Open Air Theology “Creeds & Confessions” The guardrails of Grace

What are you doing?

What are you doing? You never let a cigar that way. You use a wooden match. Preserves the flavor, you see.

But the worst curse would come upon the one who seduced him. Whose head would be crushed.

By the seed of the woman. And the punishment was too severe? What's wrong with you people?

Are you ready to get back to work? With pleasure. So, Senor Kramer.

What is this about? I choose to believe the

Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.

They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

Don't any of you have any guts to pay for blood? I'm your huckleberry. But because of his own purpose and grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.

I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you. I didn't come here to get amens.

I didn't come here to be applauded. I'm talking about you. Hello, everybody.

Welcome. You need to go check out on YouTube, Open Air Theology.

Go look that up. Subscribe to this channel. We come on here weekly, fellowship with good brothers in Christ and just talk about a variety of topics in the

Christian faith. I do want to start off with giving a huge shout out for Striving for Eternity with helping us live stream these shows on his channel and on his platforms.

It's a great blessing to know. All right. Don't tell Andrew I'm saying this right now. It is a great blessing to have

Andrew be a brother in Christ and a dear friend of myself. So he's a good dude. Don't tell him I said that.

But on that note, go check out Open Air Theology on YouTube. Support Striving for Eternity through all the different social media platforms that he is on.

And I'm going to pass the mic over to my brother to the right or to the left of me.

And then we'll just go around the circle down to the side and then back up to myself on introductions.

So, well, hello, everybody. My name is Tom Shepherd, and I'm a co -host of Open Air Theology with Braden Patterson here on my right.

Maybe your left. And we want to welcome you to the show. And again, a great shout out to Andrew Rappaport and Striving for Eternity to help us get the show going.

So if you've not done so as you're watching this and you're listening on Striving for Eternity, please go to YouTube and look at the

Open Air Theology. Look at us. Click subscribe. We want to be well known, be able to bring the show to you guys on Facebook and YouTube as well.

But today we have a conversation that we're going to be talking about creeds and confessions, the guardrails of grace.

But before we do that, I want to introduce you to two guys, two brothers in Christ. One guy you may not know by name on Facebook.

He's known as the Particular Baptist. Brother, introduce yourself. Yes, my name is

Michael Selesky. I am the teaching elder, preaching elder, pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Parable, Arkansas.

If you're in the area in northeast Arkansas, we'd love to see you. Nine o 'clock is our service, our main service.

Afterwards, we have fellowship and we have Bible study. I'm also on the board of directors for the

Lord's Refuge. It's a men's inpatient rehabilitation center.

I'm also in a Christian band called Deny Myself. But it's just a blessing to be on this show.

It's a blessing to be with you guys. I follow you guys on Facebook and on YouTube.

I would recommend that everybody who's watching, especially my friends, that you would like and subscribe.

Thank you. Great. Then we have a return guest with us tonight. Brother Jared, go ahead and introduce yourself, brother.

Yes, thank you, Brayden. My name is Jared Randolph. I'm the pastor of Emmaus Road Baptist Church in Middle Tennessee.

We have very young to middle age looking for older people to come into our church to make that all the way across the board there.

Right, brother? But I would just say that we're very blessed to be where we're at in the ministry and looking forward to what the

Lord has for us. We have a Sunday school at 10, a main service at 11, and then we have a midweek service for Bible study

Wednesday at 630. And so just looking forward to this show tonight and the great discussion and fellowship.

Amen. Amen. Well, I'll introduce myself now. My name is Brayden Patterson. I am the pastor here at Grace Bible Church in Moorpark, California.

I'm the new pastor here. It's a great blessing to be here and just to be getting to know the saints better and better every single day during just this transition period.

If you live in the area of Moorpark in Ventura County here in Southern California, I would love to meet you.

You should come worship with us at 1030 on the Lord's Day here in Moorpark. Look up Grace Bible Church, Moorpark, California.

It'd be a great blessing to meet you and just to learn about Christ with one another and herald the good news of him.

His life, his death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf. So it's just a great blessing to be a co -host here on Open Air Theology.

And again, just a heads up for everybody. Go check out Open Air Theology on YouTube. It'd be a great blessing if you subscribed, liked, and shared this with your family and friends.

Like I said before, it's a great time to be able to come with brothers and just talk about a variety of things on Christ and the church and doctrine and so on and so forth.

But on that note, what are we talking about tonight, Tom? What is the topic and the variety of things that we're chatting about?

So it's going to be interesting. So I get the privilege actually to be about the quiz and ask these brothers right here because they're actually pastors of churches.

I didn't announce my home church is Grace Bible Church of Birney, and we're about 20 miles north of San Antonio, Texas.

And I get the privilege of actually going out on the streets and doing the evangelism, bringing people, calling people to repentance and pointing them to Christ on the streets and then inviting them to our local church where they're shepherded and cared for and equipping them to go out and do the exact same thing that I do and go out on the streets.

What this is going to be about today is talking about creeds and confessions.

How are they guardrails? The actual title is the

Guardrails of Grace. And one of the questions I wanted to ask you guys, you guys could jump in. Whoever wants to answer this question is what is a toe to define the confession?

What's the difference in a creed, a statement of faith, a confession? Anybody who wants to answer that can jump right in.

What's the difference in a confession versus a creed versus a statement of faith?

I'll go first, Tom. I would say that a creed is more general. They most of the time it's very short.

It's shorter in length. And this deals with the essentials most of the time of the

Christian faith. Your confessions get more into the distinctives. And typically, like our confession, the 1689 will be very robust and deal with all those particulars that a creed might not.

That's just a basic definition, I guess. Okay. I would agree.

I think that creeds are purposefully broad, whereas confessions are more specific and get into the distinctives and kind of take the high points of theology and break them down in a way that they are lending to clarity.

And communicating belief and they teach the faith.

Right. So the essentials, they keep the faith. So in this podcast here, everybody here represented, including myself, would hold to 1689

Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith. And not only that, we would also hold to 1689

Federalism. I believe that's right, Jared, right? Yes, I do.

Wonderful. So tell us about the history, Brayden, if you would, historical significance.

Why was the 1689 Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith written? And how has it shaped the

Reformed Baptist theology? What's the difference in the 1689, let's say, verse

Westminster? Yeah, great question. You know, I think maybe to some people's surprise, maybe not to everybody's surprise, the 1689

Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith is the second particular Baptist confession that came about in that time period in the 17th century.

The first Baptist confession was in 1644, I believe, off the top of my head.

I don't have any notes in front of me, so I'm speaking all from memory. But 1644, it was more generalized.

