Poor Jared...Yes, Back to the Response

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, and we are live once again from Sedalia, Missouri, like we were yesterday.

I will be speaking again this evening on the subject of inerrancy, primarily to a college -age, youth -type thing.

I think they've opened it up to other people, but I'm not sure the other people get the pizza. So, we'll find out.

It is a breezy but warm afternoon, warmest day that I've had on this trip. It's, wow, it's 68 in here.

Outside sensors showing 66. Really breezy. I had this window open over here.

It was wonderful, but the sun's setting, so I would have had the sun in my face here before long, so I had to close it, unfortunately.

I was enjoying, I'm just enjoying blowing all the air out, letting the breeze through, and it's nice.

I'm learning to adapt to not having a refrigerator. Well, I have the little office -sized one.

It is packed. You couldn't get anything else in there. But I have all my perishables in there, except for a couple things that I have.

I still have a little ice left over, and I have that in the freezer part of the dead fridge, and I've got a few things in there just sort of chilling out, literally.

So, Rich, we need to talk about refrigerators. I want one with a control panel, with a reset button, like the old one we had, actually.

We'll have to chat about that. Anyway, I need something that you can service while actually on the road, like we did the other one.

I just finished, an hour ago, another webcast. One of the things I like to do, one of the wonderful things about this studio is it's actually easier for me to schedule doing webcasts with people while I'm on the road, because it's so easy to sit down on this thing.

It's already set up. I didn't put the other camera up. I was rushing a little bit there.

I was going to put the other camera up and do some switching around today, but we're stuck with just one for now. Sorry about that. And so, the topic of that webcast was dealing with Roman Catholic apologetics, how things have changed over the years, epistemology, dealing with Newman, all this kind of stuff.

So, I sort of got the itch of dealing with that subject a little bit satisfied for today.

But just letting you know that next week and stuff, and again, to do it well, it takes time to get all your resources together and things like that.

But we're definitely going to be talking about the subject of the perpetual virginity. I really,

I am more and more convinced that immaculate conception, bodily assumption, they are fully dependent upon the authority of Rome.

You have to accept that first. There's no way you're going to drive that from anything in Scripture at all.

Perpetual virginity is a dogma that is directly contradicted by the words of Scripture.

And the reality is, when Jerome wrote against Helvidius, Helvidius quoted

Tertullian correctly. Jerome quoted no one. You don't think he would have provided names of all the people before him who held his position?

He cited no one, because no one had ever held it before. It was a theological novum in its day, and it's become the tradition.

So, we can deal with Roman Catholic issues, but then we have to back up and go, look how...

See, what Jerome was doing, I'm not going into it right now. I'm just giving you a heads up. Jerome makes it very clear in his response to Helvidius.

His overriding purpose was not to defend apostolic tradition or anything.

His overriding purpose was to exalt virginity above the married state.

So, you have a monk doing monk stuff. You have someone doing something that the

New Testament does not say is normative for leadership in the church.

And so, you have an imbalance. There are lots of imbalances in Jerome. Brilliant guy, but lots of imbalances.

And here you have an error on his part that becomes the very essence of tradition, so much so that the

Reformers do not even take on that particular subject. Calvin said, you know, it's not something we really want to be talking about.

They didn't want to go there. And so, here you have a tradition.

Now, their second and third generations did. They had to. It was necessary.

But the point is, here you have a tradition, and where did it come from? Did it come from solid biblical exegesis?

No, it came from a monk exalting virginity over the married state. And so,

Mary couldn't have been married, because that would exalt the married state.

Oh, really? And if you want to read ahead, if you've got

Lightfoot's commentary on Galatians, read the section on the brothers of the

Lord. It's not a lot of fun. There's lots of Jameses and Marys and Alphaeuses and stuff like that.

It can get a little complicated. But there is some reason to believe that what

Jerome wrote, he wrote early in his life, and by later in his life, he had matured enough to go, maybe, maybe not.

And yet, it has become dogma, just accepted dogma.

So, it's helpful to be able to document this kind of stuff.

And in the big picture, say to, oh, I don't know, Southern Baptist professors that are now promoting medieval prayer concepts in their magazines for Protestants.

Promoting Christian, other people promoting Christian Platonism and the great tradition. You know, there's a lot of reasons to not buy into that stuff.

A lot of reasons. To go deep into history is to cease to think there is such a thing as the great tradition that could possibly, truly be biblical.

Oh, that's just the Biblicist in me talking, right? Okay, yeah. All right. So, we go back to what

I said we're gonna be talking about and finish up. We've, this is our third time we've talked about, but I'll have most of the program this time to hopefully wrap things up.

