A Little Francis, But Mainly Responding to Jared Longshore

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It would be good if I, uh, yeah, I don't even know how it did that.

Rich and I had tested everything, and then somehow it switched audio output before we got started again.

I don't know, it's, uh, we've come up with various theories over the years as to how electronic stuff can work during the test and then do weird things afterwards.

So anyway, um, strange stuff. So, Pope Francis, we're still in St.

Charles, by the way, and, um, I leave tomorrow heading for Sedalia, Missouri.

I'll be doing stuff there in Sedalia. The stuff's all on the calendar at the front page, um, locations, times, stuff like that, um, on Wednesday night and Thursday night.

And then I go to Kansas City, and we're doing stuff Friday night, Saturday night,

I think, and Sunday, and then I start the trip home, and it's going to be a long trip home, um, in the sense that I'm trying to do it in big chunks, so there'll be long days.

Long days in the saddle, but that's, uh, I've gotta get back so we can see the Messiah with my grandkids.

And I'm looking forward to that. Anyway, um, so for those of you wondering where we are, and it's actually,

I can see blue sky. I mean, it's getting dark already here, but I had a lot of rain over the past few days, and it's been windy and stuff like that, but, uh, that's, that's the

Midwest, I guess. Um, a little bit different living in Arizona. So Pope Francis, uh, was not well enough to deliver his own, um, speech at the, um, you know, the place where all the people fly and burning fossil fuels and call upon everybody else to stop using fossil fuels.

Uh, what's it called, COP 28 is the, uh, is the thing, uh, yeah,

COP 28. And we are told that Pope Francis has called for the elimination of fossil fuels in a historic speech to the

UN. Uh, he was suffering from a lung infection, was too unwell to deliver the speech. So it was given by Cardinal Pietro Peralin, the

Vatican's Secretary of State. He said, destruction of the environment is an offense against God, a sin that greatly endangers all human beings, especially the most vulnerable in our midst and threatens to unleash a conflict between generations.

Now, it is painfully, painfully, painfully obvious that Pope Francis is a liberation theologian.

He is a complete leftist and he is completely sold out to the climate fraud.

And it is a fraud, it is easily demonstrated to be a fraud, but you don't see debates on it, uh, because it is the narrative and there won't, you're not allowed, uh, to question these things.

And it won't be long until any speech like what I'm giving right now will be suppressed as well.

But I want you to understand something, um, he says, are we working for a culture of life or a culture of death?

To all of you, I make this heartfelt appeal, let us choose life. Now here's the real problem, well, there's a lot of problems here, um, culture of life and culture of death is language that has been developed over the past number of decades in regards to the abortion issue, but it's obviously bigger than that.

But by associating the abortion issue with the, uh, fantasy, the fiction of carbon dioxide is, is killing the earth and we're boiling the oceans and all the other idiocy at that, which is simply untrue.

There is no evidence of it that when they try to produce evidence, they're, they're taking a chart that's this big and they show you this part over here or they, they ignore it.

It's just, it is so plainly driven by money and power. Um, it's, it's just a narrative that has, that is being used by the globalists to put you in a 15 minute concentration camp, to make it impossible for you to travel, uh, to communicate with others, uh, face to face anyways, um, and to limit you so that the global elites will have the ability to crash the world's population, which is going to happen one way or the other, uh, crash the world's population and they get to live and all the rest of us either die or just serve them.

Uh, and it's amazing. We can see these enslavers right now. They're right in front of us.

We can see their faces. We know their names and they're just allowed to get away with whatever they want to get away with because they have captured the educational system, which is now nothing but an indoctrination system and those who have been indoctrinated just believe whatever they're told to believe.

So the Pope is one of them. The head of the Roman Catholic church. Now you can sit here and say, well, he's just a deceived old man and stuff like that.

Okay. If you want to, if you want to say that, uh, I'm not sure that that's actually the case in the sense that, you know, he's one of these global elites, but go ahead and take that route if you want.

You have the Bishop of Rome associating with abortion.

Now, hey, he's put people with clear pro -choice stances on Vatican commissions in regards to abortion over the past couple of years.

So he supports Father Martin and the

LGBTQ stuff and we see what's happening there. So is this, is this part of, you know, a whole bunch of stuff that he's doing?

Maybe, but the issue here is he's talking about, he's associating culture of death, which is a real thing.

It's a vitally important thing. The problem is the LGBTQ plus movement is a part of the culture of death and he is positive toward that.

Positive in the sense of seeking to find a way to be more inclusive and, and, um, you know, that kind of terminology.

Anyway, um, he's calling for the abolition of fossil fuels.

Now, fossil fuels is a misleading term. Initially, it was thought that oil and things like that was decaying remains of animals that lived millions of years ago.