It wasn't as maybe well thoroughly put together as the 1689 was in my opinion.

But in that statement that came out, it was initially written with the main purpose of wanting to demonstrate that they were not – the particular

Baptists were not Anabaptists. There was a great push against Anabaptists for good reasons, and the particular

Baptists wanted to make sure to clearly define that they were not these rogue, anarchist

Anabaptists. And so that document came out in 1644. However, the

Westminster came out shortly thereafter. It was a more thoroughly done document.

Following this, you had the Congregationalists who came out with the Savoy Declaration. And then in 1677,

Benjamin Keech and Nehemiah Cox wrote up the 1689, which a lot of people think that it is very similar to the

Westminster. It is, but it's more similar to the Savoy Declaration. And so if you actually bring up those three documents side by side, you'll see that 1689 is actually more based off of the

Savoy than the Westminster. And so the Baptists are more similar to Congregationalists in its ecclesiology, and that's why you see a lot of those similarities.

But that being said, they definitely wanted to distinguish that they had a different view of baptism as well as some other particulars, maybe even in reference to covenants.

However, the main point that I think that one of the reasons that it is written is that it was wanting to show harmony and unity with other

Reformed particular type of Christians, Reformed Christians. They wanted to show that they were there right there in the trenches with other

Reformed Presbyterians, other Reformed Congregationalists while also showing distinctives.

Just like the Congregationalists showed distinctives to the Presbytery, so too the Baptists wanted to show distinctives to their doctrine.

But that being said, 1677 is when that is initially published, and then in 1689 there would have been a larger council done in that time and more churches would have signed their name to it.

I believe there was minor adjustments done to the document during that time, but the 1689 was not written in 1689.

It was accepted and maybe recognized by a large, vast majority of Baptists in 1689, and that's where that name comes from.

But that's a short, brief history on the 1689, and if I said anything incorrectly, please correct me, brothers.

Well, I think that's really good. What would you guys say to people who say, well, I don't really need a creed or a confession or anything.

My creed is Christ, no creed but Christ. I have the Bible. What's the purpose?

What's the actual purpose? And why is it helpful for a church to actually hold to a confession?

Well, that statement, no creed but Christ, is a creed. It is. Right, so give us an example.

So if I was to say, you know, Christ is King, pretty much anybody abroad can agree to that statement.

But when you get down to it, you might have somebody say,

OK, well, what about this Jesus? When we start actually finding out who this Jesus is, is he the same

Jesus that a Mormon believes in? Well, now we've got to tighten it up and actually find out, you know, what about this

Jesus? Who is he? Is he God? Is he just an ordinary man? Is he a created being?

Is he eternal? You know, so we actually have to define that right. So in that, go on.

Tell me a little bit more about the difference and why it's important to hold to the confession.

Well, I would say the churches who don't like to adhere to a confession typically are the first churches to go up in the air.

Yep. You see that historically. And Brayden, you were talking about the I think the second you went from the first to the second.

Yes. I'm not mistaken. I think the second confession, they decided to write that in response to a particular

Baptist preacher who was actually starting to teach heresy. You know, the

Trinity and other doctrines. I might be mistaken about that, but I think. You're saying it was

I forgot what year it was. It was right before the second London was published. It was the reason why they did, because he was a particular

Baptist pastor and he was obviously associated with them. And he started to teach heresy.

And so they wanted to distance themselves from that guy because they're going to receive a lot of heat from the

Presbyterians and the Congregationalist. So let me let me answer this real.

To be honest with you, brother, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know off the top of my head to be honest with you.

That sounds about right. There was and I would love to go in more detail with that. Anybody that's watching, I just saw a question be posed.

Our YouTube channel is found on on YouTube under open air theology. So go check that out.

It would be a great blessing for you guys to to join us weekly. Great, great blessing.

Go check that out. But all these confessions, Jared, and you know this, right?

All these come out in a time in particular defense against heresy. I think you see that.

And I see you see that with Athanasian Creed. You see that with any creedal statement, even even the statement that we see in the

New Testament. And Habs Addison said it earlier. Jesus is Lord. That comes about in a day when the

Roman, Roman, Roman, the Roman Caesars were saying that you must confess that Caesar is

Lord. And so to to protect against that, the church said, well, no, we can't.

We can't submit ourselves to that. We're going to say Jesus is Lord. And so that right there is a.

Yep. And so it the creeds have come about. Confessions have come about in opposition to heresy, typically.

And so that wouldn't surprise me if that was the case in this in this situation that you had made mention of. Yeah. The statement no need but Christ to go back to what

Tom said on that. It's that statement. It sounds really, really good to our ears.

It sounds like it's like a like something that you want to get tattooed to yourself, right? Like, yeah, that's that sounds really good.

I can admit that that sounds like a great statement, but it really is a statement that doesn't. It's a statement that every cult has promoted in some form.

And I can speak of that as an XLDS person myself. And it is a statement that gives no clarity to what that person's belief is.

If somebody says no creed but Christ, the next question you have to ask is what is the Bible? And they're going to tell you what the Bible is.

You're going to say, then what does the Bible teach? And then they're going to talk about what it teaches God. Then you're going to have to ask them what about who's

God. And then they're going to have to define God for you. And then you're going to have to have them define Christ. Then you're going to have to define man.

And then you're going to have to define salvation. And long and behold, guess what they have promoted or developed for you?

A confessional statement through the. Yeah. Yep. And but the issue with it is that they produced a confessional statement by themselves.

That is solo confessionalism, that they have no other ties to any other

Orthodox group of people that have put something together that summarizes the faith in some way.

And so that's the that's the scary part about submitting to, in my opinion, no creed but Christ.

Right. Real quick answer. Ross, Ross the Wretch on Facebook.

You can go to my channel, Tom Shepard. It's just on my page right now. And I believe

Andrew Rappaport might have it on his Facebook page as well. Striving for eternity. Yeah, he has on his

Facebook. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, that's important, too. Mike, you were you were going to say something.

Answering about the people who reject the need of a man -made confession, stating that the

Bible alone is enough to understand Christian doctrine. When you read in Ephesians and you read that, you know, that God had given the church apostles and prophets and evangelists and teachers, right?

And preachers or preaching pastors, however you read that, you understand that God has blessed the church with godly men, right?

Equipped to teach. And godly men before us to arrange key doctrines under headings so that they're more accessible at a glance.

And all truth is God's truth, right? And truth isn't subjective, it's objective.

So if it was true in 1689 or 1677, it's true now.

And it's only pride that refuses to listen to the collective voice of godly men that God has blessed the church with in years gone by.

And sometimes we fall into this trap in America. I know we do as if we're the first people to have a

Bible, right? But truth never changes.

Truth never changes. And especially with the 1689 or any, the

Westminster, you can look at the three forms of unity or the canons of door. These just start shooting from the hip.

This is what I feel like I believe. There's scriptural references at the end so that everything is rooted in the word.

Confessions act like these forms for laying concrete, right? So that when you pour the concrete, not only is it level, but it's sure.

And you're kept within orthodoxy, right? You're kept within what godly men have been teaching for 1 ,500 years, 2 ,000 years.

One of the things I was thinking about here, we were actually on the topic of evangelism.

How do we go out and do evangelism? And a couple of people that I was talking to on the discussion and topic of street evangelism and stuff like that said, well, this church right here is going to be our model right here.

This seminary is going to be our model. And his words were, you know, we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

And I would agree with that. But no current seminary invented the wheel.

We have godly men that have actually had documents that have spent time, immersed themselves in Scripture.

And not only just one person, but I mean, we're talking the collective group of godly men actually were immersed in the languages and steeped in theology, came together and united.

So the next question would be, how and what way do we have? Let me just go ahead and read it right here, this particular question.

In terms of unity and clarity, how do confessions promote unity and clarity in doctrine within the local church?

It was stated earlier. When you read the 1689, you instantly recognize that it's worded very similarly with the

Westminster Confession of Faith. And that's on purpose. To show unity where we can have unity, but then show

Reformed Baptist doctrinal distinctives, particularly in like covenantal distinctives where we can't have unity on those things.

We have differing views. Right. So, Brayden, what point would you actually see a distinction between the

Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689? I think most obvious would be in the chapter of baptism.

That would be a very quick one right there. The chapter of—that's a very clear one right there.

I think also the 1689—and I think all the confessions, those three major confessions that have been previously mentioned, are set up in a very systematic way so that when you open it up, it first says that Scripture is the only sufficient rule of infallible saving, knowledge of faith, and obedience.

That's the authority of Scripture. All the confessions open up in that way. The 1689 adds—because it's written the latest, it adds more clarity,

I think, than what the other two documents had, in my personal opinion. You can see that in the very first statement, that very first sentence of chapter 1, paragraph 1.

But that being said, I think you get through chapter 1 through 6, and then it then introduces

Christ and the covenant. Covenants and then Christ. That's where you start seeing maybe a shift in how

Baptists view covenants. You have, in the 1689, a different view of covenants than what the

West Minister has. Namely, the difference between seeing the covenant of works versus the covenant of grace.

The West Minister would be saying that same covenant re -administered, a covenant of grace re -administered since the beginning.

Whereas the Baptist, in chapter 7, you don't see it specifically. But then as you read more and more of the confession, it starts to develop that the covenant of grace is a totally unique covenant to those covenants of works in the

Old Testament. So right there, that's a pretty distinguishing thing, a line that you see throughout the whole 1689.

That's an important thing too, and I maybe wanted to bring it up. But since you brought it up earlier, talking about 20th century

Baptist covenant theology versus... Number one, anybody want to define what 20th century covenant

Baptist church theology is? What does it look like? I would just say it's very similar to the

Presbyterian model. Okay, right. Do you agree with that? I would agree with that.

I would say it's very similar, but then it's slapping that, obviously, the believer's baptism onto it.

Then you would also run into those that hold to new covenant theology, but they usually go to the first Baptist confession because they usually don't hold to the tripart division of the law and some other things here and there.

So that's where they usually go to that first confession rather than the second one. So if we look at the confession in and of itself, we're really looking at more of a unity.

The purpose of it was to develop unity with the Presbyterian saying, hey, we are not

Anabaptists. We do not hold to what they're believing. Accept us and let's be united as brothers.

That was the actual purpose of the confession. Okay, resources would actually be more for the actual distinctive of Baptist covenant theology.

Would you guys agree with that? I've seen kind of also, and this is on the fringe, but it's still there.

A couple of Presbyterian brothers, friends of mine, they hold the

Westminster as authoritative as the Bible. They would make statements like they're both binding to the conscience and soul.

And it's like, well, no, confessions are good so long as they line up with Scripture. And everything takes a subordinate role to the

Word of God. Absolutely. Matter of fact, Mike, that's a great leading right into the next question.

Potential pitfalls. Are there dangers in elevating the confession too highly in the life of the church?

How should these be avoided? What say you, Jared? What say you,

Jared, on this? I would agree. I mean, I would say you can definitely take it way too far.

Of course, I grew up in, I would say, more of an anti -confessional upbringing.

Now, when you say anti -confessional, are you against confessions or just not?

Not really militant, just not like, hey, I'm confessional, you know, like that.

More so just, yeah, this is kind of what we believe, but I didn't really get into it like in detail.

And so now I've become more, hey, it's being confessional is important because of things we've already said.

But also it lays out clearly, hey, this is what this is what we believe. And if you have any questions, concerns here, read this.

You know, Brayden held up a few minutes ago the book we have at our church, several copies of that book right there.

And so if someone comes in our church and they ask, hey, what do you guys believe? Here you go.

And if you have any questions, feel free to ask. And so that's just a good way to do that. But getting back to what

I was saying, though, yes, we can take it way too far. Personally, I've seen this happen in a lot of our

Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, just Reformed circles. It seems like if you don't cross every

T and dot every I, then you're not in the Reformed group. And I think it's going way too far.

I think we need to try to strive for harmony with our other Presbyterian brothers, who we obviously disagree with on certain issues.

And so while we should have a very high view of confessionalism,

I think it can be extreme in some cases. That's right. Yeah, I agree with you 100 percent.

You unfortunately today we're seeing so many splinterings of denomination and positional stances on things.

It's I think it's truly sad to get so down. I mean, people are splitting and dividing on tertiary and quaternary things and then claiming, well, you can't be a

Reformed Baptist if you don't hold to this or you can't be Reformed if you hold to this or you can't do this.

If this is this, you're not a Reformed Baptist if you don't have a beard.

Like just like that's the kind of attitude that people are good at. Yeah, you're good,

Jared. Reformed points. You get brownie points, right?

That's a good question right there, and I was just watching. If you guys haven't had it, go to Moorpark, Grace Bible Church Moorpark's page.

Brayden just started a series on teaching through the confession and gave a very basic rundown of what it means to be

Reformed. You want to talk about that? Yeah, you know, I, I, I, so I argue that to be

Reformed. There's a lot of people today that use that word. Sam Harris, nice seeing you, brother.

Hey, heck yeah. Yeah, so a lot of people think that being

Reformed is, is just being Calvinistic or is, is just having you use an

ESV Bible or an LSB Bible or you have a, you have the John Mack study

Bible. That's what makes you Reformed. And it's like, no, that's not, that's not the qualifiers for being

Reformed. And so I, I really heavily lean on the three C's being that it is covenantal.

You need to be covenantal. You have to, you should see a covenantal theme in scripture. That's what all common in the 17th century.

Each one of those confessions is articulating and arguing for that view of scripture is that God has revealed himself through the means of covenants.

They'll differ on how to understand the covenants, right? We've talked about that, but covenant theology, nonetheless. Then second,

Calvinism and soteriology. So that, that salvation is of the Lord. Again, that would be a defining thing of the

Reformed people of the 17th century. And then also the last thing is, of course, confessionalism.

If you don't hold to a historic confession, I would argue that you have a really hard time trying to argue that you are

Reformed. I think you've lost ties to that term. And it's not, let me be clear in saying that.

It's not, taking that definition is not trying to articulate that you, the non -Reformed person, is wrong in your theology.

You might be right in your theology. It's just that terms are important. And we live in a world that likes to change terms and move goalposts.

And a boy can say that they're a dog under these defining things.

But no, definitions really matter. And that's where I think we need to go back to those three

C's and stop trying to add different things onto it or take things away from it to make you fit that goalpost.

Right. So there's a question that just came up, and I posted it up here so everybody could see. It says, how much room is there for small disagreements within a confession to which the congregation officially holds?

How does this leniency vary, if at all? One of the things is, and I think that you said this,

Mike, earlier. As a matter of fact, in one of your posts on Facebook, is that this is the position of the church, and this is what we teach.

So there might be varying aspects of actually what you believe. So which brings us to the next question.

Does somebody, in order to be a member of your church, do they have to fully affirm the 1689 in order to be a member of your church?

Would you still allow them to be a member of your church? And if there is any leniency at all, where would you guys draw the line to say, hey, guys, let's do some work?

Yeah. For our church, before they become members, they take a membership class.

And I hand out this questionnaire so they can explain to me how they believe a man is justified in the eyes of God.

I also give them James Pettigrew Boyce's abstract of principles, and I give them a 1689.

I explain to them that, listen, now, this is what we teach. This isn't what you have to believe unless you want to be part of the leadership here, a deacon or an elder.

Wednesday nights, we go through the 1689 because I believe all confessions need to be exposited like Scripture.

And it's two way communication. It's not just me telling them what this means.

It's two way communication with questions, engaging the congregation and seeing where they stand on these points and showing these points biblically.

Because I believe that's important. At the end of the day, your faith is resting in the Word of God alone.

You're convinced of these things by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. I was going to say,

Jared, do you hold that same position that this is what we teach?

But if you're going to be in any type of a leadership role, you would have to hold firmly to the 1689.

Yes, that's it. We're very similar to my brother here. Yeah, to be in leadership, you have to fully affirm the 1689.

Now, obviously, even with that, I would there are things that I would say. I think

I might word it a little bit different in this sentence here. Right. Of one of one paragraph.

You know, one example might be I'm sure you guys probably have talked about it a lot. The pope.

Right. And other other areas. But what I mean when

I say fully affirm is that I can look at each chapter, each section and say, yes, for the most part,

I do agree with what it's teaching here. You have to be able to do that to be in leadership now to be a member.

You don't have to fully affirm it as long as you can sit under the preaching or teaching of the elders at the church and not cause division.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. So let's say give a scenario here without purposely causing division.

If there was somebody sitting in the church there who was willing to sit under the teaching. But let's say a brother comes to them on the side.

Hey, guys, you know, why do you believe this or that? You know, let's say you have a

Presbyterian that joins your church. I don't know that you guys would actually do that if they did on. That actually is another question.

If a Presbyterian joins your church, would you allow them to partake in the

Lord's table? So as long as they are believers in the

Lord Jesus Christ and they have been baptized biblically, then

I would be OK with that. Now, who knows if they were actually baptized biblically? That's why you have to be able to sit them down and talk with them in private and get to know that before you move forward in that process.

OK, Brandon, what's your answer? I was just looking at this book going back just the previous question real, real quick.

This book, The Confessing Baptist, it's put together by Robert Gonzalez, the dean of Reform Baptist Seminary, great brother in Christ.

He edited this book that has multitude of authors on it, and it just talks about different levels of subscription.

Some people hold to absolute subscription, historical subscription, full or strict subscription.

But at the end of the day, system subscription, there's just varying views of where you would fall in line of that.

And it accounts for those minor scruples, like you said, Jared, with the definite article regarding the pope being the antichrist.

That's the most common scruple that people would take issue with, is saying that they would want to rewrite that to say the pope is an antichrist.

And meaning that there's a multitude that he doesn't have to be the antichrist. But that – what was your question one more time,

Tom? I'm sorry. I got interrupted by the answer. Answer this question real quick.

Anybody have a tip on connecting to YouTube? So if you go to Open Air Theology on YouTube, subscribe and hit that.

We should be streaming on there. You might be watching us on Facebook. I'm not – yeah, you are watching us on Facebook.

So search Open Air Theology on YouTube. Hit subscribe and share that to your

Facebook page too. And so that's how you do that. What did

I ask, Brayden, guys? You guys remember? I just failed. I failed on the podcast.

I failed too. I said I'm going to go back to the previous question. I completely spaced what you had asked me.

So it was about the – So church membership. So would you allow someone to partake, a

Presbyterian who – so like Jared said, a Presbyterian comes into church and everything.

They want to be able to partake, participate in the Lord's table. They're definitely believers.

You can tell they have a credible professional faith. But there is a question as to whether or not they've been baptized biblically according to Baptist standards.

I said a hot take a couple months ago on this. John Calvin, who would have kicked us out of wherever he lived at the time and maybe even sought just punishment on all of us.

John Calvin, would you give him communion in our churches? It really depends on how you approach the table.

If you announce at the table that this is meant for those that have believed and have been baptized, a .k

.a. having had a profession of faith, technically no. No reformed Baptist, if that's the way that you look at communion and how communion ought to be given to people.

No, you shouldn't be giving communion to those that haven't been baptized as professing believers.

I have heard some – Answer why real quick. I think it's important. Yes, most definitely.

So the why is that baptism is that initial sign of the covenant.

So you gain entrance into this covenant through the mediation of Christ being born again. You are now members of the covenant through the redeemed, redemptive blood of Christ.

And then after regeneration, you now have a profession of that faith. Then part of that profession is you take the sign of a covenant.

That's how covenants worked all over in the Old Testament. There was an entrance and then sign. Entrance, then sign.

You were born of a child of Abraham, and then you were circumcised. You were not circumcised before you were born.

You were born into the covenant, then circumcised. If you were a slave in that day, you would be purchased and then circumcised.

You were not circumcised and then purchased. And so a Presbyterian is putting the sign before the covenant, the entrance, and that's the issue that Baptists have.

So part of it is that you take the sign, and then you participate in the other ordinances of those covenants.

And in this case, we would say that the Lord's table is essentially the meal of the covenant.

And if you haven't – if baptism is the physical demonstration that you are putting on Christ, it's like the door into the church, right?

And so – yeah, so if you haven't entered that door, you probably ought not to be eating inside of the table.

And so that's the argument for the logical and some of the scriptural basis for that reasoning.

But like I said, there are some Baptists that – I think I was going to say that some Baptists would say that they would view it more along the lines of what does that baptism mean for them.

So if they – if a Presbyterian now believes at the age of 12, but they were baptized when they were days old, and they look at that baptism as a symbol of the life, death, burial, and resurrection, they would accept that as the means.

There's some up in the air. I think there's some logical issues with that. But there's some discussion

I think to be had there on those things. Who would hold to that, Brayden? Because I personally don't know of anyone.

I think it's typically the non -1689 Federalists that are more just the viewing of Presbyterian covenant theology with slapping on believer's baptism in it.

Not wanting to bring additional division to the body of people that would argue for that typically.

Would that be more along the lines of a conscious city making baptism that they believed that their baptism was biblical and so –

Yeah. Yes. Yep. And a lot of it also comes down to on how you – I think how firm you view the administration of the table too.

Because at some point if you look at the administration of that sacrament, that ordinance, as conscience binding to the elder that is administrating it, then there needs to be some submission to the conscience of that elder as well on that level.

So if I can't give you communion because you have not taken the sign of the covenant post your entrance into that covenant, you should be – sorry.

Maybe Calvin shouldn't take this week. Let's go to the water first, Calvin, and then come back.

So on the topic – and this is kind of going to tie into this question right here. How do you feel about guarding the table?

But let's tie it with what we're talking about right there on receiving the sign of the covenant.

If we are going to be consistent with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, who are the believing people?

Who are the people of God that should be taking that sign? And do we hold close fisted to that?

I – for each new member that comes in, like I said, I give them a questionnaire.

Only I see it. After they fill it out and they fill out their view on soteriology and how they believe they were saved, we sit down and have a conversation.

So if they come from a Presbyterian background, we have an open discussion about, well, listen.

Biblically, you need to cognizantly understand the gospel and then be baptized to participate in the

Lord's supper, to come to the table. And we administer it every week.

And every week I read out of 1 Corinthians 11 verses 23 through 28, giving the admonition to examine yourself.

But yeah, it's a discussion that I have with the individual personally.

And I would suggest that they refrain, almost command that they would refrain so that I, on a good conscience, can administer the ordinance instituted by Christ.

Jared, what scripture would you use to show – and I don't mean to be getting off topic, and it is a little bit – but what scripture would you use to show that it's only by the professional faith, the only people that are to receive the sign are those who are in the covenant of grace?

What scripture – in other words, let me reword that. What scripture would you show to show that a person is in the covenant of grace?

What has to happen? Do you have one? I'm sorry. So you said, what scripture would

I show to prove that a person is in the covenant of grace? Yeah, to show that this is what it looks like to be in the covenant.

To be in the covenant. In the covenant of grace. Well, I think you could probably – this is kind of general, not really specific – but go to the book of Hebrews.

Okay. And that's a great book talking about the priesthood, talking about the new and better covenant, and those who are in him.

Obviously, Hebrews chapter 8 is big for Baptists, right? We always go to that one. But for good reason.

I mean, he is writing his law upon our hearts, right?

He's going to forgive our sins and remember them no more. And so the promise of that new covenant, obviously, has come to pass.

It is being fulfilled even right now. And so I would definitely go to that text.

You can go to Matthew 28 in the Great Commission to show that it's disciples.

It's going to be making disciples. And then we baptize those disciples. That's the text that I would go to.

That's right. And to prove that it's only those disciples that then receive the sign right of baptism.

Absolutely. Anything to add on that? I was going to say I think that that is a great text.

I think Hebrews, again, that's a great place to go. And I just think the continuity – when you talk about the continuity and the discontinuity between covenants, one of the continuity things that you see in every covenant is that the sign is always followed after the entrance.

You enter and then sign. Enter, then sign. Enter, then mill.

Enter, then mill. You never have the sign or the mill before the entrance of those covenants. And so that's the part that I find strange is an argument for a sign to be given.

And let's be also very clear. When you look at Hebrews chapter 8 specifically, one of the better parts of the covenant of grace is that every member of this covenant is actually a believer.

It says that you will not go to your brother saying, Know the Lord, for they will all know me from the least to the greatest of them.

That's a joy because I'm the least of these brothers even in this show right now. And I know the Lord, and they don't get the right to come and knock on my door to tell me to know the

Lord because I already know him. I'm already one of his. And so that's the difference between this covenant versus a covenant of old is that it was a covenant that had believers and nonbelievers inside of it.

But even in those cases, it was always entrance, then sign. The superiority of the covenant of grace is it's everyone who's entered into this covenant is saved.

And everyone in this covenant, therefore, should take the sign. Absolutely.

So I would go to Romans 8 and 9. It says, however, you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you.

But if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him. So in order to be in the covenant of grace, you have to have the spirit of God indwelling in you.

We now have, that's why it's number one. It's the better covenant, right? We have the Holy Spirit indwelling us.

We can't do anything once God has purchased us and adopted into his family to be outside the camp anymore.

It's impossible. That's why it's a better covenant. It's a wonderful, wonderful thing.

Let's get back to... Well, let me add something real quick. So I would say, of course, I know we're kind of getting into the covenant of grace, how we view that versus the

Presbyterians. But one of the biggest things for me is, going even back to the

Hebrews, is if the covenant of grace, if the children of believers are part of the covenant of grace, then we have to ask the question, well, so how is

Christ mediating to them or them? Or what is he mediating to them?

Right? I mean, if it's... Somebody who's outside the covenant? Yeah. Well, of course, they would say the children of believers are in the covenant.

Right. So therefore, Christ is their mediator. He has to be. Who else would be? So we have to ask the question, well, what is

Christ mediating to them? That's really important because, obviously, for believers,

Christ is mediating for us, you know, between us and the Father, his grace, his love, all those things.

But we have to ask, well, what is the child receiving in that mediation?

That's right. You haven't believed yet. Yeah. So, and really, when you think about that, in what way would a

Presbyterian would look at those who are in the covenant, if you have a believing mom and dad?

In what way are they set apart? What would you guys answer to that?

Baptists are saying they're not in the covenant, but in what way does the Scripture speak of them being set apart unto

God? Well, they're definitely in a... Go ahead. Go ahead.

They have the benefit of a believing parent. They have the benefit of that.

They have the benefit of coming into church with a bunch of people who have been saved by grace through faith.

They get to witness firsthand as they grow up, you know, the grace of God active in people's lives.

Yeah. They benefit from that. Good answer. Yeah. So we've talked about how the confessions and the creeds keep us within the guardrails.

In what way do they benefit you as church leaders? With regards...

And then who... Are they also a guardrail in keeping the elders and the deacon or the church leaders, those who teach from strength as well?

And how they benefited you guys as you guys pastor and lead people in your church and shepherd people in your own church?

Yeah, for sure. I mean, obviously, to be in leadership again, you have to fully subscribe to the confession.

And so it's definitely important for us to have that there and always be going back to.

Obviously, scripture is supreme, but obviously being confessional, we need to be in the confession, going through it, reading it if we're not teaching it.

It's been a while since I've talked through it. I did teach through it one time. And probably before too long, we'll do it again.

But the more that I'm familiar with the confession that I subscribe to, the better I'll be able to help my people and equip my people.

And so that's why I look at that. It's not just for me. It's for my people that I'm shepherding.

And so we need to not be selfish in how we view that.

Yeah. Good stuff. What about you, Braden? I would agree. Good.

Braden? Yeah, sorry. I was like, wait, who are you saying? Go ahead, Mike. You were going to say something.

You're queued up. You're spooled up. I would fully agree with that. Along with being the forms that keep sound with theology within, they keep heresy without, which is a benefit for the pastor and the congregation.

I said earlier, I've been going through Romans for almost three years. But when we hit a doctrine, right?

The first place we go to is that doctrine as it's presented in the 1689.

And we expound upon it from there. So it's been a benefit for me.

It's been a benefit for me in my devotional time. And it's been a benefit for my congregation because they have a concise statement of a biblical doctrine that they can defend now biblically.

That's good. So they actually have like a guide that they can go to almost like a cheat sheet in a way to say, hey, what you just preached and everything, this doesn't line up with the confession, which obviously lines up with Scripture.

Right. Right. Yep. You know, one other thing I was going to add on just that question is so a partial preterist without a confession is soon to be a hyper preterist.

If you are an idealist, there's a danger of going too far with that. And I'm an idealist.

But one of the guardrails to keep me from going too far with that is the confession. If you're a partial preterist, a thing that keeps you from going too far is a confession that withholds you and says, no,

Christ is coming again yet in our future. And so there really is a – it's almost like when you're bowling.

For me, I'm terrible at bowling. Would you rather have bumpers or gutters, right? We're going to want bumpers if we want to ensure that we're going to hit pins at the end of the bowling track.

It's true. You don't need the bumpers there to hit the pins. But if you want to be a better bowler, maybe – if you never want to have a gutter ball in your whole life and career as a bowler, just put the bumpers up every single time.

You'll be safe and secure and make sure you hit pins every time. And so that's what really I think one of the benefits of having confessions and leadership is that it keeps the person, the adherent to that within orthodoxy.

It keeps them from bumping up and bumping out into those very dangerous areas.

Melissa, get some bumpers. What would you guys say to us?

This is not a question that was written on there earlier. So as you guys know, there's G3, a great ministry out there, and they talk about – there's a network of G3 churches out there.

And one of the requirements for any church to be a part of that network of G3 churches is that the elders or the leadership of those churches would actually have to subscribe mostly to the 1689

London Baptist Confession of Faith. Hey, Michelle, what's up? So the question is this.

You have a G3 network, and in order to be a part of it and be known as a G3 church, the elders in that church have to subscribe to the 1689

London Baptist Confession of Faith. Can a dispensational church say that they hold to the

London Baptist Confession of Faith? I don't think so. No.

Because they're dispensational, not coming out. Brayden? No. No.

No. I mean chapter 7 cannot – it's one thing to go to and say a definite article.

That makes you a – not a strict subscriptionist to the confession because that – you're not saying every single word in here is 100 percent good, right?

Right. That's a minor thing. That's a minor area in the confession that still says I still support.

I'm still subscribing to this. I'm still within the area of belief and confessionalism with this.

But if you uproot chapter 7 from the confession, it would take me a second to read through some of these things.

But I think it's very easy to see where it will then affect every other chapter after that. Like seriously, you go into the covenant, chapter 7, and you read all of that.

Then in chapter 8, Christ the mediator, what do you think it's talking about him mediating for us?

It's talking about a covenant that he's mediating for us. Let's see here.

I'm going to just see if I can find it real fast. Attaining eternal redemption.

Trying to find some stuff. The point of it is if you uproot that whole chapter and say

I have a whole different system of reading the Bible with, you're going to come to different conclusions throughout the rest of the confession.

So you can't say you subscribe to the 1689 and be a dispensationalist.

You guys all would agree that if you hold to Baptist covenant theology or any covenant theology, they're at odds with a dispensationalist.

They are contradicted to each other. You guys would agree? Yeah. Kind of building on what

Braden was saying. Yeah, I mean, if you deny one, really it kind of flows from there because how the framers set the confession up is,

I think, just genius because they kind of build upon the prior chapter. They do.

It's Calvinism in a way. So if you hold to total depravity, obviously you cannot say that you don't hold a particular redemption.

But yet you take out one of those and you totally destroy the whole thing.

Because they all fit together. Yeah, the 1689 as a whole, if you read through it, you know, starting from, you know, the first clause all the way through, it builds upon each other and it has, it's a full worldview.

It's a biblical lens to take any of those parts out.

So like Jenga. Speaking of that, speaking of the framework of the confession and the covenantal framework of that, how has that shaped your teaching through scripture?

Do you, when you guys teach through a book, let's say you, like you said, you're Mike, you said you're going through the book of Romans.

Do you look at it through a covenantal lens the same way you would look at it through a

Calvinistic lens or through the lens of Christ? Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Anytime you touch on God's relation to man, right?

We're generally speaking in a covenantal term. And when you look at the Old Testament and the internal covenant of redemption, especially when we're talking about election and predestination and things like that.

It's instrumental to it. You can't avoid it. Paul's writing in covenantal language.

Can I just add on to that too? Because I think that that goes back to even the previous question that every chapter is building off of one another, right?

And so, like, let's say I didn't believe holy scripture is the only sufficient certain infallible standard of all -saving knowledge and faith.

Like maybe I take exception with that first sentence right there. How much of the rest of the confession is not going to have any meaning to me and my understanding of how the

Bible is? When we say we're a 1689 Federalist or 1689 subscriber, we're saying that we see this is how the covenants work throughout the whole

Bible and throughout the whole way. Because we say that all scripture is certain infallible and is the standard of all -saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

And then from there, we say God created. It's a young earth creationist from chapter 3 with creation or chapter 4 of creation.

Excuse me. No, not chapter 4. What is it? Chapter? No, it is chapter 4, isn't it? Chapter 4 of creation.

We will say that God is sovereign. We will say that there's divine providence, all things, that there's nothing that happens outside of God's predestination.

Those are now presuppositions because we're saying that these are – this is what we subscribe to it.

And so you can't take such a large chunk of this and say,

I don't believe in it. It's going to affect the way you read throughout the rest of the Bible. Yeah. Tom, if I can add something there.

Of course, I'm in John right now, in John 6 in particular, and, man, you see the covenant of redemption everywhere.

I mean it's there, right? I mean the Father has given a people to the Son. Well, where did that happen?

And so, you know, we can go to chapter 8 in the confession, paragraph 1.

It pleased God in His eternal purpose to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both to be mediator between God and man.

Of course, it goes from there. But, I mean, that's all in John chapter 6. It's been in the prior chapters, and we'll get into it in John chapter 10, especially in John 17 too.

That's interesting. I remember, Jared, you were there too at the Why Calvinism Conference last year.

Brayden was talking about that. I mean, we were talking about the actual to be a Calvinist is based and rooted through the 1689

Confession. It's the foundation of it is rooted.

Do you remember talking about that, Brayden? Yeah, I think Sam Waldron, he went before me.

And, man, oh, man, that was a blessing to sit and listen to his sermon. That was very edifying. I walked away from that just in awe of what he had to say about it.

Confessionalism and Calvinism and free will was his topic, if I remember right. Great. He knocked that out of the park.

And then really what he had done is something that we didn't plan it, but it really prepared for what my message was, which was

Calvinism in covenants, confessionalism, covenantal theology. I can't remember the exact topic it was, but it was covenantalism and Calvinism, and you see

Calvinism throughout the covenants. And so I really think –

I do think you can be a Calvinist without being holding to covenant theology because obviously there are

Calvinists that don't hold to covenant theology. But Calvinism naturally flows from covenantalism.

It's so clearly seen. Like the priests in the

Old Testament who were making sacrifice for the covenant people of God, were they making a sacrifice for people outside of the covenant?

No, it was just for those inside the covenant. So then what do you see in the New Testament? Christ making a sacrifice on behalf of those inside of his covenant, the covenant of grace.

And so you see Calvinism everywhere throughout this covenant theology, and you don't see it in – yeah,

I'll leave it there. I know. Go ahead. I was going to say something. Yeah.

Braden, that's actually what helped me go from just being a Calvinistic Baptist to Reformed.

Really? More so. Yeah, seeing that, how I was kind of detaching my

Calvinism from covenant theology. But to get into, for example, Sam Renahan's book,

The Mystery of Christ. That was a big one for me. There was Paschal Denal's – am

I saying his name right, his last name right? Denal, yeah. Just read that book. It was fantastic.

Yeah, so I read that book. It was great. Those two books were instrumental for me. But yeah, so it helped me to get into that more and to see, man, it just opened the

Bible up for me big time. This is how God has set it up by way of covenant.

And man, it's been a game changer for me personally and also teaching too.

You hit on a great point where it's like, yeah, the high priest once a year offers a sacrifice to the chosen people, covenant people of God, to the exclusion of everyone else.

So we have no pattern for like a universal atonement anywhere, Old Testament or New. And we have these covenantal dealings with God where God determines the nature of any man's relationship with himself.

Amen. I think this is a great question. This is a great question. The reason why I like this is because this is why we're actually doing this show right here.

We're talking about the creeds and the confessions. And the question starts out, if the 1689 becomes the 2025, here it is.

What modern issues might be worthy of inclusion? Now I want to stop right there before you guys go on to that.

This is liberalism. This is did God really say?

And so what happens is what we've seen in these modern confessions, in these modern statements of faith, when you see the progression of the 1644 to the 1689, and it's going on to the

Philadelphia and everything. And now we have the Baptist faith and message of 2000.

Sorry, my mouth is gone. And so you have the Baptist faith and message of 2000, and it just keeps drifting away.

It keeps going further and further apart. What modern issues might be worthy of inclusion?

Take it away, folks. Well, first of all, y 'all need to go and subscribe to Open Air Theology on YouTube.

We talk about this stuff all the time. So sorry, I had to throw that in there right there. So I would say that if you added—so you're right,

Tom. Every confession, it seems like, since the 17th century has been more and more watered down.

And I think a lot of it has been because it's wanting to seek larger acceptance rather than doctrinal clarity,

I think, is what I would try to argue for. When the 1689 was a doctrinal clarity, clarifying position, right?

I think if you were to add to this, you wouldn't want to take away things from it. You might want to correct maybe the antichrist thing that we may have mentioned earlier, but I think that's a large majority stance.

But it's booked in. The 1689 is booked in from the

Scripture being sufficient to then last judgment, the last judgment of the last judgment, right?

And so I think if you were to add chapters, it would have to be between somewhere in here.

It would probably be towards the end of the book. Somewhere maybe after of the church or after the ordinances, something along those lines.

And I think you would be dealing with things of—oh, man.

Genders, things like things that they were not dealing with in the 17th century, things that were not on their minds, things

I think today probably should be written down pretty firm and have a huge opposition against.

A lot of that kind of stuff I think would be— I would say not for the purpose of inclusion, but actually for clarity.

For more clarity on things, yeah. Personally, I would—there would have to be—genders is a great topic.

There would need to be more clarity on that. Maybe a chapter on marriage, right?

And that would be maybe more thoroughly. A chapter on just basic hermeneutical principles, like we don't interpret the

Bible through the lens of culture. We saw the first United Methodist Church try to do that, and it was a disaster.

Dispensationalists did it when they had the Zionist push for Jews to go back to Israel.

And 1850 produced something in theology that hadn't existed before that.

Just more clarity and expounding upon parts. Marriage would be a great chapter to have in there.

I think the hermeneutics one, that would be a pretty helpful chapter in and of itself. Sorry. I know,

Jared, you were going to say something. No, you're good. I was just going to say when it comes to—there is a chapter on marriage.

It's just I think that we need to—it would be helpful to probably add maybe a couple more paragraphs to it because of where we're at.

So that's one. I think just some of the current issues inside reform circles like here recently between some reform guys when it comes to our relation with people in our own country versus our relationship with other believers.

That could be one. What do you guys think about that? There seems to be a lot of confusion and just—or there shouldn't be confusion, but there seems to be a lot of confusion and just spotting going on.

I have a Sam Waldron commentated 1689. It's fantastic. It would be great if somebody took the 1689, maybe not added anything into it, added in asterisks and started expounding on the things that are current in our generation.

And how it may be applied to— So that's interesting because current also can be culture.

Culture dictates current sometimes. So in a way because we want to be able to hold on to something.

One of the great things that I love about 1689 is that it has transcended.

It's the same truth yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And that's why I think they were intentional in not talking on topics of, let's say, for example, the elements.

They were not intentional in talking on topics of head coverings, things like that that were issues that you may hold to dearly, but they were intentional in leaving those out.

It is hard, and Jared, you are right. I appreciate you correcting me on that. There is a chapter on marriage, so good catch on me saying that.

I think that it is really hard because it comes down to do you want to stick to something that's historic or further clarify things that could cause some—

So like theonomy, I don't know where you guys stick on theonomy, and it really depends on how you define theonomy and what that term really is.

Top down or bottom up. Right. So do you add a chapter in there of God's law, the chapter that's in there with that already?

Do you add a paragraph in there that's denouncing theonomy or add a chapter in there to promote theonomy, right, depending on maybe how that is defined?

And so it's hard. I was just going to say that when you talk about theonomy, are we talking about for clarity purposes?

Are we talking about going back to the Mosaic Law? Are we talking about going back to those positive laws that were given to Israel?

Well, if that's what you mean by theonomy, no. Well, you've already contradicted the confession if that's what you say.

It says that those laws that were given to the nation of Israel, which again, it goes back to covenant theology, that that was the physical covenant people bringing about the seed that was going to mediate the covenant of grace and fulfillment of the covenant of redemption.

If you're already subscribing to this confession, you should not be arguing for a one -for -one or even a close to one -for -one

Mosaic recovery of the law because the confession says those things were done with Christ.

They were done with the Old Testament system, with the ending of that nation. Now, we should probably add amillennialism to it.

Yeah, that would be good. I mean, I wouldn't mind. I'd be fine. I think so.

All of us would agree that if we had the ability and we should promote this, if you could push for more godly laws in society, you should do that.

And I don't think any one of us would deny that if there is a Christian influence in your community, it's going to have an impact.

We would agree with that as we would. So I'm out of questions, guys, and we're at an hour and 14 minutes.

Do you want to put the sticker back up? And as I'm doing it, let me just let everybody know we are so thankful to Andrew Rapoport and Striving for Eternity for helping promote this show.

If you are watching on one of Andrew's platforms, we have permission to tell you this from Andrew. You should go check out

Open Air Theology, obviously, if we're streaming to his stuff. Go check it out on YouTube, subscribe to it, like, share, comment, as many people have tonight, and get the word out about us.

We really do love Christ. We love to advance His kingdom. We hope that these shows are edifying and sanctifying to you, challenging and convicting in some ways.

And again, like I said earlier, don't tell Andrew, but he's a good friend of ours. We like him a lot. So go check out his stuff and whatnot.

But Striving for Eternity, go check out Open Air Theology. You guys want to have any last remarks?

Go ahead, Mike, take it away. Thank you for having me on. It's a blessing. I have been watching you guys from the shadows for a very long time.

I respect each and every one of you. For anybody who tuned in to see me, the three people or whatever, please subscribe to Open Air Theology on YouTube, and on any other platform that you can find it.

Look through the back catalog of these godly men as they try to uphold truth in a generation, and in a culture, and in an age that is bold in their sinfulness.

Amen. I would second that. And I would just say again, guys, thank you all for having me on tonight for the second time,

I guess, that I've been on here. And it hasn't disappointed. It's good to meet you, brother.

Thank you for your words. They've been encouraging. Great meeting you. I look forward to watching you guys continue the show.

And I know I'll be praying for you guys if there's anything that I can do to help.

You have my contact, and our church will be praying for you as well. Thanks.

But again, it's been great. And this discussion, when it comes to crazy confessions, we could talk about it for days.

Amen. And it will never end. And it goes into all these different rabbit trails, you know, when it comes to covenant theology and all that.

But praise God for His faithfulness, even in our going astray.

Jesse Heller, get out of here. We love you. We hope that you stay subscribed.

But baptize them when they are born again. Yeah, that's right. So I want to say thank you,

Mike, very much for joining us. Jared, like always, we're going to have you guys on again.

It's a blessing to have you guys. It's such a wonderful time to fellowship with you guys. I want to tell

Anthony, congratulations on your baby. Praise God. Anthony, congratulations, brother. I was messaging right before the show.

Yeah. Cool. That's fantastic. Michelle and Melissa and Georgia, golly,

Bill. I mean, you guys are such faithful watchers and we love you guys.

This is a great show. I'm going to end it by telling everybody, as I always do, make it a point to go out and share the gospel.

All you got to do is open the door and you're going to see people who are lost, who need Christ. That is the means in which they're going to be saved is through the preaching of the gospel.

Show them their condition, show them their Savior, and tell them to repent and believe.

Brayden, close us out, brother. Oh, man. What can I say? Again, if you don't have a local church tomorrow and you live in the

Ventura County area, I'd love to see you tomorrow. Grace Bible Church in Moore Park. And if you don't have a church and you live near these other brothers, go check out their churches in their local areas.

These are godly men that want to exalt Christ. Tomorrow I'm preaching on James 1 .1, starting a new series on that book, and so it will be an introduction to that.

And one of the great things in that verse that has been in the back of my mind as I'm studying it, it is held by tradition that James was martyred by being thrown off the pinnacle of the temple there in Jerusalem.

And so, brothers and sisters, are you a servant of Christ today? Are you willing to go to the pinnacle for the sake of the one that has died in your place?

Repent, believe in the gospel, and be a servant unto Christ today. Amen. God bless.