But we have been looking at Jared Longshore's response to me at his Reformation Revival blog on the subject of Hebrews chapter 8 and the issue of the

New Covenant. And just to summarize basically what has come out from where we have been so far.

From my perspective, the fundamental difference between us is how you define the

New Covenant. I say you define the New Covenant based upon the

New Testament's own definition of it. What it, and what it results in, in the life of those who are in it.

And we see this in Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 specifically.

There is a exegetical argument that is being made by the

Apostle. And we noted earlier that before, you know, chapter 8 is just simply almost completely an extended citation from Jeremiah chapter 31.

But that comes right after this incredible text.

After the citation of Psalm 110, 4 in verse 21, so much more

Jesus also, verse 22, has become the guarantee of a better covenant. So this is all of Hebrews starting in chapter 1.

The incredible revelation of who Christ is. That he's Yahweh in human flesh. That he's creator of all things.

He sustains all things. The exact image of the person of the Father. Just how we know who

God is. God seated upon his throne, etc, etc, etc.

The unchangeable God. Hebrews 1, 10 -12. Then we have what this amazing one has done in his sacrificial death.

And unlike any place else in the New Testament, this is explained in light of Leviticus, in light of Genesis, Melchizedek, issues relating to the priesthood.

Requires a pretty healthy knowledge of the Old Testament narrative to follow the arguments.

So, so much more Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Verse 23 of chapter 7, and the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

Should I? Go ahead, blow up the, blow things up here.

And so much more

Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, here's something completely different, in the

New Covenant, the presence of Christ in the one who continues forever.

I shrunk again. Richard's got to show me how to un -shrink myself. But I'm just down here in the corner, just a little guy down there.

I can sort of get it look a little bit better if I do there. There we go. It looks somewhat better. Here's something really different.

We have a high priest who continues forever. And he holds his priesthood, operabaton, permanently.

And therefore, he is able to also to save, eis top panteles, forever, or to the uttermost, those who draw nigh to God, draw near to God through him.

This is the elect. No one else is going to be drawing near to God, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

So there is specificity in the mediatorial work of Christ and in the salvific work of Christ for the elect.

But this is all in the context of his priesthood. And therefore, it goes on to say, for it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens, who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

Because this he did, once for all, when he offered up himself. Now, again, this isn't necessarily relevant to the response to Jared, but I think it's important for all of us to see.

This, once for all, efapax, from hapax, is not a temporal term.

I'm sorry, it is a temporal term. It is not an extended term. So it's not talking about extent, as in for every single individual.

It is speaking temporally, once for all. It is a completed action in and of itself.

That's the meaning of the Greek term. So he did this once in his sacrifice when he offered up himself.

So he is the high priest, but he's also the offering. This is fulfillment motif.

This is how the law is being fulfilled. This is how the prophecies are being fulfilled.

The types and shadows are being fulfilled. He is both the offering and the offerer, because he's the

God -man. That's why he has to be the God -man. This could not be true if you're a

Unitarian. Unitarians can't make heads or tails of any of this.

But since he's the God -man, he does so. For the law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath which came after the law,

Psalm 110, appoints a son who has been made perfect forever.

So here is the mediator, the high priest. Here he is.

So he is the high priest of the new covenant. Then Hebrews 8 .1, now the main point in what is being said is this, we have such a high priest who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens.

So again, demonstrating, hey, we have a high priest that is not in the in the temple, the earthly temple, which is a mere picture of the heavenly temple.

So our high priest is superior. Okay? So he is a minister in the holy places in the true tabernacle, which the

Lord pitched, not man. Do you see the apologetic there? Don't go back to the old, because man pitched that.

God didn't. That's simply a picture of the heavenly tabernacle. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, so it is necessary that this high priest also has something to offer.

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the law. Another reason to see this as pre -70, who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he stood about to erect the tabernacle.

For see, he says, that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain. But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry by as much as what?

He is also the mediator of a better covenant. So whatever you do about the nature of the new covenant, its definition flows from the character, deity, perfection of Jesus Christ, and the perfection of his work, and the fact that he is not subject to death, and hence intercedes for those who draw near to God and him, and therefore saves them perfectly.

That's the nature of the new covenant, because this is what the mediator of a better covenant does, and that better covenant is the new covenant.

So if we're going to define the new covenant, we have to define it the way Hebrews defines it, not the way we do in systematic theology someplace.

So he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second for finding fault with them, he says, and then we begin the lengthy citation from Jeremiah 31.

