Alan Conner

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of alpha the mega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning, welcome to the dividing line glad to be with you in more ways than one about 10 minutes ago

We didn't think we would be with you at all but we got we kick -started the server and got it going again, and so here we are and It's good to be with you during this holiday season and Lots of stuff going on.

I've I've honestly felt like I'm just sort of out of it for quite some time now There's just so much happening in so many realms

That if I didn't have other stuff going on, I I probably would have

Been doing all sorts of blogs on all sorts of things. It's just too much

I mean Trying to keep up with the Mormonism stuff and keep up with Roman Catholicism and Islam and everything else

There's there's just just too much. I suppose if I had a big old staff or something like that We might be able to do that.

But I mean I have this whole list sitting on my computer of all these, you know Serieses that I've started guy continue with alia tie and continue this continue that and then there's all this other stuff that I've wanted to Some of this stuff there has been there for I think two years now

And the days just go by faster and faster and faster and faster and you just can't keep up with all of it but we

We do our best today on the dividing line, I have a special guest there is a

A group that has started called Reformed Baptist Academic Press and They are associated the same folks have put out the

Reformed Baptist Theological Review for which I have written a number of times and So, you know our

Presbyterian Brethren have all sorts of publishing houses You got Presbyterian Reformed and stuff like that and and they've got all these nice Established places and so when someone is is trying to do a good work and put out some good good information good material it's always good to help them to do so and For example, they just put out

Jim Rennihan's true confessions. It is a compilation of historical

Baptist confessions placed in parallel to one another so you can compare them with one another and and see the the interrelationships and things like that It's bound so it doesn't if it was bound as a normal book was bound

That wouldn't really do much good because you always have to be holding up, but it's spiral bound so that you can Lay it open and do studies and stuff like that.

They just put that out and that's a real neat resource and then another another

Book that they just put out is by Alan Connor. It's called Covenant children today physical or spiritual and Those of you who listened to the dividing line on the 8th of November in the evening heard a

Skype facilitated Debate between myself and Greg Strawbridge on this subject

You may have seen or listened to my debate with Bill Shishko from Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church on this subject as well and so, you know that there is a difference of viewpoint between Pato Baptists and the credo

Baptist on the subjects of the nature of the New Covenant and Issues related to that so Alan Connor joins me on the dividing line today and Alan it is a pleasure to have you with us today.

Well, thank you. Dr. Juan. I appreciate you Have me on your program today. Now. You're you're down.

Are you down in Oklahoma City? Yes All right. I was down there not too long ago

I'm trying to remember You know after after you've traveled as much as I I have you just start

Losing track of what in the world you were doing when you were wherever you were last time You were at a conference here.

Yeah, sadly I was out of town When you were here for that weekend, so we missed you but We hope to get you to come back to Oklahoma City sometime soon.

Well, that was beautiful I had an opportunity of visiting the memorial down there in downtown, Oklahoma City and and stuff like that So it was a good good good time to be down there now

You're at the Northwest Bible Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and so what would just from a pastoral perspective, what was the

The driving force that caused you to to write this book well, the one of the big reasons was that Several years ago.

We had a group of college students that Had come to the doctrines of grace by reading

Oh a number of men sproles some of the Calvin and others and As they began to grow in their understanding of the doctrines of grace many of these great authors that they were reading and listening to Also hold to infant baptism and Through the course of their reading they began to drift into that position

And by the time I was made aware of it They had pretty much already made a commitment to go in that direction.

They eventually Moved over into a Presbyterian Church and at that time It it struck me that at least for our own church we needed to have some

Material written hopefully on a simple layman's type of a level that would clearly

Communicate some of the differences between the infant Baptist position and our position and Primarily center around the concept of who are the members of the

New Covenant and I think in many ways the debate that we have with our Presbyterian brethren whom we love and appreciate and I've certainly learned much from from them

But we have a big difference in this area of who are the members of the New Covenant, right?

So the title of my book is to try to stir up that issue. Who are the

Covenant children today? is it those who are the the physical children of covenant members like Presbyterians believe or are they spiritual children who are made so by faith in Jesus Christ now

But it was primarily, you know, the concern of having people leave the church Because of the influence of some of the great names and the

Presbyterian camp, right? Yeah, that's certainly been from a pastoral perspective anyways, the reason that I addressed the issue in our own church a number of years ago and and because that that happens very often and many people who come out of an

Arminian background or just a a Just general evangelical background and start reading the great reformers are not even aware that there is any other position on the subject it's either you're a

A dispensational Anabaptist quote -unquote or you're you you're a pedo -baptist the idea of there being a a

Position that is in between those and that recognizes the importance of the covenant of grace and things like that yet does not

Go so far as to embrace pedo -baptism. Many people just aren't aware of it And so they just continue on that direction and go that way

So that has certainly been one of my focuses in in discussing this now Before going into some of the biblical texts and and things like that How has

