SRR #47 Interview with & Apology to Andrew Rappaport | Sanctification & Monergistic Synergism | NCT & the Law

I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. These are these are wolves truth be told that I oftentimes lay awake at night trying to figure out how

I can get rid of wolves in the church. We are unabashedly unashamedly

Clarkian and so the next few statements that I'm going to make I'm probably going to step on all of the

Vantillian toes at the same time and this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio you know we are polemical and polarizing

Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion.

It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said woe to you and men speak well of you for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. All right welcome back everybody this is

Simple Riff around the radio and my name is Tim Shaughnessy not Tim Hurd the other guy who is the

Bible thumping wingnut. We are part of the Bible thumping wingnut network. Just heard the news that Rap and Grace radio is not going to be a part of the network anymore so we want to wish those guys the best in their future endeavors.

We're certainly praying for their ministry that God will bless them and that they will succeed so Godspeed guys and with that we are just going to jump right into a very important public service announcement.

So let's just let's just dig into this. I have with me

Carlos Montijo and he is going to be taking on Andrew Rappaport mano a mano.

No I'm just kidding. We actually said something that was wrong last week and we wanted to make it right so we brought on Andrew after last week's episode aired

Andrew contacted me and we we talked about what was said with regards to Andrew and we are very very grateful that he is decided to come on the on the show with us today so we can go ahead and talk to him about it.

Set the record straight and and ask Andrew to forgive us and you know

I think that this is the way things like this should be done and they should be done quickly and so thank you

Andrew for coming on. Let me give you an opportunity to say hello. Oh you know what Andrew has a ministry called Striving for the

Ever After. I'm just kidding it's Striving for Eternity. That's Andrew Rappaport who cannot pronounce

Semper Referendum on the radio but that's Andrew Rappaport. So Andrew how's it going? Oh well

I do appreciate you guys having me on. It really is a privilege to be back with you guys too and maybe not always you know this way but you know it's just we

I think I'll say some to start off is you know I contacted you guys privately just to say hey

I didn't say that and both you guys were really quick to to sort through the issue to address it and and even extended an opportunity for me to come on and part of your show even for a bit is really a privilege and I do want to encourage others to follow your example.

I mean if we're wrong myself included we should say so and we should be willing to admit when we're wrong and not too many people like doing that.

Well once we ask for forgiveness what what else can they do? It's like he said he was sorry guys leave him alone.

So Carlos you you want to jump in here why don't we why don't we explain to our listeners a little bit about what was said and a little bit about why you got the wrong impression how how what you said was wrong and we can just take it from there.

Sure thing yeah we thank Andrew very much for coming on and willing to come on and you know help clear the air and stuff.

This has been a busy I think the last episode has probably been the one of the busiest for us just because of all the updates we've had to make to it.

So yeah but unfortunately when the first public service announcement that I made on last episode episode 46

I made a correction like what I thought was a correction to a statement that I thought

Andrew made on Theology Gals episode 8 on dispensationalism and it wasn't about dispensationalism

I mean the episode was but his comment was about covenant theology and what I thought he meant was

I wasn't actually sure what he meant so I assumed that what he meant was that Aquinas that the the threefold division of the law actually came from Aquinas and so I kind of just assumed that and I ran with it

I didn't follow up with him you know privately beforehand and we waited a while to get the to get that out

I mean as you know the episode 8 happened a while ago and we were you know stuff got buried and so everything just got kind of lost in my head and just sort of conflating together so that's not actually what he said at all if you listen to the episode so my my apologies go out to Andrew and we thank him for his graciousness and his willingness to come on and I also

I really you know sometimes you know I can get a little caught up with stuff and it gave a really bad impression of of how

Andrew is but if you actually listen to that episode he not even just that episode but even in that episode he

Andrew's always very very very careful he tries to be extremely careful and and meticulous when when he's describing views that are not his own and we are extremely grateful for that we we very much value that here at Simple Referendum on the radio we strive we actually try to be just like that in our show we do strive to be fair and accurate when representing others even though obviously we have no problem making pointed criticisms but not at Strauman we don't we don't we try very hard not to do that and so we've learned a lot from Andrew's example and again it's

I didn't I I don't want our listeners to get the impression that Andrew is sloppy or careless because he is not at all so that was that was entirely just out of line it was out of step it was my fault and and I hope that this helps to clear up the the any any kind of false you know portrayal that I made about brother

Andrew here so thank you Andrew and is there anything that you had to say about it or or you know anything to follow up or anything like that well

I mean like I said privately I forgive you you know it wasn't thank you do this we all kind of speak off the cuff at times and and get things jumbled in or I think what you were referring to really was something

I should have made clear it's something that I've talked privately with Colleen before we did that episode so she knew exactly what

I was talking about and yet I don't think I made it clear to her audience and it allowed for some confusion and I mean what

I had said one of the things that I had said I wasn't even talking about Aquinas or the threefold division of law which was helpful for me that you brought that out because I always used to say that you know like gee

I don't know where I find that other than in the Westminster confession but it was actually before the Westminster but uh but you know but the

I would always say that jokingly though but but seriously the the thing that I think I said that got got this got me in trouble with this is the is

I referenced the fact that covenant theology is is really grounded in the hermeneutic of it was from Roman Catholicism and people go ah he's saying that it's wrong because it's

Catholic and that's the problem I didn't really clarify because the Reformers were reforming the

Catholic Church and and they didn't just they didn't just drop that hermeneutic and start with a brand new one they took what they knew what they had studied the same hermeneutic they changed it in the sense that they were saying so so they weren't allowing councils or a church to interpret

God's Word so there were changes that they made and that was called reformed theology and so I I often would say you know technically you guys believe in reformed theology because that's really what the

Reformers were were especially after Luther you know Lutheranism has its own you can slowly see the changes from Roman Catholicism to Luther to you know like Calvin and others and you'd have some there were more literalists that had come on and so I made that kind of more offhanded statement without giving the explanation

I think some people heard me say you know just reference that Roman Catholicism was was founded in Catholicism and just because it's founded in Catholicism doesn't mean it's wrong

I mean not everything the Catholic Church did was wrong that may freak people out but especially after the several episodes you guys did on Catholicism but it was something that I should have clarified because it's it's really you know people ask me if I'm reformed if I believe in reformed theology

I'm either gonna say no or I'm gonna ask what they mean by that because the majority of people think reformed theology is what's often called

Calvinism or God's sovereignty in soteriology the doctrine of salvation right and yet that's not really what historically reformed theology was it was a way of interpreting the

Bible separate from the Roman Catholic Church and dispensationalism is yet another way a new covenant theologies you know yet they're different interpretation styles of interpretation or methods and I think that added you know that because I didn't give the context and that it added confusion it made it easy for you

Carlos to to take and misinterpret very easily I didn't give the context and so I think some of that blame falls on me for not providing that context and and so therefore

I need to ask your forgiveness and really for her listeners as well for the girls over at Theology Gals.

Well I mean we there's definitely no need to apologize to us but we are we are thankful for you and actually

I do have to call you out though on that episode because you actually called Louis Lyons, you called him

Louis Loins and Colleen did correct you on that but then you called me

Carlos Montino so that's our public service announcement correction right there that's what

I should have you know made the correction. Go to the Bible Thumping Wingnut Network and try to find a

Salt and Light podcast. See where that's at so I'm calling you out

Carlos for that. Yeah. I honestly don't think that you need to apologize for anything it was it was a failure on our part

I mean one of the things that you pointed out to me that I thought was really helpful was if you have access to somebody contact them personally and say hey you said this is this what you meant can you elaborate or clarify and we didn't do that so I think that the onus falls on us to do that so I mean

I appreciate I appreciate the humility that you're that you're showing and just the graciousness that you're showing us to come on and work this out but I honestly don't hold you responsible for for any of it but Carlos was there anything else that you that you had?