So this covenant discussion is in Hebrews as part of the continuing narrative of saying, this is what the perfect work of Christ accomplishes, okay?

So I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel, house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day which

I took them by the hand, lead them out of the land of Egypt, nor for they did not continue my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the

Lord. That's the textual variant. That's the baal gaal textual variant, and it seems purposeful on the part of the writer of Hebrews to take the reading gaal.

I did not care for them because it's finding fault. For this is the covenant that I'll make with the house of Israel after those days, says the

Lord. So what this, the writer is saying, what we're saying about the perfect work of Christ, high priesthood, intercession, saved of the uttermost, was prophesied in Jeremiah 31, and this is what we have now.

That's why when I see my Presbyterian brothers going, yeah, it's gonna be fulfilled someday, and stuff like that, I go, no, no, no, no, no.

That would, that's not the message of Hebrews. The message of Hebrews is not, yeah, some days could be pretty cool, you know.

Right now, you sort of just got to hope for the future, but some days can be really mighty cool. That's not what he's saying.

I will put my laws into their minds. Who are they? I think you can make a strong case that you can take that all the way back to 724 and 725, those who draw near unto

God by him, and who are they? They're the elect. They're the elect.

I will put my laws into their minds, and upon their hearts, I will write them. You cannot write

God's law on a heart of stone. So if God's law has not been written on a person's heart, they are not in the new covenant.

So why would you give them the sign of the new covenant? Do you see where we're coming from?

I will put my laws into their minds, and upon their hearts, I will write them. I'm a general equity theonomist, and I recognize that outside of the spiritual activity of regeneration and the putting my laws into their minds, the renewing of the mind after the might of Christ, upon their hearts,

I will write them. That requires the Spirit of God. That cannot be done externally.

That is not done sacramentally. That is done by the

Spirit for the elect, and for the elect only, unless you're going to come up with a, you know,

Pierre Marcel. Covenant children have the effect of original sin removed from them. Where do you get that?

Not from Scripture, but when you're taking something, again, historically, nobody had heard of before 1500, and saying, this is the lens through which we need to interpret the

New Testament, that's what caused the problem. And I will be their

God, and they shall be my people. Romans 11, you know, people are not people, are my people.

They shall be my people. Not they shall just be a mixed people, like the experience of Israel was, where you had good kings, bad kings, you had people who had circumcised hearts, and people who didn't, and it was a mixed bag.

But that's the whole point that it says is, it's not like that. The New Covenant is not like that.

So you've got to be really, you've really got to ask yourself a question. Why would you want to make the New Covenant to be like that?

To where you have people who bear the covenant sign, and they don't know Yahweh. You have to teach them, know

Yahweh. Circumcise your heart, and they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, everyone his brother saying, know the

Lord. You had to do that under the old. You had to introduce the knowledge of Yahweh.

But these are my people. I will be their God. They all will know me from the least to the greatest of them.

Now you can say, well, you know, we can find stuff in the Old Testament where it talks least to greatest. How about dealing with what the writer to the

Hebrews does with the text? This is part of the argument of the betterness of the mediator, the promises, and the covenant.

And it's the substantiation of the assertion, he's able to save to the uttermost. For all will know me from the least to the greatest of them.

Those are drawn near unto God by him. It's the elect. This is the perfection of Christ's work for the elect, which all reformed people believe in.

And so if we would just recognize that some of our great heroes of the past lived in a time frame where paedo -baptism was the norm and was central to the continuing existence of the government, and go, you know, paedo -baptism up to that point in time was for all the wrong reasons.

And it wasn't the early church's practice. It developed over time for all the wrong reasons, and then became established for the wrong reasons.

And so now we're continuing for what we think are the right reasons because we understand these other things now, but it just doesn't fit together.

You got to hold it together with a fair amount of Westminster tape. Put it on there and hold it on.

For all will know me from the least to the greatest of them. Why? For I will be merciful to their inequities.

Whoever that they are, they know God. They have the law of God written on their hearts, and they are forgiven.

I will remember their sins no more. This is Romans 4.

Justification. True saving faith. That's what it means to be in the new covenant.

That's what it means to be in the new covenant. And when he said a new covenant, he made the first obsolete, but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Okay? So then he goes on. Let's get the rest of this because I think it's important.

And so you have, he then says, he's talking about the first covenant, divine worship, he talks about the altar of incense, and again, requiring you to understand the layout of the tabernacle.

That's why a lot of people just simply, you know, go, okay. So the priests were entering the first part of the tabernacle, but in the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself for the sins of people committed in ignorance.