Did it has any pedo -baptist? reviewers Spoken to you about about your work, or is it pretty much just a

Baptist so far. Well so far Mainly Baptist although I've we had some

Presbyterians that were actually a part of our church and have consequently left the church, but they did read the book and So I was able to get some just a little bit of feedback from them

But but not a whole lot mostly from Reform Baptist So so there were they were attending the church, but as a result of the book left the church

The straw that broke the camel's back I guess You know, they came to our church because the other

Presbyterian churches were not teaching The reform faith and I think we were we were doing that by God's grace and they appreciated that ministry

But I think they thought when I put out the book that I was suddenly going to start Beating on the heads of every

Presbyterian person I ran across or something like that. I don't know but But sadly they they thought that was just a bit too much for them.

I understand well you know I there have been a few books Fred Malone's work and that have come out over the past number of years and and I've always been interested in in looking at the reviews and the responses from my

Pato Baptist brethren because the the Reformed Baptist Perspective is very different than what what they would normally hear say from I don't know what you'd call just a regular

Baptist because regular Baptists just just take the issue of baptism for granted And the idea of relating it even to the whole subject of the nature of the

Covenant Old Covenant New Covenant That's just not normal Baptist writing or Baptist thought and So it's been my experience that Most of the time when we engage these subjects the the arguments that have been presented for quite some time

They're not exactly new arguments, but they're not overly well known by even some of our better read

Pato Baptist brethren right and and my interest is One of my interest in writing this book is just to help the people in our camp to better understand.

Hopefully Some of these issues and the scriptures that support our case for a credo

Baptist position because a lot of a Lot of the people within our churches.

I mean, they know we practice believers only baptism or disciples only baptism but they really can't defend it themselves from the

Word of God and Hopefully these kinds of materials will help them to be equipped and be able to defend these truths as well

Do you think Alan that possibly part of the reason for that is is due to a general

Diminishment of of importance in the the minds of many concerning the ordinances themselves.

I mean These are just things we do so few people really spend any time

Considering what the Lord's wisdom was and in giving these the church what they're supposed to represent

What they're supposed to do for us how they're even relevant to our sanctification or our growth and grace or anything like that It seems to me that there's there's just as much of a malaise

Concerning the supper and what it means as baptism and what it means as well

Well, I think you're absolutely right. I think that's a tendency in in our churches and hopefully by drawing attention to it

I know you've debated and and are an expert in these things in many ways that as we draw attention to it

It'll encourage our people to look at it more deeply as well and hopefully appreciate it much more, too

We can of course take phone calls if folks like to call in eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

At least I think the phone lines are still working today So eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number now you focused

Especially upon the issue of the New Covenant that for me Was likewise the sort of the entrance into this particular area

I had been studying in regards to Roman Catholicism the perfection of the work of Christ and behalf of the elect the nature of the

New Covenant Hebrews 8 Hebrews 10 sacrifice intercession all these issues and That is is what made me

Realize that when it came down to answering questions like For whom does

Christ intercede? What is the nature nature of his intercession? the consistency of believing in reformed theology

These these things were very important in in seeing making me more convinced of the importance of these issues

You've mentioned the pastoral background When you start talking about the issue of of the

New Covenant in the Old Covenant What are the first things that you you try to communicate to folks in the book in regards to?

the membership of the New Covenant Well, I've kind of start the book out by just going into the

Old Testament prophetic section and I try to draw a case that Whether you're reading in the

Old Testament or in the New Testament that whenever they talk about the New Covenant That it appears that the the qualifications for membership are different than they are in the

Old Covenant In the Old Covenant you have primarily You know the physical children of covenant members are automatically members of the

Covenant But it seems to me that both in the Old Testament and in the

New Testament there is a difference and So I've kind of began

By looking at the nature of just Christ and his New Covenant family and we try to look at some verses in Isaiah, for example where it talks about Christ having children and If you try to understand that in light of the principle of membership in the

Old Covenant It just doesn't make sense because Christ had no physical children

And so his covenant children the children that are connected to him Cannot be linked to the same principle of the

Old Covenant his children are spiritual children They have to be because he never was married.

He never had children and I think as the covenant head of the New Covenant He establishes just like Abraham did he establishes the principle that determines who his covenant children are

They aren't physical children there are spiritual children and those verses in Isaiah and which talk about Christ and his his seed and Christ and his children really can only be

Interpreted as being spiritual children. So those are one of the things I try to begin the book with and then make a reference to the passage in Luke 8 when

His own family his mother and his brothers come to him and He basically in that passage seems to to define his family not in terms of physical connections

But in terms of those who hear the Word of God and do it again. It's a spiritual qualification for who is in his his covenant family

So Christ's covenant family is not the same as you find in the Old Covenant.

It's not based on physical descent It's based on the new birth or spiritual qualities.

