put it this way.

Covenant theology, in the broadest sense, is that God has dealt with mankind and revealed himself to mankind through covenant.

Now, from there, Presbyterians will differ amongst themselves, and then from the

Reformed Baptists who differ amongst themselves, you have the progressive covenantalists and all sorts of things going on.

But in the broadest sense of what covenant theology is, it is recognizing that one of the ways that God—the main way that God has revealed himself to us is through covenant.

Any tweaking of that from your perspective, Keith or Tyler? Well, I would simply say that—and

I don't want to go first if Tyler wants to say anything, but I would define the three main covenants defined in covenant theology, which are the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, because those are the three that create the framework for the system.

Sure. Some people do reject a covenant of works, or at least the language of it.

So I was just giving the broadest sense. Sure, and I wasn't correcting you. I was just adding to the thought.

The thing about covenant theology that's always been somewhat interesting to me is that it's based upon covenants that aren't named in Scripture.

The covenants that are named in Scripture are the Noahic, the

Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Davidic, and the New Covenant. And one could say the Adamic covenant, which is made with Adam in the garden, but those are the only ones that have specific names.

But the covenant theology is based on a covenant of redemption, which was an intra -Trinitarian covenant made prior to creation, where God in himself chose that the

Father would elect, the Son would redeem, and the Spirit would regenerate, and that that would happen in time, and that he would create the world with a decree that those things would take place.

The covenant of works, as you said, not everybody agrees with. I don't believe in a covenant of works. From classic covenant theology, you're right, not everyone agrees with that.

But the definition of the covenant of works is that Adam was given a covenant whereby he could live or die, and that covenant of works he broke and brought death and destruction and disease into the world.

And as a result, we all live, having become the benefactors of his breaking that covenant.

And now we live, the only salvation comes through grace, and therefore the covenant of grace.

And where the differentiation is between Baptists and Presbyterians, is Presbyterians typically believe that the covenant of grace began as soon as Adam fell.

God began to give him grace, and therefore grace began after the fall. And Baptists see the covenant of grace as being specific to the new covenant, and that the covenants that preceded that, the

Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, all pointed to the new covenant were not themselves covenants of grace, but rather pointed to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace.

Anything you want to add, Tyler? I think we've got it between these two.

Gotcha. I just want to give you an opportunity to jump in there, and what Keith was sharing may help us as we talk about the differences and where we divide on the infant baptism versus believer's baptism.

So, since we talk about covenant...

What were you saying, Tyler? I mean, regardless of where you land on the fence here, I think we can all agree that when we start throwing out all these terms and references and everything, ultimately what we're trying to get to the root of is how does the redemptive arc that we see in Scripture unfold?

How do we categorize the way that God has revealed himself basically from story to story?

How does all of this point us to the gospel? How do we get there from the garden? Am I out of place there?

I think you're good. Yeah, I mean, you think of the Road to Emmaus where Jesus started with the

Old Testament Scriptures and explained to them how those things were about him. So, yeah, if Jesus does it, we should too.

So, from my understanding, the Presbyterians would pull from their covenant theology to get their pedo -baptism, their infant baptism.

Is that correct? The infant baptism is an outworking of the pedo -baptist covenant theology.

Okay, so how do they get that out of their covenant theology? How does that work?

My goodness, we've only got 30 minutes left. Tyler, you want to take a stab at it or you want me to?

Well, I think to start, you have the Old Testament.

You've got Abraham. Keith mentioned the Abrahamic covenant, that God made a covenant with Abraham.

And part of that covenant involved circumcision. And Abraham was circumcised as a sign of this covenant that he was in with God.

This was a tangible outward indication of what the invisible God was doing.

And as part of that, Abraham's son Isaac was circumcised when he was a baby.

And there's this thread that pedo -baptists tend to follow of that being applied from family to family, generation to generation, that the children were brought into the covenant in that way.

And so they have a certain standing in that covenant without making a statement of it themselves.

I just lost my train of thought here. So the generational thing is going to be how it carries over.

Is that right? Right. So in circumcision, you had a command to circumcise, first off, yourself, and then your children, and then those children after them.

That was a sign that you were a part of that covenant. Anyone who was not circumcised, obviously of the men, were then told to get lost.

You're not supposed to be here because you have not had the sign of the covenant. Now, it didn't always happen that way, but that was a command from God that they should have the sign passed on to their children.

As their children are born and thrown out the generations, on the eighth day, you would go to the temple, be circumcised, and then you would be a part of the people of God, the nation of Israel, so to speak, the ones who would gather around the tabernacle and then have the law that would lead them to the temple to give sacrifices, to remember the different feast days.

They would be a part of that covenant community because of their family status being connected, so it's passed down from family to family.

Now, when you come to the new covenant, new covenant in Christ, you have a slight change where the sign of the covenant then becomes baptism.