That's why, by the way, if you read Leviticus 16, it's not appropriate to say

Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement. It's Yom Kippurim. It's atonements.

The high priest had to make atonement for himself first, and then for the sins of the people.

Shavuot 9, verse 7. The Holy Spirit is indicating this. So the

Holy Spirit, again, what a view of scripture. Stuff that you'll be taught in almost any seminary in the land.

Not all. Not at GBTS. I sure hope not at New St. Andrews either. But you'll be taught almost anyplace else that what you have in Leviticus is a mishmash of conflicting traditions that have been redacted and edited together over time.

That's what you get. You pick up almost any commentary. That's what you're going to get.

Except the writer of the Hebrews says the Holy Spirit was writing all of this and indicating things by this revelation that he's given.

The Holy Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the holy places has not yet been manifested while that first part of the tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time.

Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot make the food and drink and various washings requirements of the body imposed until the time of reformation.

So the way is not open, but now it is. But when Christ, verse 11, look at this. And that's obviously not a part of the text, but the new covenant.

I think the LSB is right at that point. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation.

So he's not going through the man -made one. He's not going through even the temple. It's just a picture of that.

He's going through the greater and more perfect tabernacle in heaven. It's not of this creation and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood.

So it's the blood of the what? The blood of the covenant that we're talking about here.

And if you believe in particular redemption, that shed for whom?

The elect. But through his own blood, he entered the holy places once for all, again, ephahpox, the strengthened form of hapox, once for all time.

Not back and forth like the high priests. Once for all time, he entered the holy places once for all, having done what?

Having obtained eternal redemption. Having obtained, securing eternal redemption.

He enters into the holy place through the perfect tabernacle.

There's no access to that for the priests. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctified with the cleansing flesh, how much more would the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living

God? So here you have the triune statement. You have the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, the

Father. And the result is the cleansing of your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. For this reason, he is what?

Mediator of a new covenant. So that since a death has taken place, the redemption of the trespasses that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

This is what it was pointing to all along. And that's why, look,

I fully understand the 1689 Federalist argument. I just don't like the way it's normally presented by some of the people.

They do. But what you're seeing here is, how was forgiveness given to those before the establishment of the new covenant?

It was in the same way. It is a death has taken place, the redemption of the trespasses that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

But there's one really wonderfully beautiful, consistent thing all along. For those who have been called.

The elect, the elect, the elect, the elect, the elect. Whatever you want to do in parsing the minor stuff, it's always been focused upon the actions of the triune

God to bring about the salvation of His elect people, which He had from Adam to the end of time.

Right? So it's consistent. And it's a perfect work.

And this is what now has been fulfilled in the incarnation, in the death, burial, resurrection, and enthronement of Jesus Christ in heaven.

And He is, so all of us now, those in the past and thus now may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance by the work of the mediator of the new covenant.

And therefore there's nothing to go back to. So why give the sign of the new covenant to an unbeliever?

It's the covenant that results in, it's not just, you know, because I've had some say, well, we're just, we're trusting in the promises of God, which leads us back to, you know, questions.

Does that mean that every child born of a Christian father and mother is necessarily of the elect?

That's one of the questions. So there's, uh, the biblical material.

Okay. There's, there's, that's extremely important. Need to be able to look at that. That's the background part.

So I am at the third point of Jared's response.

The new covenant indeed is most certainly enacted on better promises, but it does not follow that one of those new promises that is that each and every member of new covenant is actively regenerate.

I'm not sure what actively regenerate is actively a necessary term, not actively regenerate, promised to be regenerate maybe.

Is that what's behind this? I don't know. But if we're defining the new covenant, we just read numerous passages of scripture which tell us the exact opposite.

Those that are in the new covenant have their sins forgiven. The law is written upon their heart. That to me, it's a heart of flesh, not a heart of stone.

They know God. They are his people. They are forgiven from the least of the greatest of them.

They're saved the uttermost by a perfect mediator, a perfect sacrifice. Mediator intercedes for them.

He's entered into the heavenly places. He's obtained eternal redemption. This is what the new covenant is. That's the argument of scripture.

If we define the new covenant on the basis of scripture, that's how we're going to define it. Where is this definition coming from?

You can quote some reformer from 300 years ago if you want, but I'm reformed because the bible teaches it.

I am a reformed biblicist. I am not going to back down from that. I am not going to be cowarded away from that.

That's why I believe this stuff. As much as I honor and enjoy reading the others,

I hold Calvin or Turretin or whoever else the same standard.