And so you would If I if I could play the devil's advocate for just a moment in essence

Obviously what I hear as soon as I start speaking of the nature of the New Covenant, I go to Hebrews chapter 8

From the least to the greatest of them God's law written upon their heart. They all know

God, etc, etc Immediately what I hear is well, you're excluding children from the

Covenant You are you're changing this constant thousands of years long pattern of Children being included in the

Covenant. This is a radical departure a radical change. That's the the terminology that's very frequently used to try to to picture this as a a radical change

How do you how do you respond to someone who approaches it from that perspective? Well, they're absolutely right.

It is a radical change and But what we're doing is we're allowing the

Old Testament the prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the New Covenant as well as the

New Testament itself to to guide us in that radical change and It is radical because basically the way

We see and read and understand the Bible is that when the New Covenant comes the the major aspect of the newness of the

New Covenant is in terms of the principle of membership and That's what is so new in the

New Covenant in the Old Covenant Membership was based on physical birth, you know, but in the

New Covenant, it's based on spiritual birth And that is a radical difference, but we're not just pulling that out of the hat

We're actually saying it in the text of the Old Testament Prophecies in the

New Testament in the way they described the seed of Abraham the sons of Abraham They are they're described as being those of faith

So it does exclude the physical children until such time as they come to faith in Jesus Christ But it is a big difference.

Absolutely I like to use the term not not radical change, but radical fulfillment specifically in that in the incarnation and the the fulfillment of all of the the

Old Covenant pictures and types and everything that that that fulfillment is obviously going to transcend the shadows that existed before it and given that there were so many in the

Old Covenant who Were not regenerate and were were hard -hearted and and did not know the

Lord Then the idea of the fulfillment of that in regeneration not in in baptism but in regeneration itself being the mechanism by which the person enters into that relationship is is obviously a vitally important point and and would

Really touch on I think and I don't I don't want to get totally out of the biblical context here

But it does strike me in light of certain recent events. I only learned yesterday about what's been going on In regards to the federal vision stuff back in in Florida and Knox Seminary and more controversy about federal visionism and all the rest of stuff

It does seem to me that As I just sort of stand back and I look at Reformed Baptist circles and and Baptists who may not be specifically

Reformed Baptist But are reformed in their soteriology Movements like that don't gain any traction amongst us.

They they have they have no place to grab hold of And yet they seem to just constantly come up over and over again in pedo -baptist circles

And one of the reasons being that there is this this ground that once you lose balance at certain points it just naturally leads you into this form of of Sacramentalism and we've seen that in in history as well.

So I'm not sure what kind of encounters you you've had down there in regards to the federal vision and Douglas Wilson and stuff like that, but It certainly seems to be a recurring problem that Reformed Baptist Simply don't seem to have because we have this view of the

New Covenant Yeah, we are definitely protected from some of those errors just because we require a regenerate

Membership in the New Covenant, which which they do not and there is some of that a little bit of that up in this area but Not to a great degree yet, but that that movement seems to be spreading

Well, you know, it's interesting what you just said about requiring a regenerate membership

But many people would respond by saying well, how you know, who are you to judge? How are you claiming an?

infallible ability to judge Regeneration and and for some reason a lot of people think it's a really strong argument to point out that Baptists at times in their history baptize unregenerate people apostates people who later proved to be

Heretical or unfaithful or or whatever? Have you ever had that thrown thrown your direction saying you're just doing the same thing

We are you you baptize unregenerate people because you can't look into someone's heart and know whether they're regenerate or not

Well, and that that does come up a lot but there's a huge difference between baptizing an infant

Who has made no profession of faith. There's no indication at all that they're regenerate and Baptizing someone that has made a credible profession of faith and it's true

We cannot know the heart only God knows the heart but what we do know is that a new heart

Believes in Jesus Christ And so we based on that outward evidence of a credible profession of faith give them the sign of the

New Covenant But if you're baptizing an infant, you don't have that and it's true Sometimes we make mistakes and we baptize people that are not truly regenerate and they fall away

But we're baptizing them based on the evidence that we see that they are born again

And we may wrongly interpret that evidence, but we're looking for the proper evidence, which is faith

Which is an indication of the new birth but baptizing an infant and saying well some of those grow up and fall away

That's an that's an entirely different issue because they are not using the principle of faith or the new birth

But they're using the principle of physical descent and we feel like that that Old Covenant Principle is no longer valid for determining members in the newcomers like pouring new wine and old wine skins

The New Covenant requires the new birth and so we look for evidence when we find the evidence we baptize when we don't see the evidence we do not and Sometimes we do make mistakes, but it's hugely different than just indiscriminately

Baptizing all infants. It was interesting in the debate that I did with with Bill Shishko One of the points that I emphasized many times was that as an elder in Reformed Baptist Church I am consistent in seeking to protect both of the ordinances that is

I I seek a credible profession of faith Before baptism and I seek a credible profession of faith before partaking of the

Lord's Supper And I know that Bill Shishko likewise requires the credible profession of faith before the

Lord's Supper But not before baptism and then when I debated Greg Strawbridge in the subject

My understanding is that he is a pato communionist so that particular argument doesn't hold there because he's not looking for a credible profession of faith before either of of the ordinances

And then of course you can let the Presbyterians argue about pato communion and we can we can just sit back and go hey

You're using our arguments there It amazes me how when the

Lord said concerning the Lord's Supper do this in remembrance of me How can an infant?

