TPW 53 Final Words on Baptism Encounter and Response to Carlos

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

0 comments

00:02
For the
00:12
Protestant Witness, this is Pastor Patrick Hines, and I'm going to do kind of a concluding program here on the issue of baptism and the attempt at a debate that happened a while back with myself and Brandon Adams.
00:31
I don't refer to it as a debate because a debate would be both sides come prepared to make opening statements and it was very obvious to myself and at least to folks on our side that listened to it that one of us was ready and the other one was not.
00:47
One of us made an opening statement and the other did not make a defense of anything. So I noticed a lengthy article has appeared on Brandon's website, in fact, he sent me a link to it a while back just within a few days of our encounter,
01:04
I'm not going to refer to it as a debate because it wasn't a debate, the encounter that we had. And two programs on Semper Affirmandum Radio were done with him about the so -called republication issue, etc.
01:20
etc. And I didn't listen to all of those, I listened to a few minutes of them because I honestly have not really felt the need to respond to the encounter because people listening know that my opening statement was ignored completely.
01:40
And that what I was given from my opponent to interact with really didn't have enough in it to really warrant a response.
01:50
And so once the time elapsed I was kind of like, okay, well, so much for that, that was a real waste of my time, and I was angry in a sinful way, and I've apologized to all parties involved for getting angry, but one of my pet peeves is when people don't come prepared for stuff, especially things that are going to be listened to by the body of Christ or by Christian people, you need to do your homework, you need to come ready, you need to have enough respect for your audience, enough respect for the people that will listen to it to do your homework and to be ready, and I felt that that was not done.
02:28
So I was miffed by that. But I haven't felt the need to put out a giant article,
02:34
I haven't felt the need to do much of anything because my opening statement, just like my two sermons that I preached on this and the video
02:42
I put out which I actually pulled the audio and put it on the Process and Witness, was ignored, and I don't know if Brandon's video is still out there, the original video that started the stuff where he grossly, grossly misrepresented two sermons that I've preached on this topic in a video that I had done, he took quotations from me completely out of context and grossly misrepresented them for an hour and eight minutes.
03:10
So when I first saw that, I posted a video in response to it, and I was thankful at least he admitted that that was his mistake, that he had misrepresented me.
03:20
But that really, that would have been the end of it for me, I really was not, although at the beginning of my video response to him
03:27
I said yeah, maybe we could do something together at some point, but I wasn't going to pursue it after working my way through the whole video because the video was that bad, it was that gross of a misrepresentation.
03:37
So, two Semper Firmata radio programs, so a total of over two hours, have been discussed about this encounter, and I still have not felt the need to really say much in response,
03:54
I haven't listened to those two programs, I listened to a few minutes of each one and kind of got distracted by something and just started doing something else, but Semper Firmata radio 95, program 95, the last section is the fatal flaw of Presbyterian covenant theology, which
04:13
I haven't listened to yet, I'm going to listen to it here on the fly, and let
04:19
Carlos say what he wants to say, and I'm going to respond to it. But one thing
04:25
I want to point out that I think needs to be said here is why can't you guys do, here is a positive presentation of 1689 federalism.
04:40
Do you guys really believe that, here is the logical argument, here is the premise and the conclusion.
04:48
Premise one, there is a fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology, conclusion, 1689 federalism is true.
04:57
Do I really need to point out that doesn't follow from that premise? It doesn't.
05:04
And this is something that J .B. Fesko and other Reformed authors have pointed out for a long time, is when you do read the books, and this is one of my biggest, one of the reasons
05:14
I never became a Reformed Baptist, in reading Fred Malone and reading Waldron and reading and listening to Schreiner and other folks from that perspective, they're not real big on a positive presentation of their position.
05:32
They just aren't. They will criticize us a lot, and are happy to do that, but it's kind of like, by refuting us, do you really think your position has been established?
05:44
If you show that there's something wrong with our view, does it follow from that that your view is rendered therefore correct?
05:52
And it simply doesn't. And you'll notice, if you listen to the encounter, listen to my opening statement, you know,
05:59
I came in early and stayed late several days over the two weeks leading up to the encounter, and read articles on Brandon's website and tried to listen to him on some
06:12
Northwest Reformed podcast, something, where he did five parts on this topic, and I listened to some of that, and read a number of articles, and I came in early and stayed late to prepare for this, because I didn't have time to do this, and I also worked an entire
06:27
Saturday, an entire Saturday, which is something I really, really, really, really tried to avoid, because, you know, my family needs me to be at home.
06:36
I have a huge family, and I have a lot of responsibilities, I have a lot of things to do, I oversee some of the homeschooling and everything else.
06:42
So I made a positive presentation in my opening statement, and tried in several places to contrast it directly with this unique perspective of 1689 federalism.
