Are Baptists Reformed? | Theocast

Reformed Catholicity and the Question of Confessional Baptists

Hi, this is John. Reform Catholicity. No, we don't want to be Roman Catholics, but there is a unity of faith and that's what this podcast is about. The history of covenant theology and really confessionalism.

And where did people like the 1689 Linnebaptist Confession come from? They're not Anabaptists, so who are they? And Justin and I have a really fun conversation about that today. It might be a little different, more historical, but I guarantee you we can't help but talk about Jesus in the gospel.

So if you want that, stay tuned. If you're new to Theocast, you may not have heard of this word. It's called pietism. You ever felt like the Christian life is a heavy burden versus rest and joy? That you wake up worrying about how well you're going to perform instead of thinking about what Christ has done for you.

It's dread versus joy, really. That's pietism. Pietism causes Christians to look in on themselves and find their hope, not in what Christ has done, but what they're doing. And we have a little book for you.

It's free. We want you to download it and we're going to explain the difference between pietism and what we call confessionalism. Reform theology, really. How it is that we walk by faith, seeing the joy of Christ, and when Jesus says, come to me and I will give you rest, what does that look like?

You can download it on our website. Just go to theocast .org. Welcome to Theocast, encouraging weary pilgrims to rest in Christ conversations about the Christian life from a reformed confessional and pastoral perspective.

Your hosts today are Justin Perdue, pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in Asheville, North Carolina, and I'm John Moffitt. I'm the pastor of Grace Reformed Church in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Justin, it's good to be with you, my friend.

Today's a little bit more of a nerdy pod. I don't think I have a ton of questions or a ton of announcements other than your conference is coming up in April. If you haven't registered for that, you'll learn more about that.

You can go to covbap .org. Tell us who's going to be there. It's an amazing conference you're doing. Our friend, Chad Byrd, is going to be with us April 19 and 20, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina. Asheville is not a bad place to be in the month of April.

It's really pretty here. A lot of good food, a lot of good drink, good cigars, all those things if you're into that sort of stuff. You can come and hear some wonderful talks from Chad on how God is with us in discipleship.

He's going to be talking a lot about mercy and grace and repentance. He's going to be doing that through the lenses of two of his books, one Limping with God and the other Night Driving. He's going to mash that content together for us, which is kind of him to do.

We're looking forward to that. Covbap .org. It'll be really clear how to register. If you haven't registered and you want to come, please register. We'd love to see you there. If you want to make a weekend of it, just stay for church.

I'll be in the pool. If you haven't joined the community yet, we've got over almost 1 ,100 people now in the community. It's an app. It's like Facebook, but better, Justin. I agree. All the conferences, all of our audiobooks, articles, it's all there, and more podcasts are coming.

The Reformation, the Confessions, and the Baptist Place in the Reformed Tradition

Justin, today is a weird but yet important conversation. It's not a normal one that Theocast does, but we think it's significant in the theological realm that we like to play in. It's a three-part series.

This is part one. Over the next four weeks, we're going to put one in there about the resurrection, but in the next four weeks, we'll have three total episodes that are going to cover the history of the Reformation slash Covenant theology.

Believe it or not, Justin and I are going to be talking about baptism, not the means of grace, but the debate between Pado versus Credo in a very godly and Christ-honoring way. Today, Justin, I want you to tell us a little bit about what we're going to be talking about today.

It's pretty significant, and I'm actually kind of geeked up about it. I'm pretty excited about it. Justin Perdue. We are going theology nerd, church history geek mode today on Theocast. That's not exactly what we're known for, but we do talk in historical confessional categories all the time.

In that sense, it's not different. Hopefully, this will be helpful to the listener. We've gotten a number of questions over the years. I know even recently when we were in California, there was a group of our listeners, friends at this point, people that I've seen repeatedly at events over the years, who asked very sweetly and sincerely, what's the difference between you and John being confessional Baptists and Covenantal?