Take those elements in remembrance of Christ in any way That would seemingly reflect the intent of our

Lord It just seems so inconsistent to us and but I agree fully we're being we're trying to be consistent in requiring faith both for Baptism and also the

Lord's Supper indeed now Rich I don't think I have ever tried to have one person on I Have so I can just simply hit air and we're gonna everything's gonna work

You you're you're gonna promise this to me with the the level of certainty That we have in baptizing believers.

You're I got you covered. You got me covered. All right. Here we go We are going to start taking some of our phone callers here, please let us know if you have any difficulty

Hearing them and we will work on it from there. And if all of a sudden you're listening to dial tone

It's Rich's fault not mine All right, let's let's talk with Dave in Phoenix hi

Dave I Can barely hear you Dave Thank you

I've still got Alan. I still got you don't I can hear you can hear him, but I cannot. Oh, that's fascinating There he is

Yes, we can hear you now rich rich has this really Embarrassed grin on his face.

He reached up hit one button and now everyone can hear you. So go ahead. Go ahead Dave Yes, I am a believer by the way, okay

I guess the question that I wanted to ask and and I know doc.

Dr White has brought this up in the past, but maybe in your research, maybe you can enlighten us as well.

I was just wondering What do you believe or have you been able to find out or research?

What what the Primary basis of the the pedo -baptist argument is is it like an emotional argument or is it something else?

I mean, it's a because it's like, you know, how can you deny a nice, you know, little neat little cute cuddly infant baptism

You know, is that is that the argument that that you seem to be finding or is it something else? Well, it's a that's a good question there's been a recent book written by the title of believers baptism by Thomas Schreiner and he has

He has a good chapter in there developing the historical Developments of infant baptism

I really don't deal with that in my book per se because I'm trying to just simply address the issue

Of who are the members of the New Covenant because I think once you answer that question

Then you solve the whole issue Well, do we baptize infants or do we not but I think historically and dr

White probably can speak to this much better than I can but they're Probably as I understand it issues with what do you do with babies that are on the verge of dying?

You know the end of the 2nd century Starting into the 3rd century that issue came up babies being born with the guilt of original sin was also a part of it and And no doubt emotional concerns were were very much intertwined

Because as a parent obviously our children are precious to us we love them we desire their salvation

We we labor to bring them up in the fear and the admonition of the Lord and and that's a pretty strong thing in the hearts of parents

So there's probably many different ways to address How that that arose and what their their biggest arguments are reasons for holding the infant baptism

I'm going to turn it over to dr. White Well just just briefly

I mean historically there's no question that the practice develops out of a rising formalization of sacramentology and and a belief of an efficacy in Sacraments that I would certainly challenge on a biblical level to my knowledge

And I've made the statement number of times and no one's ever challenged me on it. I've seen a lot of Uncomfortable -looking faces, but to my knowledge the first person to believe

In John Calvin's doctrine of baptism was John Calvin in other words while there was a lot of infant baptism prior to the days of John Calvin I don't know of anyone who actually developed his

Covenantal concept of Infant baptism and connected it all the way that he did that doesn't make it wrong, but it does

I think Shine some light on the historical situation and certainly from my viewpoint

When you look at what happened was wingling when you look at what happened with Luther both of them played with the idea of the abandonment of infant baptism and Luther recognized that a free church a church made up of professing believers

Would be the only way you could ever have a pure church a church actually reflected the glory of Christ and yet It was the political situation of the day

It was the princes who would not allow this to happen that was vitally important in the early development of the schism between Pato Baptist and credo

Baptist on this particular subject and unfortunately The level of emotion that was developed at that time has not dissipated in certain circles to be to be certain

And that's why I want to read that's one of the reasons I asked one of the earlier questions about whether you know we really get much of a hearing

From a lot of our Pato Baptist brethren because in my experience even some of the best read have not seriously considered some of the the covenantal arguments for a credo

Baptist position, but finally Dave There is I think I think this is a fair observation

I know people can disagree fine, but if you'll just you know put the emotions on hold just a moment

I think there is more to be said about a Pato Baptist having an

Emotional investment in the examination of the arguments than a credo Baptist for the simple reason the very first debate

I did on this back in I think 1995 as I recall at the end of the debate

One of the primary arguments presented by the other side, and this was not just simply someone.