I'm sure we can discuss that in depth on where and how and all of that, but as it changes over to baptism, the sign then would be given to believers and their children because they're marked off as holy unto the

Lord or these are people who are a part of that community. Now, that doesn't mean that they're saved automatically.

What it does mean is that they are a part of the community that looks to and trusts in the one true

God, so they're linked, at least organically, to the promises of God with those promises actually given to them at their baptism and then received by faith when they actually do come to faith in Christ.

So let me ask one question. So the sign of baptism from that perspective, because I'm going back to our definition of covenants and I'm thinking about the differences that you guys defined in my head.

So the sign of baptism for being in covenant, are you referring to the new covenant or are you referring to the covenant of grace that's overarching from Adam?

Yes. So let me explain. The covenant of grace would overarch from the time of Adam all the way till basically the second coming of Christ, even beyond depending on how you want to define your terms and look at it and salvation and all that.

However, each one of the covenants that lie in the old covenant and even the new covenant itself would be different administrations of that same covenant.

So God's one covenant of grace that spanned over all time would have been administered one way under Noah, one way under Abraham, one way under David, and then again in a different way under the new covenant.

So while the principle of giving the sign of the covenant to your children was in the old covenants and that passed on throughout the history of the

Old Testament, when you come to the new covenant, we don't see anywhere where that model, that pattern would be changed.

So you would still give the sign of the covenant, which would be the new covenant administration of the covenant of grace, you would still give that sign to your infant children.

So Keith, you would find the difference in covenants a good place where we find division.

Would that be correct? Since the Baptists would affirm that the covenant of grace would begin at Christ, and so therefore, baptism being a sign, would we even say that baptism is a sign of being in the covenant?

Well, that depends on what Baptist you ask. So there's not uniformity among Baptists as there's not uniformity among Presbyterians.

PCUSA is not much different than a Methodist, as far as their willingness to accept all things and kind of be social gospel nutterbutters.

So when we talk about the baptism as a sign, when we look at Colossians chapter 2, which is just so happens what

I'll be preaching in a couple of weeks, as I'm preaching through Colossians right now, and in Colossians chapter 2,

Paul does talk about a circumcision that is made without hands, and then in the very next passage, he says we have been baptized, and so the

Presbyterian tends to see that as baptism being the new covenant picture of the old covenant sign of circumcision, and as Dan so eloquently stated, there is one covenant of grace with different administrations, and each administration has different signs, and the sign of the old covenant was circumcision, and the sign of the new covenant is baptism.

Now, I'm articulating his position. Some Baptists agree with that. Some Baptists don't.

Some Baptists would say that Colossians 2 is not saying that baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but rather regeneration is the sign because that is the circumcision made without hands.

I've seen many baptisms, but I've never seen one done without hands. Somebody had to use their hands somewhere, and so most

Baptists that I know would say that the new covenant sign is actually regeneration, which is pictured in baptism.

Baptism is a picture of regeneration, but it's not the same thing. This is where we would differ from our

Lutheran and Roman Catholic counterparts who would say that baptism causes regeneration, and therefore they would see a link there, and we would say baptism is a sign of regeneration or a picture of regeneration.

Paul says we're buried with Christ in baptism, raised to new life. That's a picture of regeneration, death and resurrection.

So there's a distinction there. I don't have a problem saying that baptism is a sign of the new covenant.

I think the new covenant has two administrative sacraments or ordinances, and those two ordinances are baptism and the

Lord's Supper, and I do think that they function as external signs, but what they point to is they point to regeneration and union.

Baptism points to our regeneration, and the Lord's Supper points to our ongoing union with Christ, which we have fellowship with him through the

Spirit. So yeah, I don't have a problem saying baptism is a sign as long as we understand that it's not the same as regeneration.

Regeneration is what causes us to be born again. That is what being born again is, what causes us to be regenerated.

Was that clear? I feel like I maybe went off the rail there for a second. No, I like what you had to say.

Colossians 2, I think, is pointing from two directions at one reality, and that one reality is salvation.

When you find salvation, it says that they were circumcised, circumcision without hands, and it's arguing basically from the sign to the reality, which full and final would have been salvation.

And then the other direction, having been baptized, and also it's pointing the same direction.

Now, in the old covenant, the circumcision was pointing to a cutting away, circumcision of the heart, basically, a cutting away of the heart pointing to salvation, whereas in the new covenant, you see baptism being a sign of our going through the waters of judgment with Christ being held safe.

You see Peter talking about how we were, it says baptism saves you not by washing of the water, so not baptismal regeneration, but by an appeal to Christ or to God for a clean conscience, being that just like when

Noah was going into the ark, and the floodwaters came, the ark saved

Noah because he was hid within the ark. Just like when we are, the picture of baptism is that we are held secure by Christ as the waters of judgment pass over us.