06:55
Now, what seems to be the play here, and it'll be interesting to me to see if this is Carlos's specific approach here, is he just going to basically say, well, if you look at, you know,
07:07
Carlberg, and John Murray, and some of the stuff that's going on, and trying to say that the
07:13
Mosaic Covenant is purely the covenant of grace, that's led to all this controversy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I just want to say, before I start listening to it,
07:20
I bet you that's where he's going, because he and I have discussed this on the phone, too. I bet you that's where he's going.
07:26
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that he's right. Let's say that, man, there's a massive contradiction in the
07:32
Westminster Confession of Faith, and that's just there, and that's just the way it is. It doesn't follow from that that your position's true.
07:41
And that's what blows my mind about it. Like, even looking at the label here, it says, Carlos and Tim read emails and give some shout -outs, and I appreciated what you guys said, and appreciate that you guys listen, and that we're part of a network together, and I'm thankful.
07:56
I would go to a Reformed Baptist church if I had no other options, and there's Reformed Baptists that come to our church here, and, you know, we love our
08:03
Baptist brethren. I love you guys dearly. You guys are important to me. But then the next sentence in the description here is, then they briefly discuss the fate of flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology.
08:14
That is fascinating to me, because it's not, then they briefly discuss a positive, biblical, exegetical defense of our views on baptism as Baptists.
08:28
That's what I would expect this to say. At the end of the day, after all the discussion, all the interviews, all the encounters, debates whatever you want to call it, that your final concluding thoughts would be, here is a positive, biblical, exegetical defense of our position.
08:44
But no, it's not that. Here's the final punch. Here's the final concluding thoughts.
08:50
Here's the fate of flaw in our opponent's position. And I'm kind of like, guys, that doesn't prove anything.
08:57
That doesn't prove anything about your position. It does not prove anything about your position.
09:03
Now, one of the best books that's out there, in print right now, on the issue of baptism is Word, Water, and Spirit, a
09:09
Reformed Perspective on Baptism by J .V. Fasco. Now, I've been plowing through this book. I've read a lot of the later chapters, because usually when
09:17
I get books, I'll look at the table of contents, and a lot of times some of the front matter is not overly important. But I've read a lot of the later chapters, because they deal with some of these more polemical issues.
09:25
I read that a long time ago. But I was reading some of the earlier chapters not too long ago, and came across something here that captures perfectly the problem, the biggest problem
09:35
I have with everything that happened with Brandon and everything that you guys have done since then.
09:41
Listen to what Fasco says here in his introduction, quote, here he's talking about differences between the way that we go at this and the way that Baptists go at it.
09:51
He says, In one sense, this may not seem at all that significant, as all relate baptism to Jesus in some fashion, and many make reference to the covenant concept to some degree.
10:03
Often though, that reference to the doctrine of the covenant is nominal and does not undergird the explanation of the doctrine of baptism.
10:10
Such a reference appears in a recent book written by Baptist theologians titled,
10:16
Believer's Baptism Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Now listen carefully to this next couple sentences. The term covenant appears in the subtitle, but there is little effort to set forth the doctrine of the covenant in the book.
10:29
The largest interaction with the doctrine is directed more at correcting paedo -baptist understandings of covenant, rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism, end quote.
10:46
Amen and amen. That is my biggest gripe with everything here, even with talking with my brethren on the phone.
10:54
There is no attempt made to positively state this position, rather it's, well, here's everything wrong with your position, and I just,
11:02
I would love to hear you guys, I would love to hear anyone from that side. Can you set forth your views on covenant theology and baptism as if there are no
11:13
Presbyterians? As if the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't exist? As if there is no
11:19
OPC report on republication? Can you do that? Can you set forth your position positively as if we don't exist?
11:26
There's no Westminster Confession, there's no OPC report on republication, can you just positively state your position?
11:33
Guys, I just want to tell you, I think if that could be done, it would have been in the encounter. And the people listening know it wasn't, except the coterie that will cheer no matter what it said that have no interest in what's actually being said, but those that listened carefully know that was not done.
11:51
And that's why I have felt no need at all, none, to respond, to say anything, because nothing's been offered.
11:59
When I was done with my opening statement, which I came in and did six times before I got it under 20 minutes and worked on it, when it came time for Brandon to make his opening statement,
12:08
I sat at my computer with my fingers hovering over my keyboard, expecting to get the
12:13
Mike Tyson uppercut, I was expecting to get the best Sunday punch, I was expecting to get the clearest, most forceful 20 minutes of positive, biblical, exegetical information
12:24
I had ever heard in my life, I really was. And 12 minutes into the, I think he took about 14 of the 20 that he was allotted, 12 minutes into it,
12:33
I was sitting back in my chair with my forehead on my hand, shaking my head, thinking, you know, after that hour -long, hour -and -eight -minute -long misrepresentation of me,
12:44
I should have known better. And my instincts were telling me that this was not going to be worth my time, and it wasn't worth my time, and I was really disappointed.