It's not well known This is against dr. Robert Strimple of Westminster seminary and Gary Johnson both well -known

Pato Baptist authors one of the primary arguments that was offered was what am

I supposed to say to my children when they come home and ask if they're Christians and that to me was illustrative of the fact that Especially once someone has baptized their own children in this in this in this manner.

There is a and there's an emotional Attachment and and Investment there, and I think sometimes that I have seen it enter into whether a person was even willing to consider the

Possibilities that that position was wrong, but that's just been my my personal experience so okay

Dave all righty Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. God bless. Bye. Bye all right. Let's go to Greg hi

Greg. How are you doing doing all right? Dr.. What? How are you doing? Good good? It sounds like I've called in the middle of a topic, and I certainly don't want to disrail you guys

I had a question about Vatican to and Trent but Just want to say thank you for your your ministry

And how much God has used it for me and my ministry, and I don't want to disrail the topic, but thank you very much, okay?

Well, why don't you throw it out there real quick, and maybe I can tie it in with baptism Let's see. Let's see. Let's see how far I can go here, okay in three steps or less

Kevin Bacon to My question was I deal with a lot of you know

Catholics that are trying to convince me and can tell me the difference that how Vatican to changed

Trent There's Trent Catholicism. There's Vatican to Catholicism, and I was just wondering if you could give me some bullet points on Some of that refuting that and saying there's there's real no distinction

And I know you know it comes down to the statement that they've never done away with If you say you're justified by faith alone, then you're anathema and right well

Let me in fact let me start off by by attaching it to baptism rather quickly, and that is clearly the the the council fathers at Trent Had a much stricter view of of baptism and its absolute necessity for salvation

Than than Vatican to obviously did especially in light of Post Vatican to documents talking about the

Muslims worshipping those same true God and yet obviously they haven't experienced baptism And there's been a massive expansion of baptism of desire baptism of blood all these types of things to try to fit

Rome's doctrine of baptism into the the growing inclusive istik and almost

Universalistic soteriology of many in the leadership of the Roman Church, but just real real quickly

And Alan, please give me just a moment here, and we'll get right back to you just real quickly obviously

There are modern Roman Catholics who are embarrassed by Trent there are modern Roman Catholics in leadership of the

Roman Catholic Church they're embarrassed by Trent and The problem is that the entire

Authority structure upon which Vatican to would rest Would be dependent upon the infallibility of those that came before it specifically with Trent So it's it's like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to be able to say oh well We can change We can abandon the anathemas of Trent and we can we can attribute ignorance to the council fathers of Trent so that what they?

Anathematized really doesn't have anything to do with Protestants today blah blah blah blah blah But the problem is once you take those steps upon What basis are we to give any kind of credence or authority to what

Vatican to has to say anyways? I mean you almost have to take a higher view of the church that it's now in essence no longer even possible to Examine the church historically and to see any kind of consistency in its teaching and so it really depends on the individual

You're talking to you're not gonna run into this kind of thing in really strongly Roman Catholic countries But but in a place like like we live in United States You're gonna find people who are cafeteria

Catholics John Paul II spoke against that in 1984 when he came to Los Angeles he spoke against cafeteria style

Catholicism where you pick and choose what you want to believe what you don't want to believe and that is very popular today, and you do get all sorts of mixed signals out of out of Rome today even from Ratzinger and So you have to find out where the person you're talking to is coming from and if and if they are still using the old

Well soul scriptura isn't biblical come to Rome and get God's guidance a type of arguments

They really have a basis to be saying the things are saying to you about Vatican to changing all that So if they're gonna be consistent, they're gonna have to have to say yes

Trent was was speaking God's truth, and that truth does not change And then they have to explain what in the world

Vatican to was talking about when it when it does try to Say on one hand we reaffirm everything

Trent says, but then try to sort of change the context Of which Trent was originally speaking

If they're if they're not using that kind of argumentation, then what do they what do they really have to offer to you? Anyways, they basically have little more than man's opinions, right?

Yeah, the interesting thing is the whole argument really we really started dealing with anonymous Christianity and Rahner and then saying

You coming you can imagine how it's all done, but I certainly don't Israel the topic. Okay. I thank you very much

No, but I thank you Greg. Thank you very much. Let's go to Leanne in Georgia. Hi Leanne Yes, how you doing,

I'm all right, how are you doctor doing good? I like you. I like you're at your non -accent. Oh Well, that's an accent from someplace you don't know where it's from but certainly not from Georgia, okay

Anyway My question was about fellowship and do you think that a credo Baptist and a pedo

Baptist can have full and meaningful fellowship With that divide or is that just something that is going to be in the way all the time?

Okay, Alan Well, I think we absolutely can we are both members of the body of Christ through faith and our own church

Enjoys Functions with some of our local

Presbyterian churches that Are truly committed to reform theology.

