SRR 93 Brandon Adams on Covenant Theology & Republication, Part II

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

0 comments

00:02
I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone.
00:13
When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the error and combating the error.
00:24
We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make,
00:30
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.
00:36
We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing.
00:57
It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said,
01:07
Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to,
01:13
Blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It is on.
01:23
We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the podcast.
01:33
My name is Tim Shaughnessy and you are listening to Semper Rifframanda Radio. So this is going to be part two in our discussion with Brandon Adams.
01:42
And I just want to give a big thanks to Brandon. This should have been out a while ago, but I got pretty busy with the new baby at home and just haven't had time to edit it.
01:55
So if you remember in part one, we left off with Brandon talking about how John Murray denied the covenant of works.
02:02
And this was new to me, at least. And I think new to Carlos as well. And so that's where we're going to be picking up today.
02:10
If you have any questions or comments, you can email us at Semper .Rifframanda .Radio at gmail .com.
02:17
Big thanks to Brandon and hope you get something out of it. God bless. This is interesting because I thought, and I'm going to have to go back and listen to this, because I thought
02:29
I heard Sam Waldron argue that Murray did not deny the covenant of works.
02:37
So this is really interesting. Yeah, and now I'm even more curious because when you read the report,
02:45
I read through the introduction at least, and they give the impression that Murray is still sound, that he's still within the bounds of Westminster orthodoxy.
02:54
And, I mean, if he denies the covenant of works, then that's obviously not, you're not, you don't subscribe to the confession plainly.
03:03
So that was, I guess I was kind of misled by what the report says. Yeah, well, it gets super, super complicated.
03:12
So part of the issue is a matter of subscription. And I've got all this worked out in an article we can link to so people can read it in more detail.
03:19
But it comes down to the matter of subscription. You know, are you allowed to take exceptions to parts of the confession and still remain orthodox and part of the
03:29
OPC? And so thus far, it has been the case. So ever since the original
03:34
Westminster Confession, theologians were allowed to take exception. And that goes back to the historical context of it being a national model for churches.
03:45
But even J .B. Fesko, right, who is completely opposed to Murray's theology, in an essay that he has about the nature of subscription says, yeah,
03:55
John Murray denied the covenant of works, but he still held the confession just fine because you can do that.
04:01
So that's part of it. The OPC report. So a lot of those guys follow Murray and they have tried to use
04:09
Westminster 7 .1 to say to really emphasize the gracious aspect. And to try to say that's all
04:18
Murray meant. But it's there. They're leaving out Murray's argument regarding the works principle specifically.
04:25
And they're neglecting the fact that even though it was a condescension on God's part, it was still a covenant of works.
04:32
It was still founded upon covenantal obedience, covenantal merit. And that's what
04:37
Murray specifically denied. Well, let me ask you this. I spoke to a reformed theologian, and I'm not going to name who it is because I didn't even ask him for permission to say this.
04:53
But he basically said that his confidence in the OPC and its committee has really ceased when the
05:05
OPC failed to deal with Shepard's false gospel, Gaffin's false gospel,
05:11
Kinnard's false gospel, and failed to deal with Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. And so, what confidence can we have in the
05:19
OPC report in light of the fact that... And Carlos, you were even talking about this with me on the phone earlier, is that the
05:27
OPC sort of made a debacle of the Clark Van Teel controversy and went after the wrong guy.
05:35
Yeah. In the same way, that's the impression I got from reading the report.
05:40
That they went after the wrong guy again, which was Klein, and they defended the wrong guy. And now they're sort of like...
05:48
it's almost like they were on the wrong side of the fence. Very similar to the
05:54
Clark Van Teel controversy, but yeah. Yeah. Well, I would say a few things.
06:00
I would say, first of all, yeah, for those reasons, you should not have confidence.
06:06
You should not assume necessarily that the report is correct. You should study the issue on your own, thoroughly, before coming to any conclusion one way or another.
06:16
Personally, I've been studying the issue for 10 years, and I found the OPC report to be one of the best documents explaining the historical theology and the view of the
06:26
Westminster Confession on this issue. I don't agree with the
06:31
OPC on a number of issues, but with regards to this republication debate, that report is one of the most helpful in understanding the historical context and the historical theology.
06:43
Conversely, the republication guys, by and large, their historical theology is very poor. When I've taken the time to go and look up the original sources and read them in their own context,
06:56
I've found that they've misunderstood and misused them time and time and time again. So, you know, you can't take my word for it.
07:04
You shouldn't take the OPC words for it. You should study the issue yourself, and you shouldn't simply dismiss it just because of the history of Sheppard and Murray.
07:13
You should study it on its own terms and conditions there. But I think that there is a natural progression from Murray to Sheppard.
07:21
I don't think that Sheppard agreed with Murray on every point. I think he took it a step further.
07:26
Murray denied, and I have another article on the background of the OPC report going into more detail on this, but if there is no
07:36
Adamic covenant of works, Murray denied that, then there is no law gospel distinction.
07:47
And that's what Sheppard denied. The law gospel distinction is specifically the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
07:53
If there is no covenant of works, then there is no law gospel distinction. And that's where Sheppard took
07:59
Murray a step further. And there's one other quick note here. In the 40s,
08:05
Murray was actually the head of a committee in the OPC to review and revise and adapt and add new proof text to the
08:14
Westminster Standards as used by the OPC. So I mentioned that the
08:21
Leviticus 18 .5 was not used in the original Westminster Confession as a proof text for the covenant of works.
08:27
It was actually not cited anywhere in the standards for anything. However, under Murray's direction, the
08:38
OPC added it, Leviticus 18 .5, as a proof text to Westminster 19 .6.
08:45
So 19 .6 says, That last section right there regarding the threatenings and the promises.
09:46
of the law in the life of the believer is what Murray added Leviticus 18 .5
09:52
as a proof text for. That's pretty substantial, and it shows a logical conclusion of where this all leads.
10:03
Leviticus 18 .5 is stating the principle of the life in the life of the believer.
10:10
Yeah, there's a lot to learn here. It's a huge topic, yeah.
10:18
Well, is this the area of theology that you have studied the most?
10:25
I mean, it's not something that I've studied as in depth as you, and so I really can't comment on too much of what you've said.
10:35
I can just listen and then maybe go back and read the stuff that you've tried to point to.
10:41
But is this an area of expertise for you? Yeah, if I have any expertise at all,
10:49
I guess this would be it. I'm not claiming that I do, but yes, this has taken up my focus for the last 10 years or so, coming to theology and just unraveling the implications of these things.
11:02
My Clarkianism shows through in a lot of this in that I demand logical precision and drawing out ideas to their necessary conclusions and showing where they lead.
11:12
I think that's what this discussion here of the Westminster view and its understanding of Leviticus 18 .5 shows.
11:19
I think Leviticus 18 .5 really is a crux here in the covenantal debate and in baptism and all of that.
11:28
Right. So, this is a good springboard now to talk a little bit about the
11:34
Baptist side of things. So, Leviticus 18 .5, do this and live.
11:41
The way Reformed Baptists reconcile that is that they just basically say that the
11:47
Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace and that it's temporal.
11:53
It's tied to temporal blessings, right? Could you explain for us what are the different, or I guess the major different Reformed Baptist views?
12:07
Because I've heard that there's basically two, and I was actually surprised to hear that.
12:14
Because my understanding was that by and large Reformed Baptists were federalists, 1689 federalists.
12:20
But I've heard you make some comments on other podcasts about there being other views. I think it's primarily another view.
12:27
And I also heard another podcast from the Confessing Baptists where they interviewed, I forget what his name was, but he's one of the leaders in ARCA, and he doesn't hold to 1689 federalism.
12:40
So, that really surprised me. So, could you just kind of take the time and sort of explain the different Reformed Baptist views for us?
12:48
Sure, yeah, I appreciate the question. So, some of the history here, confessionalism,
12:57
Baptist confessionalism kind of died out in the beginning of the 20th century. James Ranahan talks a little bit about this, explains it in his chapter in the volume,
13:08
Recovering a Covenantal Heritage. So, he talks about certain various influences, just kind of a depreciation of theology as a whole, led to the downfall of confessionalism amongst
13:20
Baptists, and just kind of fell out of favor. And by God's sovereign grace, some of it was through A .W.
13:27
Pink's writings, put into the hands of certain men. Anyways, in the 1950s or so, there was this spontaneous resurgence of Baptists holding to Calvinism.
13:40
And they grew steadily from that time on, and kind of had to relearn a lot of these things, as there wasn't a continuous heritage there teaching them.
13:50
So, a lot of them had to relearn a lot of it. A lot of it was geographically in the
13:55
Westminster, Philadelphia region. And they wound up learning a lot from Westminster Seminary, from John Murray specifically, and the other theologians there.
14:06
And so, they more or less cut their teeth on Murray's theology.
14:12
But they maintained their Baptist convictions. They saw that there were a lot of contradictions and lack of biblical support.
14:19
But in developing their covenant theology, they more or less adopted the
14:25
Westminster conviction that all the post -fall covenants were administrations of the covenant of grace.
14:33
And so, they would argue that, yeah, in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace, children were included, they received the sign.
14:41
But in the new covenant administration, things have progressed. We now understand the gospel more fully, and that was types and shadows.
14:49
And so, children are now no longer included in the administration of the covenant of grace. So, they would kind of make this progressive argument.
14:56
But they would argue that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were the covenant of grace. And they would tend to view the
15:02
Mosaic law as a gracious giving of the law, not as the law as a covenant of works.
15:09
Although, it's very interesting. You mentioned somebody on the Confessing Baptist there. If it's the same one
15:16
I'm thinking of, he stated he doesn't hold to 1689 federalism and has some concerns with it.
15:22
But he also specifically quoted Samuel Bolton as articulating his own view.
15:29
I think it might be the same guy. Yeah, that sounds familiar. Yeah, and as warning against what he saw as certain problems with 1689 federalism.
15:38
The really interesting point there is Samuel Bolton held to this subservient covenant position, which is basically the same as 1689 federalism's view of the
15:47
Mosaic covenant. So, in that particular instance, the disagreement stems from just a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the position more than anything else.
15:57
But by and large, sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself here, but as time progressed and people had a little more opportunity to go back to some older sources and maybe just to look at Scripture in a different manner, not necessarily influenced by Murray and some of the other theologians, they saw that that's not necessarily the case.
16:21
I mean, that was my path here. I started studying it when I was teaching a
16:26
Bible study through Genesis. And I started studying covenant theology and what I was reading didn't line up with what
16:32
I thought Scripture was saying. And then through the course of talking with people, I started to get led towards John Owen and some of the
16:38
Nehemiah Cox and some of these historical guys. But it was a very small voice that was saying these things.
16:45
So I thought that voice needed to be heard more prominently. And so now we have that view.
16:52
People understand that view and it seems to be a lot of people hold it today. But a lot of the guys who have been in the ministry for a very long time, who dedicated their lives there, who spent their lives studying and developing this older view, just haven't necessarily had the time in their busy schedules to try to understand and examine this new view.
17:12
And some of them who have still don't agree with every point of it. So that's kind of where we are today in a nutshell.
17:19
A lot of the younger people are starting with 1689 federalism and understanding that and coming to agree with it.
17:25
Some other people haven't had time to study it yet. Yeah, okay. So essentially there's two views.
17:34
Yeah, yeah, more or less. So, sorry, I forgot your question was also about Leviticus 18 .5.
17:39
So the way that 1689 federalism would understand it is that the law was given to Israel, like you said, as a covenant of works, not for eternal life, but for temporal life and blessing in the land of Canaan.
17:51
So Mosaic curses and blessings for Israel in the land, famine and war and exile and things like that were upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law.
18:03
And again, just to clarify, 1689 federalism, it was just a label that was adopted.
18:08
It doesn't imply that the other view is contrary to the confession. It's not.
18:14
The confession is the language is written broadly enough to embrace both views. Yeah. So does the other view have a name?
18:22
Not really. You know, I've referred to it as the 20th century Reformed Baptist view.
18:27
I don't do that disparagingly. I just, you know, that's what's become prominent in the 20th century.
18:34
And what's what was developed by those men, you know, Sam Waldron, Earl Blackburn, Walt Chantry, James White, you know, guys like that.
18:42
Yeah. It was Earl Blackburn. That's who it was. Yeah, I remember now.
18:48
So, OK, so this this is what really struck me, though, because it sounds like from what
18:55
I've been from what I saw or from what I've been from what I've studied, that this view is almost an accident.
19:03
It's almost like an accident because I guess the original Reformed Baptist authors kind of got lost.
19:10
And there was, you know, you kind of explained it already.
19:15
But when when when Baptists started coming back, I guess, to to confessionalism and to Reformed theology, they they came back under Presbyterians.
19:26
And so, I mean, it's kind of it's a little odd to see how things kind of manifested, because so James White, those guys you listed
19:36
James White, Earl Blackburn. I didn't know Waldron. I thought Waldron was a
19:41
Federalist, a 1689 Federalist. There's, you know, since, you know, in the last whatever, five, ten years or whatever, as we've been able to explain 1689
19:57
Federalism more and more, you know, Waldron specifically hasn't said a ton about it.
20:02
But he has studied it in some interaction that I've seen. He's very, very close to it, actually. He does.
20:08
He does have a few points of disagreement. And the discussion, I think, has helped maybe clarify a few things.
20:14
So but he would he would disagree that only the New Covenant is the covenant of grace.
20:19
He would say that the covenant of grace is an overarching covenant not identified with any covenant in Scripture.
20:25
Oh, but, you know, there are a lot of a lot of points where where he would agree.
20:33
So, right. But that's a pretty significant point there, because that's almost that's basically the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists.
20:42
I mean, so and I remember that's really funny, because I remember reading
20:47
Walter Chantry. He he has a you know, there's a there's a booklet on Chapel Library from Walter Chantry about the covenant of grace or something about the covenants.
21:00
And I was kind of I wasn't sure what to make of it, because I thought, OK, this guy is
21:06
Reformed Baptist. So why does he kind of sound a little bit Presbyterian? So is it kind of so he's one of those guys that is not.
21:14
He yeah, he graduated from Westminster, Philadelphia. Yeah. Yeah. And he's I mean, that's where his ministry was, was in that that geographic area.
21:21
So he was very closely related with him and with Banner of Trust and things like that. Right.
21:27
But but he's not. So then he wouldn't be a Federalist 1689 Federalist that, you know.
21:33
Correct. Yeah. OK. Yeah, that's that's really interesting. Yeah. And, you know, part of it is that you actually can't point to a systematic.
21:44
Fred Malone's is maybe the closest baptism of disciples alone. And he's actually, you know, leans pretty close to 1689
21:51
Federalism these days, from what I understand. But but it's it's hard to point to, you know, they just they had a lot on their plate.
21:59
They were dealing with a lot of things in their ministry. So writing out a full treatment of all the covenants and scripture wasn't wasn't a top priority.
22:06
So. Right. You know, it's an it's an ongoing conversation. Right. And obviously you're the guy that runs the 1689
22:13
Federalism website, which is a really I've learned a ton from that website. I'm really grateful that you've been putting that stuff out there because it's helped me a lot.
22:21
And one of the things I appreciate about it is, is as I've studied this stuff in more detail,
22:27
I've kind of had these sort of these these kind of like nudges or senses that something
22:33
I want to verbalize it, but I haven't quite worked it out. And when I start reading these guys, the 1689
22:39
Federalists, it's exactly what I kind of wanted to say all along, what I kind of thought all along.
22:45
So I find it very it's I find it to be a very compelling, logically consistent view.
22:50
And I could see where you're going. I can see where you're coming from, because I guess you're saying, and I've heard some of your criticisms of Presbyterian covenant theology, that there's inherent contradictions.
23:04
Right. There's inherent instabilities in the system. And so that that is what can lead to some of these extremes like John Murray or what you explained in those situations.
23:16
And so that's part of the reason why I'm not a Presbyterian myself, because I read
23:21
Calvin discussing the differences between the old and the new covenants. And he said it was basically just one of them, just administrative.
23:28
And I was that really threw me off. It didn't really make sense with how how do you reconcile that with Ezekiel, where it talks about it's a new covenant, not like the or I'm sorry,
23:39
Jeremiah 31. Right. You know, it's not like the old covenant. It's going to be a new covenant. And so that sounds like a substantially different covenant.
23:46
But yeah. And it's you know, it's very interesting because Kleinians agree with our interpretation there. They said, yeah, absolutely.
23:52
Exactly. That's what's so funny about this. Yeah. They just try to lean on Abraham and kind of leapfrog the covenant.
24:00
Well, it's funny that it's yeah, it's really funny that you mentioned that, because that's what I was that's what I was joking with Pastor Hines about that.
24:06
If you see if you see the Abrahamic covenant as a substantially grace, then and in having more in common with the new covenant than with the old covenant, then that's almost like by way of transitive property, you know, kind of like, well, that kind of puts you more in our camp because Moses doesn't really have that element to it.
24:29
You know, it's obviously very law oriented. There's a there's a major legal component tied to Moses that that's, you know, but.
24:37
Yeah, I would just on that note, I would really encourage people to read Samuel Renahan's book. It really does a good job of showing how the 17th century particular
24:47
Baptist came out of the congregationalist view. And the congregationalists were the ones that understand understood this subservient covenant view.
24:56
They rejected the Westminster view. And and he just does a really good job of showing step by step how recognizing the
25:04
Mosaic covenant is a separate covenant, a covenant of works for life and land, how that acknowledgement necessarily leads to creedal baptism.
25:12
And he he draws it out very well. Yeah. So and he's one of the major guys. Right. I know he is.
25:17
I think Richard Barcelos, Pascal, Pascal, and all those are like the 1689ers that are kind of promoting or restoring,
25:27
I guess you could say, you know, traditional reform Baptist theology so that this is where I'm really glad we're getting a chance to address this, because I've had this on my mind for a long time.
25:40
So you're saying to kind of recap a little bit the the Presbyterian discussion on republication.
25:45
It sounds like what you're saying is that these guys, R. Scott Clark, what basically
25:51
Westminster West for the most part, J .B. Fesco, R. Scott Clark, these guys, they attempted,
25:58
Klein, including Klein, they're attempting to reconcile some of these these these really strong tensions between Westminster federalism that sort of results in them sounding like reformed
26:11
Baptist in some sense by acknowledging a works principle tied to the Abrahamic covenant.
26:17
But now, but what you're saying is that this is not what the original Westminster federalism.
26:23
Right. And that the the ones and now on the other end, like Westminster East, they are basically taking this to a more logical conclusion as to what the position entails,
26:37
Westminster federalism entails, which can lead to some obviously very serious errors, including like a complete blurring of the law gospel distinction.
26:49
Right. Yeah. Yeah. And OK. Yeah. It all has to do with the covenant of works. And that's that's what it gets back to.
26:58
And Murray showed that if Leviticus 18 to 5 is stating the condition of the covenant of grace, then there is no biblical support for a covenant operating on the works principle without him.
27:08
Yeah. Right. And all of this sounds awfully familiar to Piper. It's actually. Oh, absolutely.
27:14
Yeah. I've got a post about that. He yeah, he and Doug Wilson, Doug Wilson says he agrees with Piper's interpretation or rejection of the covenant of works.
27:22
Right. And these guys lean on Shepherd. And yes, it all gets back to the covenant of works.
27:28
And and, you know, Doug Wilson and those guys like that who try to, you know, try to claim some kind of confessional fidelity, they'll they'll try to emphasize this gracious nature of the
27:38
Adamic covenant of works and how God condescended. And they'll try to somehow twist that into saying, well, you know, therefore, it wasn't a covenant of works and it was all grace and yada, yada, yada.
27:47
Right. Right. So I really want to touch on this a little bit with respect to the law, because the law here.
27:55
So I had some questions up here for you. Sure. There's there's a lot of verses in the New Testament that, you know, as we've kind of interacted with others and especially new covenant guys on issues tied to certain passages of like first and first Corinthians, you know, where Paul makes a distinction between those who are not under the law and those who are under the law and and being under the law of Christ.
28:20
And then the passage of Colossians two, where it says that Christ's death blots out the handwritten, the handwriting of ordinances that were written against us.
28:29
And and then we get to Galatians where Paul is talking about the law there.
28:34
So I wanted to ask you, how do you reconcile, you know, a lot of these passages that in some some of them seem to suggest that Gentiles in some way were under or guilty of the
28:49
Mosaic law as a whole? And the other passages that seem to say that, well, they those who are you know, they're not under that law, but they are still under the moral law.
29:01
Right. Yeah, I think the fact goes, the issue goes back to the fact that there is overlap between the law written on the heart and the law that was given to Israel.
29:12
So if we go to, you know, Romans two, 14 to 15, Paul, in that context, is talking about Jews living up to and obeying the law that they have been given.
29:26
And then he says Gentiles have the law written on their hearts. Right. There's identity between the law in that context.
29:32
He's saying the same law that you had revealed to you, the Gentiles have written on their heart. So there is overlap in that sense.
29:40
So that would just point to identity of commandments. But the question is, then, how does that relate to works and the law as a covenant of works?
29:51
And in that sense, I believe that God gave in his providence, he set up Israel as a type and a shadow.
30:01
He set up the Mosaic Covenant as a type and a shadow as a huge example for us to better understand not only the work of Christ, but also what was going on with Adam.
30:11
What happened with Adam? Yeah. Right. Because we don't have we don't have the written record of all the details of the
30:19
Adamic Covenant, the way that we do with the Mosaic Covenant. And so, for example, with Leviticus 18 .5,
30:25
right, that's stating the condition of a covenant of works in its original context. It referred to temporal life in the land of Canaan.
30:35
When Christ came, the type and shadow had become obsolete. And so Paul's argument is not about life in the land of Canaan.
30:42
Paul's argument is about eternal life. And he uses the written revelation of the Mosaic Covenant as a springboard to discuss the
30:49
Adamic Covenant of works that binds all image bearers outside of Christ. Right. Right.
30:55
So he can't he can't appeal to the written record of the Adamic Covenant, but he can appeal to the written record of the
31:00
Mosaic Covenant and say, see, this is the term here. If you do this, you will live. But he's talking about he's talking about the
31:08
Adamic Covenant that binds all people, if that makes sense. Yes, it does. So. So now how do you
31:15
I don't know if you read Clark's commentary on. Oh, go ahead, Tim. That's fine. This is all very, very complex.
31:21
I mean, this is this is deep theology. But let me see. Let me see how I can put this.
31:27
So in the covenant of works, God gave Adam certain conditions that he had to meet in order to earn a better status and eternal life.
31:38
So would it then I mean, is this correct to say that the conditions for the covenant that God made with Jesus in the new covenant were to impart to fulfill the all basically everything that came in the law, in the
31:58
Mosaic law. And when Paul is is basically saying that the
32:04
Gentiles are under the law, what he's basically saying is that if they were to attempt to gain salvation through that law, that they would have to keep everything that Christ kept.
32:17
And so usually when we see that a person is when it speaks of being under the law, it's with respect to regeneration or conversion, that you're either under the law, you're under the curse of the law brings or you're under grace.
32:31
And so I mean, is that my that's that's the way that I understood it.
32:38
Yeah. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So the moral law overlaps all of those things, right?
32:43
Christ had to perfectly obey the moral law, which was part of the Mosaic covenant, part of the Adamic covenant. Christ also had various other positive laws.
32:52
He didn't have a law not to eat from the tree of life, tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he had the positive law to go to the cross and bear the sins of his people.
33:03
He had these other positive laws to obey, and those were given to him in the covenant of redemption between the
33:08
Father and the Son. But yes, those were not under the law, but under grace, yeah, refers to life under Adam, life under Christ.
33:20
The curse of the law refers to the curse of the covenant of works. And you escape from that only by being in Christ.
33:28
So yeah, I think what you said there is certainly in line. Well, Carlos, I know that you were super excited to continue.
33:35
Yeah, sure. Okay, so Brandon now... Sorry, let me throw one other note in real quick, because you had asked about Leviticus 18 .5
33:46
and how Paul quotes it and the law and all that. I would just say one other reference is I would really encourage people to read
33:51
Brian Estelle's chapter about Leviticus 18 .5 in the book called
33:57
The Law is Not a Faith. You mentioned that earlier, put out by the Westminster West guys.
34:02
I don't think that their historical theology chapters in that section are reliable, but his chapter is excellent and really explains things.
34:12
I agree with it quite a bit. Yeah, I'm going to have to get my hands on that. Okay, so now
34:17
Colossians 2 .14. I don't know if you've read Clark's commentary on Colossians, and if you're not prepared to answer this, it's fine.
34:25
I was just curious to see what you thought about this, because Clark, he argues that...
34:30
I think it's in 2 .14. Yeah, having erased the bond with its stipulations that was against us, which was contrary to our interest and has lifted it out of our way, nailing it to the cross.
34:42
So he argues that this is talking about the entire Mosaic law. And that would also basically put it that...
34:51
so here, let me read this. However, without abrogating morality, we must understand the handwriting to be the whole
34:58
Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments. If, as is the case, the ceremonial law has been abrogated, such must be said in other passages as, for example,
35:08
Acts 10 and Galatians 2 .11 and following. What is meant here is the whole law, decidedly including the moral law.
35:16
It is the complete law that condemns Jews and Gentiles alike. No doubt the cross atones for Jewish infractions of the sacrifices in temple ritual.
35:25
But the text here says, having forgiven all your transgressions, not just ceremonial transgressions, this is what the
35:31
Gentiles needed. It is also what the Jews needed. And he's saying this because I think Calvin said that this was only referring to the ceremonial law.
35:39
But he's saying that it's obviously that it's everything applied to both Jew and Gentile. So what do you make of that passage there?
35:48
Yeah, I mean, that certainly makes sense. I would have to study the passage more directly to comment too much.
35:58
But yeah, I think that certainly makes sense. And yeah, it highlights an issue with the Westminster view.
36:05
They would tend to like to make the references to the law refer to the ceremonial law primarily in a lot of instances like that.
36:17
Because they believe that, for example, and this is where a 1689 federalism argument against New Covenant theology is much different from a
36:26
Westminster argument against New Covenant theology. So Westminster would argue that the law was given on Mount Sinai to the church and it was never abrogated.
36:38
So it comes to us believers through Mount Sinai and continues today. It was never abrogated, never made obsolete.
36:45
It continues into the New Covenant. The other judicial and ceremonial laws are abrogated, but not the moral law.
36:51
So the moral law comes to Christians through through Mount Sinai and 1689 federalism would say, you know, similar to how you just quoted
36:59
Clark. Now, the law was given to Israel as a covenant of works and that entire law, moral, ceremonial and civil.
37:06
That whole unit was abrogated together with the Old Covenant. And we are not under that. We are under the moral law that binds all image bearers through the mediation of Christ who has forgiven us our sins for violating that law.
37:20
Right. So, OK, I'm really glad you touched on that point because I wanted to ask you this as well. My understanding of the
37:27
Presbyterian and the Reformed Baptist view of the law specifically is that I thought that there was a fair amount of overlap.
37:34
I didn't think there was that much of a difference outside of maybe what you touched on with respect to the
37:41
Mosaic Covenant, because I thought that they basically held the same outside of theonomist.
37:49
They have a little bit more going on there. But I thought that, you know, Presbyterians and Baptists kind of held the same view with respect to that because it's the moral law.
37:59
Right. And yeah, it's very it's very similar. It's just some important nuances.
38:05
So we both agree that the Ten Commandments, the moral law is summarily comprehended in the
38:11
Ten Commandments. And that's the law that was given written on the heart of all image bearers. It's reflective of God's nature.
38:19
It binds all people at all times. So that's where we where we agree. Where we disagree is how we see the relationship between Mount Sinai and the
38:30
Decalogue and Christians today. So a lot of New Covenant theologians will rightly disagree with Westminster when they hear these.
38:44
That's part of why they reject the threefold division of the law is because the way that Westminster tends to argue is they'll say, yeah, the ceremonial and the civil that was abrogated.
38:54
But we divide the law into three and the Ten Commandments, the moral law that continues and the covenants are the same.
39:01
So that that part has never been abrogated and that continues today. And so New Covenant guys will look at that and say, well, no, the law is a unit.
39:09
You know, it's it's been abrogated as a unit. And and we would agree with both views. You know, we would say we would say that, yes, the law is a unit.
39:18
The law was given to Israel in a way that it is not given to the church and the way that it was given to Israel has been abrogated.
39:25
However, part of the law that was given to Israel overlaps with the law that binds all people at all times.
39:32
And that has never been abrogated because it's reflective of God's nature. And they would agree with this, depending on which ones you talk to, because they would say, well, yeah, you know, you shall not murder that.
39:45
That's a transcendent law that applies to all people at all times. And that was part of Mosaic law and it continues today.
39:50
But the law as a whole unit is abrogated. We would say, yes, you're right. We just would identify that that point of transcendent overlap as the laws that were written in stone.
40:00
And that's where we would disagree with New Covenant theology. See, and that's I understood the moral law is trans covenantal.
40:07
And I think that it's funny that New Covenant theologians, it seems like they primarily attack the
40:15
Presbyterian view, but it's the Reformed Baptists or the particular Baptists that are actually taking them to task.
40:22
Yeah, it's just just remember some of the history there. So New Covenant theology sprung out of men like John Riesinger.
40:33
John Riesinger's brother was Ernest Riesinger. And Ernest was very played a huge role in that resurgence of Reformed Baptists that I talked about in the 50s.
40:44
He was a Baptist? Yes. Oh, I didn't know. I thought it was. Wow. OK.
40:50
Yeah. So so Ernest Riesinger held to this older 20th century Reformed Baptist view that we held to that we talked about, or at least
40:57
I assume that he did. He was in those circles and and New Covenant theology kind of emerged partly in response to that, those circles.
41:07
It was regards to the Sabbath and things like that. And so for, you know, 30 years or whatever, the argument between those camps was, you know, between New Covenant theology and this more
41:18
Westminster ish understanding of the one covenant multiple administrations view.
41:24
So so historically, that is what New Covenant theology has been arguing against when they are arguing with Baptists.
41:32
And then it's only more recently in the last several years that the more 1689 federalism view has emerged.
41:40
And, you know, some of them are taking the time to study it just like everyone else. I would say I've had some good conversations with Zach Maxey at Providence Theological Seminary.
41:51
And he seems to after chatting with him, he seems to understand the distinction a bit better.
41:57
And he has some good essays where he articulates the difference between Westminster and 1689 federalism and New Covenant theology.
42:06
So and he's he's New Covenant theologian. Yeah. Yeah. He's he works at Providence Theological Seminary, which is a
42:15
New Covenant theology seminary under Gary Long. So, OK, so you touched on a very important point that I've kind of overlooked when we were talking about.
42:25
So when we were engaging with New Covenant guys about the law, we kind of I assume that there was by and large an overlap between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
42:36
And from what you've explained, there basically is. And I even remember Calvin saying that the reason it's called the moral law is specifically not because the other commandments are not necessarily moral, that you're not obliged to keep them, but because it predates it predates the the
42:52
Mosaic covenant because it's tied. You know, it's obviously like the covenant works and it continues on. But so I think there's there's a significant overlap there, like you like you mentioned.
43:01
But I overlooked something very important, and that's how they view the covenant of grace.
43:08
And that is, I think, what you were touching on, that because they view the Mosaic covenant as part of the covenant of grace.
43:15
So that moral law sort of continues a little more strongly that that maybe
43:20
Reformed Baptists would be comfortable with because we obviously don't view it as part of the covenant of grace.
43:25
So that's a major nuance there that I that I had overlooked before. And that does make sense.
43:32
I can see why I can see why there's a sharper or at least why there's a there's some kind of a difference there between the two camps.
43:39
So that that was very helpful. OK, so now touching on maybe we can make this the last question.
43:49
So with respect to this whole issue of this came up with my discussion with Lewis Lyons, he was the new covenant guy that I had a discussion with.
44:03
And that was the issue of what law did Christ fulfill on our behalf?
44:10
Because my understanding is the Reformed view affirms that Christ satisfied the moral law tied to the covenant of works.
44:20
And then, you know, you have Romans 5 talking about Adam and Christ and you have that very obvious comparison there.
44:27
But then if he also satisfied the Mosaic, he obviously satisfied the
44:33
Mosaic law as well. And so how what would you say that purpose serves?
44:40
So if Christ satisfied both sets of the laws, right, he satisfied not just the moral law, but also the the complete outworking of the
44:48
Mosaic law. Is that Mosaic aspect of it applied in any way, shape or form to believers?
44:57
You know, outside of the moral law being applied, you know, being credited to us for righteousness?
45:05
I'm not certain I'm tracking with you. Yeah, me neither, Coach. Can you what was the point that Lewis Lyons was trying to make with that?
45:14
Because the way that the way that I see it, it's like Christ satisfied certain demands that were different from the demands or stipulations that Adam would have needed to satisfy.
45:28
We already talked about it. You know, he Adam was was forbidden from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
45:35
But it doesn't. So if we were wanting to earn our righteousness in the new covenant, we would have to obey all that Christ.
45:48
We would have to obey all that Christ did. But in Adam, I mean, we're already in Adam.
45:56
And so the curse of of the law, the curse that came by breaking the law is already over our heads.
46:05
Right. So I'm not really sure. That's exactly why I'm asking this, because the curse of the law is the moral law.
46:15
Right. But however, in Galatians, my understanding of Galatians is that Paul is talking about the mosaic law because he's obviously talking about circumcision.
46:24
But when he says, if you accept circumcision, you're bound to keep the entire law. And by that,
46:30
I understand it to be the mosaic. Yes. Yes. Because here's the thing. Christ kept those were the conditions that Christ is a federal head or federal representative.
46:40
Yes. Kept. So we're. But here's the thing. OK, here's here's here's the difference.
46:46
So Lewis said that the entire satisfaction of the mosaic law is applied to believers, is credited to believers for righteousness.
46:55
But my understanding is that the reform view. Right. That the reform view says that it's it's the moral law specifically that's applied to us as righteous, is not the mosaic outworkings.
47:07
So the mosaic covenant never offered eternal life to anyone. Right. That's exactly why.
47:13
Yeah, that was why I initially disagreed, because what you just said there. But then how do you reconcile that with Paul saying, if you accept circumcision, you're bound to keep the entire thing.
47:25
Right. So two things. One, the Judaizers are arguing about eternal life.
47:32
Right. They are arguing that in order to be saved eternally, you have to have faith in Christ and you have to obey and you have to be circumcised.
47:42
Yeah. So they are the Judaizers are making an argument from the mosaic covenant, from mosaic law.
47:52
So Paul goes to the mosaic covenant. And says, well, here's what the actual condition is with regards to circumcision.
48:00
It binds you. Circumcision binds you, obligates you to obey the entire mosaic law. And the mosaic law says if you want to earn the reward of the mosaic law, you have to keep it perfectly.
48:10
Right. So in its original context, that was limited to life in the land of Canaan. Right. And this is where kind of the misinterpretation and principle that we talked about with Westminster, it's where it has a grain of truth.
48:25
Right. Because the Judaizers did misunderstand the mosaic covenant. They misunderstood it because they thought it was offered them a reward of eternal life when it didn't.
48:35
But Paul was correct in interpreting it as a works principle. So Paul goes from the condition of the mosaic covenant and says, well, if you want to apply this to eternal life, here's the condition.
48:48
You got to obey it perfectly. Yeah. OK. Yeah, that makes sense. So now
48:53
I guess this can be a final thought here. When Christ was living, the mosaic covenant was still in effect.
49:03
And so he satisfied the mosaic covenant. Right. So that's that satisfaction of this, of the mosaic covenant.
49:14
Basically, the only purpose that served or the main purpose that served was to usher in the new covenant.
49:19
Or what would you say? Like, what would you say? Yeah. Speak to that. Christ. Christ himself didn't end the mosaic covenant by obeying it because it was a national covenant.
49:34
It wasn't just made with one person. He was not the federal head of the mosaic covenant. It was made with the entire nation and it was kept or broken by the entire nation.
49:45
The entire nation broke it after it was given. Right. The first generation in the wilderness broke it.
49:53
God, Moses went before God and asked him to have mercy. And so this is where some of the argument for the mosaic covenant being a covenant of grace comes from.
50:02
It's because, well, if it was, you know, the covenant of works, then they would have died immediately with no grace or mercy. And that's that's why we say, well, it's it's neither covenant.
50:10
It's a third type of covenant. But but Moses comes and asks God for mercy.
50:16
And and so God relents and he does not destroy Israel. And specifically, he appeals to God's promise to Abraham.
50:23
And because of that, God did not ultimately destroy Israel. And so you see this happen time and time and time again throughout the history of Israel where they break the mosaic covenant.
50:32
And so they deserve the curse. They deserve utter destruction and exile. But they don't get it because God had not yet fulfilled his promise promises made to Abraham.
50:45
Right. So one of the promise was that the the the offspring would inherit the land of Canaan.
50:53
And so all 12 tribes are not destroyed until they receive that whole land under David and Solomon and they possess everything that was promised.
51:03
And Scripture says that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled. Right after that point, they split the 10 tribes and the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and the 10 tribes are wiped out.
51:18
Because the only thing that is sustaining them, the only thing left is the promise that the Messiah would be born from them.
51:23
And the promise was not that the Messiah would be born through the 10 tribes. So they're done. They experienced the curse of the mosaic covenant for breaking it.
51:31
All that remains now is the tribe of Judah and Benjamin.
51:36
And so God sustains them for hundreds of more years, not pouring out.
51:42
He's long suffering towards them. He is withholding the mosaic curse from them because his promise to Abraham that the
51:48
Messiah would be born through them had not yet been fulfilled. When it was fulfilled, when
51:53
Christ came, what did he say? What did John the Baptist say?
51:58
He said, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The axe is laid to the root and those who do not bear fruit will be destroyed.
52:07
And Jesus warns them time and time again. Judgment is coming. Judgment is coming. Judgment is coming. Repent and have faith in me or you will be destroyed.
52:15
He's talking about the end of the old covenant there in the Jewish context. And so it's not so much that Christ's obedience came and fulfilled the mosaic covenant and therefore it passed away.
52:28
It's that the Abrahamic promise that Christ would be born was fulfilled. And at that point, there was nothing left to sustain
52:37
God's long suffering towards Israel. The way that scripture talks about it is Abraham was not there to chase the birds away.
52:44
All right. If you're wondering about that, that imagery there. So at that point, they stood on their own terms in the mosaic covenant.
52:52
And because they had broken it, judgment came in 70 A .D. and they were destroyed. And that was the end of the old covenant.
52:58
So the author of Hebrews talks about it growing old and passing away. It's kind of in transition. And in 70
53:05
A .D. comes and that's it. That is fascinating. So I guess I need to rethink that a little bit because so I can see that makes sense.
53:14
So you're saying the only reason that the Israelites were not completely wiped out was because of the
53:20
Abrahamic promise of the Messiah that was going to come through them. And yeah.
53:25
And so when. Yeah, right. So when Christ came, he did not actually fulfill the mosaic covenant because it didn't actually cease until the destruction of the temple.
53:39
Yeah, I mean, there's different levels we can talk about it on. I mean, he himself personally, as an Israelite, obeyed mosaic law perfectly.
53:47
He kept it. He fulfilled it in the sense that typologically it pointed towards him.
53:53
Right. So he fulfilled the shadows that pointed towards him. He was a fulfillment of those. But it's not that, oh, the
54:00
Abrahamic covenant was finally obeyed by someone and therefore it's closed. Well, let me let me ask a question because my
54:07
I might have this wrong in my thinking. And I've actually never talked about this with anybody.
54:13
So it's really helpful to talk it out now. But I thought so the condition that Adam had to meet was, you know, not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
54:23
And I thought that the condition because of what Paul says in Galatians chapter five, what
54:28
Carlos alluded to before was, you know, if you were going to be justified by the law, you'd have to keep the whole law.
54:35
And so I thought that that was the condition that Christ because basically he's
54:43
I thought he was saying that if you want to achieve salvation this way, you're going to have to do what
54:48
Christ did. And so I thought that was the condition that Jesus met. I thought that was part of the condition that Jesus met, which was perfect and perpetual obedience to not only the moral law, but all of the the the law that can't, you know, he talks about circumcision, the other aspects of the law in total.
55:10
And so now I'm wondering if you guys could speak to this. Going back to Luis Lyons question, what law did
55:20
Christ satisfy? What were the conditions that Christ did satisfy? Because it sounded like I might have that wrong.
55:27
So if I do, I'd like to I'd like to know now. Sure. Yeah. So, again, my position would be that the
55:35
Mosaic Covenant did not offer eternal life as a reward for obedience to Mosaic law. Well, not not to the nation of Israel, but as is that part of the law that Jesus that Jesus as a federal representative fulfilled as part of the condition to merit eternal life?
55:59
Yeah. So it's a good question. So first of all, I have to clarify, Jesus was not the federal head of the
56:05
Mosaic Covenant. Right. He was the federal head of all who would believe.
56:10
Right. Right. So we would say that, yes, the law, Jesus had to obey the moral law perfectly in order to earn eternal life for us.
56:22
And that was the covenant of redemption was Christ's covenant of works. If you want to look at it in those terms as a as an
56:33
Israelite, he had to obey all the other Mosaic laws. He had to be circumcised because God says in Genesis 17, if you're not circumcised as an offspring of Abraham, you're to be cut off, meaning you're to be put to death.
56:45
And that's why God comes after Moses in Exodus four to kill him because he wasn't circumcised.
56:51
So in that sense, you know, yeah, Jesus had to be circumcised. As part of his obedience as an
56:58
Israelite that kept him from dying, it doesn't necessarily mean that he earned eternal life by obeying circumcision, if that makes sense there.
57:09
Yeah. No, but you would say that like you kind of mentioned earlier, Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspect of the
57:20
Mosaic covenant typically, right? That he was the type fulfillment of those types and shadows, right?
57:27
Right. Right. It pointed towards him. Yep. And the type is something different from the anti -type.
57:34
They're two different things. They have two different essences. They are they are different in substance.
57:39
If we're going to use those of Aristotelian terms, there are two different things, but one of them points to and reveals the other.
57:46
And he fulfilled it in that sense. It's what they pointed towards. Yeah, that makes sense.
57:51
Yeah, that's really good stuff. Very, very interesting. Yeah, that clarified a lot. Well, yeah, and I think
58:00
Carlos, did you have any more questions? Because if not, I think that's a pretty good stopping point. I definitely do.
58:06
But we'll probably have to ask Brandon to come on again. And therefore, only those who profess faith should be baptized.
58:16
Yeah. It's like, what does this have to do with baptism? Yeah, we're still setting the groundwork here.
58:21
I mean, this is it's going to take a while. But no, Brandon, I'm really grateful that you came on and finally got to talk to you about this stuff.
58:28
I really hope that we can continue the discussion with you on this, because it's been it's been really fruitful.
58:34
And I hope our listeners got a lot out of this. So I'm really looking forward to next time, hopefully.
58:41
Yeah, I'd be happy to. Just let me know. And, you know, one of the things I want to say is, you know,
58:46
Pastor Hines is certainly welcome to comment on any of the stuff that we've said here today.
58:53
As we've always said, iron sharpens iron. And we we value we value both of you guys.
58:59
And we're so glad that you guys are with us on the Piper issue, because for us, that's huge.
59:07
And we really haven't gotten a lot of support in that area. So, Brandon, I'm very glad that you that you're with us on that issue.
59:16
And, you know, you've got an open invitation to come back. As I said before, my wife is about to have our fourth baby.
59:23
We we are still trying to decide on a name. We started with Levi. Then we went with Owen.
59:31
Now we're talking about we also went with Phineas. And now we're talking about maybe naming him
59:38
Declan. So we don't know what the name is going to be. It is a baby boy. The 19th of this month is when she's due.
59:45
So I'm probably going to be praying for you. Well, thank you. Thank you. I'm probably going to be
59:51
I'm going to go AWOL for a little while. I've got to just for the absolutely.
59:59
Yeah, just for the sake of my family. So, Carlos, in my two cents, just my two cents.
01:00:06
I like Owen. I think Owen Shaughnessy has a nice ring to it. You know what? Declan Shaughnessy.
01:00:11
Declan means man of man of prayer. And Declan is also
01:00:16
Irish. So how about this? How about this? Owen Declan Shaughnessy.
01:00:23
Well, OK, so I'll let everybody know. First it was Levi. Then it was Phineas. Then it was
01:00:29
Owen Declan. And now I'm trying to convince my wife to change it to Declan Owen.
01:00:35
So I don't know. We'll figure it out. We'll let everybody know what what the name is later.
01:00:42
But anyways, Carlos, you I mean, if you decide to record with Brandon, that would be pretty awesome.
01:00:52
I know that you're busy as well, but Brandon. I'll see what I can do. Yeah. Look forward to it.
01:00:57
You know, Carlos, it seems like all you got to do is just, you know, come on and ask him a bunch of questions. That's pretty much a long over.
01:01:06
Yeah, they're good questions. I appreciate the chance to chat. But Brandon, let me just say thank you again for coming on.
01:01:12
It's always a pleasure. And we hope to have you on again soon. And to all of our listeners, we wish you a good week and hopefully we'll check you guys soon.