I have to. I have to. This isn't relevant to Jared and the guys in Moscow, but with a lot of other people where this reformed biblicism comes up,

I am dealing with Roman Catholicism. I have to be consistent.

What's interesting is so were the reformers, but I don't see a lot of the people pushing great tradition stuff and attacking biblicism.

I don't see them out there dealing with the Roman Catholics at all. In fact, some of their leaders are taking invitations to speak at the

Vatican. Really? Well, congratulations to you. Hooty tooty wooty.

Anyway, going back to the point here, but it does not follow that one of those new promises is that each and every member of the new covenant is active and generous.

Yes, it does by necessity, and we've seen it in the text. Those new promises

I've detailed in my first reply above, I would add that while there are actually promises in the new covenant that are far better than the old, potency of the spirit, efficacy of Christ, measure of faith in the covenant community, none of which outside of maybe, okay, potency of the spirit.

Yeah, he writes the law upon the heart so that he actually affects perfect regeneration. Where does any of that come from?

I mean, we have this entire section talking about, here's what the new covenant does.

Why don't we define that from the words of scripture? It's really clear.

It's compelling. It's beautiful. It's obvious. Why not define it there? The key promise in view is a promise about the new covenant itself.

I think it's about the better mediator and better promises because the better mediator who, according to Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12, is actually

God in the flesh. I think that's the actual focus, but okay, about the new covenant itself.

Recall, as I noted in my first point, that the covenant is much more of a league or an administration than most think.

Again, this is focusing upon who's in it rather than who's making it and what it does for them.

That's where I think, that's where I think my Paido -Baptist brethren have missed. So a better promise pertaining to the new league or administration itself is that the new league will never fade away like the old one did.

Is that the point of Hebrews? It's not. It's mentioned in passing. The old one's fading away.

Yep, that's true. But why is it fading away? Because it was always pointing to the perfection of this one.

Didn't we just read that? We did. So we say to Jim Bob, the new covenant has a better promise concerning it.

Namely, it'll never vanish. Are you really going to go back to the old covenant, which is vanishing? The old covenant doesn't have that better promise.

Okay, all of that's true, but that's not what the argument of seven through nine is. The argument of seven through nine is the mediator actually saves his people.

All of them. From the least of the greatest of them. I didn't put that language in there. They did.

The writer of Hebrews did. In the covenant, I'm sorry, in the context of specifically saying he is able to save completely.

Here's how completely he's able to save. That if you're in the new covenant, your sins are forgiven. Law of God's written upon you.

You know God. God's been merciful to you. Fourth, the new covenant people indeed are better in a sense.

I just heard a fly. Now, I've got the windows open, but I've got screens on everything. I don't know how that would happen, but they can find it.

That's amazing. Those little boogers can get in anything. Sorry about that. I just, it could just be a floater.

I'm glad you're all getting to age with me. Getting old is fun, and I've mentioned more than once, sometimes you get floaters in the eyes.

It's like, is that a fly, or just my eye? And all of you who are laughing at me,

I just go, it's coming for you. You'll find out someday. All right.

Fourth, the new covenant people indeed are better in a sense, but it's not because each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate.

But where are these covenant people described? How are they described? In chapter eight, they're described as having the law of God written upon their hearts, knowing

God, not being need to be taught to know God, forgiven. They're my people. They know me.

What did Jesus say about his sheep? They know me. I know them, and they know me.

It's the sheep. So let's, if scripture is consistent with itself, then we can literally say, fourth, for the sheep of Christ indeed are better in a sense, but it is not because each and every member of the sheep is actively regenerate.

No, no, that follows inevitably because you can't know his, you cannot know

God in the description of Hebrews chapter eight and be spiritually dead, right?

I don't think so. There are still those who go out from us, so they are not of us. Ah, so now we get to the constant argument from the

Presbyterian side, which I've always found very strange and very odd, I'll be honest with you, and that is they want to say that apostates, and we, they went out from us.

What does first John 2 19 say? Because they were not truly of us, right?

That's, that's what it says. They went out from us because they were not truly of us. So were they part of the people whose sins were forgiven?

No. Did they have the law of God written upon their hearts? No. Again, unless you're going to do the Augustine thing, where Augustine has regenerate people who become unregenerate because they're not given the gift of perseverance.

And again, why did he do that? Because of paedo -baptism, but the wrong kind of paedo -baptism. It's not even the paedo -baptism that, that most, anyways, today paedo -baptists would recognize, or at least

Westminsterian paedo -baptists would recognize. But it was still paedo -baptism that got him in trouble with it.

There's the problem. But they, they went out from us for they were not of us.