We do hymns things. We we work together on a yearly reformation

Conference and hopefully dr. White can be enticed to come down to it soon

But we do have fellowship with them We do work together with them, but but obviously there there are some limitations

Because of our difference of conviction on this But but if we emphasize the unity that we have in Christ Which we should we are brothers in the

Lord and we agree to disagree in these areas but certainly I think it honors

Christ when we have fellowship and Certainly enjoy the the unity that we have in Christ with our pedo

Baptist brother that certainly has been my experience when you ask Leanna full fellowship if you mean by that including

Ecclesiastical fellowship in the sense of You know, I could not in good conscience be an elder in a

Presbyterian Church And I don't think any Presbyterian Church worth its salt would have me as an elder and nor should they

Because we're honest about this. It's a it's a deeply held conviction. It's not just a difference of opinion

But at the same time I can honestly tell you that in many areas

I have a closer fellowship with my Presbyterian brothers than I do with some of my

Baptist brothers Who are just so dogmatic? in denying the sovereignty of God and salvation and and Attacking the doctrines of grace so in many ways in standing in defense of justification and standing against Rome Catholicism For sola fide and sola scriptura.

It's been my Presbyterian brothers who generally have more of a Historical perspective on things who have stood most close by me in in those contexts

And so, you know, I think we need to be open about our differences But I don't think this is something that separates us on the issue of the gospel

And that's why I was very appreciative of the fact that when I debated Bill Shishko on this subject the night before I preached at his church and I've preached at his church a number of times and and I would certainly have no problem whatsoever with Bill Shishko preaching at my church

Because I know that you know, he's like I get up there and preach on baptism You know neither would

I preach on baptism at his but but to fill the pulpit and to To minister the

Word of God in in those situations We've that would be very very wonderful thing to have happen

And I can think of certain Baptists that I could not invite into my pulpit simply because their

Soteriology is so shallow and so unbiblical. So you really have to look at those issues and Make the determination on the basis of that kind of that kind of thing

Okay, okay. Thank you. Oh, thank you very much. All right, and I'll send you a tambourine for Christmas Thank you.

I Just figured that one out, but that wouldn't caught me from by surprise, but don't worry about that Alan We're not gonna be sending you any tambourines.

It's it's an inside joke there, but I'd actually never heard this person speak before and now

I realize that I've been offending her all along by doing some of my accents But oh, well, we go on with the

Scott in Sioux City, Iowa. Hi Scott How you doing doing well

Keeping keeping warm up here. Yeah. Well, you know, we don't have to worry about that down.

In fact, I would imagine when I was in Is Nashville's weather similar to Oklahoma City's weather is

Oklahoma City cooler Alan? Well, you know, I'm not exactly sure but we've just kind of gone through an ice storm that just I mean most people have watched the news or Aware of that.

So right now we're kind of we're coming in the refrigerator Not much global warming going on What can we do for you

Scott Well, I go to Dork College here at the Christian Reform College and I go to a

Christian Reform Church and I just wrote a paper on the subject of infant baptism and the big argument the big thing that I see when

I'm when I'm looking at this is the Pato Baptist will all consistently interpret the

Old covenant by the new except on baptism What is and I haven't really heard any justification for that shift in hermeneutic.

Have you did you have to deal with it in your book? The book that I wrote basically was addressing that that issue that when it comes to to the

New Covenant that we cannot interpret the New Covenant by the

Old Covenant and Vice versa. You don't want to read the New Covenant back into the

Old Covenant you know the New Covenant needs to stand alone based on the Revelation that is given to us and in the scriptures both the

Old Testament and the New Testament and It's I think the Pato Baptist position

Makes that assumption based on their concept of the covenant of grace That the

New Covenant really isn't that much different than the Old Covenant that basically it's just a renewal

More so than something that's really new and we feel like the scriptures are clear in making a strong distinction of Discontinuity between those two covenants.

There's some continuity for sure but the discontinuity primarily deals with who are the members of the

New Covenant and we feel like that That when you start trying to interpret that by the

Old Covenant principles of membership Then you're going to naturally lead to him from baptism.