We know that's not the case. We know that the earth actually, it's actually renewable, that the earth actually produces this kind of stuff.

But you need to understand something, and this is something people do not understand. The advancements in medicine, education, travel, and the lifting up of so many peoples in third world countries to a level of, um, life and property and food that they never had before is due to the use of affordable sources of energy, specifically, quote unquote, fossil fuels, coal, oil, shale, uh, these, these types of things.

These are affordable sources of energy. Solar and wind are not.

They, you know, they wear out over time. They're extremely expensive.

If it were not for government subsidies, in other words, your tax dollars, for example, EVs, um, the,

I saw a study recently that said that, that the average EV, if it didn't have government subsidies, subsidies behind it for its original cost, construction, charging stations, if it was, if it, if it was all that we had, which is what the government wants, um, the cost equivalency, um, would be $77 per gallon.

That's that's what would be, that would cost in current fuel sources would be $77 per gallon, which means none of us could afford it.

No one could travel, which is what they want. They don't want us traveling. If you can be limited to a, a gulag, a concentration camp, they call them 15 minute cities.

It's the same thing, um, to where you can't travel any longer. You can't communicate.

You can't meet with people. That's what they want. That's what tyrants always want. Um, look, look back at medieval

Europe, you know, people, people lived in 15 minute cities. They didn't travel more than seven miles, any one direction from where they were born.

And they were serfs. And they, they, they dug a pitiful living out of the ground and died of diseases and served the king and queen up in the castle or the

Duke and the Duchess, depending on where you were. And that's what they want to get. So that's, that's what these people are all about.

That's, that's where we're going. And the Pope's helping. Um, so, but what,

I can't believe the Pope doesn't know this, but what he's saying is stop making energy so affordable.

So who is most hurt by that? The very people he talks about all the time, the poor, how can he not know this?

That what he is saying would fundamentally lead to the massive diminishment of the quality of the poor.

He's talking about, well, we need to learn how to, uh, yeah. The Pope also called for a decisive acceleration in energy efficiency.

Well, that's nice. Renewable sources, eliminating fossil fuels and educating people to do without them.

We just need to educate you to become our serfs or just die or live in abject poverty.

But we have to save mother earth and it's a sin. Now look, there's, there's lots of Protestant leftist nut balls out there too.

But this guy is supposed to be the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. Ah, this isn't theology.

Oh, saying something is sinful isn't theology. Hmm. I wonder how that works.

But there you go. Um, this cop 28, you know, we used to just laugh at this stuff because it would, they'd frequently get snowed out, people couldn't get there because of the, of how cold it was in places.

And, and we just laughed, but we shouldn't have been laughing because these people want us in gulags.

They want, they don't want me to have the freedom to travel around to these places and meet, no, no, no, no, no,

I'm killing the planet. Well, no, I'm not. That's just an abject lie. But once it's established in law and you can't even question it any longer, what an effective way to, to lock everybody down.

Um, now speaking of which, I'm seeing a bunch of stuff online about people going into places and they're getting locked down and, and, uh, it's coming again.

And I've, I've said over and over again, you know, I know people are flying and doing their thing again.

And here I am in my RV and people like, wow, you're really stupid. You could be flying around the world again. And yeah, no,

I suppose, you know, we could have spent a whole lot of money to build back up my, uh, my access and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

But I'm sitting here going, we didn't fix what happened in 2020 and 2021.

Um, stuff is still coming out. Stuff just came out from New Zealand. In fact, I read an article, they arrested a guy in New Zealand for publishing a study, um, demonstrating the fatality rates from various batches of COVID -19 vaccines.

He, he, he, it's, it's a scholarly study and they arrested him. And the people that force that stuff into our bodies, the massive number of young people who have been dying of strange cancers and cardiac issues and, and blood clots and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And it continues to happen. Well, uh, we're just supposed to ignore all that.

No one's been held accountable for any of that. And they never will be. Not in this life.

They will be. There is a day coming. Act 1731. Uh, they, they will be someday, but they're not right now.

And they're still in charge. And so what's this new Chinese disease, uh, white lung disease?

Um, you'll notice the big thing they're pushing now is it goes after children because that, that's,

COVID didn't do that, so it didn't really work real well. And so the new one just in time for the 2024 election is, uh, white lung disease goes after kids and I'm sorry if you can just sit there and go, well, you know, we never know.

I mean, it could have happened. It could be, um, yeah, uh, that's, that's why

I said from the beginning, yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to keep my RV and we're going to put the studio in there and cause we ain't done.

This isn't over with yet. And I jokingly keep saying to the folks who are flying, okay, when you get locked down and when you can't get on that plane without that, uh, magic, uh, poison juice in your bloodstream, uh, and all of a sudden you're looking at finding some other way of getting around.