So here's the idea that, oh, this covenant, this covenant isn't only with, you know,

Hebrews 8's great, fine, wonderful, but that's not actually definitional of the people in the covenant. Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. They were not of us. And it says, and those who trod on the foot the

Son of God after having received the knowledge of the truth and count the blood of the covenant worth, he was sanctified an unholy thing, an outraged spirit of grace,

Hebrews 10 29, which again is why you have to start at the beginning of Hebrews chapter 10, by this will he has perfected.

And that is why Owen was right. The only consistent way to walk through Hebrews 10 is to recognize that Hebrews 10 29, when it says he was sanctified, is talking about Christ.

Not that that person was regenerate, was in Christ, was interceded for by Christ.

Let me ask a simple question to all of you, Presbyterians, and you know, this is not my first rodeo. We've done this conversation over and over and over again.

And so I'll just have to ask the question, was the Son of God in the presence of the

Father mediating for the apostate of Hebrews 10 29?

And that's going to require you to answer a more fundamental question.

And that is what does the Son mediate to the members of the new covenant?

And that is a question that Jared does address.

Let me see. I'm sorry.

Okay. It does go into Hebrews 10 10. I thought it was down below.

I didn't get to marking these things. So we'll get to it. Maybe it's in this section. But this is in the idea of the new covenant people are better in a sense, but this is actually a defense of the idea that just like the old covenant, the new covenant is a mix.

It's the external church. It's not the elect. It's the external church.

And so you give the sign of the covenant to everybody that's in the external church, but they're going to be people who walk away.

They're going to go out from us. They're going to apostatize and they're going to do so. And we have purposefully given them the sign of the covenant.

And that gets us into the discussion we've had with Doug after the debate, for example, we talked about, well, you know, you

Baptists, you put all the bouncers at the front door to keep the apostates out.

We Presbyterians put them inside the bar and kick them out when they get rowdy. Okay.

On a practical level, um, you know, as long as you're doing church discipline, okay.

On a practical level, I can see that, but that's, that's not what Hebrews is talking about.

Hebrews is defining the new covenant as being coextensive with the elect.

I mean, those are the people who are in it. Those were those that's for whom Christ is mediating.

There is a discussion down here as to what, uh, Jared thinks Christ could mediate, but the mediation is the presentation of his sacrifice.

That's substitutionary. How do you have non -elect people united with Christ so that he substitutionarily atones for this?

Uh, but this new covenant people do have a greater measure of faith for the spirit has been poured out on them at Pentecost in a more potent way than he was before.

How about the spirit is active in their life because they are all regenerated and because they are all forgiven and they all know

God from the least of the greatest of them. How do you square citing first John two with citing

Romans, uh, Hebrews eight, they all know me from the least to the greatest of them.

They went out from us because they were not truly of us, which is it going to be if you're trying to make them coextensive.

Now, first John two is about the fellowship of the church. And yeah, I can't look out when

I, when I stay on the pulpit, I can't look out on that group of people. There's people there all the time that I don't know visitors all the time.

And, and I don't know intimately lots of people remember the church grown so fast. There's hundreds of people.

And so I don't know their hearts. That's not the issue. That's what John's referring to. They went out from us.

So it might be demonstrated. They're not truly of us. So there is a way to be truly of us. And it's the

Hebrews eight way. It's called election. So what God does, but this is trying to say, this is, this whole argument is meant to take away from my opinion, take away the uniqueness and beauty of the newness of the new covenant in that it is no longer a mixed covenant where you have the giving of the sign on the basis of physical birth, but then the need for spiritual regeneration alongside that the new covenant, because of a perfect mediator, perfect promise, better covenant, all the rest of that stuff.

The new covenant is made with the people of God, the ones who draw near to God through Christ.

He's the perfect savior. He saves them perfectly. This is why it's a better covenant, new covenant. Define it on the basis of scripture.

There's no reason not to. It's so clear. It's so compelling. And what's going to happen is this, this, this truth is going to become more broadly and broadly understood in a post -millennial context, so that eventually we'll all look back and go, yep, that was a period in church history where you had this tradition, and we've, we've worked through that and discovered it as a tradition, and we've applied

Sola Scriptura, and we're all together. And that's why we don't have to worry about the

Baptists getting their third baptism from the Presbyterians in the future, because we will all agree on this stuff by then, and we won't be confused about the new covenant any longer.

While we still have plenty of growing to do, the people of God have gone from being but a child to a grown man.

Okay, but that's a completely different context. And yes, we have plenty of growing to do, but are we talking about the elect being regenerate or not regenerate?