Yes I did want to actually also you know because I I don't know people may not have seen this already but I did update the show notes to episode 46 and I posted them on the

Bible Thumping Wingnut group so some people may have seen that you know basically laying out my apology and the timestamps and the errors that I made regarding Andrew what what

I thought Andrew said and but I also actually really want to thank Andrew and his ministry because he what he does is actually it's a very helpful it's very helpful to to the cause of Christ and to the edification of the church because what he likes to do is you know set up opposing views to get together and hash things out you know you have the clashing of theology series you have like the covenant versus new covenant theology series you know episode that I did with Lewis Lyons and he also did some previous ones with actually pastor

Paul Kaiser of the porch and you know dispensationalism versus new covenant and and so on and so forth so I think those are very helpful ways of of do of dialoguing as Christians with different differences of certain certain kinds of you know doctrines that may not necessarily be primary issues but are still nevertheless important and especially important when when you're disagreeing to somebody's theology or reacting to it you don't want to be reacting to a straw man or to a misrepresentation of that so I think those those those forums and those opportunities that you provide for people to to jump on and and you know hash things out and clarify and correct things

I think has been a very tremendous blessing and very edifying for people to take a look at that actually you know we just did one you know a clashing of theologies episode on sanctification it was like a two and a half hour you know clashing of you know the some of the different network hosts from Bible Thumping Venus so I highly recommend people to check that out you know we got to talk a lot about different things and a lot of different kinds of issues were were involved there so again we are very thankful for Andrew it was really not

I don't want people to think that we you know that that what my initial you know statement about him kind of made it seem like he was irresponsible or anything like that it's quite the opposite the exact opposite is actually true

I've actually met very little people who is as careful as he is so and actually for that reason

I'm actually I want to get Andrew's book you know what do they believe it's probably gonna it's probably a very good book seeing how how careful

Andrew tries to be so I do plan on getting that sometime in the near future and I would also recommend that book to our believers which is to our believers to our listeners which is actually it's like a systematic theology of you know other major world religions or something like that right correct correct six of the major the way major Western religions awesome yeah

I have I took a religious studies class and you know some I have I have a religious studies minor from a secular

University and the textbooks are terrible probably worthless yeah yeah they are absolutely terrible and so I need to I need to up my game with those and get a better reference but yeah that was that was mainly what we wanted to you know communicate well we highly recommend you check out

Andrew's ministry his episodes we do you know he's a dispensational he so we do disagree with him on certain issues and you know you kind of saw some of that if you saw the episode on sanctification but by and large we have we have a very much in agreement with a lot of things a lot of important issues and doctrines as well so we thank you

Andrew hopefully we can have you come on in the future you know over something that's not for the same reason hopefully yeah and you have a you have time to answer a question sure let me just say yeah

I thank you for your kind words and you know you mentioned the the clashing of the clashing of theologies it's actually gonna play because Matt slick and I did not do a recording of slick answers folks tune into slick answers that's a separate

RSS feed than Bible something winged up but if you do a search for slick answers it'll play you'll hear

Carlos referring to the shine as a light salt and lights living glass houses shouldn't throw stones so you're posting the audio on the on that feed then okay that's good to know yeah that we're gonna do that we did the previous one when

Matt and I miss where that'll become its own podcast eventually but right now we're just slipping them in when

Matt and I can't record awesome good to know do you know what the next one is gonna be about well the the originally

I thought it was gonna be on apologetics because that was the okay in our list that was the next one but suddenly some some folks got in and the historical genesis moved up the line which

I'm going okay so we'll see we'll either do pine you know the sanctification one a lot of the comments from the the you know and for folks that don't know clashing of theologies is a once -a -month podcast where all the guys who are on or guys and girls on the

Bible something we can network get together and just hash through different theologies and we did we did one on sanctification and people were going now what agree with well we found plenty to disagree with and but it was good you know

I mean I really think that this is a spirit that we should have with one another even in areas we disagree

I disagree with a lot of of my friends and some of that disagreement is is strong and gets heated and we love it because it's iron sharpening iron but we never hate each other

Matt's like and I he's a real good friend of mine and I don't agree with much of so but but there's a lot of things he and I disagree on and what a lot of people like to watch us disagree because the the the love and care we have for one another when we disagree we're actually gonna do there's a conference in New Jersey called the

New Jersey apologetics conference it's gonna be in October and Matt and I are gonna do one that I thought

I was never gonna be willing to do with Matt we're gonna discuss spiritual gifts and we're gonna do it live in front of an audience yeah that that should be really good well

I know I know it's late where you're at and I don't want to keep you up too late but I really appreciate you coming on and I really appreciate everything that you are doing and I'm very grateful to be a part of this network and a ministry under striving for eternity so Carlos you have anything to add before we go no that was all thank you very much under for coming on and we do hope to have you in the future sometime about you know featured future topics that we want to pursue with you like what like all my heresies cuz

I got plenty maybe we'll invite you to but to talk about dispensationalism oh yeah that'd be fine yeah it's coming yeah really you know

I think that when you get to heaven you guys will figure out that you should have been following it all along but that's okay no

I I really do appreciate the privilege of being able to come on here and talk with you guys

I do see it as an honor you guys have a very serious podcast with serious content and and every time

I'm learning something and so I really appreciate it it's it's one of the podcasts

I will always listen to because of the the content the amount of information given in a in a short period of time it's it's amazing how much you guys pack in and it's one of the podcasts

I suggest many people to listen to well thank you I appreciate that by that thank you and we did we do a want to say that wow

I just went blank and I was gonna say something really important that sucks oh my gosh well

I'm sorry I remember now I remember no thank you thank you thank you thank you

Andrew the privilege is all ours it is a privilege to have you on here and you know to stay tuned folks we do look forward to it and you know sometime in the future to have him on and hash things out with dispensationalism maybe or something like that so but thank you again

Andrew how did you forget to say that I have no idea and I just thought about it like yeah that's a really strange thing for your mind to go blank on we'll see you again we'll be you know hopefully we'll be catching you on the theology clashing what's it called again the theology clash these it'll be clashing of theologies all right and with that I'm just gonna go ahead and take a break play a word from our sponsors and we'll be right back this podcast is a member of the

Bible thumping wingnut Network all right welcome everybody to another podcast episode with Semper Reformanda radio hi welcome to theology gals welcome everyone to the logical belief ministries podcast well welcome to school of biblical harmonics welcome everybody to grappling with theology what is going on guys shine his lights coming at you well welcome to slick answers good evening and welcome to conversations from the port welcome ladies and gentlemen to the

Bible thumping wingnut podcast the Bible thumping wingnut

Network 10 podcast 1 network check them out Bible thumping wingnut looking for that perfect track for your next evangelism outreach look no further at tracked planet comm we have solid biblical tracks that are a breeze to hand out they are beautifully designed and are the highest quality tracks available with over 80 different designs in stock and literally hundreds more available by custom order we're sure to have just the right one for you you can get any of our items printed with your church or ministry information or have us design a brand -new track just for you we are committed to the solid biblical message of law to the proud and grace to the humble each tract is firm on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the necessity of repentance and faith in salvation come check us out at tracked planet comm and make sure you use coupon code

BTW n a checkout for 10 % off your entire order that's

TR a CT planet comm coupon code BTW n all right we are back and I just wanted to let everybody know that China's lights is not salt and light so Adam I apologize on behalf of Carlos for that little mix -up and and also the the wrath and grace guys they are as I said moving moving out so maybe we might be updating this little promotional clip that Tim put together you know hopefully we'll be getting some other podcasts to come on so with that being said let's

I have with me Carlos and we're gonna go ahead and jump into this

Carlos you recently jumped on to the latest clashing of theologies episode with with the guys from from some of the other networks

I think Vince was there Paul Kaiser was there Colleen Sharp was there

Adam was there and and then a John Wilkinson popped in for a little bit

I saw that I don't think that he he yeah he said much and then

Andrew Rapport of course was there but a overall impression man what did you think

I had a really good time I thought it was really helpful a really good discussion on a number of different issues tied to sanctification

I would have I would have liked to pursue some other some some topics pertaining to it more a little bit more but they already had like a list of questions that they wanted to cover and but it was nevertheless a very good discussion

I was and I was actually kind of I enjoyed Andrew jumping in more because when when

Lewis and I had our discussion it was more just me and him and Andrew would he wasn't really you know he was just kind of letting us talk but I enjoyed his interactions yeah he you know that you can tell you can kind of tell when somebody's been theologically trained because he knows how to ask all the right questions so Andrew always asked very good questions that kind of provoke the issue you know expose the issue and see where you land on and stuff like that so it's a very good way of you know drawing out certain things and and getting people's perspective on how well they answer it you know consistently according to the

Bible and things like that so it was a really good discussion we covered a lot of different stuff I highly recommend people to check it out like Andrew said it's going to be in the slick answers podcast so you know you can search for that and and and check and check it out and and I did also want to you know to kind of set the groundwork for that a little a little bit because there are some things that we wanted to kind of talk about a little bit more and sort of give our take on I did want to take the time to to read my my apology to Andrew and to the just some of the statements that I had made to clarify what was what we said what

I said specifically on episode 46 so I'm just going to start from the top here it says I Carlos Montijo am deeply sorry and apologize to Andrew Rappaport for misrepresenting what he said about covenant theology in his interview with theology gals episode 8

I misunderstood what he said at minute 1240 by assuming he was referring to the claim that the threefold division of the law came from Aquinas based on a previous discussion that wasn't public we are removing that portion from the episode

I deeply regret giving our listeners the impression that brother Andrew was sloppy or careless in his presentation of covenant theology quite the opposite is true for anyone who knows him is aware that he is extremely diligent to be a fair and accurate as possible when presenting views that are not his own we had separate from under radio share the same convictions and strive to emulate them to emulate his quintessential example

I'm also very grateful to brother Andrew for the opportunity he provided me to discuss covenant theology and new covenant theology with Lewis Lyons and for being able to participate in his clashing of theology series because he recognizes the importance of direct interaction with one another especially opposing views which in many cases is far more fruitful than than one -sided monologues

I also want to clarify my comments about Jason mullet being largely ignorant of new covenant theology it was not at all meant to be an insult or jab nor was

I at all implying or suggesting that that I would have been the better representative against Dustin Seegers who is a knowledgeable and seasoned

NCT proponent it was simply based on what Jason himself said on conversations from the courts episode 50 at the 1 -hour 4 -minute 30 -second timestamp that he had not done a lot of reading on NCT and that the only thing he had read was the first three chapters of Charles Leiter's the law of Christ anyone who actually listened to our episode knows that I recommend that I commended brother

Jason for for being an excellent debater especially on topics that he knows well such as his discussions with latent flowers on Calvinism and even flowers commended

Jason for representing the Calvinist view well so I said I was disappointed because if Jason had done more reading he would have been better prepared to interact with Dustin's arguments some of which were based on misunderstandings of the reform faith one example is a minute is in our our one minute 23 of conversations from the porch episode 50 where Dustin claims that the reform view equates the moral law to the

Ten Commandments exclusively and further claims that historically this is how covenant theologians have always defined it unfortunately many new covenant theology proponents make this error conversations from the porch has continued to repeat this error despite our attempts to correct it including in this episode all they need to do is read the

Westminster larger catechism questions 93 and 98 question 93 says what is the moral law the moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind directing and binding everyone to personal perfect and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto in the frame and disposition and disposition of the whole man soul and body and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man promising life upon the fulfilling and threatening death upon the breach of it question 98 where is the moral law summarily comprehended the moral law is summarily comprehended in the

Ten Commandments which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai and written by him in two tables of stone and are recorded in the 20th chapter of Exodus the four first Commandments containing our duty to God and the other six our duty to man

I nevertheless think Jason did a great job and hope he continues to study NCT and engage in discussions or debates with them perhaps we can even join forces in the future maybe it would have been better for me to say that Jason's knowledge of NCT was limited as opposed to largely ignorant of I myself am largely ignorant of many things and I'm sure

Jason is far more knowledgeable than I am about many things as fellow Reformed Baptists we are very much in agreement with Jason and even listed as episode critiquing

NCT on our playlist on our eyes simple reform on the New Covenant theology playlist that we have on the

Bible something we know website I did not at all dismiss Jason for not being a Sabbatarian as pastor

Paul Kaiser of conversations from the porch claimed in minute 53 of the recent episode their last episode which

I believe I don't think it had a number but it was supposed to be I think 53 but they called the latest 153

I think it's called ramblings from the porch or something like that nor did I ever say that Jason didn't know what he was talking about or immodestly imply that I would have done better as Ryan does here claimed in minute 51 30

I hope we can all have more fruitful discussions in the future and sharpen each other as brothers in Christ Semper Reformanda Carlos Montijo so that I posted that yesterday and you know kind of initiating the process of you know correcting what we had what

I had said about Andrew right right and just on that note your comments about Jason not holding to the

Sabbath was nothing more than a caveat and it's very similar to the caveat that J .D.

Hall gave of us when he played our episode with over Tim Keller and if you listen to that he said you know these guys are

Reformed Baptists he you know said this this was a very good episode or something like that and but then he he let his audience know he said you know but they hold to the to the gifts and he said you know just he encouraged us to just embrace article one so he wasn't dismissing us at all it was just it's a little caveat and that's that's really with regards to that you you were not dismissing

Jason for not being a Sabbatarian it was he's he's a Reformed Baptist and you know

I'm still working through the the Sabbath issue myself I find that I'm agreeing more and more with the

Reformed Baptist position then then when we when we first started out but hey

Semper Reformanda right so that's that's what that's all about and and I really appreciate you for for the humility and just you know tackling it this way because and you know

I hope that these guys will will see that that you weren't you weren't trying to be proud

I think that for us seeing that we've we've been wanting to have these conversations and this was actually prior to when we recorded this this was prior to us learning that Paul Kaiser was going to open open up the door to to have these conversations on their podcast so maybe you know you can you can jump on there and join them and and we certainly would want to commend them for for willing to have direct dialogue and and be willing to interact on on that level so I hope that this little ordeal just you know ends there yeah you know if you listen to their episode the rambling episode where they you know said some of those you know incorrect statements about my motives or about what

I was you know trying to do or come off as you know they they did say that they don't want to do another back -and -forth they don't want to do it back and forth with us and I agree

I agree 100 % we don't want to do that again and I recognize we've we've recognized that you know the the opportunity that I had to jump in on sanctification episode with the other hosts as well as Paul Kaiser I think that was a very good those that's pretty much the best opportunity to talk about stuff like this with them and so yeah it's a great opportunity that they're opening up for you know whoever who wants to join them on their episode and and you know just jump on and hash things out we may very well take them up on that opportunity and the reason we wanted that from the beginning was because of what actually happened you know we we don't have a problem admitting that we're wrong and we want nothing more but to be on good terms with conversations from the porch we we love them we appreciate them as brothers very much we care a lot about them and we care a lot about the issues that they are raising new covenant theology is a very important issue and it is it is it is taking it is sweeping into you know it has a lot of influence it's getting it's becoming influential in a lot of Baptist churches especially even in my church that that discussion has already started you know it's already started my pastor is already starting to address it so they are very important issues and this is why we we did take the time to address them and we're going to continue to take the time to address it and to continue to refine to to hone in on our criticisms to help them point them into a more consistent direction with the scriptures you know when we bring corrections to what they say it's not so that we can prove that we're right and they're wrong it's to get them to stop what they're doing so that they don't give their listeners the wrong impression of what reform theology is and what it holds to and so that they can actually understand the position well enough to formulate a decent argument against it should they wish to do so so that is why we're doing this you know as Christians we have the responsibility of understanding the the opposing view respecting it and representing it accurately in all of our dealings you know that we don't rhetoric and using rhetoric and all this other stuff that's not what

Christians do when we're especially with other believers you know like that's just unacceptable that should that's not even that shouldn't even be a thought in our mind to do that and so the reason you know like we have tried to bring correction to a lot of the things that conversations from the porch has said especially about covenant theology reform theology because as I said from the very beginning their episodes just about every time they talk about it they misrepresent it even in their latest in their later episodes you know and that's why

I commended I did come in brother Paul Kaiser and I'm still very grateful that he's reading reformed

Baptist theology and recommending recommending it to his listeners that is most definitely a step in the right direction we have been doing the same we are reading

NCT authors we are critiquing them we are we are seeing what they actually say and giving you our perspective on it and so we've tried to bring correction to a lot of things that they say we've done it on the show several times we've done it on Facebook and we've even tried to do it privately on some occasions as well and you know sadly and disappointingly none of it seems to be working and so but I think the opportunity that we have to address each other directly and in the kind of dialogue that took place on the clashing of theologies on sanctification

I think that's probably the best way to go about it to address air out our concerns our disagreements are and you know actually engage and actually really because when you're when you're on the forum like that you can't back out of stuff and you can't just ignore the comment or whatever you know so that is our hope you know we we we we do want to be able to learn from each other and sharpen each other okay and that means that we're going to make very pointed criticisms about New Covenant theology because you know we have some serious concerns about it there's a lot of problems on New Covenant theology is is perpetuating and we're going to address them so it is in the spirit of brotherly love in Christ and we we we were hoping that things get better from here it does seem like they will be but we can't at the same time whitewash the history of what actually happened before you know because Paul Kaiser kind of gave the impression that oh well you know we didn't really have a you know we we made it clear that we wanted to do this from the beginning we didn't want to engage anybody yet and it's like well no that's not true you know that's that's not true they gave us a different impression from the very beginning we decided to engage them and so like and then it just completely fell apart because they ended up not wanting to and you know we don't have to revisit that all over again and I'm not trying to you know right you know bring resurrect all this stuff all over again but let's be honest with what actually happened yeah we've covered all of that before from the beginning we had one impression and then

Paul Kaiser I think you know he did say that afterwards here because I do remember him saying that you know we want to when we were asking them to engage and they they were reluctant they didn't want to that then he corrected our misunderstanding about about where they were at and he said you know they wanted to lay the groundwork first so he did say that it was just at a later point it wasn't the initial impression that we got and and you know hopefully that's all water under the bridge so we don't want to back and forth between them it's funny because they said that they didn't want to back and forth between us and them or maybe it wasn't about us but they said that they didn't want to back and forth after they critiqued the episode of clashing with theologies and so I'm hoping that we can we can do the same thing that they did that we can sort of critique some of the things that came out of that episode because that's what we're going to do right now and I'm hoping that we won't be accused of trying to create a back -and -forth because you know we're not holding we're not holding that to them they critiqued some of the things and then they said they don't want to back and forth and okay we understand what we're fine with that we want to just give our perspective about some of the things that were said and so one of the things that we wanted to talk about was the the ordo salutis and and the arguments made by Paul Kaiser and conversations from the porch and man

Carlos I I stepped in it big -time man because I I sent

Paul a text and I said I think you're right about the ordo salutis oops and then

I went back man I'm trying so hard I'm like I'm trying so hard to just like you know

I want to affirm them in some way and I realized that I I guess

I wasn't paying attention clearly enough because I did not hear him say that conversion was synergistic and it's actually pretty funny man because I'll play the clip and so I I think what happened was

I was distracted you know I was listening to it on my on my phone and and I probably just didn't catch this this one part but I'll play the clip as that explains why

I thought and I was even kind of baffled like I was like why are you disagreeing with him on this but let me see if I can go ahead and play this right now hold on did you hear what

I said a result of regeneration absolutely and God regenerates us monogistically just look at the reformed order salutis

Google it yeah that's not I don't think that's true so that's what

I heard God regenerates us monogistically and then right on the heels of that Colleen said no one would say that and then

Carlos said I don't think that's true and I didn't realize that you guys were actually objecting to the the thing that I missed before that where Paul said that that conversion was synergistic

I believe that's what he said but we're gonna go ahead and play the clip so that way we we're sure to get him right but I sent him a text and I said yeah

I think you're right and then I had a conversation with Carlos later and he said no that's not what we were objecting to and he pointed me it pointed out that he said that conversion was was synergistic and I thought oh man

I got it wrong and I mean fortunately in the text I said

I need to go back and listen to it again but anyways I tried so hard I really did so brother

Paul I'm sorry man I I tried so hard so in their episode of rambling with theology they they kind of doubled down on that point of conversion being synergistic and I think probably the best thing to do would just be to play them and from that episode you know that that I was looking at and this is by Stuart how do you pronounce his last name

Ryan Aliot that's what I would say Aliot yeah only up yeah sure yeah he's from he's from the

UK pastor in the UK writes for banner of truth and you can go find this article it's the order of salvation study notes by Stuart Aliot it is on monergisms website so that's not a new covenant website you guys don't have to get scared and he does a chapter and he talks about repentance and faith what what

I asserted was conversion is synergistic and everybody all of a sudden when we start talking about the order of salutis everybody went bonkers

I mean I don't think Adam did but and I'm not sure if Andrew did but everybody went bonkers like you know you're absolutely incorrect

Paul you're absolutely incorrect and what they did is they truncated regeneration with conversion and we have to understand a proper order of salutis

I'm gonna play another let me just before I get to this article let me just go ahead and play one more clip so you can see what

I'm talking about I want to emphasize obviously with our catechism question from the

Westminster shorter catechism we want to emphasize that it's a it's a work of God because if it were on our own

I mean if I if you pressed me I would say monergistic even though I find the terms unhelpful but but ultimately it is a work of God I would not desire obedience

I would not be growing in sanctification if it were not because of justification and my union with Christ right

I don't think anybody disagrees with that I would just quote Philippians 2 12 through 15 so then my dear friends just as you have always obeyed not only in my presence but now even more in my absence work out your own salvation with fear and trembling verse 13 for it is

God who is working in you enabling you both to will and to act for his good purposes so it is the

Holy Spirit it is God enabling us to act but we do act the

Holy Spirit doesn't act for us we're not robots but but but we are commanded well it comes into God's knowledge then can we do can we do contrary to God already knows in that area well of course not they

I mean that's why I think that's why I described it the way I believe here

Vincent this is not the Google Hangout or Google Plus but does Christ believe for you is it because of Christ faith or your faith because of the faith he gives us

Philippians 129 for that and it says you know it says that it's been granted you for it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake so I would say it's been granted it's been granted but we believe yep yeah

I would say conversion is synergistic that's the proper reformed portal

Saludis go ahead and look it up Google I don't maybe I would take issue with that I don't maybe yeah maybe we have a different definition just look just look at the order of Saludis when you guys get home go look at the order of Saludis conversion exactly regeneration here hey

Carlos regeneration is not conversion but it precedes faith regeneration it's not conversion did you hear what

I said a result of regeneration absolutely and God regenerates us monogistically just look at the reformed order

Saludis Google it I don't think that's true

I know you don't think it's true but I'm more reformed than all you guys right now screen share but please yeah portal

Saludis and hold up an image and see what it shows it's well it's Romans 8 that's the order of Saludis those who may call glorified that's that's the same that's the order of Saludis I'm talking theologically that that is what the order

Saludis is based on okay so brother

RC what are your thoughts on that so I I can't help but laughing that you point out that you were more reformed than they were during the conversation but the discussion centered on the order

Saludis and the disagreement was they were conflating regeneration with conversion and they were saying that in essence both of them are monergistic and that the way in which you outlined or defined conversion was incorrect okay so so yeah

I had apparently missed that he he said that conversion was synergistic and and then he doubled down on it on his show so we're pretty confident that that's you know we want to be charitable and and believe what he actually said so we're pretty confident that that does accurately represent what

Paul thinks is the reformed position and we want to try to bring some clarity to that because from our perspective because we do not see that as entailing the reformed position and we actually think that it's a little bit problematic to use that terminology and say conversion is synergistic but the first thing that I want to point out is this in in the chart that that Paul put up nowhere in that chart does it actually use the word synergistic yeah it doesn't define anything it will not only does it not define anything but it doesn't actually use the word synergistic and it misleadingly uses it puts

God and man underneath conversion and God and man underneath sanctification almost as if the terms were kind of the same there like they applied in the same way well actually kind of misleading yeah and and that's just it so so under conversion there's a there's a little parentheses and it says

God and then dash man and then out from man it has faith and repentance and Carlos I'm gonna let you get into this a little bit more but the the graphic of the order salutes is is

I think depicting where God acts entirely alone and then it's also depicting where both

God and men act but man's actions should not be regarded as being synergistic and I think that once we define what it means to be synergistic we'll see maybe why this is a problem so let me let me go ahead and read that I thought was helpful on monogysm and synergism synergism a belief that faith arises out of an internal capacity of the natural man in other words synergist believe that faith itself is a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's actions of grace is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation unregenerate man in this scheme is left to his free will and natural ability to believe or reject

God synergist teach that God's grace takes part takes us part of the way to salvation but that the fallen rebellious human will be well human will must determine the final outcome and so understanding what what synergism implies because because at that at that section of that chart you have under man faith and repentance and and to say that that conversion is synergistic and then to say that man's part is faith and repentance is to is to imply basically what what

I just read that the synergistic view that that man that man cooperates on his own will apart from God causing him to to or gifting him faith and repentance and so I think that it would be better to say that God at the moment of conversion is gifting man or is causing man to to have faith and repentance and we see that that scripture labels both of these as a gift from God so there's absolutely nothing in man that that can that can bring these things about in of himself and out of his own will that God has to has to act upon his will upon man's will and give him the gift of faith and give him the gift of repentance and so a couple of things here

I can totally see how Paul would come to that conclusion

I can totally see that but I've I've not been able to find anybody who would actually from the reform side who who would actually

I was looking through some books and and would actually say that a conversion was synergistic

I need to go back and listen to his episode to see if you if he did that because I know that he doubled down a little bit on that but I can totally see why he would get that impression from this

I think that the chart is unclear the chart does not use the word synergist or synergism and none of the terms in the chart are defined so that from what

I'm taking away from this is that does not accurately represent the reformed position I think that's that's what that Colleen Sharpe from Theology Gals who's a

Presbyterian were Reformed Baptists with the caveat of we have a couple of caveats you know that we've talked about but that's really what

I think that that you guys are trying to get at tell me if my assessment was correct what else would you what else would you add to that well we have to set up the context a little bit more

I think because for the first problem was that nobody defined what conversion was conversion was never defined in the discussion and so when

I heard Paul saying that conversion is synergistic I had a sort of immediate gut reaction against it but you know if you notice he said like everybody said you're absolutely wrong you know they said you're absolutely right no that's not that's not what

I said at least and I don't think anybody actually I don't think anybody else actually said that they were just kind of reacting because they sort of had an implicit notion that that was wrong and I said

I think it is wrong I said I thought it was wrong but I wasn't sure because I forgot what conversion meant so the first thing to establish is what conversion actually means and Paul does talk about it on his episode even though in the sanctification episode where we were talking it was never defined and all conversion means is just repentance and faith and that's what

I kind of thought of I kind of was thinking that but I wasn't sure that's why I said regeneration precedes faith because faith is is what makes the faith is part of conversion and so regeneration is prior to faith in the monergistic view whereas in the synergistic view regeneration is comes after faith and so the other problem here is and then so I kind of I have to take some responsibility for sort of like not really putting my finger on the on the actual problem but I will actually commend

Vincent Lancon what's his last name Lancon or Lancon Vincent from Council of Google Plus he actually put his finger on the problem he was the one who pointed it out and I didn't hear him when he said that but but and I kind of like I was still kind of scrambling to remember what conversion meant and so I wasn't too sure and I and so I didn't want to commit to anything too much but I just kind of had a feeling it was wrong and then so I almost kind of thought like okay well maybe he is right because I'm just not sure but I still don't think it is but like I wasn't sure but Vincent put his finger on the problem because he said maybe we have a different understanding of synergistic because synergism is the

Arminian view it is it has nothing to do with Calvinism or the

Reformed Ordo Salutis or order of salvation it is very improper and confusing and just plain wrong to use the term synergism when you're describing the reformed position and and it's funny because all of the authors that he quoted

I don't think any one of them use the term synergism either and I will give Paul this we you know we will give him some credit you know

I do think Paul was was perhaps explaining the the right position but I think he was using the wrong term terms to explain it and so I because what he was trying to say yeah we're not robots we obviously we have the faith ourselves

God doesn't have the faith for us God doesn't need faith and God doesn't need repentance because he's God he whatever he knows is true and so yeah

I agreed with everything that that he was saying you know that we have to have faith and we have to repent yeah but the but the problem is okay so now we're tying into some other issues because now faith becomes an issue what exactly is faith and what exactly is repentance and all of those things and so we kind of touched on this on our episode on the because another issue becomes you know first of all we need to okay let's just establish right away as to what what synergism actually is

I'm gonna read the entry on synergism from the concise evangelical dictionary of theology by Walter A.

Elwell who is the editor and the thing about this is and I think this is why everybody had a sort of gut reaction against it because anybody who's familiar with the monergistic and synergistic controversy it's like okay that's the opposing view you know it doesn't make sense to use synergism when synergism is the opposing view to monergism and so what does it mean so here so here's the entry it says synergism

Greek synergos working together reference to the doctrine of divine and human cooperation in conversion did you hear that reference to the doctrine of divine and human cooperation in conversion synergism seeks to reconcile two paradoxical truths the sovereignty of God and human moral responsibility nowhere do these truths so intersect as in the theology of conversion the

Augustinian tradition emphasizes the sovereignty of God in conversion or monergism or divine monergism the other the opposing view in other words which is synergism emphasizes cooperation of God in humankind during the

Lutheran Reformation the synergistic controversy occurred arising from statements made by Philip Melanchthon in the second edition of his loci published in 1535

Melanchthon wrote that the that in conversion three causes are conjoined the word the Holy Spirit and the will not wholly inactive but resisting its own weakness

God draws but draws him who is willing and the will is not a statue and that spiritual emotion is not impressed upon as though it were a statue his followers were called philippists his opponents were called

Nessio or genuine Lutherans and this was written by CG Fry so as you can obviously synergism is not the reform view it's actually the compromising

Melanchthonian position that ascribes some credit to the human will as you can see he says the will is not wholly inactive but resisting its own weakness synergism and other in other words presupposes human free will the fact that you have the ability to choose

God without him regenerating you first so that the whole thing is just completely wrong it's a it's a completely confusing and an inaccurate statement that Paul said about conversion being synergistic because that's not correct it's not true well and also it's it's completely wrong to say that that's the reformed view absolutely because it's not exactly you cannot say again synergism presupposes human free will and that's why regeneration is after faith so that is completely at odds with the reformed order of salvation and so it's really interesting because I was actually reading

I was doing some some more research on this I was trying to look at there's actually not a lot on on the internet about this but I did see some articles by Sproul and you know he talks about it a little bit of his book what is reformed theology and he says that he says that convert he says it a little bit differently than the dictionary entry that I just read he says that synergism is with respect to regeneration that you believe that you regenerate yourself or that you initiate regeneration by first having faith which is still completely wrong it's not that's not at all the reformed position and so well

Paul did say Paul did say that that that regeneration was monergistic right but that's that's the problem that doesn't mean that conversion is synergistic again because it's a contradiction to say that right because because synergism claims that regeneration follows faith and yeah that was just a total mess and I think and I commend

Vincent for actually pointing that out he was he was dead -on about that oh and Colleen was trying to point it out as well yeah yeah

I know it's just that we we had a you know it just wasn't made very clear because we weren't we weren't actually defining the the terms as as to what they actually mean right you know the fact that Paul was saying that there's an element of synergism in conversion it's just because he was trying to explain that we do something ourselves it was just completely misleading because synergism is synergist right it means to work together with or to cooperate with God in our conversion it's completely wrong it's not the reform view at all and so obviously

God gives us the faith God gives us repentance and we repent and have faith but those acts of faith are not cooperation with God and they are not works faith is explicitly clear in the

Bible that it is not a work it is a gift of God and it is given to us by God and so we don't cooperate with God to get it in other words and so the

I wanted to read a little bit here this this was really fascinating about this this whole synergistic controversy that I that I kind of touched on a little bit this is from a book called the history of Christian thought by JL Neve he has a section here on the synergistic controversy says we know of Melanchthon's disagreement with the strict

Lutherans in regard to the condition of man's will and the experience of his conversion so this is exactly what we're talking about the role that the will plays in conversion in his loci of 1535 he emphasized the point that original sin has not deprived man of the faculty to make right decisions when incited by influences of grace that's the

Armenian view okay as to spiritual righteousness there is no faculty in man's will capable of producing something new but the will of man is able to assume an attitude and give a scent when this new when this new makes its advance to him thus

Melanchthon arrived at the constantly repeated formula of the three concurrent causes in the process of conversion the

Word of God the Holy Spirit and man's will which is not entirely inactive but which struggles against its own weakness or infirmity

Sackert remarks correctly the ethical motive of Melanchthon is altogether respectable but in the formulation of his thesis he was unfortunate for the divine work in the human attitude must not be thought of in the form of an addition of coordinated of coordinated factors

Lutheranism is very sensitive when it comes to its Augustinian monarchism of grace and conversion the synergistic expressions of the life -sick interim have presented a strong appeal to many theologians who cannot be charged with desiring to surrender anything of the solar gratia as can be seen from the utterances of such men as J.

Fetfinger and Victor Streigel the interim said God does not deal with man as with a block but he draws him in such a way that his will also cooperates again for this is not the reform view this is completely this is a this is the

Armenian compromise of many scholars point out about Melanchthon that he began to become more man -centered and so Fetfinger adopted the phrase of the three efficient causes instead of the third of these namely the will of man that it does not resist but adapts itself to the working of the spirit he said that there must be something within us which explains why some assent and others do not so there you have it they are attributing some credit or something in man that God does not first attribute to him there that that's the problem and that's what synergism is right that's why it's wrong yeah that's why it's not the reform position and it's wrong to use that terminology so I want to let me just finish this this is a really good little sentence

I want to finish up before in public disputation with 1560 struggle said that sin has not been abolished and has not destroyed free will but only depraved it the will acts in its own in its own way in conversion with a peculiar mode of action so that no inward transformation can be real except the will has given its assent to use the words of Seberg struggle conceives in that of the natural man as only bound wounded and hindered by sin not dead in other words not dead okay although it is but weakly yet the will of man cooperates its attitude toward grace is not simply passive but only more passive than active so that's it

I mean that that's the context and that's what synergism actually means okay it is not the reform view at all so I guess the big question

I have is this is not the first time that this has happened do you think it's do you think they're going to accept this or what

I have I honestly have no idea he I was

I was kind of hoping he wouldn't double that I mean I kind of expected it to happen that he would follow up in his episode but no

I'm glad that he doubled down because that confirmed for us what his position was and what he was saying but this again is another instance of reform theology being misrepresented yes yeah you know at this point

I'm not really sure what to do because we've never seen them acknowledge any of their misrepresentations of reform theology and so Paul said in his last episode that he doesn't like to he likes to represent people accurately here he doesn't like to misrepresent people

I forget how he said it but uh oh let's see I mean I hope that I hope that our for our listeners

I hope that our listeners will will just just hear us say that this really doesn't represent the reform position to use synergism in relation to the ordo salutis or use synergism as it pertains to the the issue of of conversion so I mean that that's that's pretty much all we can do we're just trying to give our view and say

I don't believe that this is the reform Baptist view if you want to use the word particular

Baptist that's fine too I don't you know labels or labels and whatever I don't believe that this is the

Presbyterian view I don't believe so I mean maybe maybe somebody could find some professing reform theologian who who was wrong about this and and sort of use that to say see reform people do say this but I think that if you're going to deal with the with reform theology

I mean I don't see this anywhere in history as it pertains to the reform tradition so you know that's where it's at right now

I'm sort of you know trying to trying to not step on toes here we do appreciate these guys we're glad that that you had the opportunity

Carlos and and Colleen were and Vince and you know it's a sort of challenge what was being said but that's that's our take any anything else

Carlos yeah well you know we we gave you the history we gave you the definitions that is if you you can't ignore that you know you cannot ignore that and just you know it's very confusing and misleading to claim what

Paul claimed you know and they tried to say that you know it was there was an element of synergism and compatibilism and then compatibilism is another kind of loaded word because from what

I was seeing it has a different it seems to have a different meaning in the theological sense as opposed to the philosophical sense because you know

I'm looking I was looking at the Stanford encyclopedia definition of it and it sort of was saying that determinism and free will are compatible and but the theological definition is actually that the the will is free in the sense that it does whatever it wants according to its nature but since our nature in the in the monergistic view is is is corrupt and evil all we do is sin and evil and so we're free to do what we want but that which we want is always sinful and evil and therefore we cannot choose

God unless he first draws and gives us faith and so but but even then like here's the thing if you really want a good answer the best answer to to to to the free will divine what is it called divine sovereignty and human responsibility problem the problem of there is no such thing as free will folks it's there's just no such thing okay

God is the first cause of absolutely everything the ultimate cause of everything ultimate means he ultimately causes everything was responsible for everything that happens indirectly including sin okay he does not cause sin or committed but he indirectly causes it in the sense that he orchestrates everything so that it happens okay so the best work on this that we can recommend to our listeners is get read

Gordon Clarke's got a chapter from religion religion reason revelation called

God and evil it is a masterful treatise on this very issue it is a brilliant answer consistent answer with a reformed answer a biblical answer to this problem because it takes into account the fact that there's primary and secondary causes right the primary cause of everything is

God the primary cause of our salvation is God but God uses secondary causes such as our human will our human choices as means to accomplish his ultimate purpose and that's why

God grants us faith and repentance which but which also by the way and in order to have a better understanding of faith and repentance we recommend that our listeners check out

Clark's book from the Trinity Foundation called faith and saving faith it's actually a collection of two books one is called

I think saving faith and the other one is called the Johan in logos because faith repentance is actually implicit in faith and that's why sometimes in the

Bible you see them say believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved and without necessarily mentioning repentance because the because of the fact that when you believe it implies that you actually didn't believe previously before and so repentance is a change of mind it is not a turning from sin

I think Paul defined it as a turning from sin and that's not that's not what it means biblically repentance or metanoia meta means change no ya means mind it is a change of mind

God grants you faith the repentance and face of the faith you but you go from not believing the gospel the

God of the Bible to now believing the God of the Bible because you have been regenerated and so there's a lot going as you can see there's a lot to explain here and you know things can get a little rushed in the discussion and so you know we never really laid out the terms carefully

I know Paul was trying to define everything and I commend him for that you know I do commend him for that he was trying to define everything but unfortunately using the term synergism to apply it to the reform view is just it's historically inaccurate it's theologically inaccurate it's definitionally contradictory it is just not appropriate at all so you know we we commend you know exhort them to that and hopefully they you know they recognize what's what's what's actually going on here yeah definitely so I know that you touched on God and evil so we we would hold the view of super lapsarianism is that is that the way that you would say it yeah yeah and I know some people were asking me about that recently

I'll just I'll just say that right now I need to reread

Gordon Clark's book and go over this stuff again but I remember at the time that I definitely agreed with with what he said

I agreed with his position and the book God and evil if you're also looking for God and evil you can go to the

Trinity Foundation and look up its volume for Christian philosophy and the signature series of it's the fourth book in the signature series it's titled

Christian philosophy and there that combines a couple of books one of the books that's included is

God and evil because I don't I don't think that they sell that as a standalone book yes actually do you're right you're right they do that is okay they do some of the other books that are that are compiled in these signature series they don't because I know

I was looking for one on science and that's I think in volume 5 and I can't find it as a standalone book but um yeah it is a but I would just buy the fourth book in the signature series because that's where he also talks about axioms and the axioms of revelation and he talks about logic so I would

I would say just to get that book that the one that combines the smaller books yeah they they they sell

God and evil as a separate pamphlet which is a chapter in religion reason and revelation which is also sold as a separate book and is also included in volume 4

Christian philosophy which is yeah like you know if you if people remember from our previous episode where I recommended that people get volume 4 because it includes that and some other really good really good material you know for that Clark presents for presenting the the

Christian worldview and refuting opposing worldviews but yeah you know here's and I did want to comment on this too because I saw that you know

Ryan had jumped in on the episode and he was kind of commenting on things that you can tell that Ryan hasn't listened to our previous episodes and I would encourage him to do that because he was they brought up the point about the law well hold on let me correct you you got the impression that he didn't listen to our episodes there

Ryan we don't know if he actually did I well yeah right and I don't think he did because of the fact that when he tried to you know they pointed out the issue because what

I said that you know the the lighter did not completely do away with the tripartite vision of the law and if people remember our previous episodes where we talked about the law and we threw down the gauntlet in response to Christopher fails challenge to to if it's funny his challenge was to actually give us some scriptures that that either implied directly or even indirectly that the that the tripartite division of the law was actually in the

Bible and so and then it was funny because Paul actually before we answered to their challenge

Paul was actually saying that all of the law is moral there is no you know there's no none of these like distinctions it's all moral and so you know this is and in the comment that he made on the episode in this last episode was that oh we've always held to the distinction we've always held to that we just don't hold to division and so Ryan explain you know use the analogy of the

Trinity to explain that division is not the same thing as distinction and you know we already pointed this out in our view from the beginning and that's actually what we what we said it's you know when we critique

Christopher fails his article that was one of the points of criticism that we said we you know yes always been the reform view it's they are correct that it is the issue is semantic and they are correct that it's not it it's not as the better term is distinction and not division they are correct about that but because a lot of these criticisms come from shallow regurgitated arguments from other new

NCT authors rather than actually reading that the original sources themselves this error tends to get perpetuated a lot and we've already corrected that from a long time ago you know we've already pointed out that no reformed author and I challenge anybody to find me one who actually divides the law into three separate pieces no reformed author does that they all acknowledge that it's the law of Moses as a unit but there are distinctions between that law namely the ceremonial the civil and the and the moral and the reason it's called the moral the moral law is not that the other ones are so are optional that or that you don't have to obey them or then they're not moral in the sense that you have to obey

God it's called the moral law and Calvin I think we might have I think I think we did quote Calvin where he explains this that it's called moral because of the fact that it continues into the

New Testament it's eternal law it's part of the moral law of God that that never expires and so that's why it's called moral it's not that you're not that you can just ignore the other

Commandments right and we would also say that you know I think

I don't know I don't know if it's Paul or somebody else I think it was Paul that was talking about the the

Ten Commandments and you know I don't know this might not have been

Paul but somebody was talking about how you know we point back to the Ten Commandments and you know thou shalt not kill but you know it also says in the

New Testament that were to love and so we would actually include the

New Testament commands as part of the moral law to love your neighbor to to you know fulfill the law of Christ so we're not limiting that so we're not saying that the

Ten Commandments that that is the exclusively the moral law yeah we've made that very clear and you know it's like I'm really glad you brought up that point because Paul pastor

Paul did say that he said I'm not being morally conformed to the Decalogue I'm being conformed to Christ and because because and you even in that very show he was misrepresenting the view he the misunderstanding is so it's so basic and it's so shocking because we actually had confronted them about this directly on Facebook and so it was just really surprising that like you know we had already addressed this or so we thought and it's like you know what's going on here why aren't you guys listening you know and so he said that that we're not

I'm not being morally conformed to the Ten Commandments because Christ also said to love your enemy and it's like right but that's our point because first of all the

Ten Commandments is not the entire moral law we've made that very clear we've quote you know read the larger catech

I just read it right the larger Westminster larger catech is in question 93 there is no serious disagreement between all of the reform camp on this they all they all agree on this point on the point of the law there's very little disagreement on this issue and they definitely agree with the concept of the moral law so he said you know he said because Christ also said love your enemy and he was implying that the

Old Testament didn't teach that or that the the the Ten Commandments or that the moral law didn't include that it's like okay well what about you know what about Proverbs 25 21

I guess he forgot about that one right because it says if your enemy is hungry give him bread to eat and if he is thirsty give him water to drink and I that's why

I made the comment in the episode that that's a false disjunction that's a false dichotomy between the

Ten Commandments or the moral law which is not just the Ten Commandments but is it summarizing the

Ten Commandments and Christ there is no dichotomy there Christ affirmed it all he confirmed he affirmed all of it and that's why

I also said that he said the entire law and the prophets hangs on the two great commandments so that obviously includes to love your enemy that's part of the moral law it's clear because it says it in the

Old Testament and it says it and it repeats it and reaffirms it in the New Testament yeah right so this is a this is why we're showing people and we've we've already been we've been doing this right we've been doing this from the beginning and people jump on afterwards and they make it seem like you know oh well it's like like the misunderstanding was ours exactly exactly like no

I'm sorry but we've addressed this several times we've tried to point it out to them several times and it continues to get perpetuated so you know and so you know it's interesting because I'm wondering if just if so this is just a thought okay

I'm wondering if they if they understood the reformed positions better if they would actually just agree with us on some of these points and the example that I'm thinking of is the sanctification issue because repeatedly

I've heard New Covenant theologians say that we're not sanctified by the law and so then the and it's it's meant as a correction to reform theology there exactly and so then we point out and so in having conversations with with a couple of friends and then and then also some of the stuff that I heard online this is this is what

I heard them saying was that we're not sanctified by obeying the law okay well so then would so then we bring correction and we say well that's not the reformed position and I actually read in one of my episodes you weren't on I read the thing from John Robbins where John Robbins says that that works are a fruit of sanctification that we're not actually sanctified by obeying the law so then we point out that the reformed position is is that we're primarily sanctified by the word of truth as it says in John 17 was it 17 3 or 17 17 17 17 yeah we're sanctified by the word of truth your word is truth and so we point out that we're sanctified by the law in the sense that it is part of the

Word of God and that the law has a more immediate effect of bringing about that sanctification because it pertains to holiness

I thought man I thought you did a really good job of explaining that on the episode of the clashing with theology guys

I thought you did a really outstanding job of explaining that because you used big big words and I can't exactly repeat what you said but so we point out that that that is the sense in which we are sanctified by the law but then what they do is then

I from what I from what I understand I think that they would agree with that so then so then it becomes okay so then then it the question is okay so then you agree that we are sanctified by the law and then so now they're contradicting themselves because earlier they were saying that we're not sanctified by the law now they're in a position where they'd have to say that we are sanctified by the law and really in the same sense that we're saying it so then either so either your earlier criticism which said that we weren't sanctified by the law that's wrong or your criticism of us which says that we're not sanctified by obeying the law is wrong so I'm not

I'm not really too sure how you would escape that because I mean

I just laid out the argument I don't see how you would you would escape that the fact that either you're misrepresenting us or you're contradicting yourself and so I get the impression that they don't understand the reform perspective on some of these issues and I'm thinking maybe if they did we could just agree about it and there wouldn't be this this back -and -forth and and we could say yeah

I think I think we agree with that and I'll just throw this out there there was a prominent theologian

New Covenant theologian that I talked to and I said hey what's your view of sanctification and he said yeah it's the same as the

Reformed Baptist and I was like really okay well there we go I mean so can we just save some time and move on to something else so well what do you think about that man unfortunately that would require a lot of revisions and corrections to a lot of New Covenant theology books because you know they're and they don't

I don't think they all agree on this either because you know David Gaye the subtitle says it all and that's what

I pointed out to Pastor Paul is he says no sanctification by the law and then he said you know you're taking him out of context as I know

I'm not I'm not because I actually read it I read it where he said that where he said he was interpreting

Galatians a very specific way and you know I know we don't have time right now to get into all this stuff we will have to dedicate a full episode to you know a lot of this stuff about regarding NCT but you know and I'll just say that that gets old after a while it's like you know

Rita it's like we're trying to interact and and you know one thing about NCT is it is not monolithic yeah no no two ways about it it is not monolithic and so when we try to have a conversation with NCT proponent we think it's better to interact with them directly but then you know that's the problem yeah that problem that happened with with my encounter with Pastor Paul on the sanctification hangout because he was he claimed to hold to David Gaye's view but then he said no we're sanctified by the

Word of God and so it's like okay well that that includes the law then and he says yeah he actually affirmed that he said yeah we're sanctified by the entire

Old Testament the New Testament I think I think he said something like that something like that basically agreeing with the Reformed position except David Gaye in his book he rejects all three uses all three

Reformed uses of the law in his book and what's the third use of the law and that's what I pointed out it's that the law is a guide to our sanctification it sanctifies us and it guides us in our sanctification that's the

Reformed view and forget and for David Gaye to reject that obviously is is showing you that he rejects that the law sanctifies us and so and not only that but he also goes into Galatians and he says that you know we're not sanctified by by the law you know that because of you know what you have begun in the

Spirit why are you trying to complete by by works of the law or by the flesh or whatever you know whatever it says but you know we're gonna give you we're gonna provide quotations and everything because if David Gaye does say in that book and I don't think

I found it but if he does say that we're sanctified by the by the entire Word of God then he's contradicting himself that is a contradiction and this problem unfortunately is that they end up shooting themselves in the foot either once or twice because you shot yourself in the foot because now you're disagreeing with the

Reformed faith which is actually the correct view because it affirms that were sanctified by the Word of God and Paul Kaiser even read the chapter on sanctification from the

Westminster Confession that affirmed that it affirmed that we are sanctified by Christ death and resurrection by his spirit and by the

Word of God the entire Word of God and so the funny thing is you either reject it because and that makes that which would make you antinomian with respect to sanctification that is an unbiblical view of sanctification it's an error which is what seems to be the view that David Gaye holds to and based on what

I've read and or you're actually contradicting yourself because you're actually misunderstanding the

Reformed view you misrepresented by claiming that the

Reformed guys say that we're sanctified by keeping the law or exclusively by the law which again they're gross misrepresentations of what the

Reformed faith is as we've already made clear several times we've pointed this out already a number of times on a previous episode so right well and and the other thing is

I was really perplexed because and you pointed this out in the clashing with theology episode

I was really perplexed because and just I mean I don't know what to do man

I don't know how to deal with this or how to interact with this because prior to this

Paul said in a Facebook conversation that his view is that of David Gaye's and then you kind of you know held him to that in the conversation and so now it sounded like okay so are you disagreeing with David Gaye but then he said that you took

David Gaye out of context which is I mean every time we talk about David Gaye we're taking him out of context apparently that seems to be the go -to argument it's like oh man okay so yeah yeah here's here this is what we're gonna do you know because the point of this episode is not to make it a back -and -forth that's not what we're trying to do what we're trying to do is lay out our arguments and put all of our cards on the table we're presenting our arguments to our listeners and to them if they want to listen they can listen they can take our arguments and wrestle with them because we're going to present them when we encounter them again on these hangouts or on their show we're making it very clear where we stand and I've always thought this from for a while now

I've had this up for a while man that the reformers were really on to something you know there's just a lot there that they got right and the more

I read and the more I study the reform faith in the reform tradition and obviously I'm not you know we obviously the reform tradition holds scripture to the highest regard okay that doesn't you know we need to get past this

Biblicist mentality where oh it's just me and my Bible it's just the Bible that's actually unbiblical you know we've and we've pointed that out as well on our previous shows but that's what we're doing that that is what we're doing we invite them to listen and to take the arguments we're gonna keep coming we're gonna keep presenting them on our show we're going to interact and we're going to to formulate arguments and we're going to present them and we will hopefully in the future you know

God willing present them in in more direct interactions and see who has and see who's more consistent see who's more biblical yeah and you know we'll just leave it with this man we appreciate the dialogue and we appreciate these brothers and you know we want above everything else because I very much appreciate what

Andrew Appleport is doing and yes it's I think it's unique and I think it's it's commendable because I don't see you know it's unfortunate that that there's a lot of wars out there among ministries and that's not what we're after and I very much appreciate

Andrew Appleport trying to bring us together to say let's let's talk about this let's let's work this out let's you know have the clash of theologies where we can just have direct dialogue and I think

I think it's unique I haven't seen anything else like it out there yeah you know

I think that a lot of people out there that they don't really maybe necessarily want to be challenged in their view but you know it's like going back to Gordon Clark man we're

Clarkians but we don't agree with everything that Clark said or wrote you know if you are if you are doing that with any teacher you know

I love R .C. Sproul but I think that R .C. Sproul's apologetic is wrong we love

John MacArthur but we've we've said that we think he's wrong in some areas Carlos and I Carlos thinks

I'm wrong in some areas I think he's wrong in some areas but you know at the end of the day it's like well we go back to the

Word of God we go back to the Bible and we you know that that's the ultimate standard and so you know if we're wrong then then we're wrong and hey we're being sanctified in the truth we're being refined in the truth we're being reformed and made new in the truth so we very much appreciate these guys

I will say that you know a special thanks goes out to Owen Pond because Owen Pond really helped me to understand the

Reformed Baptist views a little better and and going through this the stuff with the

New Covenant Theology they're asking some great questions they're asking some great questions that I think the

Reformed world needs to address and in particular issues about the

Sabbath it's surprising at how many churches you go to and you just ask them basic you ask the members basic questions and they can't tell you anything and I think that that's you know

I think that's a problem and so I very much appreciate these dialogues I've learned a lot

I've learned a lot about both views so I think that's a good place to leave it man what do you think yeah yeah we're you know we look forward to the opportunity and you know

I I think that ultimately we're hoping the best of this you know it's not to as as I said in the sanctification episode you know

I don't think there's no animosity here you know that we're not being argumentative or anything like that at all our points our points have been very clear from the beginning we have some serious concerns about New Covenant Theology and that's why we're raising up these issues and we will continue to raise them and and challenge them on it because they need to be addressed right and just as in the same way that we need to understand really that's what happens is most since most people have the impression that John MacArthur is reformed or that you know that is he's so he's very far removed from the reformed faith actually you know he doesn't even hold to Covenant Theology and he's not a

Sabbatarian and so it's like a lot of people don't even know what Covenant Theology or Reformed Theology actually is and really that's what we need to do is actually understand what it is because so many

NCT guys I would venture to say that even most of them don't actually understand it and that's actually why they're

NCT to some extent and so that's what we need to do I think we should

I think that would be good for all of us to do you know seek to understand the reformed tradition and the reformed faith better and that's why

I'm grateful for these opportunities and I look forward to it yeah all right well with that we will check everybody next week