Let me know. I'll be happy to share what I've learned and do some videos and get you up to speed faster than I got up to speed.

Cause I sort of had to learn things as we went along. So there you go. Um, that's, uh, that's how it happens.

Um, okay. Uh, I, I had to,

I had to make a decision as to where we were going to go today. Uh, the, there are two topics and, and so the idea being probably later in the week,

I'm assuming Wednesday or Thursday, um, we'll be able to do another program.

Uh, tomorrow's gonna be a travel day and, um, and maybe even do two. We'll, we'll see if I'm feeling, feeling up to it.

Maybe, maybe we can. One thing, and the problem is both of these topics take a fair amount of time for prep and preparation and, and things like that.

Um, I have some videos, Jeff Durbin actually, uh, linked me to them. They just popped up in his feed and, uh, they're from, uh, what was it?

Uh, what was it called? Uh, St. Michael's Abbey, St.

Michael's Abbey. And there's these guys dressed all in white and, um, they're really, they, okay, they're, they're condescending.

They're, they're, uh, statements about Roman Catholic belief, but they're responding to Protestant belief, but they're, they're sort of arrogant.

Just, just to put it bluntly, they don't show much knowledge of the other side, what the other side has to say.

And one of the topics that is addressed at one point, this rather portly, looks like bishop type guy, um, is talking about how

Jerome had utterly obliterated this heretic long ago about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And, and, and, and I'm sitting here going, okay, so we're talking about Helvetius. Um, vast majority of people have never read what

Jerome wrote in response to Helvetius as one of his earlier works. There's actually interesting evidence that Jerome didn't continue to hold the position that he held when he was younger.

Uh, maybe mature reflection later on. Minimally, he made a few comments that make you go, huh,

I wonder if he's rethinking that at a later point in time. But there's just fascinating information, uh, that demonstrates that the perspective that Jerome presented just is indefensible.

It really honestly is indefensible. And yet it is what is repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And it's, that's, that's what this done in this video. Oh, Jerome answered that long ago and we've just gone on from there.

But the reality is it's, you know, it's got a huge number of holes in it.

And, um, and of course they did the, uh, the Lutheran Calvin thing as if they were central in studying any of this kind of stuff.

And, um, so we'll, we'll, we'll try to get some of that. Cause I think it's, I think it's important. There's a lot of discussion of Roman Catholicism going on right now.

And I think that's a, it's an important area to look at. But, so what we're going to do in the rest of this program, the next last 40 minutes we have here, is

I have owed Jared Longshore a response, uh, to what he posted.

Um, remember on Reformation Day, uh, he posted an article about the new covenant and children and stuff like that.

I responded to that on the dividing line. And then he wrote a response to that. And I think he recorded a response to that as well.

I just have the written portion here. And, uh, I said at the time, well, you know, there's a number of things

I'm trying to get to and getting ready to leave right now. So it's sort of hard to catch up with everything.

So, um, and it's now, uh, December. So if he does respond to me, he has to be really nice.

If it was November, he could do whatever he wanted to do. Um, if you don't get that, don't worry about it. Um, so I want to look at some of the stuff in the time we have.

And, uh, once again, when we're dealing with the issue of paedo -baptism, and of course this is in the context of, you know, right now the discussion of the

Moscow mood and all the rest of this kind of stuff. And, uh, we've had a lot of back and forth.

Uh, remember last year, Chocolate Knox had a guy on that was, um, literally blamed transgenderism on Baptists.

And, uh, and, uh, you know, so I ended up on CrossPolitik responding to that, and I did here on the dividing line.

And at least in that context, you end up having conversations with many. Let's just be honest.

When I criticize certain Reformed names out there, most of the time, they don't want to have that conversation.

They're not going to allow a back and forth. And no matter what else you're going to say, at least when you're talking to the folks up in Moscow, they'll go, all right, let's talk about it.

And let's talk about it without canceling the other side and without all the, you know, calling councils and anathematizing and dragging up everything from history and everything else in the process.

So you've got to give credit where credit's due. And, of course, they know where I stand and that I'm not going to, you know, sit back and go, oh, okay, fine, whatever, we'll just let that slide.

There's going to be a response. So when we work through some of this stuff, one of the main concerns

I have, and I don't want this response to go this direction, most of the time, this conversation bogs down and dies in the footnotes of the

Reformed Orthodox from the 17th and 18th and 19th centuries and I'll raise you a

Witsias and I'll give you a Turritan versus your Owen. And that's why most people in the pew don't end up overly edified by the conversation, is because they don't own

Witsias or Owen or Turritan. Or even when they read portions of these resources, they're left going,

I thought this was written in English. And, you know, half the time, the sentence will be a certain portion in English and a certain portion in Latin and a certain portion in some other language thrown in.