12:51
And the folks on our side that listen to this, that have asked me about it, asked me, didn't your opponent know what he was supposed to do?
12:58
Wasn't he told to come prepare it? I said, yes, he was told the same thing I was. That's what we were supposed to do.
13:05
And people ask me, why did he ignore your opening statement? It was almost like you didn't even make an opening statement.
13:10
I said, I don't know. I don't know. Why did he ignore me? I don't know. It was kind of rude.
13:16
I was really put off by that. I was sitting here, ready to take notes when he was talking.
13:22
I wrote down nothing, because I didn't hear any biblical, exegetical arguments. Nothing was presented.
13:28
And now, after, you know, more than two hours on Semper Ephraim on the radio, which I will admit
13:33
I have not listened to all of them, because I don't see the relevance of any of this to the topic before us.
13:38
I really don't. I don't see the relevance of any of this to the issue before us. What do we get?
13:46
What's the final punch? Here's why you're wrong. Instead of, here's a positive biblical, exegetical case for the position that we take.
13:54
Guys, don't you see? You're doing the very thing that Fesco says. Listen to Fesco again. The largest interaction with the doctrine is directed more at correcting paedobaptist understandings of covenant, rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
14:08
Now, if you guys want to turn this into, well, we can show that your guys don't agree with each other. Guys, please,
14:14
Reformed Baptists are all over the place in the way they understand this stuff. Brian Borgman, I could play the quotations from the sound files on Sermon Audio.
14:24
He denies completely that there's a covenant of works. In fact, he says, at no point has
14:30
God ever interacted with man on the basis of, work for this and I will give you life, which is a direct quotation of Leviticus 18 .5,
14:38
as it's quoted in Galatians 3 .12 and Romans 10 .6. We could sit here and play that game all day long if you wanted to, but that's not going to get us anywhere.
14:45
So, I'm wondering, where is this going to go? What is the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology? You know,
14:51
I noticed, I listened to the last few minutes of the second program that you guys did on republication, or whatever, and the statement was made by Tim.
15:00
He made the comment, many people might be wondering, what does any of this have to do with baptism?
15:06
And Brandon even jokingly said, yeah, therefore you only baptize professing adult believers, or only those who make professional faith can be baptized.
15:13
And all three of you laughed. All three of you laughed. And I'm sitting there thinking, yeah, that's what
15:19
I'm wondering too. What does any of this have to do with the proper subjects of baptism? What does any of it have to do with baptism?
15:27
We haven't been told. And until we're really shown, what is the punch of this position?
15:34
I don't understand what it is exactly I'm supposed to try to respond to. I mean, that's the biggest thing.
15:39
The guys, the seminary students here that listened to the debate, to the encounter, asked me, what was the point he was trying to make?
15:47
And I said, I don't know. I sincerely, honestly don't know. I don't know what the point is of all this talk about republication.
15:56
Because I've said on the phone, republication or no republication, or a middle ground of republication, or a three -fourths republication and one -fourth grace, and substantial republication, substantial grace, substantial law versus unsubstantial.
16:08
Whatever position you want, you can take whatever view you want. What does it have to do with baptism and the proper subjects of baptism?
16:17
Nothing. With that said, let's listen to Carlos and let's see what is the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology.
16:24
And let's see, is an effort gonna be made to positively assert this other position?
16:31
Or is it just gonna be, well, look, these guys disagree, which is easy to do. If you wanna play that game, we can quote your guys against each other fairly easily.
16:39
But let's go ahead and see. So here's Carlos explaining the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology.
16:45
On the phone, I think you did a much better job explaining this. So I'll just let you continue.
16:51
Yeah, so this is gonna be kind of a forward -running commentary on the part two of our interview with Brandon.
17:02
And because the problem, so the OPC also published a report about republication.
17:11
It's a fairly lengthy report, I think it's almost 100 pages. You can download it from the OPC website.
17:18
And you should definitely read that if you get the chance. So, and there's basically two sides to the story, and we kind of laid them out in the interview.
17:28
So just make sure you listen to the interview. And I'm not completely decided as to where this whole thing comes together.
17:38
Brandon is a lot more convinced because he's been studying this issue for years, several years. And so he's been very well prepared and very well studied.
17:45
If that's the case, why weren't we told during the debate what any of this has to do with baptism? What does any of this discussion have to do with the proper subjects of baptism?
17:55
Have you guys noticed that the faculty at Westminster East and the faculty at Westminster West are all
18:00
Paedo -Baptist? It comes together, Brandon is a lot more convinced because he's been studying this issue for years, several years.
18:08
And so he's been very well prepared and very well studied on the matter. But when it comes to regarding the
18:16
Mosaic Covenant, as part of the Covenant of Grace, you have a serious problem.