We are buried within his death and raised to walk in newness of life, as I've heard very many times in the

Baptist church. Sure. Yeah. And that phrase, circumcision of the heart, that's in Deuteronomy 10, 16 even.

The Jews were implored to circumcise their hearts. It wasn't necessarily just the external, but there was this substantial component of it being an indication of something deeper than just the thing.

Yeah, absolutely. So I would say that was their understanding, which the New Testament counterpart to that would be when

Jesus said one must be born again, I think that that is the New Testament counterpart to the circumcision of the heart, because the phrase being born again is a new covenant phrase.

We don't see the phrase being born again in the old covenant, but the phrase that we do see, as you just said, Tyler, is circumcision of the heart, that something has to happen internally, not just externally.

If we are only having the external sign and not the internal reality that accompanies the sign, then we are no better off than the heathen, because the external sign doesn't change.

It's the internal change. And I definitely don't have enough time to throw in all my questions and opinions and things that have been on my mind lately, so let's just jump back into the back and forth to get to where we stand on the issues.

So Dan and Tyler, what would be your strongest argument for the sign of baptism or baptism being a sign of being in the new covenant that it's a carryover, just a different administration?

What's your strongest argument for that? Either one of you.

Clearly we don't have one. We give up. I'm kidding.

You want to go, Tyler? Have at it. All right, so first thing I'd like to say is that I think what we just discussed is probably more important than what we're about to discuss.

Understanding what baptism symbolizes and why it was given to us is more important,

I think, than a discussion over the administration of it. Now, discussion of the administration of it is important.

With all of that said, the strongest case for infant baptism or covenantal baptism would be tracing through the old covenant administration how the sign was given to the people of the covenant.

And that sign was always given to the members of the covenant proper and their children.

So they would then become covenant members. Now, that didn't secure their salvation. In many cases, it harmed them in the end because they took what they knew.

They had the revelation of God before them and they threw it away. So you come to the new covenant and when the new covenant switches,

I'd say probably the biggest point would have been around the time of Pentecost.

So what you see in Acts 2 is Peter saying that the promise of salvation, all of the things that were pointed to in the old covenant has come to fruition in Christ and that those promises were given to you and to your children and to all those who are far off.

As many as... Hold on, I'm about to misquote that. As many as...

Lord our God will call to himself. I was about to say that. That's what I was...

All right. So what

I see there anyway is that those same promises that were given throughout the old covenant are now being applied to Christ.

If you look at Hebrews 1, it talks about the message of angels that was given that didn't hold a candle to the message of Christ.

Christ coming being the final say in Revelation. And then in Hebrews 2, it says that if the message that was given by angels, since it was proven reliable, we...

How much more should we pay attention to the words of Christ because he is the fulfillment of those things?

So one of the ways that you see that in the New Testament is since we don't see a change in administration, you would look for things that look like that same administration from the

Old Testament. For instance, the children of believers being called holy, which we see in 1

Corinthians 7. Some people disagree about that application, but I don't see why.

I lost my train of thought, Tyler. I don't know how to pick up here, bud. We start way too late in the day for this.

So what Dan left off with was since we don't necessarily see an explicit this is done, this is...

There's like a brick wall here. We would look for things that parallel. We look for, to be fancy with it, like typology.

There's parallels between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Hebrews talks about Christ as priest, that he is the mediator of a better covenant, of a newer covenant.

We also have discussions about him being king, and we have him as prophet.

Moses promised in Deuteronomy that God would send another prophet like me, but you must listen to him.

They didn't listen to other prophets, but eventually... I believe that that is a promise of the coming

Christ, the perfect prophet, the true prophet. And so what

Dan's trying to illustrate there is that the idea of infant baptism comes in from looking for parallels between the

Old Testament and this side of the cross. And we're of the persuasion that infant baptism has a place in the outworking of what was started in the

Old Testament and finds a deeper meaning after the redemption of Christ was accomplished.

So my initial question to you guys would be, where do we find that in New Testament teaching?

Where would we find that from Christ's teaching that we establish our ordinances on parallels from the

Old Testament as opposed from establishing our ordinances and practices from Christ himself or the teachings of the apostles?

Well, Christ himself on the road to Emmaus said that the Old Covenant and the whole

Old Testament was pointing to and speaking of him. So everything that you have in the

Old Testament has a link some way, form, or fashion to Christ and the coming salvation that was going to be put out there in front of the whole world by his death, burial, and resurrection.

So at the time where he came and accomplished salvation, we see that because of that overarching covenant of grace, we don't see there as being a substantial change in what

God has promised to us, just a change in how he has administrated it to us.

So we would see it not being a change in covenant so much as a change that you were looking at things through type and shadow before, and now you're looking at things through the reality of Christ.

So for baptism, for instance, then if you have the sign of the

Old Covenant being given to believers or to covenant members and their children, then we would be looking for a change from that, an explicit change from that as we move forward to the administration of the new covenant.

Who do we give the new covenant sign to? Unless it was changed from the

Old Covenant, we don't think that we should change who that sign is given to.

You want to jump in with any questions for them or your stance on credo baptism and your position, your strongest argument for credo baptism?

Well, yeah. I know time is our enemy.

Well, I don't even know what time we're supposed to finish, so I have no... What time we're supposed to be done?

Well, our aim is kind of an hour, but sometimes we go over.

It's just... But maybe an hour 30? Well, I'll make it quick.

Okay. The distinction between Presbyterian baptism and believers' baptism, or pedo and credo baptism, really falls down to the question of the continuity or discontinuity between the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant and what the New Covenant promise is in relation to the

Old Covenant promises and how they pointed forward to the New Covenant. And the thing that I am convinced as a

Baptist about is that I am convinced that everyone who is in the

New Covenant is a person who knows the Lord. I base this upon Hebrews 8.

In fact, I asked Dr. White in my interview with him last week. I said

I was pretending to be Doug Wilson. I was playing a part. And I was jokingly saying, what is it going to take to make you a

Presbyterian? And he said, take Hebrews 8 out of my Bible.

That's what he said. And the reason why is because Hebrews 8 does show a distinction between the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant, specifically that in verse 11 it says, And they shall not teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, know the

Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest.

And so the promise of the New Covenant is that those who are in it are not in it by birth, but rather they are in it by new birth.

They are in it by regeneration. And therefore the children of believers are not members of the

Covenant until such time as they demonstrate their entrance into the

Covenant by faith alone. And so I would argue that we do not give a sign of the

Covenant to an unbeliever when we are in a covenant that demands that all people in it be believers.

And therefore there is no reason to baptize children. And I would go back to the

Acts passage where it says, For the promise is for you and for your children.

Well, what promise? The promise is in verse 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

Well, why are we doing that? Because we have asked the Apostle Peter, what should we do?

You should repent and believe and be baptized. Well, for this promise, the promise is what?

You will repent and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Who is this promise for? It's for you, it's for your children, and for all who are far off.

And if you want to argue that the children there are by virtue of being children members of that promise, then you have to also argue that everyone who is far off is also a member of that promise.

And that indicates people of every tribe, tongue, and nation. And it says, Everyone whom the

Lord our God calls to himself. And I am sorry to say this, but not all children of believers are among the elect.

And I don't know any Presbyterian that would argue different. Not all children of believers are called.

And therefore, this does not say that the children are to receive baptism.

It simply says that if they believe and repent, then they will receive the same promise as someone else who believes and repents.

So that's my argument. Okay. If I could just have just a minute to share my argument.

And I was thinking a little bit differently. And so don't shoot me down too hard,

Keith. But I was thinking a little bit differently when you talk about the New Testament sign, which, you know,

I don't disagree. I have no arguments against what you were saying. You're talking about the New Testament sign is going to be regeneration.

But I'm glad you read the Acts 2 passage because you took us to where my thinking was going.

You talked about the promise and you were absolutely right. But part of that promise was also the promise of the

Holy Spirit. And where I was thinking, where I was going with this was the sign of the new covenant would be the seal of the new covenant, which is the

Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit that I'm a child of God.

And so to me, that seal of the Holy Spirit is a sign of the new covenant, being in the new covenant.

And further evidence of that is that signage is the fruits of the spirit, giving evidence that you have the

Holy Spirit, the promise of the Holy Spirit. And of course, to receive the

Holy Spirit, you must come to him in faith. And therefore, we baptize believers because they are the ones who are able to receive that knowledge of the gospel being preached and come to him in faith.

Am I way off track in seeing the Holy Spirit as the sign of the new covenant, fulfilling of that promise?

Well, I would say that regeneration in the new covenant is accompanied by the indwelling of the spirit.

So I don't see much of a substantive difference between what you said and what I said, only that you're focusing more on the indwelling, which

I would say is the permanent indwelling of the spirit is a New Testament promise. And that is something that, again, some of my

Presbyterian friends would argue that there was a permanent indwelling in the Old Testament. I would disagree. I have a different view of that, that the permanent indwelling is, again,

Hebrews chapter 8. That's the promise of the new covenant, that we're going to have the spirit, that he's going to abide with us forever.

Jesus says that in the Gospel of John several times. And so, yeah, I would say that regeneration precedes that, and regeneration is accompanied in the new covenant by the full indwelling of the spirit who abides with us forever according to Christ.

When I think about the Presbyterian argument, and of course, Dan and Tyler took us back to Abraham, where that sign started, and then it carries over to the

New Testament with a different administration. But I go back to Abraham when I'm thinking about that argument, because Dan's trying to convert me to Presbyterianism and infant baptism.

So I'm thinking about that argument, and where I stumble is thinking about Abraham because I hold on to the promise that Abraham is promised that I will make you a father of many nations.

And so he is our spiritual father. And so how do I harmonize the spiritual promise of faith versus the promises to him and the nation of Israel?

And I was kidding around with Dan today that I was converted to infant baptism because I was reading

Colossians chapter 2, which you referenced earlier. So for me, and again,

I could be wrong, but where I was harmonizing that situation, that dilemma with Abraham and him being our spiritual father, and while we don't carry over circumcision to signify that, the reason

I said that I believe now in infant baptism is because the New Testament describes us needing to be born again.

And if we are born again, it also speaks of folks who are infants in Christ and don't stay infants in Christ and eat the true meat, the milk of the word.

So I believe in infant baptism in the sense that when you are born again, you are infant in Christ, and therefore we are baptized after our regeneration, our new birth.

So there's my confession, Dan. That's how I come up with infant baptism. Thank you,

Shane. That's how my simplistic mind works.

Here you go, though. New believers? Baptize them.

I mean, credo baptism shouldn't be restricted to just credo baptists. If you come to a paedo -baptist church and you don't, you haven't believed before and you have faith in Christ and you were converted, man, we're going to get you wet just as quick, because it's clearly a model that we see in the

New Testament, is that those who have not been baptized, especially those who have not been baptized who have faith, baptize them,

I would say, and their children. But we can all agree that new converts, yeah, baptize them.

Yeah, no one denies that a new believer who's never been baptized needs to be baptized, for sure.

So we all hold to a form of credo baptism in that sense, but where I would, and I don't know if we have time for this, but I would throw out some challenge questions that may, you know, and I do have a video for you,

Robert, Why a Reformed Baptist Should Not Become a Presbyterian. I'll be happy to send that to you. It's an hour -long interview with me and John Sweat, who is a

New Testament scholar, and we talk about that very thing. So before you go getting converted by Dan, at least give me the chance to push.

It's easier when he doesn't have people pulling him back. I know, I know. It's always, always easier, as the proverb says, every man sounds right until someone comes along to correct him, right?

Right, we got to keep that second voice silent. Yeah. Well, here's my challenge questions.

And again, this is just either Tyler or Dan is welcome to answer.

If a believer came into your church and had already been baptized and they had an infant child that had not yet been baptized, would you encourage them to baptize that infant child upon the fact that they are believers?

This is not a trick question. Seriously, that's the question. If I came to your church,

I have an infant child, he is not yet a believer, obviously, because he doesn't even understand not to poop on himself, right?

So he doesn't believe anything. He doesn't know anything. So he comes into the church with me. You see me. I'm carrying the baby carrier.

And I walk in your church and I join your church. You would encourage me to baptize him, correct? Yep. Okay.

Tyler, you agree? I would prefer it. But honestly, my church is non -denominational.

Okay, but you agree that would be the Presbyterian position that they would say you should baptize that child because that child was born into a covenant household.

A covenant household would mean that that child would be a candidate for baptism, yes? Yes. Okay.

All right. So now let's say I have a 13 -year -old child who comes with me, who repudiates faith, who doesn't believe in Jesus, and who rejects the gospel.

Do you baptize that child? No. Okay. Tell me why, based upon your understanding of the covenant family, why is my 13 -year -old unbelieving child less of a candidate than my four -month -old non -understanding child?

Because the 13 -year -old has rejected the faith. Well, we don't know if the infant has.

Right. We don't know, but those promises are laid out there for the infant, that salvation comes to them through the

Christ that they're being raised up to know as their Lord and God, whereas the 13 -year -old has been taught who their

Lord and God should be and has rejected him. Okay, so... We wouldn't baptize folks who are openly hostile to the faith.

Okay, so if we would go back to the old covenant and I bring my child who's 13 into the covenant, you would circumcise them, though, whether or not they were a believer?

Right, because belief wasn't one of the stipulations of old covenant membership.

So you agree with me, and now you're a Baptist because you just said that belief is a requirement for baptism.

How did I say that? Because you said in the old covenant it wasn't a requirement, but it is in the new.

It's a requirement for one of the parents because the nature of the nation of Israel changed from one of a national status to one of faith.

Okay, I agree 100%. The baby doesn't have faith. Right, the baby doesn't have faith, but the parents do.

Okay, but I think you're not catching what I'm saying. You said in the old covenant they didn't have to believe, but in the new covenant they do.

I didn't say that the infant had to believe in the new covenant. But you said that the 13 -year -old did.

The 13 -year -old, if the 13 -year -old was neutral, didn't know yet, was still learning and not openly hostile to the faith, we would probably baptize them because they're still in the process of learning.

Okay, so they're only a covenant child if they don't reject the gospel? Well, once you reject the gospel, you wouldn't be a part of the covenant anyway.

Okay, this is where I see an inconsistency. And again, I'm not trying to poke holes in your system, but I am, because that's what we're supposed to do, right?

But we're lovingly pointing out each other's inconsistencies. And I think the inconsistency here is that we are saying that there are children who are covenant children who receive the sign of baptism, but they're not covenant children if they reject the faith.

Just like if one who was circumcised in the Old Covenant was disobedient to their parents, they would be put outside of the covenant, sometimes by death.

Okay, all right. What about an unbelieving spouse? You wouldn't baptize an unbelieving spouse? No. Okay, but the 1

Corinthians 7 passage, which is cited by you earlier, the 1 Corinthians 7 passage that says the spouse is made holy, the very same word is used for children.

So you would... What about a spouse who didn't care? Would you baptize a spouse who just said,

I don't believe in Jesus, but I don't care. I'll take baptism. If they said they don't believe in Jesus, then they're...

No, no. They said they don't care. I don't know. I don't care. But my wife wants me baptized, so baptize me. That one, you'd have to talk to the person a little bit more.

Okay. Because you'd want to find out if they're actually rejecting the faith or if they're going to be submissive to a covenant home.

It would be the same thing if we had indentured servants or slaves today. Okay. Because you circumcised your servants in the household in the

Old Covenant. So if it was carried over... I got you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I lost you for a second, but I got you. Yeah, we're good.

I mean, that's my... Those are the questions that I have. I think that there's a little bit of an inconsistency in how we understand what is required for baptism.

I do believe that faith is required, and therefore, if a child cannot exercise faith, then they're not a proper candidate for baptism.

That's obviously my position. I'm a Baptist. But that's where...

That was the only two... Not arguments. That's the only two questions I have are the questions of the spouse and the unbelieving child.

Yeah. But now the spouse, being older and of age, if they reject the gospel,

I think they would put themselves outside of candidacy for baptism. Okay.

But are they still sanctified? In a sense, they're still going to have some of the blessings of the covenant because they're going to be around a believing spouse.

They're going to have someone who's speaking the word to them. They're going to have some benefits, but those benefits may turn out to be nothing for them, just like in the

Old Covenant. You know, what were the benefits of the people who were in the Old Covenant if they were rejected?

He said many in every way because they had the word of God, they had the sacraments put before them.

But Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 7 is that an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by a believing spouse.

Yes? Sure. But they're called a part to be a part of the covenant community, so they're going to be linked organically to that covenant.

Okay. So, again, going back to my original thought, is if the unbelieving spouse is given the same word, hagios, he is called holy, in the same way that the child who is of an unbelieving and a believing spouse, you have a one believer, one unbeliever.

So you have a child who is in the same category as the unbelieving spouse, both given the same title.

You're saying one is more holy than the other? No, I'm saying that the one has rejected their status as being holy because of their lack of faith.

Yeah, but Paul doesn't make that distinction in the text. He doesn't indicate that that makes them any less holy. In fact, he says they're made holy by the spouse.

Right. They're called to be set apart by their spouse. No, he says they are set apart.

They're not called to be. They are set apart by their spouse. I'm not saying they're saved, but I'm saying that their status of being holy is the exact same status as the child.

Right, and you can forfeit that status by... But they don't forfeit that status.

They have that status. According to 1 Corinthians 7, that status is given to them because of the believing spouse.

Again, taking just an exegetical argument, you have two people who have the same status based upon the believing parent.

One of them you give baptism to. One of them you don't because one believes, or doesn't, rather.

So again, it comes back to my argument. It's about faith. See, here's the thing, though.

There are people in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant who...

Let's just go with the Old Covenant argument because it's more expressly laid out. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it because it'd all be laid out in New Covenant terms.

Say you're a part of the Old Covenant. Say you're married to someone who...

You're married to a man who is circumcised, and you reject the faith.

You'll be put outside of the covenant because you've rejected the faith of the nation.

In the same way with the children there. The children who were there a part of the covenant who, when they grew up and were of age and rejected the faith, they were put outside because they rejected the covenant that they were made a part of.

Okay. So you are equating being made holy with being made part of the covenant.

Right. That's what I believe being called holy is. Set apart for the purposes of the

Lord. But you agree that that's not what the text says. It doesn't say they're part of the covenant. It says they are made holy.

Well, no. I mean, it doesn't say everything that we'd want it to. I mean, it's not systematic theology. No, but...

We have to read into it more than just that passage in order to understand the fullness of what the scriptures are saying.

But here's my argument, and I don't think... I don't really think you're following it because my argument is this. You're saying the person is made part of the covenant because of the believing spouse.

The unbelieving spouse is made part of the covenant, but they immediately reject because they're unbelieving, and then they're not part of the covenant anymore, so they're no longer holy.

That... No. Yeah, that's what you said. You said they, just like the

Old Testament, they cut themselves off. But if that's... The text says the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife.

It doesn't say he's made part of the covenant. It says he's made holy, meaning he's set apart from the world, and his unbelieving spouse makes him holy.

If he remains an unbeliever, he's still holy because he's made holy by his spouse.

That's what the text says. Yeah, my brain shut off while you're talking.

I'm sorry. Okay. I don't really know what else

I can say to make you understand what I'm saying. Okay. I'm not trying to... Oh, no.

It ain't nothing like that. I'm just... No, I ain't fighting or upset or nothing. Well, it seems like...

My only point is that the two categories we have here are the children and the spouse.

Both are made holy. Both are made holy by the believing spouse, and you're saying that a person can be cut off of that by being an unbeliever.

Right. Rejection of the gospel puts you outside of the covenant community. So they stop being holy.

If you reject the gospel, you're put outside of the covenant community. But they rejected the gospel and yet are still called holy in this text because it says they're unbelievers and yet they're holy.

And yet in Hebrews, it says that there are those who tasted of the Holy Spirit and fell away.

Okay, so you're saying that the unbelieving spouse is an apostate? Because you just cited

Hebrews 6, which I think is irrelevant. I'm not putting it... I'm saying that there are instances where there's someone who was a part of the covenant who left due to a lack of faith.

Okay. Honestly, I agree with you. I think we've probably gone as far as we can. I hope people understand what

I'm saying, and maybe we'll talk about it more later, but that's probably as far as we can go.

Sure. So you were talking about the benefits. The infant that's baptized is baptized into the covenant, and they receive the benefits of being in the covenant.

So I'm curious to ask, if you're a

Baptist and the parents are believers, would the infant, would our infant not receive the same blessings being in a believing family as a

Presbyterian infant who has been baptized into the covenant family?

You see what I'm saying? Does the baptism or not baptism of the child remove the blessings?

Of being in the believing family. Right, right. I wouldn't say so because the blessings come from the word of God.

So they come from seeing the word of God, hearing the gospel, being brought up in a believing home.

Those are the benefits. So whether or not the parents baptize the child, it would make a little difference.

So I think that's one of the reasons why I would remain Baptist is because, well,

I think what we just talked about there, baptizing an infant really, it really doesn't bring them into any blessings.

I'm not going to use the language of a new covenant. I'll say bring them into any additional blessings than if they were coming into a

Baptist believing family. There would be no difference.

Well, see, that's the thing. The baptism there doesn't cause the blessings. The baptism is a recognition that God has called them to be a part of the covenant community.

It's a recognition. Okay. So it's still just a symbol.

It doesn't bring them into anything. Right.

Now, the means of grace that I believe are tied to baptism aren't, they're not tied to the time in which the person is baptized, but are received by faith when one believes.

So if someone believes and is then baptized, then the gospel received through baptism is beneficial to them.

If someone is baptized as an infant and then later on in their life comes to faith, then at that point, the benefits of their baptism are extended to them.

Tyler, do you want to throw in a jab, a poke or a question? While you're thinking about that,

Keith, I would like to hear from your perspective. It doesn't have to be tonight. It could be, you know, some other time, but it would be interesting to hear from how you would interpret that passage from 1

Corinthians 7 because some people could construe that to mean that because I'm saved or because my wife is saved, that means

I'm saved. I'm all good. I can ride the coattails into heaven because of my wife, you know, and we can misunderstand that passage.

I would like to hear a good, and I'm sure many other people misunderstand that passage as well or just simply don't understand.

Well, I mean, I can give sort of a quick answer. It says the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.

And what it's being said is that the spouse who believes brings a sanctifying influence into the home, and therefore the unbelieving spouse, the spouse who is an unbeliever, is still sanctified because their home is sanctified by the believing spouse.

And I can give a great example of this, which is my stepmother and my dad. My stepmother came into my life when

I was seven years old. She made me go to church. My dad never went to church. The whole time

I was a teenager, he never went to church. I got saved when I was 19. My dad still wasn't saved, but he lived in a house with a believing spouse.

He lived in a house with a believing woman. My stepmother was his sanctifying influence. She was the sanctifier of our home.

And now my dad is, by God's grace, is saved, and he is a churchman, and he loves the church, and he loves

God's people. And I credit the sanctifying influence of my stepmother in that home.

She is the reason why I was forced to go to church. Even though my dad didn't go, she made me go, and I'm thankful for that.

I'm thankful for that sanctification that was applied in our home by a believing spouse.

So to borrow some of the terminology that we've been using, so the unbeliever in the home, they receive the blessings of being in a believing home.

Yeah. They're sanctified. They are set apart from the world, because every time they come home, they hear the gospel. I mean, not every time, but they have the gospel in the home.

So everybody who's listening or watching, you can take both understandings of the passage now and weigh them out with Scripture in your own study.

I think that would be good for everybody to tackle. Tyler, did you come up with any questions or comments?

Give us a good one. I was not brought up in a home where I was a believer when we started going to church.

So I guess the question I playfully pose is, was it wrong for me to go to church and read

Scripture and pray? Because we've talked about those as means of grace. Are you asking me that question?

I'm asking in general. Okay. Just putting that out there.

Because on some level, I was held to the standard of a believer, though, while in full recognition,

I wasn't. Am I right in that terminology, Dan? Yeah.

I would say that that's a blessing, because you're being put face -to -face with the gospel.

Yeah, and that's what I just said. I was brought up having to go to church, even though my dad didn't go. He said, it's good for you.

I was like, my dad? He's like, this is good for you, which he didn't even realize how true that was. Because he thought church people are moral people, and therefore he wanted me to be a moral man, and so you go to church to become a moral man.

He didn't realize how important it was. I think that's a good question,

Tyler. I'm not able to listen to a whole lot of podcasts, and I don't listen to this one very regularly, but I just happened to recently listen to part of one of the

Ezra Institute with Dr. Joe Boot, one of their latest podcasts.

I think they're going through the Ten Commandments, and he was talking about blaspheming God's name. He was talking about one of the ways that you can blaspheme

God's name is to go to church, but do it in a trite, sing the songs, say the prayers, read the

Bible in a trite way or a flippant way. Maybe that was just his definition or understanding, but that kind of plays into this discussion.

It is an unbelieving child when we have them say the catechism.

Are they taking the Lord's name in vain because they're unbelieving? They're not doing it in faith.

I'm just thinking because I'm putting what they were saying and what we're talking about tonight and trying to work through it.

You guys may have not thought about that. Me personally,

I wouldn't say that it's taking God's name in vain. Having a child to repeat a catechism or say a prayer, sing a hymn or sing a psalter, if you will, would be blasphemous.

But it did cause me to think when he talked about how can you blaspheme God's name, and one of his ways was to go to church and do those practices in a flippant, trite way with your heart elsewhere.

If nobody has any thoughts on that or comments, that's okay. Any last arguments?

We can stop here. Any last questions that you want to ask one another? I'm okay if we stop here for tonight.

Good to go? Cool. Well, I love you, brothers, and I appreciate you. I appreciate your insights and I appreciate your communication with one another.

I really pray that people are edified and they will take what we've said and carry it out into their own study of God's word because we want to measure everything with God's word and not what any of us say per se or anybody else, but we want to measure it with God's word.

And so we're just glad that we could be a part of helping any of you on your walk with the

Lord. Keith, since you're not able to be with us too often,

I would love it if you would share the gospel with us. And Tyler, if you want to close us in prayer.

Well, if you've been watching this and you don't know what the gospel is, because we have used that phrase a couple of times, the word gospel means the good news.

And the good news is always to be understood in light of the bad news because the good news is the good news that Jesus Christ has come into the world to save sinners, but the bad news is that we're all sinners.

And what it means to be a sinner is it means to be one who has broken God's law and is rightly an object of God's wrath because God has promised that he will bring judgment upon those who break his law.

Jesus came into the world. He kept the law perfectly. He never sinned once and thought word or deed, and he went to the cross to receive the punishment for those who would believe in him.

And the Bible says that when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we are saved not because of what we have done, but because of what

Christ did on the cross by receiving the wrath of God in our place, taking the punishment we deserved, and providing for us a righteousness that we could not earn for ourselves.

The Apostle Paul says we have a righteousness that does not come from within ourselves, but a righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

The only way any man will enter the kingdom of God is if he be declared righteous, and we are declared righteous by one avenue only, and that is by faith in the

Lord Jesus Christ. If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved.

Tom? Father God, we are thankful that we've gotten to gather together as brothers who disagree, but brothers who are united in who you are, what you did, and why it matters, that despite the fact that we are different, that we have different perspectives on things, we have some different opinions, you've still made us one people, with one

Lord, one faith, one baptism. And God, we are thankful for that blessing, to be united despite these differences.

We thank you for the gospel with which we have all received and are grateful for, and may you burn anew in each one of us the truth of that gospel, as we've just heard it from Keith, and take that with us tomorrow.

Amen. Thank you again for the conversation again tonight, gentlemen, and thank you guys for watching the

Laborer's Podcast. We hope you will come back and join us again for the next Laborer's Podcast.

We hope to see you real soon. Thank you for joining the

Laborer's Podcast. Remember, Jesus is King. Live in the victory of Christ.

Speak with the authority of Christ. And go share the gospel of Christ. Be sure to tune in next time for the