But if you let the scriptures speak for themselves, well, then We're convinced anyway and I argue in the book that the biblical evidence is strong on our side

That membership in the New Covenant is different. It's based on faith the new birth as Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesy

Everyone will know the Lord in the New Covenant. That certainly was not true in the Old Covenant Most of the

Old Covenant members did not know the Lord But in the New Covenant, they will all know the

Lord the Old Covenant you could break the covenant But the New Covenant you cannot break

Jeremiah 32 verse 40 says that that God will make a Covenant which he will put the fear of himself in their hearts so that they will not turn away from him

Well, that that's much different than what you find in the Old Covenant. So if you go to the scriptures

We have to let the New Covenant speak for itself and when you do that you find this this great difference

So that that's the point. I try to emphasize in many different ways and in my book

I know Scott that's in almost every book that I've read each author comes up with a different way of putting it

I remember the discussion in one of the first books are in on this topic of Acts 2 that said that's a pato -baptist

Interpreters and they look at Acts 2 38 and 39 Are so intent upon hearing the

Old Covenant Drumbeat that they miss the New Covenant fulfillment and that certainly has been my

I think it's that's an honestly very fair criticism that I can make of my of my

Pato -baptist brethren is that when they look at Acts chapter 2 and they quote the text the promises to you and to your children

They stop they stop there they stop there so many times and almost almost every single one of them

And to all who are far off as may as the Lord our God should call only is a is a rarely referenced addendum

But in the vast majority of their uses of that text it stops right there But that's that's the very they would never allow that when teaching on any other

Subject on the resurrection justification anything they would never allow that kind of breaking up of a clear

Singular group there with a delimiter at the end that is as many as the Lord our God should call here is election here

Is this this it's right there in front of us, but when it comes to this one subject, that's where The difference lies and and I mentioned in the debate with Bill Shishko I said look you as the audience here's your job which one of us remains consistent in our home in our hermeneutical methodology

That's the only way that this can be judged, and that's what I I do appreciate. I think we are

Modeling anyway how this these issues should be addressed is that we are coming to the

Word of God we're not trying to go to some external source not trying to to Come up with some new revelation or new scriptures

I think we're going to the scriptures And we're saying look we need to be consistent in how we handle the

Word of God and I think it's the only way that it can be handled and The only way that someone would say yeah, well, but it hasn't handled it has it

Well is that's assuming that it is God's intention in this life for us all to have an absolute unanimity of opinion on every single

Little thing and until Christ returns, and we are perfected there are going to be differences and unfortunately

This is one of them that means each generation Has to go back over these things each generation has to struggle through these things

We can't just simply sit back and go and well You know the smart guys in the last generation couldn't come up with an answer

So we don't need to we don't even need to think about anymore. That's the danger. I think that sometimes we face All righty all right.

All right. Thank you very much for your call Scott. Thank you both. All right. God bless 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 just a few minutes left on the program.

Let's talk with Joshua we're getting everybody down south except for Iowa Gulfport, Mississippi and Because Leanne complained,

I will not say Gulfport, Mississippi I will I will say Gulfport, Mississippi and talk with Joshua.

Hi Joshua. Hey, that's right You don't sound like you're from Gulfport, Mississippi And Arizonans don't have accents because everybody hears from someplace else so they all just sort of got mixed together and got washed out

Something like that. All right. Yes, sir. My question is kind of along the same lines as as a previous one um,

I was talking with a with the Presbyterian fellow over and over and under net the other day and the the question ended up being

Related to the new covenant versus the old covenant there also and to what extent

What extent Israel? The members under the Old Covenant who weren't really his versus the members of the

New Covenant baptized right were really his and basically, it's just Where exactly do it does that delineate the on that separation between the

New Covenant and Old Covenant in that respect? Yeah, in fact, let me put it this way One of the arguments that's thrown at me and in light of what

Joshua is saying is look The Old Covenant had unregenerate people in it and the

New Covenant does too. It just has a lesser percentage Well that I have great problems with that because the scriptures

Seem to indicate as we've already brought up in in Jeremiah 31 that in the

New Covenant, they will all know the Lord their sins will be forgiven We know that they'll be

They'll have a new heart and Ezekiel 36 They'll have the Holy Spirit now that sounds like they're regenerate to me and if all of them know the

Lord and you cannot really know the Lord in Saving faith, which is implied by the fact that their sins are forgiven

So good job and bring them over here without their heart being changed first. So you have the the new heart you have

Faith that believes they know the Lord they have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and So the idea that within the

New Covenant, you're going to have some that are that are non regenerate or unregenerate along with the regenerate

Seems to be excluded by what the Old Testament itself says about the

New Covenant now They may bring up well, there's tears But if you look at that particular parable

The tears are not in the Covenant. They're in the world They're in the field which

Christ says is the world and and that is true in the church We do have unregenerate people, but they are not members of the

New Covenant. They are Illegal aliens if you will they are there, but they're not legally there

I mean they don't participate at least they shouldn't participate in The blessings of the

Covenant in the sense of salvation They are not Covenant members and isn't that really I think one of the key issues in answer to Joshua's question

Is that we make a very clear distinction between external church membership and that of the

New Covenant? Yes, absolutely. And because every church will have an element of imposters they will have those who are like Judas or like even the ones in Matthew 7 when

These people come to Christ say Lord Lord Did we not prophesy in your name and in your name cast out demons and what did the

Lord say to them? He said I never knew you right. It's not that he knew them and then they were kicked out of the

Covenant He never knew them and and I don't think Christ would say that of a member of his

Covenant Well, that was in his body Exactly that but one of the questions I keep asking is if Jesus is the mediator of the

New Covenant The New Covenant is the Covenant in his blood and if he is the mediator of that New Covenant Then what does he mediate to those who are in that New Covenant, but are not regenerate?