18:22
Because how is it possible that the Mosaic Covenant, which was sealed, the seal of that covenant was basically the
18:30
Ten Commandments. It's law, it's like all law, it's law based. Yes, but it's given in the context of grace.
18:37
What does the prologue to the Ten Commandments say? I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
18:43
It's given in the context of redemption. Look at the last several verses of Exodus chapter two. Why did God bring them out of Egypt?
18:49
It was in remembrance of his covenant promise to Abraham. So the context in which it's given is grace, although the law in and of itself is a works and works inheritance principle.
19:00
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. It's not. There's a works principle in the
19:08
Mosaic Covenant that's simply undeniable. Right, and who's denying it? Who's denying that?
19:14
And what does that have to do with baptism? It is just flat out undeniable. You can't deny it.
19:21
But what has happened in Presbyterianism, as I understand it, there's essentially been two schools of thought that have developed to try to reconcile that problem.
19:32
It's not a problem, Carlos. To reconcile that problem, no matter who you read among the
19:40
Puritans, they understand that the law was never given to be the means of justification before God.
19:46
However, they try to couch it in terms of their understanding of the role that it plays in the overarching covenant of grace, and that's fine.
19:54
You just look at the details of how they explain it. None of them would say, well, because it's part of the covenant of grace, we're justified by law keeping.
20:01
That's not it at all. It has no works principle tied to it.
20:07
Who has said that? There's no works principle tied to it? None of the people I ever read over the years said that there's absolutely no works principle anywhere in the
20:17
Mosaic covenant. None. I can't think of anyone that's ever said that. So that view, which
20:24
I believe was also held by John Murray, and that view has basically led to the errors of Norman Shepherd and the current justification controversy.
20:33
It led to a conflation of works and faith. And so it took over 300 years for someone to finally make this kind of an error.
20:44
John Murray is just plain wrong. He tries to assert, well, you know, there's no covenant of works per se.
20:50
He calls it the Adamic administration. He actually says that, well, we don't believe that there's a covenant of works in Genesis.
20:57
Which, by the way, Brian Borgman, a Reformed Baptist, a 1689 Reformed Baptist, he doesn't think there's a covenant of works there either.
21:04
And it makes sense that you guys wouldn't believe in a covenant of works because the London Baptist Confession, chapter 7 .2,
21:11
was deleted. It was erased out of that confession. And then the only other reference to the covenant of works in the 1689
21:19
London Baptist Confession is in chapter 20, which is cut and pasted from the Savoy Declaration, which was the
21:25
Congregationalist version of the Westminster Standards. And the Savoy Declaration in chapter 20 says that there's a covenant of works because they didn't delete 7 .2,
21:34
which the 1689 guys did. So what is the, I mean, you could argue that your document requires you to deny that there's a covenant of works, because it's not defined anywhere.
21:46
Now, could I do a program, The Fatal Flaw of Reformed Baptist Theology? They don't believe in a covenant of works, and that's why they get everything wrong.
21:53
Well, no, you would need to let guys define their own position. And then try to interact with them on that basis.
22:00
Inflation of works and faith, because it was so dangerous and damaging to say that the
22:07
Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of grace, and that do this and live is essentially a grace principle.
22:14
Yeah, and I'm not aware that John Murray ever said that. I'm not an expert on his writings.
22:21
I've got the four volume set, and I've read Redemption, Accomplished, and Applied many times, and have read some of his other shorter writings.
22:27
But in light of Murray's outstanding material on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, it's hard for me to imagine him saying that the
22:37
Mosaic Covenant is pure grace, and there's no works principle anywhere in it. How could anyone say that, when clearly,
22:45
I mean, even the work of Christ, the curse -bearing work of Christ is couched in the terms of the
22:51
Mosaic Covenant. Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, quoting from Deuteronomy there in Galatians chapter three.
22:58
So there's no doubt about it. No doubt about it, that it is part of, it is a works inheritance covenant.
23:06
But again, my question for you guys is, what does any of that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism? Are you going to explain that or not?
23:13
It is essentially a grace principle that it just totally confuses law and gospel. It blurs everything together.
23:20
I agree with that completely, and that is part of what happened there at Westminster Seminary with Norman Shepard and all the stuff that's going on since then.
23:29
Everything together, and it just, it creates false teaching. It leads to false teaching.
23:35
And the London Baptist Confession's deletion of the covenant of works, and that creates heresy too.
23:42
That creates false teaching, because as Brian Borgman has said, who is a Reformed Baptist scholar, there is no works principle.
23:49
God has never interacted with man on the basis of work for this, and I will give you life. In fact, all of God's interactions, as Brian Borgman, a
23:57
Reformed Baptist scholar has said, are on the basis of grace alone. And when you have nothing but grace in scripture, if you have grace everywhere, in effect, you have grace nowhere.
24:07
And you have, in fact, a works principle everywhere. So that's a false gospel too. Now, what does that get us here?
24:13
So are my friends across the way here going to go, oh, okay, our confession's wrong. We'll repudiate it and join your team.
24:21
Of course not. What you need to do is go into the text of scripture and show that this position that you hold, if it is 1689 federalism,
24:28
I don't know that, I don't know if Tim and Carlos actually embraced that position or not, but if that is what you hold, you need to try to define it positively, like Fesco said there.
24:38
Listen to that sentence again. The largest interaction with the doctrine of the covenant is directed more at correcting paedo -baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
24:49
And that's exactly my problem here. What does any of this have to do with baptism? We haven't been told yet, and I'm wondering if we're going to be.
24:55
I wonder if we're going to be. It leads to false teaching, and there's a very good article on the Trinity Foundation website written by Mark Carlberg.
25:02
And Carlberg, I guess, I can't remember what it's called, but we talk about it in the part.
25:10
It's called Troubler of Israel, and it's his response to the republication report. We talk about it in the part two of the interview, but he kind of catalogs the history behind this and how it kind of led to the false teaching of Norman Shepard and all of the subsequent mess that happened at Westminster Seminary as a result of this view.
25:34
And so that view of reconciling the
25:39
Mosaic covenant with the covenant of grace created that serious of a problem.
25:46
Now, the other way to reconcile it has been essentially represented by Meredith Klein.
25:53
And so Meredith Klein, his view is basically the more biblical view. It's the more biblical view, but it still creates a problem because he held to the view that the
26:05
Mosaic covenant is still part of the covenant of grace. It's just that he had to kind of divert.
26:10
So Brandon basically says that Meredith had to diverge on the original
26:17
Westminster confession on certain parts because they held to a very,
26:22
I guess, a very sort of like a rigid view of seeing the
26:29
Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace. And if you want... Guys, as a person who was educated at a reforms institution,
26:37
I can tell you exactly what they're talking about. I said this in my opening statement. I said it during the cross -examination.
26:42
I said it to both of you guys on the phone. So I'm going to say it again here. The law has a different function in that it shows us our sin.
26:52
It shows us the obedience of Jesus Christ, but the context in which it was given was grace.
27:02
Why did God lead the people out of Egypt? Because of his covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And what is the context in which the law is given?
27:10
Redemption. Redemption. You know, Robert Raymond has an excellent section of his systematic theology explaining this perfectly, okay?
27:20
That the law was given for Israel to reflect the character of God to the nations around them, to be that by which they expressed their gratitude, but it certainly was law.
27:30
And it certainly had a works obedience curse for disobedience, blessing for obedience principle.
27:37
Okay, here's what Carl Berg says on page two of that Trinity Foundation article. Listen carefully to this, please.
27:43
Traditional mainstream reform theology has taught from the time of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day that the
27:48
Mosaic covenant is an administration of the single ongoing covenant of grace. Now, before you start objecting, it is undeniable.
27:55
There's a works principle here. No one has ever denied that. Listen, peculiar to the
28:03
Mosaic economy, however, is the operation of the works inheritance principle in a restricted sphere or manner.
28:09
A number of explanations have been provided within historic reform theology concerning this unique covenantal arrangement in the period extending from Moses to Christ.
28:16
What is the old economy of redemption? Dissatisfied with this element and reform doctrine, Murray set out to recast the doctrine of the covenants at the very time that Barthianism was on the ascendancy in most reform circles in Europe and elsewhere.
28:30
Now, what is Barthianism? Well, the theology of Karl Barth, and Barth was reacting against the rise of liberalism, and it took a long time for people to realize that what he was proposing was actually just a nuanced version of liberalism, and they called it neo -orthodoxy, but it was really just a new form of liberalism.
28:50
Now, Murray, as Karl Barth says here, clearly was not a Barthian, but his novel teaching did imbibe some of the new thinking that was quickly gaining ground, and so it was.
28:58
Murray, who opened the door at Westminster to the radical deviation in covenant theology struck by Shepherd and his staunchest supporter,
29:07
Richard Gaffin, co -author, if not the father of the new theology, okay? So John Murray deviated from a tradition that had been in place and had been explicated very fully and very well for 300 years, 300 years, and things started to fall off the tracks there, okay?
29:27
Now, what does this mean with regard to baptism? I don't know.
29:33
We still haven't been told. I'm doubting very seriously that Carlos is gonna actually tell us how this is related to baptism, but maybe he will.
29:41
Maybe he will. I don't know. Let's see. A very, I guess a very sort of like a rigid view of seeing the
29:50
Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace. See, but Carlos, you need to qualify that the way that those authors did.