And the edification of the church factor tends to be very low when the conversation is not focused upon Scripture.

And, you know, I try to be consistent in this area.

I would say the exact same thing in regards to, well, for example,

I haven't said this in the program, but I've said it to some other people. I intend to try to find the time.

And again, I know February is coming. And it's only a matter of weeks away, literally a matter of days away.

And I do not at all feel like I've made much progress in preparation for all the debate.

It's not that I'm not thinking about them and thinking about what directions I want to go and stuff.

But as far as collection of all the research that I want, and things like that, I don't feel like I've made a lot of progress yet. So doing these other topics may not be all that wise, but I do want to do a review of Jacob Trotter's article from the

Journal of Classical Theology, which if I'm thinking clearly is a brand new thing, maybe it's...

There's a lot of groups that use that phraseology, but I think this is a fairly new one, on inseparable operations and talk about the difference between hard ISO and soft

ISO and the importance of the unity of the divine persons in the accomplishment of salvation, the working out of the divine decree, but at the same time, the danger of adopting a philosophical framework that then destroys the reality of the biblical revelation of the divine persons and their interaction with each other.

And I think produces a sterile...

Just far from the people in the pew when they're reading their

Bible, they're reading about the son talking about the father and the interaction and the transfiguration and the high priestly prayer and they're seeing all of this and they go to the epistles and there's this clear recognition of who the father is and who the son is and who the spirit is and the roles they've taken and our interaction with them and it's so vital and it's beautiful and it's astonishing that God would condescend to reveal himself in this way and to be intimately connected to his creation in this fashion and to unite the elect unto the son in a way that we're not united to the spirit or the father and then this philosophical system comes along and says, yeah, actually, the only way you can tell the difference between the father, son, and spirit is by this theological speculation about how they relate to each other in eternity past and no, we can't show you any of this in scripture whatsoever and no, we can't show you that the apostles actually believe in this or they would have even understood what we were talking about but we're going to say that this is the necessary thing to maintain orthodoxy and all the rest of that and so, you know, for years and years and years

I've felt that anybody who's read my book on the Trinity knows I want people to love the

Trinity I want people to be enraptured by the revelation

God has given to us and when I see that being endangered by the rise of an academic philosophicalism yeah,

I'm going to say something about it but I'm going to do it on the basis of scripture that's what we've been doing for a long time and so my response to Jared, likewise is not to, you know, so you want a quote of Witsius I'll raise you an

Owen or something that doesn't do anything there are certain people that that's where they live that's just what they do all day long and more power to you but I, you know, try to get out amongst the people instead of just in those, you know,

Facebook groups and so we're going to be looking at specific scriptural issues that are raised by the things that Jared said like I said,

I'm concerned about some of the stuff that's said because I saw a link and I went ahead and I eventually found it where on CrossPolitik Jared had made the statement when a

Christian husband and wife conceive a child the church grows and when

I hear that what I hear as the background presupposition to that is that to be a covenant child is to be promised to be of the elect and that hence if that covenant child will experience the divine work of regeneration and the gift of faith at some time in their life this is the promise of God every child of two

Christians is themselves a true Christian will be regenerate and are of the elect that doesn't mean that the elect is limited only to the offspring of Christians but the idea,

I think, for many people is that that is what becomes normative that it couldn't have been the case initially in the early church, obviously but that over time it would become the normative way and you can look around and go well, it does seem that most of the people who are

Christians come from a place where they had that as part of their background of course you also these days in our society a lot of the people who have abandoned

Christianity had that as their background as well and were baptized as infants so that's something to keep in mind too so anyway, we're not going to get anywhere because I haven't read anything yet here early on he says in his article this is for James White about those children in the

New Covenant Reformation Revival blog the nub of the issue is this the

Credo Baptist position says that the New Covenant is so unlike the old and so much better that each and every member of the

New Covenant is actively regenerate unlike the old when children were included the

Pedo Baptist position says the New Covenant is unlike the old and better by far but such that the inclusion of children in the

Covenant remains old and new now you'll notice there's no addressing there the nature of Covenant children and I'd really be interested in knowing

I'm sure Jared has read Pierre Marcel would Jared agree with the idea that Marcel expresses that Covenant children because of their

Covenant nature have the effect of original sin in essence cancelled for them so that they are almost like a new

Adam what is a Covenant child what is the spiritual difference and is there a fundamental promise because I hear all the time it's a promise to you and to your children if that's from Acts it's to you and your children the

Jews and to all who are far off, the Gentiles as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself if we need to go back over that that passage teaches

Divine Election that the Jews are not cast off in regards to being able to have faith in Christ that's what you and your children is that's the

Jews but it's talking about Divine Election and it is not a promise that to you, if you're a believer and your children will become believers and I don't know what you do with those who are far off that's not what it's saying and if we need to go there we can definitely do that on the basis of the text it's very, very important then he talks about the fact that when

I responded, I said look, my concern is if you take most of the

Pedobaptist interpretations of Hebrews 8 and the nature of the New Covenant and the writer of Hebrews utilization of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews chapter 8 as a linchpin of his argument he has, in chapter 7 said that Christ because of His priesthood which

He holds permanently is able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh unto

God by Him so he has demonstrated that in Christ we have something that the old priest did not have and that hence the old priest could not save to the uttermost because they are hindered by death whereas Christ is able to save the uttermost because He intercedes for a specific people and His intercession is absolutely effective that I would hope so my argument is

Hebrews it's an apologetic there's nothing to go back to and the supremacy of Christ starting in chapter 1 this is

Yahweh in human flesh this is incarnational language and then this, eventually the concept of priesthood is brought in priesthood and Melchizedek and everything else comes together so that by the time you get to chapter 8 you have those as backgrounds you have these amazing things that have been done in Christ, who

Christ is these are the backgrounds now you have the mediatorial work and then the proof that is provided by the writer from Jeremiah 31 is chapter 7

He is able to save Panteles to the uttermost

Panteles I was actually going to think about putting it up we will maybe in a second but if you want to take a look at it specifically in Hebrews 7 25 therefore

He is able to save Panteles completely those who draw nigh through Him to God because He ever lives to make intercession for them specifically so the

Hebrews 8 Jeremiah 31 citation is providing a

Old Testament support for the assertion of the perfection of the work of the

High Priest Jesus and then obviously and this is the whole argument about the nature of the atonement that atoning work is intimately connected with the intercessory work and so what does this intercessory work which results in the

Panteles complete salvation of those who draw nigh unto

God through Him who is He interceding for it says

He always lives to make intercession for them there is a specific people here these are the elect and so there is perfect consistency that in the next chapter when

He provides this extensive quotation from Jeremiah 31 that what you're going to see there is the perfection of Christ's work of atonement and intercession what's the result of having a better mediator what's the result of having a better High Priest with better promises and a better covenant well the assertion is made in Hebrews 7 perfection of salvation

He because He continues forever holds

His priesthood permanently He is able to save forever to completion a certain people because He lives always lives to make intercession for them so I would argue that when

I'm looking at Hebrews chapter 8 I'm not walking into this going well okay it's time for the

Beto Baptism argument again no that's not where the writer of Hebrews is but what

He is doing is He has made an assertion in chapter 7 He's backing it up in 8 and then

He's going to say in chapter 9 He has obtained eternal salvation these are things that could not be said under the old system and therefore when people are saying come back come back come back forget about this stuff here's the foundation saying there's nothing to come back to because He has actually accomplished what clearly in fulfillment had been prophesied about what the

Messiah was going to do and things like that so I would argue that when we look at chapter 8 and I say you know it says they will all from the least to the greatest of them they will all know

God their sins have been forgiven this is the scriptural foundation for the assertion was made in chapter 7 and if we go well but that doesn't mean they're all regenerate that doesn't mean that they all really know

God it's just that more of them do how does that fit with Hebrews 7 24 and 25 how is that because there were there were people who knew

God under the old covenant now the argument is what was because of the old covenant I don't want it

I don't want it that's not the language of Hebrews and that's where we jump off into stuff where we never end up getting out of the weeds

I want to stick with the Bible I deal with the Trinity I do that with reformed theology and predestination election and I do it with fatal baptism too and it drives some of you crazy but sorry just the way we do things around here so having said all that Jared says in short nothing

I've proposed destroys the apologetic argument of Hebrews because I with James and Paul could have said loud and clear to Jim Bob who's introduced before him you can't go back to the old covenant because there's nothing to go back to okay he says there are three alternatives for not going back and the three alternatives he gives is one don't go back to the old covenant because it never saved in the first place and it is vanishing two don't go back to the old covenant because the new covenant saves each and every one of its members whereas the old only saved a few of its members and the old is vanishing or three don't go back to the old covenant for though it saved some of its members it indeed is vanishing and the new covenant is far better and so he would say if I understand him rightly

James is number two I am number three and the 1689 Federalists are number one and again

I find this as a distraction from the real issue and I find the three options to have missed the point they're relevant obviously yeah they're relevant but they've missed one point and the one point is the perfection of the work of Christ because these are all focused upon what's the result of these things whereas the argument of Hebrews is he is able to save Panteles eventually completely and forever because he ever lives to make intercession

I think the clarity on the issue can be derived from sticking with the biblical language and going who does