That's a completely different category. I did raise, this is reading him again,

I did raise a particular question when strong, strong manning the point, this, this point above, namely, who in tarnation is the we in Hebrews 10 .10?

And so, again, just to make sure that we didn't go into chapter 10, just because I would have struggled to not start preaching, but by this will, a thalamity, the will, covenant, but using will, we have been sanctified through the offering the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So, again, using ephahpox, the once for all -ness, sacrifice, obtained eternal redemption.

So, the obtaining eternal redemption in Hebrews 9 is here, we have been sanctified, we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So, that's Hebrews 10 .10, that's what's in line now. Who in tarnation is the we in Hebrews 10 .10?

In other words, does Jesus sanctify this whole new covenant people, even the ones who the

Pedobaptists claim are not among those who will end up in heaven? So, you see why we sort of keep seeing the specter of Augustine in the background?

Because he came to this after the Donatist controversy, and he's already established an ecclesiology where infant baptism is central to that ecclesiology.

And we would all have to agree that his reasons for it were wrong. As much as we respect

Augustine, his reasons were not covenantal.

They're not the arguments that Calvin makes. Like I said, that was a theological note. You can say it was

Bollinger before him, and there's one Anabaptist person who gets mentioned, and stuff like that. But it's all it's all the beginning of the 16th century.

So, you're talking 1 ,200 years down the road from Augustine.

So, does Jesus sanctify this whole new covenant people, even the ones who the

Pedobaptists claim are not among those who will end up in heaven? The answer is yes, Christ does sanctify them.

And, of course, the sense of the sanctification is very important. So, now we're going to have a discussion of what does sanctification mean in Hebrews 10 .10.

Now, if you define this based on the narrative context that has been coming from chapter 7.

So, he is able to save Aistoponteles forever because a certain people, those who are drawn near God, because he ever lives to make an ascension for them as the mediator of the new covenant.

And then you take that into chapter 8, foundation for that Jeremiah 31, application chapter 9, enters into the holy place through the heavenly tabernacle, the real tabernacle, not the earthly one made with hands, having obtained eternal redemption.

And then you get into chapter 10, beginning of chapter 10 is talking about the ones for allness.

The beautiful argument of the beginning of chapter 10 is that the repetitive sacrifices of the old covenant were a reminder of sins.

This is one of my favorite sermons, but the term that is used there in Hebrews chapter 10 is anamnesis.

We're not going to finish this today anyway, so I might as well put it up there and show it to you. Not everybody has seen this, and it's gorgeous and exciting, and we're going to have to just continue this when we have the opportunity of continuing it.

It's not going to rush it. It's important. I'm not expecting

Jared. If Jared tried to respond to all this, then his response would be 10 hours long, and then my response would be 20 hours long, and that's just how this kind of stuff goes.

But I do think this is worth looking at. So Rich, you need to type up the instructions.

Just type it up for me, send it to me in Signal or an email or something, so I can stick it on the desktop.

I'll never remember to do it, but I know there is a way to get into the thing and expand the size of that thing, but I think you have to do it every time you turn it on.

I really do, and I don't use it all the time. So for now, I'm just a little white bearded man down the corner.

That's fine. Hebrews 10 .1, for the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

Hmm, draw near. I've seen that language somewhere before. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshippers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sins.

But in those sacrifices, here's the key, there is a anamnesis.

But in these, those sacrifices, anamnesis hamartion.

There is an anamnesis, a reminder of sins, katheniaoton.

That's a idiomatic phraseology, year by year. Anamnesis. There it is.

So, a repetitive sacrifice. This is so important. Even if you sort of tuned out all the baptism stuff and covenant stuff, tune back in for a second here.

We don't have much time left in the program. Anyways, I'm speaking tonight, so I can't go long. Tune in where we are here.

Anamnesis, reminder. If you have a repetitive sacrifice, the fact that you have to keep offering it is a reminder of sin.

Because if the sacrifice actually cleansed from sin, then you wouldn't have to keep going back and having sacrifice over and over and over again.

The yearly sacrifices were proof that that sacrifice of the people on Yom Kippur, that specific sacrifice, that singular kippur, did not actually perfect those for whom it was offered.

It was pointing to something else. And so, this is extremely relevant to Roman Catholicism.

It's extremely relevant to the concept of the mass. It's extremely relevant to the idea of the mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice, an unbloody representation of the one sacrifice of Calvary, but still perpetuatory, but never perfects anyone.

It can't be the sacrifice of Christ if it does not perfect those for whom it is made. And it doesn't, because you can go to mass 20 ,000 times in your life and still die imperfect and outside of Christ.