29:56
You guys, seriously, it's difficult for me to listen to this because you guys are acting like Presbyterians and the people that have written on this topic are idiots.
30:07
Oh, it's undeniable. There's a works principle. None of them have ever denied that. None of them have ever denied that.
30:14
When I was in seminary and when I was taught covenant theology, we were taught this. I hope you guys are listening to me.
30:20
I hope that you listen to this. The reason we talk about it being part of the covenant of grace is because it is in the context of redemption from Egyptian bondage that the law is given to the people of Israel.
30:33
That's the reason that we speak of it that way. They're not saying that law is grace and that the works principle is great.
30:40
They're not saying that. No one's saying that. If anyone had ever said that, I would never have embraced the position.
30:45
Never. A covenant of grace. And if you want more information on this topic,
30:52
I'm Meredith Klein. There's a very good podcast dedicated to the theology of Meredith Klein called,
30:58
I think it's called the Glory Cloud Podcast. It's by one of,
31:03
I think one of Meredith Klein's students, or I don't know if it was a direct student, but they were, they're basically kind of like protégés of Klein.
31:16
And so was Karl Berg. Karl Berg is another one of the, he was on Klein's side.
31:23
He took Klein's view regarding this issue. And that's the view that I take too, and always have taken.
31:30
If that's quote unquote republication, uh -oh, the OPC thinks I'm not confessional. And I want to say this as clearly as I can say it,
31:38
I don't care. He was on Klein's side. He took Klein's view regarding this issue because Klein, essentially, they tried to sort of explain that the
31:52
Mosaic Covenant is kind of a mixed covenant. That you have, yes, it has works tied to it.
31:59
There is a works principle in the Mosaic Covenant, but the underlying aspect, the underlying covenant, the underlying principle is that of grace.
32:08
And by that, they mean that the Abrahamic Covenant underlies the Mosaic Covenant, such that there are grace aspects, even in the
32:17
Mosaic law, like the sacrifices. The sacrifices were for forgiveness of sins, things like that. So they try to somehow -
32:25
Would you deny that, Carlos? Would you object to that? I mean, look at the end of Exodus chapter two.
32:32
Listen. Now, it happened in the process of time that the king of Egypt died. Then the children of Israel groaned because of the bondage, and they cried out.
32:40
And their cry came up to God because of the bondage. So God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
32:46
And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God acknowledged them. Why did God go get them out of Egypt?
32:53
Are you saying that it was because of their works? Because they did good works? Why did
32:59
God go get them out of Egypt? Grace. Grace. The giving of the law itself, the prologue,
33:07
I already quoted it to you. In Exodus chapter 20, what does it say? Exodus 20. When God finally gets them out, and they go out, and he gives them the law, and God spoke all these words saying,
33:18
I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Please go read the section in Robert Raymond's Systematic Theology on the unity of the covenant of grace.
33:29
And he points out that recognizing a law principle does not mean that we think the whole thing is pure works or something like that.
33:40
I don't get what you're saying. Or that there's no grace at all there.
33:45
I mean, clearly, the redemption of the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage was in response to, was
33:50
God graciously doing that? It wasn't because of their obedience or their works. Is that what you're saying?
33:56
Are you saying that they tried to say that there was some kind of underlying grace here? Isn't that what the text of scriptures tells us?
34:03
Isn't that why God got them out of Egyptian bondage? He remembered his covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac, that's grace, isn't it?
34:10
So I'm thoroughly confused at what your point is. And also,
34:16
I'm just gonna keep going back to this. What does any of that have to do with baptism anyway? I will say this, the three of you are utterly unique in my experience.
34:27
I have never heard Reformed Baptists go this direction, ever in my life, never, never heard it.
34:33
Sacrifices, the sacrifices were for forgiveness of sins and things like that. So they try to somehow reconcile this tension between it being a covenant of works, but still being a part of the covenant of grace.
34:49
And so to me, this doesn't actually solve the problem. I mean, I guess in some ways you could try to redefine the, you would have to,
34:58
I guess, modify or clarify the Westminster Confession. And I believe that's what
35:04
Karl Berg says. Like, this is something that Presbyterians need to draw attention to and to reconcile because it hasn't been fully developed.
35:13
Now, Brandon has an interesting take on this because he says that it has been developed and that it's basically, it leads to saying that the confessional view is that there is no, that the original
35:28
Westminster view was that there was no works principle tied to the
35:33
Mosaic covenant, something like that. But the problem again is that it's so clearly works, there's so clearly a works principle tied to that covenant.
35:43
I mean, that Levitic. Listen to the Westminster Confession, chapter 19 .1. God gave to Adam a law as a covenant of works by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling and threatened death upon the breach of it and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
36:02
19 .2, this law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. Now listen closely.
36:08
And as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in 10 commandments and written in two tables.
36:16
Covenant of works, the law, the law as a covenant of works was delivered on Mount Sinai? Yeah, yep, it's right there in the
36:23
Westminster Confession. There's no tension here to be resolved. It was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in 10 commandments and written in two tables.
36:32
So it is a republication of the covenant of works. Well, how can you say it's in the context of grace? Exodus chapter two, the last three verses of that chapter and the prologue to the 10 commandments.
36:43
Do you guys acknowledge that those are gracious things? Or are you saying that the reason that Israel was brought out of Egypt is because of their righteousness?
36:53
Was it because they did good works and were brought out? The reason they were redeemed out of Egypt was grace alone.
36:59
And the context in which that law was given was grace alone. And I think that's a key critical point that you guys are really missing here.
37:08
It sounds like you're saying it's all works and there's no grace at all anywhere in that.
37:15
And so I'm unsure where you're coming from there. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying.
37:23
And again, again, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this proper subjects of baptism either.
37:32
I mean, I really don't. I don't see any of that anywhere. Let's keep going here.
37:39
But the problem again is that it's so clearly works. There's so clearly a works principle tied to that covenant.
37:46
I mean, that Leviticus - Carlos, are you suggesting that Presbyterians like myself don't believe that?
37:54
Are you suggesting we don't believe that? Can you cite people that say, yeah, that it's part of the covenant of grace.
37:59
And what we mean is there is no works principle or obedience principle anywhere in it. Is that what,
38:05
I mean, if that's what our guys are actually saying, I mean, are they actually saying that? I've never read anyone that actually says that.
38:11
There's no works principle anywhere. Leviticus 18 .5, again, it says do this and live.
38:18
Yeah, and that's the whole basis. If you wanted to go to heaven, that's what you need to do.
38:24
You need to obey the law perfectly. That's why we need a savior. That's what the law does. It shows us our sin and drives us to Christ. It's clearly law and works based.
38:34
Are you saying that we don't believe that? I mean, it sounds like you are. It sounds like you are. And I've never said that or taught that.
38:40
And I would argue anyone that does teach that is headed for very serious heresy. But for some reason, for 300 years, this wasn't a huge problem until Murray came along.
38:50
I think it's true. He was influenced by Bardianism, this idea that even before the fall, all of God's dealings with Adam were by grace alone.
38:58
That doesn't help anything. It doesn't clarify anything that leads to very serious error, which it has. But it's not because of the
39:05
Westminster Confession. It's because of a departure from the Westminster Confession. And by the way, R.
39:10
Scott Clarke is also on the Meredith Cline side. He's more on the Clinean side of this.
39:16
So there's a controversy about this regarding specifically the history of Westminster federalism.
39:21
But there wasn't a controversy for the vast majority of the time since the confession was written. It's something that developed recently.
39:29
And I think people can see it. People that study the issues and know the text of scripture and read their Bibles can see what's wrong with that.
39:36
But again, I'm still scratching my head. What does this have to do with baptism? And who we are supposed to baptize?
39:43
We're not told. And I have a feeling it's not going to be made clear. Westminster federalism or covenant theology and what they originally intended.
39:53
And so - Let me ask this though. I pointed out, if you look at, I'll post this in the show notes.
39:59
There's a tabular comparison of the 1689 London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession out there on the internet where you can see it highlighted in red where the differences are.
40:08
Chapter seven of the London Baptist Confession deletes the Covenant of Works. Now, what would you guys do if I did it?
40:16
The fatal flaw of Reformed Baptist Covenant. See, they don't believe in the Covenant of Works and that's going to lead them to heresy and yada, yada, yada.
40:23
Would you probably have an answer for that? I bet you would. I bet you would. And you probably wouldn't find that persuasive either if I pointed that out.
40:30
Would you? That's why that's not where I'm going to camp out and try to make my case. When I discuss the issue of baptism and the proper subjects of baptism,
40:37
I make a positive exegetical biblical case. I don't go into all this kind of stuff and say, well, these guys on this side said this and these guys said that and Malone.
40:45
You know, Fred Malone is the most mysterious Reformed Baptist out there. When Brandon did his first video, he said,
40:52
Fred Malone does not hold this position, 1689 federalism. And then in one of the programs, he said, well, he leans towards it.
40:59
And then I emailed him and asked him when I read Malone's endorsement of Pascal Denault and Brandon said, he holds the 1689 federalism.
41:07
Well, will the real Fred Malone stand up? What does the guy actually believe? Does he hold this position or not?
41:14
I don't know. But here again, you know, Carlos, just listening to this, what does any of this have to do with baptism?
41:20
What does any of this have to do with baptism? I would love, I would love to respond to your position, but you won't tell me what it is.
41:27
All you wanna do is try to criticize mine. So it looks like there needs to be clarity on this issue, more drawn out, more developed, so that people don't end up on the wrong side of the fence, like the
41:41
Murray, you know, the extreme view that says that there is no works principle at all.