Christ intercede for it seems that the author to the Hebrews is making a connection between those for whom

Christ intercedes and those who are the members of the new covenant in Hebrews chapter 8 who as a result of his work do not need to teach one another know the

Lord they all know him their sins are forgiven the law is written upon their hearts not the law is written upon more of their hearts but the law is written upon their hearts that's a fulfillment of this new covenant with the better promises and the better mediator who is interceding for a specific people and so that's where I go to my reformed pedobaptist brethren

I see a major inconsistency I made this argument when I debated the late

Greg Strawbridge I see a major inconsistency between your doctrine of election and your doctrine of baptism and I think it came about via history not via exegesis it came about via history you can see it when

Ulrich Zwingli's students end up debating him before the council in Zurich and getting kicked out but they're saying hey

Ulrich what you're saying would seem to lead to a believer's baptism perspective and what

Zwingli does is because of the princes and because of politics he goes that direction and I would argue whether you go with Bollinger or Calvin as first people whether you go to even an anabaptist the point is that at that point in time the reason for the development of the covenantal view of pedobaptism that is now held with modifications by various people and with a spectrum let's be honest a spectrum that goes all the way into sacerdotalism but the

Westminsterian and there's different understandings even amongst people who hold the Westminster on this the

Westminsterian perspective is still a theological novum in church history this is not when you look at the development and the rise of infant baptism in the church this was not how they understood it this was not why it was initially practiced it was practiced for different reasons at different times but it wasn't for this reason and when it became established eventually as the standard perspective it was not established on the basis of Calvin's eventual understanding or what you have in the

Westminster they're theological novums they're new things and they didn't come from exegesis and you can go back

I would imagine if you use the transcripts thing at almin .org

the transcripts you can go back to basically everything I have recorded for public consumption now from 1998 onwards and I may have said it before then but that's a long enough time it's 25 years quarter of a century

I have said you know over and over again one of my favorite theologians in the whole world is

John Calvin I know he would have kicked me out of Geneva I know that and I still love reading his stuff but I have said all along I love the

Institutes and I've read the shorter version and the final 1559 Latin which is what most of us use and he did a

French version after that but anyway but you get to book 4 and you get to this material and things change

I can see the change myself and so I greatly respect a man that I think was influenced by his times and influenced by these sources and that's where it came from so for me this is about consistency of exegesis and for us reform folks

I believe that who we baptize should be impacted and why we baptize should be impacted by what we believe about the atonement and about the intercessory work of Christ they are not something over here and something over here they should be we should be able to bring those things together and find a consistency and I would

I'm simply suggesting to you that from what I see aside from the variations that I see amongst

Presbyterians um the idea of the covenant child is the covenant child interceded for in the new covenant when

Jared says when a Christian husband and wife conceive a child the church grows does that mean that child is being interceded for in the same way that Jared is and I don't know if 1

Corinthians 7 passage is behind any of this I honestly honestly honestly say to my reformed pato -baptist brethren if a liberal like Paul K.

Jewett could put the standard pato -baptist interpretation of 1

Corinthians chapter 7 through the paper shredder the wood chipper let's go big paper shredders are small let's go big through the wood chipper that he did years and years and years ago um

I just that is one argument that every time

I really have to go oh lord give me patience because I just can't believe that people who can argue with such clarity on election and predestination and the glories of the sovereign eternal decree of God could then turn to a section where Paul is answering questions about mixed marriages because the gospel is going out and sometimes

God didn't save the other person in the marriage um it's about mixed marriages and it's about the the fact that your children are still your children they are holy they're not regenerated and they're not turned into covenant members or something it's not even what he's talking about it's just astonishing to me that people go there with that passage and I don't think we've ever actually walked through Jewett's argument you know maybe

I'm wrong maybe I need to take a look at it um yeah

I may need to take a look at the transcripts page and see if we haven't done that at some point

I know that I have in some context I don't know if it was on the dividing line but I'll have to take a look

I don't know wow it must be a little nippy outside because I think for the first time ever during the dividing line even though I have a space heater on over there which

I shouldn't have on I think about it because it's popped this circuit a few times but I think the propane heat in the unit here which is highly effective is about to kick on so you might hear something in the background and it's set at 57 so I'm rather comfortable in this this

Coogee it's a thick one too so it is my hands are a little bit on the cold side but yeah it's life outside of Phoenix it's different anyway so if you hear that don't worry about it alright

I continue on here because I haven't even gotten to his responses yet and we've covered a lot of stuff already but he says but I would simply point out the central apologetic argument is intact there's no going back to the old covenant because there's nothing to go back to as Paul writes in speaking of a new covenant he makes the first one obsolete was becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away okay alright but my argument is he quotes

Hebrews 8 it's between 7 24 and 25 and 9 10 through 11 where he's making the assertion that it is

Christ who has obtained eternal redemption and so the argument is

Christ actually is a perfect mediator so what does Jesus mediate to the covenant child who isn't regenerate what is it that is mediated

I've had Presbyterian brother before say he mediates wrath and I just go hi

I'm live on the dividing line right now and so are you no no no that's okay no everyone knows

I'm live that's cool and I'm not going to put you on don't worry I'm just holding the phone but I'm seeing

Dini right now and Dini's are they really interested in all the stuff that you have to have out because we have a leak under the sink isn't it amazing when you go out of town that's when stuff happens so hi

Dini I guess you wanted me to see Dini so yeah I was outside that's sweet that's really cool alright well

I'll give you a call back later I'm going to have dinner with Ken so alright we'll see ya bye bye

I really appreciate the fact that my dear wife she knows how much

I'm missing we adopted some of you don't know we adopted the kitten Dini most of you heard about that and then

I adopted a little tortie a female tortie two and a half years old from PetSmart and I shouldn't have done that but I did and I don't feel badly she was stuck in that cage for six and a half weeks and I love her her name's

Sophie and she's really sweet and she really loves me I hope she won't forget me by the time I get back but she takes the time to do

FaceTime with me so I can see the kitties and I can talk to them and maybe they'll hear my voice and stuff like that it's just how you my wife doesn't get to travel with me

I'm not sure she would really enjoy it but in this time in our life she's taking care of her mom she's very important in taking care of her mom she only lives about nine miles from us and so Kelly knows everything about every doctor in Sun City now which may be good for us in a few years she's already ready to go but I really appreciate that and she didn't know

I was doing the dividing line right now so we just did a live and I got C Dini he's getting huge I mean he doesn't look much like a kitten anymore he's almost six months old now so anyhow we can go a few minutes late if I have to to make up for that right in the middle of that important conversation about Reformed Theology oh hi dear how are you but that's fine it was vibrating so I'm like what am

I gonna do I wasn't all right we continue on so then what he does is he gives a nice summary of my position but I want to I think it would be useful to comment on a couple of these things and honestly

I'll tell you what if you're in Twitter and I prefer Twitter to Facebook thousand times

I'd like to hear back from you all do you want me to invest this kind of time in going this deep into interaction on this subject

I know I obviously know there's gonna be people no don't care I'd rather talk about the

Trinity or something like that but just in general I'd appreciate some feedback on Twitter if you're there as to how you feel about that and whether you want me to invest that kind of time or whether like the next dividing line should

I continue this or should I go into a discussion of Jerome Helvidius and the

Perpetual Virginity of Mary I might do both like I said I might have time for more than one program this week but I'd be interested in knowing it would be something that would be helpful to me to gauge where your interest is so what he does he says let me strong man

James point here it is thusly Hebrews 10 .10 says and by that will we have been sanctified with the offering the body of Jesus Christ once for all first James would say this speaks of a better sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ instead of the blood of bulls and goats the new covenant involves the sacrifice of Christ himself

Jared was once on our side so you mean to tell me that the covenant which pertains to such a better sacrifice will not save all of its members bucko

James wouldn't really say bucko but I would if I were him and I'm the one doing the strong manning so take that better sacrifice well

I think I might say bucko I might say to him in a debate so do you really believe bucko but you see what

I would say is this better sacrifice is connected to the intercession that Christ makes before the father and so this is plainly about the elect of God and so one of my questions would be to Jared bucko are all children that are conceived by Christian husband and wife of the elect is that an argument that you would actually make that there is that no

Christian couple has ever had a child that would die outside of Christ because if you're going to say that you're going to basically have to say then there's been a whole lot of people who thought they were

Christians who weren't um you know we could look at old testament examples but you know

I would just okay let's just answer that question are all

Christian children children conceived by a Christian husband and wife of the elect because my argument is

Christ intercedes only for his people trinitarian harmony in the gospel the father elects the son dies for they're united to him so he dies for them he intercedes for them before the father which is involved with their

I mean his mere presence before the father as their representative is the substance of that intercession it's the finished work of his it's the finished nature of his work and then the father and the son send the spirit to regenerate specifically those elect people at the time that the decree of God says that's going to happen perfect harmony father son spirit in the salvation of the elect so that makes sense in my position um there is consistency in who

Christ intercedes for Christ is not never fails in his intercession you don't have the father not willing the salvation of anyone for whom

Christ intercedes so if that's true then to whom should we give the sign of that new covenant that better covenant with this better mediator should we give the sign of the new covenant to someone that Christ will not be mediating eternal salvation to now you might say well you do you've baptized people who turn out to be apostates okay that's true and that means that they lied to us okay but what is the intention is it do we believe that there is a promise that every child of a

Christian couple is of the elect and hence will have Christ interceding for there's that's a question uh second who in tarnation is the we do you mean to tell me that the we is a covenant people only some of whom will go to heaven why does the text not say and by that will some of us uh by that will some of us have been sanctified and others have not so that's the idea of the mixed covenant under the old but the new covenant involves everyone uh everyone has their sins forgiven everyone has the law written upon their heart so does every child born of a of Christian parents have the law written upon their heart and is there not something very special about the way that Christians regenerate believers have the law written on their heart that's

I think vitally important as well third zooming out a bit from this text the context clearly speaks of better promises he is the mediator of better covenant which was established by better promises but you sprinklers of infants leave the new covenant promises no better than the old for the promises of both corn you don't secure each and every member well that's true but my focus isn't so much on that as but as why that is why is it that it doesn't secure each and every member in the pedo baptist perspective in light of he is able to save to the uttermost those drawn to God by him seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them so there is the consistency of who's being interceded for this is the result of their being interceded for they are the elect therefore chapter 9 he has obtained eternal salvation and then chapter 10 by this one will be perfected so you have this consistency all the way through most of my pedo baptist brethren will say no um either these this is what it will be eventually down the road um or literally

I have literally had and they're my brothers I love them but I can't follow them here at all have literally said yes what

Christ mediates to those who receive the covenant sign but who are not of the elect is wrath he mediates wrath to them judges them um and I go that's not the new covenant that's not

Hebrews 8 that's not the fulfillment from Jeremiah 31 and that's not the consistency from Hebrews 7 8 9 10 um fourth the same

Hebrews 8 6 says that Christ has obtained a more excellent ministerial ministry but as with his sacrifice shall this mediator who is

Christ himself not effectively mediate each and every one of his new covenant people unto salvation new covenant people now in this way of putting it we're talking about the elect right if not what makes his more excellent ministerial ministry more excellent amen amen that's yep there you go uh fifth that same

Hebrews 8 6 says the new covenant Christ mediates is better but it's not seemed that much better to me if you can slip out this new covenant bond just like you could the old well more so more what

I would say is that you had a clear you had clear covenant sign bearers who clearly did not have circumcised hearts so they bore the external sign that had to do with their being part of a ethnos um and what you have with the new covenant is you have spiritual circumcision you have the law being written upon the heart the very thing that happened under the old but it was not the universal experience under the old and that's what they were being told to come back to and the point of the new is why go back to that because the better promises better mediator is all wrapped up in this

Hebrews chapter 1 where in verses 10 through 12

Psalm 102 25 to 27 is quoted it's Yahweh the unchangeable God who has become flesh that's why it has to be so much better not just in oh yeah it's really nice it's much much better no it is better in that it is he by this one will he has perfected that's where the issue is um so last thing that we'll have time to do here um by way of summary the apologetic argument according to James I understand him is not merely that you should not go back to the old covenant but there is nothing to go back to but it is also that you should not go back to the old covenant because the new covenant sacrifice is better sanctifying each and every member 1 the new covenant people are better each and every one of them being actively regenerate 2 the new covenant promises are better ensuring the active regeneration of each and every member 3 the new covenant ministerial ministry is better ensuring that Christ mediates such that each and every new covenant member goes to heaven because they are united with him and 4 and the new covenant itself is better it being designed as a bond that cannot be unbounded by a single new covenant member because of the decree of God for the elect the elect are united with Christ so you have the harmony of the father's election the son's dying for and interceding for the spirit's coming and applying triune

God accomplishing all these things in the salvation of the elect and that's who is in the new covenant that's why they all know him from the least to the greatest of them that's what election is and that's what the spirit accomplishes so there you go and then his reply begins after that I have lots of colorful stuff noted here to get into and we'll see if we do that in the next program or the program thereafter we'll see but I have it here and we'll be able to pick up at that particular point and again

I just hope that this kind of stuff is useful and that you want to get into this area of conversation discussion and that it's being done between Christians please

I enjoy this kind of conversation I mean it can't go on forever it just keeps getting longer and longer and longer and I enjoy bringing other people into it and it just seems to me that especially amongst us

Reformed this should be something that we are able to do and willing to do without anger and vitriol and cancellation and all stuff that comes along with it but that just isn't my experience with a lot of people in Reformedom these days especially if you start talking about someone named

Thomas Aquinas where you start talking about hard simplicity, soft simplicity hard ISO, soft

ISO it just seems like certain people, man, we're just going to cancel you, we're just going to tell people you're not

Orthodox anymore, you never were you're just ignorant stuff like that, it's sort of sad but that's how that goes anyway thanks for watching