He could only mediate wrath to them and the whole idea of Jesus mediating wrath to members of the

New Covenant That is in his blood, which is propitiatory The whole thing comes apart.

Well, his blood will fail Exactly will fail the Covenant is no better than the

Old Covenant and that's where in I think our petal Baptist brethren make this Assumption that the covenants are basically the same but there's a huge difference between them indeed

Joshua Thank you very much for your phone call. Thanks, Joshua. I appreciate that. God bless. Bye. Bye Yeah, that that is

I think the the primary issue for me Anyways, is that if the

New Covenant is the Covenant in his blood and as Reformed believers We believe that Christ gave his blood

Purposefully not to fail but to succeed in redeeming all of those the father has given to him the idea then that we would purposefully give a

Covenant sign to an individual who we know to be an unbeliever at this point who has not professed faith in Christ And even then

I've had people say well, you you know You got John the Baptist and and you know He was regenerate in the womb because he responded to the you know

You just don't know but but they'd have to agree that that in general that that the general rule is that God does not regenerate children as Infants but as he does so through faith through the proclamation of the

Word of God the working of the Holy Spirit bring about regeneration And so the whole idea to me,

I honestly believe I really I know my Presbyterian brothers Just roll their eyes and some of them even pat me on the back and say you'll get it someday

But I honestly believe I am being more consistent to my Reformed Soteriology in my

Reformed hermeneutic than they are if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be what I am Well, then if Christ is is the high priest of the

New Covenant Then suddenly and I know you've made an excellent point on this in debates and in other places about the the point of him being the mediator if Christ is the high priest and if his blood and Through his prayers.

He saves forever those who draw near to him and he always lives to make intercession for them

Well, then how can that fail? How can the prayers of Christ fail? How can his blood fail because he's no better than an

Old Testament high priest if that's the case But his prayers are effectual like when he prayed for Peter I've prayed for you that your faith may not fail

Christ prays that for all of his his covenant children Their faith will not fail and if someone's faith

Seemingly fails they never had true faith. They were not in his covenant. They were not being prayed for by Christ So it seems to me that the the issue of that is huge in terms of the differences between Our position and our

Presbyterian brethren, you know, that's why I kept asking Greg Strawbridge Who is it that's being described by John when he said they went out from us so that it might be demonstrated

They were not truly of us if they had been of us They would have remained with us and and this this whole idea of apostasy

From actual membership of the New Covenant. I know Hebrews 10 29. We have our interpretation They have their interpretation but the the whole idea of this kind of apostasy has become the very seedbed and the very ground of the federal vision movement and of the the

I would call Incipient sacramentalism that is that is a part of it that has resulted in these dangerous denials of sola fide and and a

Denunciation of the solas of the Reformation in essence and and all the things that we see happening there and that's why it doesn't happen in our circles is because it has no ground in which that kind of Viewpoint can grow if someone wants to go that direction

They've got to abandon Reformed Baptist principles from the very from the very start

Right and in the New Covenant even as Jeremiah prophesied in the New Covenant God will put the fear of himself in their heart so that they will not turn away from me

So that in the New Covenant, you cannot be a covenant breaker You cannot have an apostate in the

New Covenant if you're in the New Covenant Then the fear of God placed there by the

Spirit of God will keep you from falling away from him There is a perseverance of the

Saints in the New Covenant that you do not have in the Old Covenant That's what makes the New Covenant new and it also

Emphasizes the personal relationship that exists between the covenant member and the mediator

Jesus Christ That is is where the the problem lies and they go well, but there but there were apostates here here

You see people falling away here. Yeah, but they were not related to they did not have that personal relationship as you said

Jesus said I never knew you now Reform Baptist academic press our

BAP net is how they can get hold of Alan Connors book Covenant children today physical or spiritual and the nice thing people might want to know is we're looking at 122 pages here.

So it's something that you can actually read Without blocking out an entire week's worth of time or something

By design by design indeed Alan Connor, thank you very very much for joining with us today on the dividing line.

Thank you. Dr Why I appreciate you having me on your program. It's been great to have you with us. God bless. All right All right.

Thank you for joining with us on the dividing line today. We will be here Lord willing on Thursday afternoon

But then I noticed that the next Tuesday is probably not going to be a day

That you're going to be able to find the dividing line here on your friendly internet connection I don't plan on being here.

You could come down here rich. Nope, not gonna do it Okay. All right, so but hey two days after that why not?

We'll we'll be back then too So we'll be back Thursday afternoon here on the dividing line. See you then. God bless

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks