Open Air Theology- "James White vs Jared Longshore" debate review

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Open Air Theology Show.

My name is Jeff, and I'm one of the hosts here of Open Air Theology.

I am also a pastor slash elder at Covenant Reform Baptist Church in Tallahoma,

Tennessee.

If you're ever in this area, stop by, hang out with your boy.

I'm going to pass it down to the man, the myth, the ex -Mormon, the legend.

I am Pastor Brayden of Valley Baptist Church here in Southern Idaho.

It's a real blessing to be able to see you guys tonight.

Our church service is at 11, and if you live in this area, I'd love to see you every Lord's.

Day.

It'd be a real blessing to worship our triune God with one another.

I have a YouTube channel called Reformed Ex -Mormon, and it's, like I said before, it's a great blessing to be a co -host with these

godly and wonderful, sometimes a little too harsh and mean and rude brothers in the

faith.

I'm just joking.

Hey, everybody, my name is Tom Shepherd.

I'm with Grace Bible Church of Bernie.

I'm an evangelist there.

We head out and share the gospel in the streets of Texas.

I'm a co -host here with these gentlemen here, using that word, small

gentlemen, because sometimes they're rude and mean Calvinists, just saying.

I also host a YouTube channel called Even If None, which is all about evangelism, so glad to be

here.

All right.

Sounds good.

I hope everyone's having a wonderful day, a wonderful Lord's Day.

I hope you were able to gather together with the saints.

Well, since we're doing this on a Lord's Day evening, night, whatever it is that you are, we want

to talk.

We like to begin each show talking about how our Lord's Day

Sabbath went, and mine was really good, man.

Like, I really, you know, like the worship was really good, man.

We just sang such rich and beautiful music, man, thanks to my co

-elder, Pastor Cal.

He kind of outlines everything that we're going to do, and it's just like, it just gets you where you need to be in

the Spirit, right?

I saw someone say something, I think there's a quote in Alistair Begg, if you want to know someone's

theology or something like that, listen to their worship music.

I'm butchering the quote, but man, it just reminds me of, you know, of

the music that we listen to, and it's just Christ -exalting.

I felt like my message went really good today.

It flowed well.

Last week, if you heard my message, I was really struggling with a migraine, but this week was good.

I was able to preach on the triumphant entry, so I got, I went from John

12, verse 12 to 19.

It was really good, man, through studying it this week, the Lord opened my eyes on some stuff that I never really saw

before, and just grateful for His grace and allowing me to stand

before His people and proclaim His name.

Amen.

Amen.

What about you, Brayden?

Oh, it was a blessed Lord's Day.

I did a just wonderful time fellowshipping with the saints.

We had shared meal today, and so that's always a blessing to sit down and chat and joke and just

get along with one another.

Today, I just preached from Daniel 2, 31 to 35, and then looked at the broader context.

It was a topical message that I gave today, just looking and focusing on the kingdom of God and something that a lot of Christians,

especially my dear futurist brothers out there and

sisters out there, there's some great spiritual realities that they are ignoring.

I would articulate and argue for it.

So it was it was a blessing to see those things that Christ has earned in His death, burial and resurrection.

And my message was an hour long today.

Wow, you're becoming a man.

I only got through about 80 percent of my sermon, too.

At that time, when I saw the people starting to nod off, I was like, all right, well, you.

Got to wrap this up because people are nodding off five minutes after I get started.

I don't care.

So, yeah, it was it was a good message.

It was fun.

It was a fun text to be in.

Cool.

Well, so today we are our associate pastor, Frank Gutting, was preaching on the glory of

Christ, the glory of God, actually went to Exodus talking about show me your glory.

He stayed a little bit in there, but it was a topical sermon and he went through, you know, bounced

around through the Psalms, you know, scribe to Yahweh, you know, the glory he deserves, you know, and then

went into Ephesians, all that.

But on top of that, this was the first weekend that we did evangelism both on Saturday

and on the Lord's Day as well.

And so there was a there was a kid and I showed a photo of a young man yesterday.

I mean, I think he was maybe 12 years old and he was listening to the gospel being preached in open air.

And and I could have punished myself for not going over to him and talking with him a little more.

He got a Bible and he met the other evangelism that our team, which we had 11 people go out

yesterday, by the way, which was awesome.

And he was gone and he was just on my heart all night.

And we went out there after the Lord's Day after service.

And sure enough, there he was again and got to got to me.

His name is Justin, man.

He has he has a great understanding of the gospel.

He was able to repeat back.

I would ask him questions as to what he heard, and man, I just hope that the

Lord moved on his heart.

It was such a blessing.

It was a great Lord's Day, man.

I mean, that tops it off right there.

Yeah. Amen.

Amen.

Yeah, I was able to go out evangelizing Friday and it was it was a very sweet time.

We got a new guy at our church, Jake, and he and sometimes he gets on here and watches these.

He's like Braden is an ex Mormon.

Jake is an ex Jehovah witness and hoping to one day have him on here and kind of do an

interview.

So we'll interview him.

But I think it's really cool.

Right now, like I'm really good friends with an ex Mormon.

And now I got an ex Jehovah witness who is a part of our church.

He's out with me evangelizing like this is just great things that the Lord is doing.

Right.

Yeah.

Hallelujah. Hallelujah.

Well, I'm so blessed that the that that the Lord has given us this this great

commission and, you know, like a lot of people and it is right like like witnessing the people

is frightening.

But man, I'm telling you what, there's no greater joy.

Yeah, there's just no greater joy.

Right.

I just love being out there doing the Lord's work, telling people about Jesus.

Amen.

And I try to tell people all the time, like, listen, I know it's scary, I know it's terrifying, but man, if you if

you just if you just put yourself out on the limb and do it, you will want to

you will want to keep doing it.

God will use you.

God.

God will use you.

Yeah.

I mean, he uses this broken vessel.

I mean, you Jeff.

I don't use me.

Right. All right.

So tonight's topic, Jarrett Longshore, should have

stayed a Baptist, should have stayed.

A Baptist.

What happened, brother?

What happened?

You let them pressbies get to you.

Yeah. He changed that number right there.

He subtracted.

He's trying to go to 1646.

Man.

OK, so we're going to do here.

We so so if you don't know, if you if you're if you aren't aware, James,

excuse me, James White and Jarrett Longshore had a debate

on who was it?

What would you call it?

It was it was it was.

Who is what is the yeah, who is it?

Yeah.

So to to kind of break it down for you, it was it was as if two debates was

going on.

Right.

So you had James White debating from using

exegetically using Hebrews chapter seven all the way to chapter 10.

And then Jarrett Longshore is is not necessarily

using the Hebrews text like James is, but he's coming at it from a

theological view.

Now, I think both of them are fine.

Right.

I would definitely have a debate with someone on the subject just using Hebrews seven through 10, or I would

definitely have a debate with someone on this subject just using the theological framework.

The problem was, was both of them came at this the way that they wanted to.

And it and it just left a lot of questions unanswered.

So I want to give my flowers to both gentlemen.

Right.

James did what James do.

I mean, James did what James how James did what James does, does.

Right.

James do, dude.

Right.

He takes the biblical text and he presents it.

Right.

And then and then Jarrett Longshore did what he did.

Right.

He came at it from a theological framework.

Yeah.

And a couple a couple of things regarding the debate real quick, too.

That was James White's probably 200th debate.

It was Jarrett Longshore's first.

It was correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And that's someone who just had their first public moderated debate.

Right.

Wow.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Brilliant guy.

Yeah.

Both of those guys.

Well, I don't.

I can all speak for myself on this.

There are a million times smarter than me.

It's that's right.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, just find your average everyday dog, right?

Oh, boy.

That's my cricket.

Right.

And before we get into it, do you have any thoughts about it?

I haven't gotten a chance to watch the whole video yet.

I know James White won the debate because he was arguing it from a Baptistic standpoint, and I already know that.

And so I've had the great blessing to study Hebrews seven to ten in

several different contexts.

And James definitely came at it with the with the more biblical view.

But I'm sure that there are some left unanswered left.

Left unanswered questions that say, so you can't talk either.

So, I mean, we're just a bunch of guys that can't talk.

Yeah. Then now. Yeah. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely.

We are going to point out that that there are some things that were said that both of them are wrong in.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

All right.

Good brothers in the Lord.

Absolutely.

Both of them.

Listen, I cannot I cannot tell you how much James White has done for me,

not not in just my work, right?

Like he's helped me provide for my family by advertising me.

But but on my spiritual journey.

Right.

James White is kind of like the godfather.

OK.

Right.

Like like I love James White.

If he called me right now and asked me to do something for him, I would 100 percent do

whatever it was that he asked me to do.

But the deal is, is that they're coming at this from two different frameworks.

And so it's so when Jared says something, I feel like it's Jane.

It's not connecting with James because James is looking at it from a different view.

James is not looking at it from a 1689 covenant, Baptist covenant theology,

or you would call a federalist, a 69 federalist.

And so and so Jared Longshore is is

able to say things.

And I don't think it's connecting with James.

Right.

And so it's not that James messed up.

I think he just messed it.

So we just had a wonderful question asked that I hope we answer later.

But I don't think it's the right time to answer it quite yet.

But that is a great question that was just asked by Mr. Hudson on.

Mr. Hudson.

Mr. Hudson, welcome.

If you've not I've not seen your name here, but welcome.

Thank you for joining us.

Do you guys know Mr. Hudson?

I don't. I do not.

We.

Great question, though.

Well, let's try to address that later.

But all right, well, remind me.

We'll pull it up on the thing and look at it.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, let's get started, gentlemen.

All right.

We're going to go and we're going to.

So so, Tom, will you introduce this first section while he's pulling it up?

Yeah.

So so this is a one minute section, a one minute clip of James White

basically summing up his opening statement in his argument, who is in the new covenant?

What is it made up of?

Is it made up of just regenerate people or is it a mixed congregation the same way Old

Testament of Israel would be?

So he's going to answer that question.

What do you got your hand up for?

I don't know if you can see my hand or not, just because of how small my hand is.

Yeah, well, we say, well, what's the minute marker that I'm going to with this one?

And I can get it.

Let's go. Let's go.

Twenty six. Forty five.

And let's go through twenty six.

Forty five.

Yeah.

And we'll go through twenty seven.

Fifty five.

It'll probably close before that.

So I'm ready.

Yeah, there we go.

Supervising Jesus Christ actually is.

But this is a singular argument from chapter seven to chapter ten.

Chapter eight is the longest biblical citation.

So here's the issue.

If we're going to identify the who is in the new covenant, who

is in the new covenant in our day today, are those whose sins have been forgiven, whose

iniquities have been taken away from the least, the greatest and they know God.

And therefore, those the people to whom you give the covenant sign, you don't give the covenant

sign to people.

Who do not make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ in hopes that someday they will.

And if you do, then you've got to ask to answer some some questions.

Are you saying that, for example.

When when to when a Christian husband and wife have children, the church grows.

Jared has said that we need to understand how that works,

because hopefully as reformed people, we don't want to go to any type of sacerdotalism.

We don't want to go there.

So how do we avoid doing that?

That can be the question for the rest of our discussion.

Since I didn't start my timer on time, I don't want to go over time.

So I will stop there and hopefully remember to start the timer next time.

So I don't have this problem.

But there's a quick introduction to the biblical argument.

And I'm looking forward to hearing Jared's response.

Do you want me to pause it?

Yeah, yeah.

That was great.

Yeah. Amen.

I would I would just clarify real fast for the audience that they don't if they if this is completely foreign, you don't know who James White or

Jared Longshaw are.

You have no idea the differences between Reformed Baptist covenant theology versus

Presbyterian covenant theology.

It all is dealing with, especially in light of the covenant of grace, that which is clarified in the New

Testament, who are the members of that covenant and

who is to receive the sign because of those members being in that covenant.

And so as Reformed Baptist, we're saying all the elect are part of the covenant.

And you only give to assign to somebody that you can ensure is in the covenant.

And so therefore, it is credo baptism versus the pedo Baptist is saying that children

are included in this covenant, regardless of profession, based off the merit of their parents.

They're included in this, and therefore they should receive the sign before a profession of faith that shows their

elect nature in God.

Right.

So that that's really the argument that's going on here.

And so what James has just elaborated on is saying only

those that are in the covenant should be receiving the sign and only those in the covenant are saved and none are

saved outside of it.

None aren't saved inside of it.

And so it's Reformed Baptist covenant theology that you walk away with.

Right.

And one of the proof that's outside of the verses that he used, I would go to Romans chapter eight, verse nine,

it says, however, you are not of the flesh in the spirit.

But if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you, but if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ,

he does not belong to him.

And so the spirit of Christ is only for the regenerate.

So if we don't have Christ, if we don't have the Holy Spirit, we've not been born again.

The Holy Spirit doesn't reside in us, and we should not be partaking in the

sign.

Yeah.

Another scriptural proof that I think it's Matthew 21, verse 43 to 47.

I'm going to totally butcher the quote, so forgive me ahead.

It's the area of scripture where Christ talks about him being the stone that is rejected by the builders and that

anybody that falls upon the stone will be broken into pieces and anyone that stone falls upon will be shattered to dust.

It says that this this in relation to the vine grower parable, he says this kingdom is being

taken and given to another nation producing the fruit of it.

Now, if you consider that it's a singular nation, but we know that the gospel, which is what's being talked about, the

kingdom of God, Mark 115 of the kingdom that Jesus goes into the city of Galilee, saying that the kingdom of God was a hand,

repent and believe the gospel.

This kingdom is the gospel going forth, right?

This is this comes from my sermon today.

The kingdom is the stone is Christ.

The kingdom is all the people of God in Christ.

And so when it says one nation, well, we know that Romans one, that there's

no distinction between Jew or Gentile for we're all made one in what Christ Jesus.

So that's the nation, the nation right there, the Israel of God, the people of God, that this

kingdom is being taken from the Jews in that day and given unto.

And so there's several scriptural proofs that you can go to for this.

And so what the, what Jared is trying to do before his argument, he's holding, he's trying to show

continuity from the old Testament, from the old Testament, where, where the, where the scripture used the term,

the people of God, the nation of Israel, which was made up of people who believed

and who did not believe.

There were people within that nation that were a mixed congregation of people.

Some of them had saving faith, pointing to Christ.

That's how everybody is saved is through Christ.

And then there's another group of people within that nation.

And where it gets confusing is because the scripture talks about the nation, Israel, the people of God,

the nation Israel, but within that community, within that community, there are both believing and unbelieving

people.

Yeah.

And so, like, just to kind of say something that we've said before, right, because he's going to be, Jared's going to be walking and

like talking about the continuity and discontinuity, and this is where I think Presbyterians actually

fall on their face because it's, it's kind of like they're, again, and I've used this

analogy before, right?

You have the guy chasing after the coyote, right?

And he's trying to, or the guy, no, no, the guy that's trying to shoot the rabbit, are you watching any

of those cartoons?

They stick a gun into the hoe and the barrel comes back out, points at them, they pull the trigger and they shoot themselves,

right?

Simply because of the continuity aspect of those that were in the old covenant,

they would enter the old covenant through birth and then they will part, then they would take the sign.

So in the old covenant, you had to be born.

If you were a male child, then you, eight days later, you were circumcised.

You were given the sign of the covenant, right?

And so the new covenant has continuity with that.

The only discontinuity would be the sign is different.

It's no longer circumcision, it's baptism, and it's no longer the natural birth,

it's the spiritual birth, it's Pauline Genesea, it's regeneration, it's the new birth.

You must be born again.

And those who are born again, infants in Christ, they receive the new covenant

sign, which is baptism.

So birth before sign, right?

Old covenant, natural birth, sign, new covenant, spiritual birth, sign.

Amen.

We missed such a, like, Jeff, how dare you not bring up that analogy of Elmer Fudd?

I know you've said it before, but that would have been the perfect thumbnail for this.

We could have put Elmer Fudd with Jared Longshore on it.

I couldn't get you to do anything.

We can't ever get you to do nothing.

We could have put above Elmer Fudd, that would have been a blast.

Let's just stop everything right now and redo it.

Just so everybody knows, the graphic, you guys might've known that it was done by an amateur of this last time.

And Jeff was just being nice, but it was found wanting.

It wasn't very good.

It was.

It just wasn't funny.

James White was sitting on, James White was sitting on, no, yeah, he was sitting on Jared Longshore.

That was good.

That was good.

The idea was good.

Yeah, the idea was good.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It was good.

Melissa, you're right.

It is absolutely Brayden's fault.

It is.

He didn't have time for us.

No, he's got too much going on.

When you're always carrying these guys, it's really easy to point blame.

These shoulders.

Brother, with those hands, you couldn't carry anything.

Look, look, do you guys see how I'm holding you guys up right now?

I can't even see your hands.

I'm sorry.

Where were we?

Where were we?

I'm trying to go like.

All right, I'm pulling this back up.

Hold on, let me look at that.

All right.

Wait, where are we at?

Okay, so we need to go.

So now we're going to go to Jared's kind of opening statement.

You want to start, I believe, at 28, right, Jeff?

Well, if we're going to go through his whole opening statement, we're going to need to speed up his

talk, right?

And again, I'm not sure if we're going to get done completely with this tonight.

Yeah, so here's the other thing.

Because there's a couple of things.

I mean, if you guys would pay attention here, minute 30, 20, we're going to hear Jared say something.

See if you guys catch it.

I caught it.

These guys are going to catch it.

And I won't say any more on there.

But look through these things.

And if you have any questions or say, hey, stop, or have a question, you know.

Yeah.

Hi, Brandon.

Do you know how to speed up the.

I do.

All right.

So speed it up a little bit.

And then we'll just let him.

You see how I'm still underneath you guys.

I'm carrying you right now.

Don't you worry.

I got you.

I pulled this thing up on the video stream.

Look it.

I got Jeff right there.

I'm holding him up.

All right, y 'all.

So I just let me know when to pause.

All right.

You just do what we tell you to.

Being able to have something to protect myself with this.

Berna allows me to have that peace of mind.

And I'm on like a pro with 10 seconds to go.

Dr. White.

Very nice. Impressive.

Well, that's fast.

Good Lord.

And same goes for you, Jared.

I will. I'll come on.

Give you a one minute.

One minute.

I have to slow that down a little bit.

Your time.

Your time will begin as soon as you start speaking.

Okay.

We're not opening statements.

I'll read this.

I mean, kind of like the rest of the time.

Let me begin by thanking James for having 1 .5 and a good man.

My brother in Christ, which makes the baby.

Oh, my Lord.

Everybody.

Welcome to the opener.

We are professionals.

Good Lord.

That was fast.

That was a micro machine, man.

That was good.

You would have said you wanted faster.

You would have spent 15 minutes on that intellectual privilege at the door.

But guys, I can't get it to go.

Start around a minute.

Oh, we're losing people as we speak.

All right, let's try it.

Here we go.

All right.

While all of our good listeners know that intersectional teams and victim identity are the devil, you must adopt them just this once for this debate

only.

You got to slow it down, brother.

Guys, I don't know how to get it to go back to normal speed.

Try 1 .5.

I have it.

Look, Jeff.

No.

Okay, try normal.

2 .5.

1 .2.

Let's go normal real fast and see if it fixes it.

How about that?

So, by the way, there is an echo.

Proletariat over against James's hegemonic power.

Okay, so that is at 1 .5.

Okay, do 2 .5.

Yeah, the echo is going to be there.

Like 0 .25, so then it goes real slow?

Yes, that's the southern accent.

No, not exactly.

You mean 1 .25.

Yeah.

That's some rolling papers, right?

Okay, on the side, we should get right down to it.

I want to get into the Hebrews.

We should do that in the rebuttal.

I'll touch on it here, but I have this statement I've prepared here.

The prompt states, the new covenant consists of only regenerate persons, and that is the crucial question.

I grant that if this is true, then the rest of the prompt follows.

So I will focus all of my attention on the central thing, disagreeing with the prompt in favor of the claim, the new covenant does not only consist of regenerate persons,

but those who profess faith in Christ and their children.

The first thing to do in order to determine who new covenant members are is to define the new covenant itself.

I can't even keep up with my brain.

A Costco member is one thing, and Costco.

All right, so he's talking about a Costco member is one thing.

I meant a Costco is one thing, but then the member is another.

So he's speaking of the covenant as a membership with Costco.

Right.

So what I would used to do is I would want to go in when I was with my brothers to

Costco where we live to go get free samples.

And what we would do is we'd say, oh yeah, mom and dad are inside.

And so because of mom and dad having the membership, we could go in without a membership to get the snacks.

Right.

Is that kind of what he's getting at?

That's it.

There you go. Here's your sign.

Can you play that at normal?

Just because my brain is not as smart as you guys.

Well, if we have to play it at normal, maybe we shouldn't go over everything because it'll take

way too long.

But there's good stuff in here that needs to be spoken on.

Yeah.

But I don't think James White touched because it wasn't what he was talking about.

Okay.

And play.

So am I going normal?

What am I doing?

Normal play.

Normal play.

Costco itself is another.

So it is with the new covenant and new covenant members.

And that word new and new covenant implies that there was an older version of it.

The Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament, but only one Lord, one grace, one gracious redemption.

He says that there's a new version of it.

All right.

That's not what the new covenant is.

The new covenant is not a new version of the old covenant.

Right.

So this is like, if you grew, if, you know, I was a child in the 80s, right?

And there was this game and I was talking about today in Sunday school, but those I can't remember what I think.

There's this game to where you had these like little toy monkeys and their arms were shaped like this and you would

connect and you would try to pick up a monkey with the monkey, right?

By trying to get the arms connected.

Nevermind. Whatever.

Anyway.

Thank you.

This is why Jeff plays in Bigfoot, by the way.

Listen, don't bring Bigfoot into it.

Okay.

He's done nothing to deserve your ridicule.

You're right.

He's done nothing.

Anyway, so they would see, all right.

So they would see the old covenants as, you know, so the covenant of grace beginning

in Genesis 3 .15.

So that is its conception.

And that all the other covenants, so that Abrahamic,

Mosaic, Davidic, they're linked to it, right?

Right.

But they also would say that as ministrations, but they would also say that the new covenant

is also just an administration of that one covenant of grace where all the other

covenants are linked to.

Right.

And so he's going to say that here in a minute too, in minute 30.

So let's play this to you about a minute.

Let's play it to a minute 30, 30, 20.

Now, both the 1689 Baptist Confession 7 .2, as well as the Westminster Confession, affirm God's one

covenant of grace.

And in order to define the new covenant, we need.

Okay.

Now he's saying here that both the 1689 and the Westminster both affirm the

one covenant of grace.

Of grace.

Yes.

Now how he defines it.

Now you just said that it's inaugurated.

It's inaugurated or it's conception of Genesis 3 .15.

Genesis 3 .15, which it's not.

So let me read Genesis 3 .15.

Dude.

Look at you, bruh.

Look at you, man.

Oh, guys.

With them little hands, you can do whatever you want.

Okay.

So now remember, you guys remember this, is that Jared is saying,

and James heard this, that 1689 and Westminster

hold to one covenant of grace.

And what he's saying is, is that one covenant of grace spans Old Covenant

or Old Testament and New Testament.

That's what he's saying.

And that's where he's going with that.

Correct.

And the argument would be that it was inaugurated, the conception of this one covenant began in

Genesis 3 .15.

Here's what Genesis 3 .15 says.

So this is after Adam and Eve have been deceived and have eaten from the

fruit of the knowledge, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whatever that fruit was.

It says, I will put enmity between you, speaking to the serpent and the woman

and between your offspring.

So that's the offspring of the serpent and her offspring, the offspring of the woman.

He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.

So there's going to be coming an offspring from the woman who is going to bruise the head of the serpent.

And he is only going to bruise the heel of the serpent.

So he is saying that this right here is the conception, is the inauguration of

the covenant of grace.

It was announced.

Yeah, it was announced.

So if you watched our previous conversations about this, we

showed how there's certain things that has to be in the text in order for something to qualify

as a covenant.

And we walk through all of them to show you that all these things are there, right?

But you're told what you're going to do and what not to do.

And if you do what you're not supposed to do, then a punishment will be given.

Those three things are not found in Genesis chapter 3, verse 15.

And so our view as Reformed Baptists, we don't believe that the inauguration

of the covenant of grace is right here.

But the announcement of it, the promise right here, we see a promise of

a covenant.

The promise is that an offspring is going to come from the woman

that will bruise the head of the serpent while only bruising his heel.

And that took place on Calvary's heel when Christ was crucified.

So when Christ was crucified, that's when the inauguration of the covenant of

grace began.

Yeah, that's a good question, Mr. Hudson, just real fast.

He's asking if an old covenant when a new covenant comes, if it ends that other covenant.

And no, it does not.

So Noah's covenant is not ended.

That covenant still exists today.

You would see that the Mosaic covenant is ratified, re

-ratified in Abraham, right?

So no, a new covenant does not end an old covenant.

However, in Hebrews 8, it's saying that that covenant that included law and

obedience that produced life, but death upon breaking it has become

obsolete because the covenant of grace has now been initiated or inaugurated.

And that was where grace and life are given, thus producing obedience.

Right, so I would just look at it like this.

So the Noahic covenant is a covenant that's always gonna be here, right?

All right, so you have the Adamic covenant.

When the Abrahamic covenant came, it did not get rid of the Adamic.

When the Mosaic covenant come, it did not get rid of the Abrahamic or the Adamic.

And when the Davidic covenant was given, it did not get rid of so on and so forth.

But when the new covenant is given, the old covenant ends.

The scriptures tells us in Galatians chapter three that the law was only

until Christ.

Right, so I was gonna say,.

Hebrews eight is also very clear in this.

It says, what is ever is growing old and obsolete is ready to disappear.

So I'll read it verbatim here.

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one, which is referring back to the laws of Moses

and the covenant therein.

The first one obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish

away.

So scripture says that this covenant, the covenant of law is gone in Christ.

I'm no longer existing.

Yeah, because he fulfilled it, right?

He lived the life that we could not live, right?

That's keeping the law, right?

Not to earn righteousness for himself.

He is righteous, but so that we can be merited with righteousness, credit it.

Well, Abraham credited, we debit it.

And then he takes upon himself the punishment that we deserve.

So are we making a distinction between the old covenant and the Mosaic covenant?

Okay, so that's a kind of a loaded question.

And I would say no, because in Galatians also, so in Galatians three, it's

speaking of the Mosaic covenant being added to the Abrahamic covenant.

And it says that it was only until Christ.

Now, are we saying that the 10 commandments have ended?

No, that's not what we're saying.

Right.

We're saying Moses by way of covenant has ended.

So it was introduced in Genesis three, and

then Genesis 12.

What happens in Genesis 12?

What happens in Genesis 15?

And what happens in Genesis 17?

You wanna go through that?

Well, I mean, I don't think it's necessary for this conversation, but I mean, we

have previous videos that we have done so, and we can do again.

If we're gonna get anywhere in this tonight,.

We need to.

Right.

Yeah, it's gonna be hard.

I would say just real quickly.

So Jared's argument about one covenant of grace, you are correct.

He is correct in saying that there is only one covenant of grace.

That is talked about here,.

But it's the way that the covenant of grace is handled.

Notice I have right here a wonderful document that I would highly encourage anybody that is watching to save to your desktop or

your phone browser.

It's a tabular comparison between the 1689, the Savoy here in the center.

So the 1689 is over on the right, the Savoy is in the center, and the Westminster is on the left.

And I would just show you, look at how much different each one of these

paragraphs are from another, especially when it comes to paragraph three for the 1689 compared to that of the

five, five and six of the others.

What's being done in here is that this is worded in a way it was very clear that they were wanting the other reformed

individuals at the time to say that they could say amen to this, but also distinguishing their view of the covenant, which then is further

elaborated on in the confession.

But I do think it's helpful to read this right here.

It says, this covenant is revealed in the gospel.

So pause, we gotta remember what the gospel is for this to make sense.

The life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, right?

The good news of salvation found in that federal head.

And so that's when the covenant is revealed.

That's where the covenant is revealed at.

And it says, first of all, so that covenant, which was future for Adam, was first of all to

Adam in a promise of salvation by the seed of a woman and afterwards by

further steps until full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament or inaugurated

or instituted or cut in the New Testament, right?

And it is found in the eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and the son about the redemption of the elect.

So notice in here, the Baptist is trying to say that only those in the covenant of grace, this covenant, right,

is the elect, but that's the only members of this.

And so that's where the credo baptism is gonna play into it.

And it says, and it alone by the grace of this covenant, that all the posterity of fallen Adam that have ever,

ever were saved, did obtain life and blessed immortality, a man being now

utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of

innocence.

Now, when you look back at this West minister in Savoy, they keep on referring to this covenant as being re

-administered, re -administered, re -administered.

Whereas the 1689 is making it very clear that no one was saved under a law covenant.

No one was saved under a covenant that required lawful obedience.

So that's the distinguishing factor.

Not by it, not by it, not by it, excuse me.

Yeah, so we would say that Abraham was saved in the old covenant through

the new covenant.

Excuse me if I misspoke on that, but that is what the 1689 is saying.

Troy, real quick, I'm sorry, Troy.

He said that what we're explaining is progressive, new covenant theology or progressive covenant theology.

And it's not, what we're explaining to you is 1689 federalism,

or I just like to call it Baptist covenant theology.

Right, so just in case people don't, yeah, just in case people don't understand it.

So there are some reformed classic covenantalism that some reformed Baptists

that would hold to, what do they call it?

What's the term?

New age, what is it?

Oh, the 1689, holy smokes.

Oh my Lord.

Oh boy.

Look at that good looking guys.

Hey, listen, I was doing good things.

I messed up once, that's my fault.

Yeah, so the classic covenantalism is a position that reformed Baptists will

hold to where they would believe and they would hold to, like Jared pointed out, that the one covenant of

Christ spanning through the Old Testament and New Testament.

1689 federalism would not say that.

Yeah, and Eric Yeager might be able to answer this question for us, which I don't believe.

James White holds to 1689 federalism.

I believe he holds to the 1689 classical covenant.

And I think that's why he didn't really give any pushback to Jared on

that point.

Regarding that point.

So why does, yeah, Michelle just asked, why does the old covenant remain if we are under a new covenant?

The old covenant doesn't, but the law.

Yeah, the old covenant is over, it's dead.

The moral law remains and we can use the old covenant by way of general equity.

And so also the 1689 also lays out that the law existed before the covenant was given.

Right, it transcends.

It transcends it.

So it clarifies and it says that there's three divisions of the law and this is where the 1689 federalists would

highly disagree with the new covenant theology because they would say that this doesn't exist.

But we would argue from a tripart division of the law being that of the moral law that always existed.

It existed in the garden when Adam was there created by God.

It existed because it transcends from God's nature.

God has transcended, thus is his law.

And that's the moral law that holds all men bound to falling short of the glory of God and being held to be

accountable to him.

From that it is given to Moses officially, formally there on the mountain.

It's the very first piece of scripture that is recorded for us.

And it is by God's own finger given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

And then following that, then you have two additional things that are done.

Ceremonial law that is given that we can clearly see in the New Testament is then done away with.

So sacrificing animals, circumcision, so on and so forth.

Ceremonial law done away with.

And then underneath that also you had judicial law that was a multi -purposed reason for that law being given in the Old Testament.

One of the reasons it was given was it was to protect them.

So Galatians 3 that Jeff already mentioned earlier, the law was added because of the transgressions formally

committed, meaning how could there be transgressions if there wasn't a law?

There was a transcendent law that was being committed that was being broken.

And so therefore additional law was given to hold them secure as a nation, to protect them as a people, to produce

what?

Until the crisis, what Galatians says.

So the whole purpose, one of the main purposes of the Old Testament judicial law was to protect them as a nation, to bring about and

protect the promised future coming seed, which was the Christ.

Once Christ comes, that law is done away with.

And there were other physical promises that were promised through the old covenant of works.

You know, to stay in the land of Canaan, to have peace, to be fruitful, you know, and all that stuff.

And if they disobeyed, well, then they would be out of the land.

They would be out of the land.

So that's what happened in judges.

They disobeyed God, they went after idols, and they were oppressed by a people.

They called back on Yahweh.

And so that's why it kept on going over and over.

This graphic is awesome that Brayden made right here.

Yeah, so this is a graphic I put together.

If you want to save it, it's on my Facebook somewhere.

You can dig through my pictures.

Or you can just message Brayden and he'll send it to you.

I'm sure I can send it to you.

But so right here, 1689 federalism, it's just showing that the umbilical cord.

So in scripture, we have the analogy given in Revelation 12 about the woman giving birth to the seed.

So that's kind of what this is playing off of.

The woman is not the same thing as the seed.

They're very similar in a lot of ways, but they're not the same.

They intertwine with one another in a lot of ways, but they are still distinct in nature and substance.

The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, all give birth to the covenant of grace for different reasons.

And so I just have a different comparison here of what each one of these covenants produced.

Can you pan out so he can see the whole thing?

Because this will ask, Mr. Hudson has some questions right here talking about the re -administration to find the promise of Abraham.

So what is the substance of the promise?

The substance of the covenant of grace is life in Christ, okay?

So the substance is Christ, okay?

What's the subject?

Look at the covenant of works there, all the way back.

If you go back on your screen, the Abrahamic, these are covenant of works, the Noahic, I'm sorry, the

Adamic.

Right, and so that's obviously, it's all pointing.

They're subservient to the new covenant and everything.

So the substance is the new covenant of grace, which is found in Christ.

And I would also say too, just to see this, if there's any work

required, any work to obtain blessedness, it is by nature, it is by

definition, not a covenant of grace because grace is unmerited favor, meaning you didn't do

anything for it.

By definition, if a law is given, do keep these laws, do this and

live, anything like that, by definition, it is a covenant of works.

The only covenant spoken in scripture where there is no works required

is Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, which is the covenant of grace that we were talking about.

That's the whole reason, by definition, it's different.

Yeah, if you don't understand the theology of what he was just mentioning, you can look it up.

It's called law and gospel distinction.

And so we believe as Reformed Baptists, you have to have a law and

gospel distinction.

If you don't have a law and gospel distinction, like Doug Wilson would say, which again,

I love Doug Wilson.

I'm not bashing on Doug Wilson.

This is what he says.

He says, it's all law and it's all gospel.

Right, and it's not.

It absolutely isn't.

The imperative is not the indicative.

And so whenever I talk to someone and I'll say something like, when Jesus

says, follow me, is that law or gospel?

Well, he's telling you to do something.

So he's giving you a positive command.

It's a law, all right?

If you're unregenerate, you cannot, you know, you cannot obey

that law, right?

But if you are regenerate, you have the Holy Spirit in you.

You can obey that command and follow Christ.

Now, if I was to say to you, by grace, you have been saved through faith.

That is not of your own doing.

Is that law or gospel?

Well, that's gospel.

By grace, you have been saved.

It's not something you did.

And so when you read scripture, so this is a part of that, the third use of the law, we call it a

flashlight.

When we read scripture, we need to read scripture in light of what Christ has done for us

so that the law, as Brayden would say, does not become the rope to hang us.

All right.

Amen. Yeah.

So also, I see he talks about, and he quoted, to you and your seed.

So what is the seed?

Okay, well, there's a physical seed.

That's what the Old Testament believers or the Old Testament people of God were in, people of Israel.

If you were born of natural generation and everything, that was a natural seed.

So Isaac, Ishmael, all these.

But then go, there's a spiritual seed as well.

So what's the spiritual seed talking about?

Those are the people that are found in a new covenant, Gentiles.

That was the mystery that was known, that it's not just the Jews, but it's for all people.

All nations will be saved.

Everybody will come, or not everybody, all nations will be able to come to Christ, those whom he

appointed unto eternal life.

That's right.

But that graphic is incredible, yeah.

Yeah, that graphic's really good.

I love it.

Yeah, good job.

I appreciate that.

Next, don't let me -.

You guys have told me a lot of good things so far, and I understand it's really hard to find bad things today with

Brayden, but I, you know.

Well, I mean, you want me to point.

Some things out for you real quick?

Yeah.

No, we're good. Let's continue.

Jeff, you did a wonderful job on that graphic, by the way.

What?

You did a great job.

Yeah, I tried.

It's these big hands, right?

Yeah.

It's just these big old hands.

You did a good job.

All right.

Brayden Longshore, we're back.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Hit play.

Listen, this is teamwork.

Okay.

Hold on, real quick.

Are we doing a minute mark, or are we just playing this?

Hold on.

There's another question, real quick.

Uh, Mr. Hudson.

Okay.

So Abraham was saved by grace.

Okay.

So just because he was saved by grace, yes, he absolutely was saved by grace and everything, and through faith.

And what was the substance of his faith?

The promised seed.

The promise.

Yeah.

So Abraham was promised a seed that would come from him that would keep the law, keep the

law, inherit the land, and bless the nations.

And so Abraham had to believe in the seed that would come from him that would keep the law, inherit the land, and bless the nations.

So he believed that, which is Christ.

He was credited with debit.

I mean, he was credited with righteousness, right?

He was looking forward to something that has not happened yet.

We're looking back at the same event that has happened.

So we are debited with righteousness.

That's right.

And Abraham, that's very clearly clarified in Romans 4, that Abraham was

justified apart from the works, but through faith in Jesus Christ, the future, the promise, right?

He was reckoned with righteousness through faith.

However, it references circumcision.

And then James 2 references the offering of Isaac.

So there was still the aspect of very, which was required obedience in that

covenant that produced life in the land.

Abraham, because of his faithfulness, received the faithful blessings there in the land.

But it was only through faith in the coming covenant seed, the coming seed,

cutting covenant of grace.

However, you want to word that to make it sound good.

That's how he was reckoned with righteousness, not through the works of circumcision or offering Isaac.

And I like the way Jeremiah -.

That's a weird way to spell Brayden, Michelle.

But yeah, I agree.

Brayden makes the dream work.

Yeah, so I'll pull up Jeremiah's real quick.

Yeah. Yeah.

Different blood, different covenants.

Jeremiah, we probably should have had you on the night, brother.

I thought that you had,.

I thought your wife had you under a leash tonight.

She put the dog up.

All right, y 'all ready?

Oh yeah, hit play.

All right.

Give us all a definition of this one covenant of grace, which I define as follows.

The covenant of grace is the heavenly father's solemn oath to man on earth of saving grace in and by

Jesus Christ, conditioned upon faith, a bond in blood that constitutes an organization

over and to whom God says, I'm y 'all's God and y 'all are my people.

I like the brilliant second person plural of the southerners there.

The new covenant then is the same in substance, it being simply a new and better form of this covenant of grace

just defined.

The new covenant then is the heavenly father's solemn and better oath to man on earth of saving

grace in and by Jesus Christ, conditioned upon faith, a better bond and better blood

that constitutes a better organization over and to whom God says, I'm y 'all's God and y 'all are my people.

Now that's a stout definition, but it's warranted given the word covenant appears 284 times in the Old Testament and 33

times in the New Testament.

And I should highlight certain aspects of that definition before proceeding.

Three dimensions of it.

First, I made the point that it is the heavenly father who covenants with man on earth.

That is because the divine covenant with man is executed in history.

What is in view is not the idea of a covenant.

It is not a covenant simply up in the heavens.

A covenant is cut on earth.

Covenants must be established or they are not divine covenants with man.

This matters because some of my 1689 Baptist brothers say that the.

OK, I think he's missing a point at what we believe, but I think he's going to butcher it, even though he once

held to it, right?

It's funny how people do that.

Yeah, all right.

He said that a covenant.

Just I want to make something real clear.

He said the covenant had to be cut on earth.

Did I hear that wrong?

No, that's what he said.

All right.

Where is that at in Genesis 3 .15?

Right.

It's not there.

It's not there.

No.

Listen, if listen, if you're a Presbyterian brother, listen, I will.

Our church will be called Covenant Reform Presbyterian this week.

If you can show me in 3 .15, Genesis 3 .15, where that is the

inauguration of the covenant of grace.

Where it was cut, didn't happen.

Yeah, where it was cut.

I will bend the knee.

Yeah.

You will baptize babies.

Yeah, but I'll hold them under today bubble.

Oh, we're not supposed to do that.

Sorry, my bad.

I think they sprinkle.

Yeah.

So I shoot him with a spurt gun.

Yeah.

All right.

He also said that it was in 3 .15.

He said that it was the same substance.

Same substance.

Yeah.

Listen, the Paschal lamb was not Jesus Christ.

That's right.

But the Paschal lamb pointed to Jesus Christ.

Amen.

It was a huge difference.

That is a huge difference.

They're messing the type antitypes.

The two tier typology.

Yes.

Which he knows this.

He was the one that encouraged Samuel Renahan to put out that book, which he put it

out with founders when he was a Baptist.

That one.

I don't get how you can be a part of something and then misrepresent the something that you were once a part of.

Right.

Well, it doesn't fit his argument.

Well, shouldn't argue that way.

Yeah.

All right, go ahead.

The covenant of grace was never inaugurated, formalized or cut on earth in the Old Testament.

It's not happening until the new covenant itself in Christ.

But this would leave Abraham, Moses, David and all of our other Old Testament brothers being saved outside of

God's covenant of grace, which, according to them, had not yet arrived on earth yet.

And I thought something pretty much that position.

All right.

We don't answer this question.

Yes.

And he's and I'm glad that we answered it earlier.

And he said that he used to hold to something similar to that.

No, he held to that.

Not similar to that.

So what I have pulled up here is chapter 26 of the 1689 confession.

It is on the church.

And so I would define the church just on the topic of covenant here.

I would add that it is all those who are part of the covenant of grace, because therefore they are saved.

And so paragraph one says this.

The Catholic, that is universal church, may be called invisible with respect to the internal

working spirit and truth of grace.

It consists, listen to this, of the full number of the elect who have

been, are or will be gathered into one under

Christ, her head.

The church is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him who fills

all in all right.

Hebrews, there's several places that we go to discuss this.

But the point of that I'm trying to make with this.

Yep.

Hebrews, Hebrews.

Listen, Hebrews is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful book.

But Hebrews, Hebrews 12, 23, it says all those enrolled in heaven,

and it speaks to the blood of Christ, speaking a better word than the blood of Abel, Abraham,

Moses, Isaac.

Anybody saved in the Old Testament was a part of the church through their federal head.

Christ, Christ, before Christ was even born.

There's no other name.

There's no other name under the under the heavens by which.

No other name.

If anyone is to be saved, they are saved through Christ.

In order for Christianity to be true, Christianity has to be owed the same way that Abraham is saved

is the same way we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

There was a point in time that the lamb had to be born and die.

That this had to happen in time at some place.

But it didn't happen right after the fall of Adam.

It happened several years after 2000 years ago for us, right?

All those saved before the cross were saved in the same exact means that the new the New

Testament post cross church is saved.

And that is through faith in the federal head, Christ Jesus, who cuts a covenant in time there through his

life, death, burial and resurrection.

And the people prior to that covenant being cut are credited with that same righteousness.

Of her federal credit on credit.

Yep, absolutely.

It's just simple enough like that.

And so, like, I don't know what else to say, because, in fact, let me go to chapter 26 of the

tabular comparison real fast between 1689 to see what you send me that link to.

I forgot it.

I've sent it to you so many times, guys, but I haven't figured out how to save it.

Y 'all are crazy.

This is the best website ever.

Look at this.

So there's there's there's not a

difference between the Westminster, the Savoy or the 1689 and acknowledging this.

So they the Westminster, I'm going to just say it upright.

The 1689 has the correct view of the church here.

And so does the Savoy.

And so does the Westminster.

Yet they're being inconsistent in their own confession.

Right.

The 1689 is holding that all the elector in the church, all the elector, part of the covenant of grace.

Right.

Period.

Like, I don't know.

Like, is there anything else that needs to be said on this?

Right.

Not not that they were saved by the old covenants and the old covenant of works.

They were saved under it, but not by it.

They were saved by what is the substance?

Covenant of grace in who would you say, Braden?

Christ.

Now, to be fair, they believe that you can be in the covenant and not be of the covenant.

So they believe that you can be in the covenant, participate in the covenant and

not be born again.

Right.

And then again, that's where we would say, you know, you quoted it or you quoted the verse earlier from

Romans eight.

I think it's verse nine.

If you do not have the spirit of Christ, you have no part in

Christ.

That's right.

That's right.

And listen, we would say the exact same thing for the church.

You cannot be a part of the invisible body of Christ without being born again.

Right.

And having faith in Christ.

You just can't be like, why?

Why would we be consistent?

And that's what I understand that they would say, well, the visible body is made of of mothers and children.

Right.

Sure.

That's true.

But we're talking the invisible, all those that are actually saved.

And they're saying it's only the elect prior to Christ, post Christ.

Yeah.

Prior cross, post cross.

Why aren't we being consistent in our theology and saying that's the exact same language we should be using with the covenant?

Yeah.

I don't know.

It blows my mind sometimes.

Right. There is a huge.

Yeah.

I'm going to copy this and I'll put it in the comments for everybody that's watching on YouTube, and I'll try to put it on Facebook as

well, because I think it's important, but we'll come back to the.

We're back on that now.

Yeah.

You want me to play?

Hit play.

When I was a cradle Baptist.

Second, the covenant of grace and new covenant involves the creation of a constituted people.

Theologians often use the language of administration, which means more than getting thing A to individual

B, like I administer lotion to my daughter's knee.

We use the word administer in the English language in that sense, but we use it in another sense as well.

And that other sense is more faithful to the covenant administration idea.

This covenant administration is more like the Washington or Jefferson administration.

The Washington or Jefferson administration refers to an entity, a people, an organization or a corporate reality.

You can be a member of such an administration or not a member of such an administration.

Covenant membership implies that a covenant is more than a promise to an individual.

It is an administration, an organization or a league, like little league membership.

And an administration involves rights and responsibility.

And none of that comes through when we conceive of a covenant as a mere promise from God to an individual.

Can we pause that real quick?

So typically, and I don't agree with him here.

I mean, typically when you talk about an administration, you're talking about a way in which God

administers grace upon his people.

Another word might be dispense, dispense grace.

So you have the word dispensation.

You have a word administration.

That's why they would get ready to say amen here in a moment.

I know, right?

Melissa is going to be a reformed Baptist here in a little bit.

So that word dispensation that God dispenses his grace on a certain

particular people at a different time, that's where he's going with that.

He's defining it completely different.

Not in the way that God administers grace.

So yes, there's grace administered to two people in the old Testament.

What does that say?

Absolutely.

Eric is just dropping some more good stuff.

Absolutely.

Eric, brother, I've been saying this for a while.

We need to have you on here.

Yeah.

Come on, bro.

What's up, man?

You can't hang out with us?

Yeah.

No, 100 % credo.

Yes.

We just need to work on your covenant theology, Melissa.

You could be 100 % confessional.

It'd be a lot cooler too.

That's right.

You can be credo, credo, covenantal, confessional, calvinistic.

Cessationist, creationist.

We'll just throw all the C words in there.

Christocentric.

Yeah, yeah.

It's all good.

Yeah.

All right.

Let's hit it.

Wait, do you want to go ahead and fast forward to the questions?

I mean, I think we really have pinpointed his opening statement.

I think we've nailed down his opening statement, right?

Let's get some of the questions.

We'll try to end it at 1 .30.

Okay.

One hour, 16 minutes and 20 seconds.

Just wait one second.

Trying, trying, trying.

Get them little hands to working.

I'm trying.

Those are big buttons.

He's got to push.

What is that?

Oh, oh, sorry.

That's a picture of us beating a dead horse.

My fault.

Oh yeah, yeah.

Sorry, Jason.

That's a good time to chime in on Jason not representing as well.

Oh yeah, man.

We got it. I got it. I got it.

I'll stay silent for now, but if y 'all watch Jason's videos, he did not represent what we said.

Do you want to bring that up at the end or what?

Yeah, we'll just keep going right here.

What minute mark am I doing?

1 .16 .20.

1 .16 .20.

I'm fine with 1 .16.

All right.

Yeah.

All right.

Wix gives you the power of AI to build the website you need.

Here we go.

Mark the base.

Full business functionality.

All right.

Oh, guys, we got a lot of ads.

I'll get through it real fast for us so you guys don't have to listen.

Take the punishment for us.

Are you taking the wrath of the commercials for us?

I did.

Y 'all are welcome.

Taking one for the team.

Let me just do another demonstration of this ad here for us.

How they dispense the ads on us.

That's right.

Look at Dr. White.

That's kind of like you, Jeff.

Gotcha.

Gotcha, Jared.

Sooner than a Baptist.

We need a new tech boy.

Get out of here, Melissa.

No, they don't.

For sure.

They got Braden Patterson.

Screenshot that.

I'll start in Hebrews.

I do think that would be distracting, personally, but anyways, go ahead.

You got all those lights back there.

I want to I want to talk about this.

Come on, you know it.

I want to talk about more than Hebrews 8 at some point, but I'll start with Hebrews.

Of course he does.

Do you agree that the central apologetic argument in Hebrews is don't go back to the old covenant

because there's nothing there to go back to?

There's nothing there to go back to because it has been fulfilled in the incarnate son of God, who then

by one sacrifice perfects those who are united with him.

Yeah.

So it's a full argument starting all the way back in chapter one.

Yeah, man.

Yeah.

But you've said it.

You've said it before.

I've heard you said it in your opening that kind of the central thrust is don't go back because there's nothing there to go back to.

It's like it's a collapsing house.

It's not going to.

There's nothing there.

Right.

The earthly tabernacle pointed toward the heavenly tabernacle, which he has now gone through and is seated at the

right hand of the father and all the rest of that stuff.

Sure.

And would it then...

I just want to say amen.

A lot of people miss that.

Amen.

Amen.

...fit that the betterness of the new covenant is that it will remain.

That's one of the aspects of the new covenant.

That's not all that.

It's not just that it will remain.

It's who it's made in, what it accomplishes, and the perfection of that accomplishment.

Okay.

Could we give it that the new covenant remains like pride of place?

Could it be kind of like...

Could it be like the central argument is the old will not remain and the big focus of

the betterness of the new is that it will remain?

Could it...

It doesn't have to be the sole betterness, but could it be the...

But that's not even what the emphasis, for example, and right before he says the old is obsolete and about to pass away,

what's his emphasis?

His emphasis is the covenant results in the writing of God's law upon the heart.

It internalizes that.

That's the language of the Old Testament.

Circumcise your hearts.

The old covenant didn't bring that about for everybody in it.

The new covenant does.

That's its supremacy and its betterness.

Okay.

So what Dr. White don't understand right here is that he's agreeing with us concerning that what he

was talking about earlier about how that covenant has ended.

What he just said.

There was 1689 federalism.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's what I'm saying.

Right there, Dr. White was being a federalist and he doesn't even know it.

Romans 2 talking about...

So again, you go to Hebrews 8.

It says, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel, right?

And this is to the church, to all the both Jew and Gentile, those in Christ.

Romans 2 says the Gentiles who were not given these laws, they do by nature what those laws demanded.

And then right after that, it says, those who have been circumcised of the heart.

Why do you think it's talking about that?

Because it's saying that the law of God was written on those Gentiles hearts.

What he is arguing and says, those who have been circumcised of the heart, they are

Jews.

So the house of Israel, right?

So exactly what James just said is a spot on the covenant of grace is full of

regenerate circumcised of the heart believers in Christ Jesus.

And the circumcision of the heart, that is regeneration.

That's right.

That is Ezekiel 36, 25 through 27.

Amen. Yeah.

Now, let me ask you something, Tom.

Is there a point.

Because I'm trying to figure out like, are we going to answer the questions or like what's going on here?

So yeah, I mean, so this is as far as I go.

This is just where he started questioning him and he was going to go through it.

So this is as far as I didn't know how far you guys wanted to go.

So where do you want to go, Jeff?

Do you got a time marker?

I don't know.

Like I saw a lot of things in his opening statement that I wanted to point out.

However, I can't remember everything now.

You see, my problem is, is that as I'm working, I'm trying to listen and write things down.

James handles him the way he just did here.

James handles him throughout the whole thing.

I mean, look at him.

Look at his face.

He's nervous.

And James is like, say something.

Hello.

Yeah, you know what?

Yeah, we're at a, we're at a, we're at 10.

So I would like to get to him asking James questions.

Do you have that?

Because I would like to answer because I know he's going to be coming at it from.

That's one of them right there.

This again?

Yeah, yeah.

No, no.

So I know that he mentions like, I can't remember if it's his opening statement or what, but he mentions

the yeah.

Okay.

I can't remember the minute mark, but he talks about how his view works better

with Hebrews, simply because that Hebrews has warning passages

of being able to lose your position in the covenant.

So he's not saying that you can lose your salvation.

So he's looking at the Hebrew warning passages that you can lose your

position in the covenant.

Then he also throws in that passage from Peter, where it talks about the master who bought you.

And so he does that in there.

And then there's a couple of passages in Hebrews that he speaks about it.

And then someone else talks about, I think it's in John 15, where it talks about

the pruning of the vine, how you can be removed, your vine can be removed or whatever.

So I was really wanting to hit on that to show that that's not what he's

representing.

Right.

We would say that those are professing believers, but never in the new covenant.

Right.

Well, so specifically in John, I think, so Jesus is there, right?

He's there at the house of Israel and he's letting them know that a new covenant

is coming, and them as being physical descendants of Abraham, in some

sense, they were a part of that old covenant.

The pruning takes place as this new covenant is taking place.

And only those that are connected to the vine, the new Jesus Christ, the new covenant are going to be a part

of it.

And so it has absolutely nothing to do with those in the new

covenant being taken out of the new covenant.

It's speaking about those that were a part of the physical descendants of Abraham.

Right.

They are not necessarily taken out of the old covenant, but they have no part

in the new covenant because they're not connected to the vine, which is Christ.

That's right.

So just to answer Dan.

Let me put it up there.

Danine.

Yes.

Just send me a friend request.

I don't have mine as like, I don't consider myself a public figure.

So there is no follow button on my Facebook page.

Just watch your person when you follow that guy.

Yeah.

He's got little hands.

You can't even feel where it goes in.

It's not good. It's not good.

Yeah.

You have to watch my testimony videos, what Michelle just said.

So thank you, Michelle.

So Matthew 21, I already brought this up earlier.

It comes right after what text?

The vine dresser.

And he says, I'm taking this kingdom from this nation and giving it to another will that will be producing fruit of it.

So what is that nation he's talking about?

The ethnic people of Israel.

Is he saying I'm going to give this to the ethnic people of Israel?

No, he's saying I'm giving it to the elect.

This is going to be given to the people of God.

All those that are a part of the federal head.

I'm giving it to you.

And the reason that Christ is speaking like this is he's speaking to the Pharisees or he's speaking in the front of Jews right there.

And he's saying that you are a people who have been not bearing fruit.

You've been killing the prophets.

You've killed the son.

You're going to kill the son.

It's being taken from you and being given to another people.

The way that God has brought about the Christ was through natural means,

which was including a nation that was often rebellious and hateful and spiteful and

evil towards him.

So when Christ is right, which absolutely right.

There's there's aspects of grace in this that God kept on being.

He kept on bringing them back into the land.

He kept on being kind to them.

And why?

Listen, so so God promises to Adam and Eve.

They're in the garden.

I'm going to there's going to be a sea that crushes the head of the serpent.

Noah in Genesis six.

It says that there was no one righteous on the earth there.

All their thoughts were continually evil before him.

Right.

God could have wiped out everyone, including Noah, and would have been completely just in doing so.

However, what would have been done in the process?

There would have been no promise seed left.

Right.

God was faithful by preserving and reckoning Noah with righteousness, bringing Noah and his family,

the covenant, and Noah being all the seven other people onto the ark.

And that's how the line of the sea kept on going.

So then you think about it.

Okay.

What about Abraham?

Abraham was a wicked man.

Yeah.

He basically treated his wife as a prostitute.

He should have died.

Yeah.

God gave him grace. He found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Unfaithful all the time.

I just preached in the book of Daniel.

And there's like four faithful men in all of Israel at this time.

Yeah.

All of Israel.

And they're all into slavery and all into captivity.

And if you were the devil, you would be rejoicing.

You're like, man, we got him.

There's no seed coming in this people.

But God kept them preserved as a people by showing them this common grace to the people that

continually rejected him.

So then, what does Matthew 21 say?

Hold on.

What you just said goes back to Genesis 3 .15.

I will put enmity between your seed and his seed and hers.

So then what does Matthew 21 say?

These Jews who I've been calling to be gathered under my wings continually, they have hated me and rejected me.

And they've killed the son that has been set to them.

The kingdom is going to another people.

Yeah, that's right.

So Ephesians 2 .15, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, the law, the

commandments contained in the ordinance, so that he himself might create the two

into one new man making peace and might reconcile them both into one body to God

through the cross, having put in himself put to death the enmity.

That's right.

Yeah.

Also in Hebrews.

So who was Paul writing to in Hebrews?

Hebrew.

Wait, I'm sorry.

Say that again.

Who was Paul writing to in the Hebrews?

In Hebrews.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

He was writing to Jews that have converted to Christianity.

All right.

So who was Peter writing to in 1 Peter?

So generous.

Yeah, but specifically, he speaks to the Jews.

Okay, so in both cases, all three cases, so you got John 15, Jesus speaking to the Jews,

Hebrews, Jesus speaking to the Jews, and then Peter, the master that bought them, it might be 2 Peter,

he is speaking to the Jews, right?

Who by profession are going after Christ, but their actions,

they're still looking back to temple.

That's right.

They're still looking back to the old covenant, showing themselves that they've never

really entered into the new covenant.

Right.

Like it's not that in the text that it's talking about new covenant regenerate

members are being taken out of the new covenant, but it's

by with profession of mouth, because if you just look at Romans chapter

10 verses 9 through 10, so there's a lot of people, they don't catch what's going

on here.

So let me read that real quick.

Romans chapter 10 verses 9 and 10.

It says, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and so there's a

second thing that has to happen.

Believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Or with the heart, one believes and is justified.

And with the mouth, one confess and is saved.

There's like, I know a ton of people who have professed faith in Jesus Christ and have

walked away from the faith.

That's right.

Right.

But what this is saying is, is if you believe in your heart that God actually

raised this Jesus from the dead, you will be saved.

It's not about just professing faith.

Right.

It's about actually believing something that is scientifically impossible in our day.

Right.

That God himself took on flesh, became flesh, lived the perfect

life, died.

A sinner's death, was buried, and on the third day rose again.

Right.

If you actually believe that, that belief has to be given to you.

That's what regeneration is.

Once you believe that you have the Holy Spirit, you're in the new covenant.

Someone who is in the new covenant cannot be taken out of the new covenant because they have eternal life.

However, you can profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and not believe that.

That's right.

And that's what we see taking place in John.

Well, not necessarily John 15.

So he's necessarily speaking of those in the old covenant that do not go into the new covenant.

They've been pruned, but particularly speaking in Hebrews, they were

professing with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, but they were looking back at the temple.

That's right.

Right.

If they truly believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, they would not be looking back at the temple.

So on and so forth concerning the master who bought them.

One of the questions.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say that the context of Hebrews really elaborates that whole point.

And we can speak as this.

Jeff and I was being pastors, right?

And knowing people who we've seen have a profession of faith, maybe even we've given the sign of baptism to and then years later they

go and they fall away.

Right, right.

We don't know all things.

We go off of professions, right?

The book of Hebrews is speaking to a people who have had a profession and through years of either

struggling, having Judaizers try to talk to him, so on and so forth.

They're starting to be like, man, my family is back there.

I could go if I join back in this old cup and I could go back to my family.

Like that's a tempting thing if you've suffered the sword of Christ.

And Paul in this is saying, if you do that, you're trampling upon the blood of Christ, what you have.

And that's what he's that's all of chapter all of chapter 10, 11, because he's comparing what we

have today compared to the saints of old.

And then 12 and 13.

He's saying you have something that is so much better, though you might not see it, though it might not be a

tangible kingdom.

You are in something that is so much better because you're with Christ.

And that's the whole point of this.

In fact, I would look at Jared Longshore and say, if he's intertwining

these texts of Hebrews and saying, this is only covenant language, that it's not talking about the church as being the

elect, like we would read what from the confessions.

He is misreading this text completely.

The covenant of grace is intertwined identically with the church.

And so all these passages in here that are talking about people trampling upon the blood of Christ or falling from grace or so on

and so forth.

It is talking about those that have had a public professional faith.

And Paul is begging them, don't go back on your public profession of faith.

So one of the questions that Ben had.

Yeah, let me pull it up.

Come on this one.

Right.

Yeah.

So one of the questions he was asked, he believed that he would baptize his unbelieving wife.

And he said, yes.

He goes, why would he do that?

The only thing I could think of the reason where he's going with that in first Corinthians chapter seven, verse 14,

it says for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife.

And the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, which is a wrong interpretation of that.

He's basically saying that, that because their spouse is a believer, that they're going to be set apart

in some way at the holiness, that more than likely that this person, and they would use that

exact same argument for the children, that if you have two believing parents, that they are now qualified to

be under the covenant of grace because of their parents.

But this is not, this is not.

No, I do think there's some stipulations there.

So like if an unbelieving wife, like let's say if Jared was to be agreed to

baptize someone's wife, that was an unbeliever or a husband.

And, and Jared says, are you willing to be baptized?

And they said, yes, I am willing.

He would baptize them.

But if Jared was to say, or Doug or any of them was to actually say, do you believe in Jesus Christ?

And they say, no, but I'm willing to be baptized.

I don't, I don't necessarily, I don't think that they would actually perform the baptism.

At least I would hope not.

I thought I heard them say that they would not if they profess no faith, but if they didn't

profess at all, if they said nothing at all, they would.

And again, you're baptizing, you're giving somebody the sign of the covenant before on a

presumption that they will come to Christ later down the road.

Does this also span, does that answer of saying, yes, I would baptize an unbelieving wife, does that span from

that view of federal vision with them that the, that, that does that come from

federal vision with Doug Wilson?

Federal vision is more of a sanctification thing.

Almost like a final sanctification.

I don't, I don't, I don't.

Yeah.

So like I would take that sanctifying in theirs as, as, as not in the same way that I

would, I would take how we are being sanctified in Christ.

No, they would, they would look, use it as set apart, that they're going to be set apart.

So how, how, how did the, how, how did God's people Israel, how were they set apart in a way?

Well, they had the oracles of God, right?

Yeah.

They had the oracles of God.

And that same way, in that same way, his wife and kids are going to be set apart because

he's a believer.

He's going to be raising them up in the nurture of the Lord, which whether you're Presbyterian, Baptist, or if you're assemblies of God, whatever it is

that you dangle with, right?

You need to be having these gospel conversations.

You need to be reading the Bible, having a family worship song and so forth.

Right.

And in one sense, you're being set apart.

Right.

Absolutely. A hundred percent.

What a huge bit.

I mean, if you're raising up your children and you're evangelizing and you're reading the Bible, I mean, golly, I mean, just imagine

you're, you're sharing the gospel with your children every day.

There's just the power of God unto salvation.

They didn't have that.

Yeah.

So there's, yeah.

So they're being sanctified is not the same as what we talking about as we're being sanctified, being

conformed to the image of Christ.

Yeah.

Right.

They're being sanctified as being set apart, being able to be under

something so glorious.

However, that also would be condemnation to them.

Boy.

Yeah.

You know, at the judgment, having all that light and never coming to repentance.

That's right.

So which personally, this is a perfect segue into this.

So Mr. Hudson asked a question earlier.

He said, thank you, pastors.

Looking forward to the discussion.

I'm going to pull it up.

You might have to sift through it to be able to pull it up.

Let me get to it.

So looking forward to the discussion question, New Testament slash covenant parable was the prodigal

son, a participant in the covenant prior to his returning to the father.

The reason I say this is a perfect, perfect segue is that in that story, the brother that never left the

house when the brother returns and is welcoming and given a feast and given the father's robe.

The son is bitter and doesn't go into the house.

He had more light and yet rejected the blessings.

We have to also understand that it was a parable.

He was talking to the Pharisees.

He was talking to the brother.

I'm trying to fix it.

Go ahead.

Keep on going.

So the brother represented the Pharisees and everything.

And they were, matter of fact, and if you literally, I don't know if you've ever heard John MacArthur's sermon on that,

but he talks about, you know, the brother who was jealous.

You know, why are you giving it to this people?

These, these, these Gentiles, you know, that's the representative of, of, of us being

saved that the repentance center, the people who didn't deserve it the same way the prodigal didn't deserve it.

He squandered everything and you're going to dispense grace on him.

I said, dispense again, administer grace on him.

Sorry.

I mean, she ruined it, Tom.

Yeah.

Ruined it.

You were going to really good places.

You ruined it all.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

You squandered the inheritance.

I squandered the inheritance.

So yeah.

So there's, so there's grace on the son who didn't deserve it.

And, and the Jew is looking at him.

The self -righteous Jew is looking at him.

What are you doing?

Giving it to that guy.

I want it all.

And so that's, that's where that's going.

That's right.

Yeah.

The kingdom is being taken and given to another nation producing fruit of it.

Exactly right. That's the parable.

Amen.

Well, we're on hour 31.

Um, y 'all feel like we did justice.

Yeah.

Talk about Jason now.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Jason Brita, if y 'all remember last week, he,

he was commenting back and forth with us.

We was having, you know, and I thought that was really cool.

Right.

Was, was talking about him.

Like, like if Jarrett would have got on here tonight, we would have, you know, had some interaction with him.

I mean, we, we don't, we don't mind.

We like that kind of stuff.

And if he really wanted to, it would have sent him a link to get on here as we would have Jason Brita last week.

Right.

We, if you, if you've been following us for a while now, we've done stuff like that.

Right.

If someone has a problem and they really want to get on here and discuss it, we'll send them a link.

And, you know, because at open air theology, anything can happen.

Right.

That's just how we wrote.

So he ended up doing a video on us

calling him to repentance and which we did, which

we did right to him.

Like, this is not something that we was hiding behind anyone's back or anything.

And so he misrepresented.

So first he said that, that I mentioned that because, because his confession had some,

you know, cause for the majority of the time we were looking at the confession that he sent us on

salvation.

And so we were looking at that and picking it apart.

And in this video, he says, well, it's, it, it words things in a way in

which he wouldn't have worded it.

But he said, he said, but Jeff Rice said the same thing concerning the 1689.

And I have said that.

However, I would not say that concerning an, an, an, an important, an important

doctrine, such as salvation, an essential, important doctrine concerning salvation.

But what the 1689 says about salvation, I 100 % agree with every word.

Now, speaking about things that I would word different.

Let's just talk about like where it says that the Pope is the Antichrist.

I would word that different and say, the Pope is an Antichrist, not

the definite article Antichrist, right.

Which has, which is not an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.

Right.

So something like that, I would reword.

Not the, like, like I wouldn't reword anything concerning the Trinity.

I wouldn't word anything concerning justification.

I wouldn't word anything concerning sanctification.

Right.

Like these essential doctrines.

And so, so he misrepresented what I was saying there.

And also he said that our attack on him had to do with just his view of

justification.

Now, if you go back and you watch our video from last week, it wasn't about justification.

It was about the conflation of justification and sanctification and glorification together.

Because they actually believe if you have been justified, you will

in your own walk be sanctified.

So your sanctification is by you walking and working.

By you walking and working.

And that's where we came down and told him that's bootstrap theology.

That's pat yourself on the back theology.

And then Brayden mentioned how that was.

I can't think of the Judaizers.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's, yeah.

Oh, who has bewitched you?

Who do you think that you are being?

Does it say that you are being sanctified in the spirit?

Or let me look here real fast.

Because in Galatians, the Judaizers were not saying that they didn't come to

Jesus by faith.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Faith.

Okay.

However, you also have to be circumcised and become a Jew.

Going back real fast.

Yeah.

And so you add anything to those two sanctification, I mean, salvation and sanctification.

My dear friend, you are a Judaizer.

So let's pull that back up real quick.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So real quickly, I'll read Galatians before I zoom in on this.

Galatians 3.

Oh, foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?

It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

Let me ask you only this.

Did you?

So Paul's saying, let me boil down the entire part of my letter and just ask you this.

Right.

Did you receive the spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Are you so foolish?

Having begun by the spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Wow.

Now, with that in mind, let's go and read Rosendale Network of Churches.

I'm not on the screen where I can see you guys.

Is that visible for you guys?

Well, it's very small, but.

Go ahead and read it though.

I personally cannot read it.

I can't.

I wonder if I do something like that.

Yeah, but you have to move with it, but it's fine.

It looks better.

Does that look better somewhat?

I don't know.

All right, let me read it for you.

I'll read the whole portion.

So this is, this is, this is a part of a network that Jason's a part of.

And again, this is, this is a pretty core.

This is salvation.

This is a pretty core doctrine, right?

Or I would hope it's central.

Salvation is a free gift of God's grace based on the work of Jesus Christ.

The shedding of his blood on the cross.

His resurrection is present in an accessory ministry.

In the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Could you cut that down to normal and not 1 .5?

Those.

You're a fast reader.

Who receive. God's.

Brain, we just, we barely graduated high school.

Oh my goodness.

All right.

Those who receive God's gift of salvation by faith.

Become children of God.

Justified in their relationship to God.

Sanctified in their walk and work.

And secure in an ongoing faith.

Expressed and fostered.

By obedience to Christ.

Justification.

Yeah.

And listen, this again, what is this?

We're saying that they're conflating sanctification and justification.

It's in his own confession.

It's here in salvation.

Right after talking about what we would talk about is sanctification.

Ongoing faith, right?

It's saying that it's expressed and fostered by obedience.

Justification is extended to all people in regard to the endemic guilt.

And by personal repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

And his provision in regard to personal guilt.

You guys are misrepresenting him again.

The problem is you cannot conflate justification, sanctification and glorification

together.

So the way that they would put it is saved, being saved, to be saved.

Like those three, although are together, they're separate.

Right?

My sanctification is not my justification.

Right.

Although the moment I was justified, if I would have died at that moment, I would have been fully

sanctified and would be glorified.

And that comes, a lot of that comes too from that video that we are discussing.

Right.

In and out.

Right.

Which I, that guy was a heretic through and through with that little.

Yeah.

Gay beard.

Yep. Listen.

Gay beard.

It was bad.

If you haven't seen that show, go watch that show.

It was real bad.

But if you want to say that there's, which there is, there's Bible verses that say, you have been saved, that you are being saved and

you will be saved.

Sure.

Yet what should be the Christian's response?

I was saved by Christ.

I'm being saved by Christ.

I will be saved by Christ.

I was saved by Christ.

I'm being saved by myself.

And I'll be saved by my endurance in the future.

That's garbage.

That's the same thing the Judaizers were saying.

That's where this comes from.

And really, it's justification.

It's being saved from the penalty of sin.

It's being saved from the power of sin.

And it's being saved from the very presence of sin and glorification.

That's right.

Yeah.

Because once we're glorified, once we resurrect from the grave, there are the way that our

flesh fights against our spirit will be no more.

That's right.

We will be perfected in a way.

We will be as he is.

In real time.

Yeah. Yeah.

And so that's what we were saying.

If you go and listen to the video that he did, he totally misrepresented us in that.

And then what we said about our confession versus his.

We need to get Jason on here.

Send him a message.

Hit him up.

Well, I will if y 'all want me to.

Well, I guess that's all we got for the night.

Any last words?

Can we get a picture of us beating a dead horse again?

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I told you to put one of them with his face on it.

I can't do it that quick.

Give me 10 minutes.

I get that done.

No, it was a great show again, you guys.

Good stuff.

Hey, real quick.

We need to know what you guys want us to do.

What are some ideas?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Go ahead.

I had something pop in my mind.

I'll write it down.

Go ahead.

Oh, okay.

We need to know.

We need to know what kind of topics would you guys like us to discuss on here?

We want to keep it fun.

You guys know how we are.

We rag on Braden a lot because he's got teeny tiny hands.

But we can't just do a show on tiny hands.

You can.

It's just short.

It's small shows.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's TikTok videos.

Yeah, we could do the Jay Beard show.