What's the difference in how you understand Covenant theology and how we, because these people were all either Presbyterian or Reformed Church folks, understand Covenant theology? I sat and talked with them for a few minutes, and it was a good conversation.

You and I are going to have, not today, but in the course of this series, we're going to have an episode where we talk, not in a debate mode, but about the differences, the nuanced differences between a Pato-Baptistic perspective of Covenant theology and a Creto-Baptistic perspective of Covenant theology.

Hopefully, that will be helpful to people too. This is us getting that ball rolling. Justin Perdue. Can I jump in and say the debate happened, and that's why there's a confession. Sure. Let's talk a little bit about just some very basic historical categories that are helpful for everybody to have in their minds.

I trust most all the listeners will have heard of the Protestant Reformation, if not all of the listeners have heard of the Protestant Reformation. When we use the word, we're having conversations about the Christian life from a confessional, Reformed, and pastoral perspective.

That Reformed piece, what we're trying to draw on is the Reformed tradition, broadly speaking. The Protestant Reformation generally acknowledged to have formally begun in the year 1517. What that Reformation produced in terms of traditions broadly are two.

You have the Lutheran tradition, and then you have the Reformed tradition. We have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for our Lutheran friends, of whom Chad Byrd is one. We just mentioned him a moment ago.

Speaking about our portion of this, the Reformed tradition broadly, you have, even within the Reformed tradition, two predominant streams that evolve and develop. You have the Continental Reformed tradition, so think continental Europe, and the documents that would characterize, that would be subscribed to by adherence of the confessional Reformed tradition, are the three forms of unity.

The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort. That's continental Europe, continental Reformed tradition, sometimes referred to as the Dutch tradition. Then you have the English Reformation as well.

This is sometimes referred to as the Puritan tradition. In the English Reformation, you have three significant confessions of faith, one being the Westminster Confession, and then the Savoy Declaration, or the Savoy Platform, as it is sometimes known, written and published in 1658.

Then you have the Second London Baptist Confession, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession, published in 1689. It was actually completed in 1677, but was published and publicly adopted in 1689. Those are the two significant streams within the Reformed tradition.

Covenant Theology, Covenant of Redemption, and the Shared Reformed Framework

The reason we bring all of this up today is to make a few comments. One, to be Reformed in one's theology, the most basic way that could be met, is to be covenantal. Reformed theology is covenant theology, historically speaking.

One can be a Calvinist in terms of how you understand salvation, soteriology, but if we're going to talk about most basically what it means to be Reformed, covenant theology is a major tenet of that. We've done episodes on that in the past, where we talk about what it means to be Reformed, and we highlighted covenant theology as a piece of that.

We can maybe link that in the show notes. That's why we bring this up on the one hand. Another reason we bring this up is we are confessional Baptists. John and I both subscribe to the Second London Confession.

Our churches do as well. Our forebears in England understood themselves to be firmly within the Reformed tradition. They meant to be within the Reformed tradition. They were meaning to plant their flag there.

Even more specifically, our forebears in England understood themselves to be planting their flag within the tradition of covenant theology. Others may disagree and want to debate what it means to be Reformed and all those things.

That's not the point of what we're saying right now. There are some who might say, by definition, the fact that you are not baptizing infants means that you're not Reformed. That's fine. That's not the purpose of this conversation.

Our forebears meant to be not aberrant people, not coming up with some crazy new thing. Certainly our forebears, John, were not radical Anabaptists who encountered the Reformed faith. That's not where we come from.

Rather, it was a continuing progressive evolution of even Westminster doctrine, which is what produced the Second London Confession. Jon Moffitt. There you go. To add to that, what a lot of people don't understand is that the pastors of these Baptist churches, before the 1677 was written, were using the Westminster Confession, and they were shepherding from them.

Obviously, they were providing caveats based upon congregationalism and their understanding of creedal baptism. That's where they finally decided that for our particular Baptists, for those who hold to the particular atonement of Christ, this growing group of churches that agree, we need to have a document that represents this.

That's where the finalization of the 1677 came from. Then the signage, you have 100 churches that show up. The reason why there's a 20-year gap is because of the change. Other confessions weren't allowed until 1689.

That's why they basically named it. The day that they signed it was the date of it. The point of what you need to hear is this. The men behind the confession were not creating a new document that was separate and really a whole other branch from the Reformation.

Most of them were born and raised Presbyterian, born and raised under the Westminster Confession. This is why most of the churches, and this is why it's almost a direct copy of it. Just from a historical standpoint, before we start talking about covenant theology, that's also where they learned their covenant theology as well.

Of course. A couple of other comments to add here before we pivot hard to the covenantal piece overtly. Like you said, there is a ton of overlap between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Confession.

I would say 90 to 95 percent of the language is almost identical. Even the chapter arrangements, the way that the material is organized, it is so, so similar. That also is a dead giveaway that the framers of the Second London Confession meant to not be doing some new aberrant crazy thing.

We're not trying to be radical reformers or anything, but we are just continuing to reason out our theology as the Reformation is continuing to wash ashore in England in particular. That's important. Another comment historically that is worth bringing up is, I think a lot of times as Reformed Christians broadly, we look back on the 17th century and we have this kind of romanticized notion that there was just utter and complete unity on every matter of doctrine.

That's not true. Any serious investigation into even the Westminster Assembly that took place in the 1640s would show you quickly that Westminster divines, as they are called, were anything but monolithic in how they understood doctrine.

They agreed on primary matters, but there were real debates about how to understand the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and his active obedience. That's pretty fundamental. There were real debates about antinomianism and how Christians relate to the law.

There were differences of opinion when it comes to nuances of covenant theology, even amongst the Westminster divines. It's not as though the Westminster divines had one take on covenant theology and they just agreed at every level.

I bring that up because even in our tradition, John, in the confessional Baptist covenantal tradition, there is also some variance in terms of how different individuals understand nuances of covenant theology.

Certainly, we need to have room within our own traditions. Even as people who, generally speaking, hail from the Reformation, Pato and Credo Baptists alike, who all will affirm historical categories of covenant theology, there needs to be some charity and some latitude and some room for good back and forth and good healthy debate.

It's good for us. It sharpens us. It's good for the church. This has always existed, and so we shouldn't be afraid of it. Reformation 21 has a great article on the title of it. It says that the Westminster divines were compromisers.

What they meant by that is when they were writing the document, they had to come together and make an agreement so there could be unity, not uniformity, but unity of faith. There were several pastors who didn't really want to word the act of obedience of Christ in a certain way, which is really, I think, an outflow of the covenant of works, in my opinion.

There was some debate on the covenant of works and how it works and the outflow of it. I think it's healthy to understand that theology, especially during the Reformation, was trying to regain, reform, and reshape what kind of got lost during its period of Rome.

I think that at times we'll reach back to history. I think it's interesting when someone says, well, church history agrees with me. Unfortunately, with church history, you can find anybody to agree with you about anything.

We have to be careful just to say, well, church history agrees with me here. Justin and I are probably one of the two most boisterous about promoting confessionalism because we trust in them and we think they're healthy and we think they're good.

Just to help you understand, they are a collaboration of like-minded believers who knew what they were doing with the Word, but in certain areas didn't always come to an agreement, which is why you have really three powerful powerhouse confessions that are all really good.

Last comment here, and then we'll move on for real. I'm sorry to keep pumpfaking the listener. In our tradition, the covenantal Baptist confessional Baptist tradition, there are two significant differing views on covenant theology.

You and I would hold to what we call 1689 federalism. That's what it's known as. But then there are also friends of ours who would subscribe to the Second London Confession who hold a different understanding.

Really, this comes down to how we understand the covenant of grace to be revealed and established in the Scriptures. So there's that kind of debate in our own tradition, and our confession makes room for that, and that's okay.

Certainly, all the more so, we're going to be able to have some disagreement, charitable, well-intentioned, sincere disagreement with our friends who subscribe to the Westminster Confession or who would subscribe to the Belgic Confession, the three forms of unity.

That's okay. Now, why don't we turn to talk a little bit about what we all agree about? This is really important, and if you're new to thinking about covenant theology, I trust the 15 minutes or so will be helpful for you in terms of an overview, a 30 ,000-foot perspective of what really matters and what everyone who would claim to be Reformed and Covenantal, whether you are Continental Reformed tradition or the English Reformation broadly or you're a Presbyterian or you're a Baptist, how would you articulate?

Here's what we all agree on when it comes to covenant theology. We'll begin this by saying we all would affirm the three historical covenants, the tri-covenantal framework of Scripture. To be historically Covenantal, we affirm the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

We can talk about each of those and spend a few minutes on each and talk about why they matter and why even the listener should care. I know many of you are itching to know what the differences are. We're doing a podcast on that.

We didn't want to try and put that all in one podcast, but it is important that you hear this one. I don't say this often, but I do get a little agitated when the Reformed camp starts talking about covenant theology.

We ignore just how awesome it is. We're so close to each other. We preach Christ the same way. We really do. We really preach Jesus the same way because we understand he fulfilled the work on Christ's behalf.

Let's just all agree. We'll just start with the Covenant of Redemption. There really is no disagreement here. We herald and are so thankful for biblical theology and believing that the arc of the story of God is that before the foundations of the world, the pactum, he made a covenant that he would save sinners.

There are even dispensationalists who are starting to acknowledge the pactum salutis, which is amazing to hear. We would agree with our Pentecostal friends that before the foundations of the world, we learned that our salvation was not a response, but was planned.

It was planned. Every person who would claim to be historically covenantal agrees on this eternal covenant that was made amongst the persons of the Godhead before time and space were a thing. In the mind and heart of God, in the plan of God, it was always the design that he would save a people for himself, and in particular, this people would be saved by the work that God the Son would uniquely accomplish.

He would take on flesh. He would become a human being in order to save mankind. His reward for the work he would do is that he would inherit those people and that they would live with him in a redeemed heaven and a redeemed earth forever.

That is beautiful, and that is what ultimately drives everything that God reveals and everything that God does in time and space. The covenant of redemption is the template and the driver for it all. When you read a passage like Ephesians 1, 3 -14, you're reading about the covenant of redemption.

Whenever you read Jesus in the Gospels using language of, I have come to do the work that the Father has given me. This charge I receive from my Father in the high priestly prayer when he uses language, I've completed the work that you gave me to do.

All of that is covenant of redemption language. When the prophets in the Old Testament use all of this language about how God is going to do this and has always planned to do this and is all of his purposes, that is covenant of redemption language.

Be encouraged, dear saint, out there. This is such comforting and life-giving stuff. Like you said, it's not a response. It's not a mop-up operation. It's not a plan B because Adam wrecked it all that God is now saving us.

This was always the plan that Christ would save us, and he's an all-sufficient Savior. Hey guys, real quick. Some of you are listening to this and it's encouraging to you, but you have questions. So where do you go?

How do you interact with other people who have the same questions and share resources? We have started something called the Theocast Community, and we're excited because not only is it a place for you to connect with other like-minded believers, all of our resources there, past podcasts, education materials, articles, all of it's there, and you can share it and ask questions.

You can go check it out. The link is in the description below. Yeah, Peter uses this to encourage the saints who are being persecuted in his first letter, and he tells them that Christ's death, their redemption, was predestined before the world began.

Like his coming before them. And Peter in his sermon, I mean, you hear it in his letter. Peter in his sermon in Acts 2 makes the same reference that God had determined this before the world began. What I love about this, and our Reformed brothers, all of us, we preach Christ not as one who is wimpy and similar to another God, but he is the one and only God who has the control of the universe and proves it.