Suffer for your own sins in purgatory or mortal sins in hell. But what's beautiful is this.

The term anamnesis is not a of the

Lord's Supper. When Paul records it for us in 1 Corinthians, what does

Jesus say? Do this in remembrance of me. The term that he uses is anamnesis.

Do this as a reminder, a remembrance of me. Now, what does that mean?

What that means is that while you have, under the old sacrifices, you have a reminder of sin because of its repetitive nature.

In the new covenant, the covenant in his blood, you have one sacrifice.

And now the covenant meal that we share is not a reminder of sins.

It's a reminder of the sin bearer who has borne our sins and gives us peace with God.

That's the beauty of the term anamnesis. We don't have a reminder of sins.

We have a reminder of the sin bearer. And so that's the context of Hebrews chapter 10.

It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Then you've got the citation of Psalm 40 and the extended discussion we could have of the textual variant there, which we're not going to get into right now.

But the point is, a will,

I have come to do your will is cited in Hebrews 10 .9.

He takes away the first in order to establish the second, and it is by this will, verse 10, we have been sanctified to the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So in the context of Hebrews chapter 10, this sanctification flows directly from the substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ for his people.

Where does that break down? It's consistent with 7, tied into 8, tied into 9, tied into 10.

You have to try to introduce some type of disjunction somewhere along the way to say, no, it's a different group of people.

Now you're going to get into the warning of apostasy after that, just as you had in 6, just as you had it in 3. There are warnings because that's the nature of the letter to Hebrews.

Don't do it. But apostasy from what? Is the idea, well, you're truly in the covenant, you're wearing the covenant sign, you've been received the covenant sign, you're in the covenant, and you just don't realize how good and wonderful it is, maybe?

Or is the argument that what is better and new is that under the old, you had the law external.

Under the new, you have the law internal because the heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh.

That's the nature of the new covenant. And so we give the sign of the new covenant to those who give evidence of having a new heart, not to either affect that, that's sacramentalism, sacramentalism, baptism causing regeneration, and not in hopes of a fulfillment in the future.

I think that's where a lot of Presbyterians are. I think it's where a lot of Presbyterians are.

So we will continue, believe it or not. I did not expect to do this, but the fact of the matter is once you delve into these things, at the very least, we can put this together as a series and use it as a resource in the future.

And at the very least, again, I don't want to offend anybody here, but many of my

Presbyterian brothers don't read Reformed Baptist literature. And so all you've ever heard are non -reformed, non -covenantal people who don't know about a covenant of grace, don't make a consistent application of Reformed categories to their soteriology.

And so at the very least, we can sort of point to this and go, well, maybe folks will listen.

Maybe that will help raise the standard of conversation or something. I don't know.

I may be being way, way, maybe being a cockeyed optimist to say that, but there you go.

There you go. Just before I close, I got a video sent to me just before the program.

And I've got to admit, it's exciting to see, but Jeff Durbin just sent me a video.

I can't play it for you, but he sent me a video. The twins are home and they're six and a half and five and a half pounds each, which means they've grown a lot.

Little Piper, just wow. It's a miracle she's still alive with what she went through, but they're home.

And I just, please pray for the Durbins. I mean, people say they don't know how

I get... I'm just so busy, not in comparison to Jeff. The man is burning the candle at both ends of the blowtorch.

And I'm just, I'm just thinking about January. This last January, I preached three out of four weeks because Jeff was traveling testifying for End Abortion Now.

I don't know how he's going to do it. I'm more than happy to do that. I will be trying to prep for major debates in February during that time too, so pray for me too.

But right now, I'm asking you to pray for him, for Candy, his wife, for the church as we try to come around them to assist them with this, with all of this, and the fact that we have 18 states where bills of equal protection and abolition are going to be introduced.

And that's going to show a lot of, that's going to expose a lot of the pro -life industry when they stand against those bills.

It really will. And more and more people are coming to understand, wow, if we're going to be consistent, we need to be consistent.

If you didn't see the video, The Fatal Flaw, make sure to track that down on YouTube. It'll help you with those things.

But wonderful to see the girls home. You cannot begin to question

Brother Durbin's commitment to life, and his wife's commitment to life, given that they have five grandchildren, and they have three children in diapers at home now that they have adopted.

So when someone says, we don't care about children after they're born, you don't know what you're talking about.

And you obviously don't care about what you're talking about. So exciting, exciting stuff going on there. And with that, thank you so much for listening.

We will see you next time, whenever that's going to be. Certainly on the way home, I'll try to. We'll keep on going on at that point.