That's why to preach the Bible from a redemptive historic understanding or from the Pactum Sluz, from a covenant of redemption, is so refreshing for me, because it doesn't matter where I'm at in the Bible.

I know I'm preaching the story of redemption. I'm preaching the covenant that God will fulfill started in Genesis and completed at the resurrection and finally restored in Revelation and in His return.

Pick up your Scriptures and read with the servant songs in Isaiah and the work that the servant of the Lord will accomplish. That's all the covenant of redemption stuff. Take heart as you realize that from eternity past all the way to Revelation, this is the plan.

We as Reformed Christians, broadly speaking, affirm that covenant of redemption. Just a brief note here too. This podcast, in one sense, what we're doing right now is our attempt at what we might call Reformed Catholicism.

To be Catholic in that sense means we are trying to acknowledge that there is a Reformed tradition that's broad, that a number of us with our respective traditions find ourselves within that tradition and within that big stream.

It's good that we would rejoice over the things that we have in common. We have the covenant of redemption in common. Let's move on now to the covenant of works. Covenant of redemption happened before time and space, before history, before the world.

The covenant of works and the covenant of grace both are actually given and made in time and space once God has created all things. The covenant of works is made between God and Adam. This is where God makes this arrangement with Adam where, contingent upon Adam's obedience or no, Adam can either earn eternal life for himself in all of his posterity or, through disobedience, can plunge himself in all of his posterity into spiritual, temporal, and eternal death.

We read of this most pointedly in Genesis chapter 2. We've done podcasts on this as well, so we're not going to get mired in the weeds here. It's very clear how there's this intentional arrangement, even how God creates man and then plants the garden of Eden and then puts man in the garden for a particular purpose to work and keep it, and then announces the sanction that you shall not do this, and in the day that you do this, this is what will happen.

It's very clear, not only from Genesis 2 but thereafter, that Adam represented the entire human race in that covenantal arrangement. We are with him. We are with Adam. We are in Adam in this. Whatever his works resulted in, we would also reap that.

His guilt and his sin because of his failure are counted to us. It's very plain. Think Romans 5, 12 -21. That's the covenant of works, and this is a big deal, John. I'm going to let you riff on this for a minute.

To affirm the covenant of works and Adam's representation of us all contingent upon his obedience, he could earn life or plunge us into ruin. That's a big deal theologically, and it has a lot to do with assurance and peace and the work of Christ and his sufficiency.

There are a number of people, I'm going to tee you up on this too, that would claim to be reformed or would even claim to subscribe to the Westminster Confession or something, who will not affirm the covenant of works in this way.

That's a problem. Justin Perdue. That is. I'll start with where the agreement is. When I learned the covenant of works, it really made a half gospel a whole gospel. Jesus didn't just pay for my sins. He is my righteousness.

Jon Moffitt. He accomplished everything you need. Justin Perdue. That's right. For Corinthians, it says, for as in Adam all died, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. What we lost in Adam, we have not only gained in Christ, but we've gained more because we gained all of Christ's righteousness.

Jon Moffitt. It's an invincible righteousness. Justin Perdue. That's right. When I started understanding covenant of works, I'll just riff on this for a moment, then I'll explain why it's dangerous to be off.

Paul says, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We don't think about the concept of the glory of God, but the glory of God, if Adam, it says, if basically, Hebrews says that when Jesus rose from the grave, because of his acts, both passive and active, receiving the sacrifice of the cross and then his obedience, it says he brought many sons to glory.

Jon Moffitt. Romans 3 says men fell short of the glory, and who brought us there? Jesus brought us to the glory, which means Adam would have brought himself to the glory if he would have obeyed. Justin Perdue.

Right. Romans 3 to your point is a covenant of works verse. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Just like Adam, we all have. We did not attain to it. That's not typically how verse is taught in evangelicalism.

It's not helpful. Paul Matzko. No, it's not. But it's important because when you compare it to Hebrews 2, Jesus becomes the Adam who brings us into glory because we can't bring ourselves. Listen, this is where this is important.

We gain the glory of God, entrance into it, to be with him in a perfect state that will never change because of the obedience of Jesus. We're clothed in his righteousness. This is the covenant of works.

Now, listen, I love my dispensational brothers. I'm going to throw this to you. I don't care what you call it. Sometimes you're like, oh, there's no word covenant in Genesis. I don't care. You have to hold to the work of Christ on our behalf.

Call it a covenant if you want, but Christ's work on our behalf of why we enter into the Father's glory is the only reason. Now, this is where Justin and I are saying there's room for debate. There's room for there to be differences of understanding within the confessional reform view, but then there are lines, Justin, and when we start dealing with things like the nature of Christ or the work of Christ, we have to draw a line and say no.

A great example of this is a podcast we've done multiple times. You can go look it up. So many people are pointing this out, but Doug Wilson is an example of where he is outright just denying the concept of the covenant of works.

It's not the word that they're really denying. I don't care. Call it a covenant of creation. Call it whatever you want to call it. They're actually denying the act of obedience of Christ's work on our behalf.

Justin Perdue. Which is the theological outflow of the covenant of works, which we're going to get to in a minute. I'll explain it to you this way. It's either you profess faith in Christ and receive forgiveness of sins and then by obedience prove your entrance into the glory of God, which they'll say is the work of the Holy Spirit.

It's still not theologically accurate. Yes, we do good works, but they're not credited to our righteousness before glory. Or you believe that you put faith in Christ and that faith in Christ not only cleanses you but also clothes you in his righteousness and our obedience is only the fruit of what we've already received.

This is where the covenant of works, we agree with our brothers. What confession you hold to, we don't care. We all agree that that is not the proper view. Justin Perdue. You heard us say about the covenant of redemption that God the Son has given work to do in order to save his people.

As we get the covenant of works, we understand a little bit more about how this is going to happen. Because Adam failed to obey, Jesus is going to come and obey in every way that Adam failed. Whenever you hear the language of the second Adam or the new and better Adam, that's covenant of works categories.

It's because as Adam represented us all, it's very clear that Jesus will represent everybody who's in him. Then his merit is going to be counted to those people who are in him. That's where we're going to go next in terms of thinking about the covenant of grace.

I agree. Last comment on the covenant of works, it's important that you affirm this category because when you begin, you deny it. I don't care if you say you subscribe to the Westminster Confession or whatever, but if you start saying that Adam would have attained eternal life through faith and obedience, and then you lay that paradigm over onto what it means to be a Christian, we have all kinds of problems.

That is no longer an historically covenantal understanding, and it also conflates the law and the gospel. It's really detrimental. Now let's talk. We've done covenant of redemption and covenant of works.

Covenant of Grace, Union with Christ, and the One Story of Scripture

The question is, if God the Son incarnate is going to accomplish work that's going to save his people, if he's going to be the new and better Adam, and he's going to fulfill a covenant of works in the place of his people, how is his merit applied to his people?

That's where the covenant of grace comes in. The covenant of grace is where the merits of Christ, in terms of everything that he did to atone for our sins, to satisfy the wrath of God for our sin, to fulfill all of the law's requirements for righteousness, where all of that, everything that he's accomplished, is applied to sinners.

It is not by merit, it is by grace, hence the name, and it is not attained by works, but it is received by faith. So that's the covenant of grace, where by faith, God in his grace gives us the merit, the righteousness, the satisfaction, the holiness of Jesus Christ.

He is our representative in the covenant of grace, and so we now have peace with God forever. You see how these go together, and they beautifully help us to see as well how all of the Scripture is a cohesive whole, and how it all centers on Jesus, on who he is and what he did, and how he's always been the plan, his love for us, the joy that was set before him to inherit us forever, like Hebrews 12.

He endured the cross, despising the shame because of that joy that was set before him. It's beautiful. Everybody in the Reformed tradition broadly would affirm these things and would affirm that the covenant of grace is this.

We would preach Christ from all of Scripture, because you can say that Abraham received the gospel and he believed. I don't care if you're a Westminsterian or a 1689, you're going to agree with that statement, because it's the covenant of grace that saved Abraham.

It's received by faith. Everybody agrees that the gospel was preached to Abraham, that promises were made to Abraham that were spiritual and salvific, and that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day and he saw it by faith and was glad.

We all agree that it is those who are of faith who are the sons and daughters of Abraham. This is where the particular Baptists, those who were coming out of the Westminster, they saw this. They embraced it.

It's in our confession, which is so amazing to see. It's refreshing to be able to lead a congregation through, I would say, there's so much theological clutter in modern Christianity. What is refreshing about the confession is the confession has been simple from day go.

The story overarching is redemption. It's a fulfillment of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. That's how the story unfolds. We have a sovereign Lord who saves sinners, and we can proclaim that good news to the world.

All of the Reformed would agree that that's what the Bible teaches. It's refreshing. This is why we get along so well. We were just with Chris Gordon and Dr. Bob Godfrey. We were with R. Scott Clark. We can get along with these guys because we agree when it's time to preach Jesus, we're going to the same place.

We're going to the same text, and we're going to say the same thing. Shout out to Sean McCann, pastor of Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church here in Asheville. He's my best pastor friend in town. He's a Presbyterian.

There's a reason for that because we agree on these matters. What you said about simplicity and clarity is so good because this tri-covenantal framework of redemption, works, and grace saves us from a multitude of errors.

It also helps every Christian. The layperson who has the most basic knowledge of this framework can parachute into any text in Scripture and get their bearings because you know what's going on. You're going to be guarded from all of these really strange misinterpretations where we're way out over our skis and drawing all of these conclusions from some obscure passage.

You're going to be guarded from that and protected from that because you have these frameworks. I was going to mention this earlier. This is an example. I don't know if you've ever heard the end of Genesis 3 preached in weird ways where nobody knows what to do with that whole tree of life thing.

This is the covenant of works and grace paradigm where everybody knows after Adam and Eve sinned, they are expelled from the garden. It's a violent expulsion too. They are thrown and driven out of the Garden of Eden because of their sin and corruption.

Then God places a cherubim with flaming swords and the whole thing to guard the way to the tree of life. Why? People don't know what to do with the way it's worded. It says, the Godhead, less they eat of this fruit and be like us forever.

It's like, what's the issue? People are like, God doesn't want them to be trapped in an eternal state of sin. The tree of life is the tree of life, and it shows up again in the end of the scripture in the new heavens and the new earth.

This is redemption and life blessed forever. The reason that Adam and Eve are driven away and angels, like cherubim with flaming swords, are placed to guard the way is because Adam and Eve will no longer have access to the tree of life on their own merit.

The covenant of works was broken and then access to the tree of life must come another way, i .e. through the covenant of grace, through Jesus alone, which is why in the book of Revelation it's written, he gives access.

He says, I give access to eat of the tree of life. It is only through him. That's just one example of hundreds that we could come up with that helps us to see the simplicity and the beauty of how all of scripture really is telling this one story of how Jesus is the hero and the Savior, and we will be with him forever.

It's going to be completely because of what he has done, and it will redound to the glory of God through eternity. It's wonderful. Jon Moffitt. That's what makes the law so powerful. God restores Israel from bondage and then pulls them out into the wilderness and is going to temporarily re-establish communion with them from a distance.

To do that, because he's going to fulfill this promise he gave to Abraham, he establishes this Levitical covenant with them to allow them to be blessed and protected so that we could fulfill this promise of redemption.

What's interesting is that what that law ends up being for us is a way to watch and say, okay, there's no one who can earn perpetual obedience to stay within the presence of God. This is why Jesus says when the rich young ruler goes, hey, I'm ready to be in the presence of God, like in his kingdom.