41:47
And you guys need to clarify your view, because if you don't believe in a covenant of works, then you're gonna end up on the
41:53
Borgman side and say there's no, God has no interactions with human beings on the basis of work for this and I will give you life.
42:00
And all of God's dealings with man before and after the fall are purely on the basis of grace.
42:06
Does that, do you find that persuasive? Are you guys gonna change your mind because of that? Of course not. Just as this has no effect on my views either.
42:14
View that says that there is no works principle at all in the Mosaic covenant. Can you cite a
42:19
Presbyterian theologian who says that? Can you give me examples of anyone that says that?
42:25
I would love to see examples of individuals who say that. In the Mosaic covenant. So it's just an, to me it's an irreconcilable contradiction because the new covenant is by grace through faith alone.
42:39
You know that the Abrahamic covenant was by grace through faith alone too. You know who thought that? Paul. How was
42:45
Abraham justified? By grace through faith alone. He says in Romans chapter four, citing Genesis 15, six.
42:52
And Abraham believed in Yahweh and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt, but to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.
43:05
Just as David also speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.
43:10
And then he cites the first two verses of Psalm 32. The Abrahamic covenant was by grace through faith alone.
43:16
And Paul belabors the point, the giving of the law, the giving of the covenant at Sinai did not alter the nature of that gracious promise.
43:25
Through faith alone. You know that the works principle does not, you don't get in by works, you don't stand by works.
43:34
It's not by works, it's by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Are you saying that that was never taught before the new covenant?
43:41
If so, why did Paul think it was? Paul certainly thinks that Abraham and David and every believer before the coming of Christ was justified by faith alone before the new covenant is even enacted historically.
43:55
Grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. And so with that understanding in mind, and it's the covenant of grace, you know, it's supposed to be the grace.
44:05
And so how can it be grace if it's, you know, the Mosaic covenant is so clearly talking repeatedly about conditions that if you follow the laws, you will be blessed and if you don't, you're gonna be damned and cursed and so on and so forth.
44:19
So it's just such an incredible, it really helped talking to Brandon through this and it brought a lot to light to me that I didn't, that I hadn't even really.
44:32
Our guys, our side is not saying that anyway, but let's say for the sake of argument that they were saying that.
44:38
Let's just say that that really is the problem, which it isn't, but let's just say that it is. What does that have to do with baptism?
44:46
What does that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism? We haven't been told yet. And we certainly weren't told in the encounter.
44:54
I hope that you'll tell us. It really helped talking to Brandon through this and it brought a lot to light to me that I didn't, that I hadn't even really fully, it hadn't fully hit me yet.
45:06
And seeing that now I see why, how that is a serious problem.
45:11
I don't see, I just don't think it's a reconcile. I don't even think it's reconcilable. I just don't think you can reconcile the
45:17
Mosaic covenant, somehow tie that into the covenant of grace. It's just, I don't see, I don't think it's possible. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument.
45:24
All right, it's in no way, shape or form part of the covenant of grace. All right, you got us. What does that have to do with baptism,
45:30
Carlos? What does that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism? Somehow tie that into the covenant of grace.
45:38
It's just, I don't see, I don't think it's possible. Not without, not without some, you would have to break it up into pieces and things try to, basically some of the stuff that Klein tried to do and R.
45:50
Scott Clarke and the. All they do is exegesis of the key texts. This has never been something difficult to me, guys.
45:58
It's just, do you exegesis? Exodus chapter two, the final three verses. Why does
46:04
God go down there and get them out? Because of the promise, the gracious promise he made to Abraham.
46:10
And then the context of the giving of the law is gracious. I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage.
46:17
The law was intended to function for those redeemed people, very much the way it functions for us today.
46:22
Not as the means of justification before God, but rather as the means by which we express our gratitude to God for having saved and redeemed us.
46:30
This is not complicated. There's no need for all of this. And again, like I said, pick any view of it that you want.
46:38
Pick any view of the Mosaic covenant that you want. What does it have to do with baptism? Scott Clarke and the
46:43
Carver, like they're trying to, I guess in some sense, develop and reform and sort of solidify this covenant crucial aspect of Presbyterianism that just doesn't appear to be properly reconciled.
47:03
It's not a problem, guys. And it didn't become a problem until you had someone influenced by Bardianism flying off the tracks, trying to say that everything
47:11
God's ever done with man is on the basis of grace. And I've actually preached on this. I have preached an entire sermon on the need for a clearly delineated covenant of works.
47:23
And I've used the same quotation from Abrakel that I think Carlos, you used the same quotation, that ignorance of this covenant makes someone suspect and everything.
47:32
Yeah, if you get that part wrong, if you don't understand the works obedience principle, then you're gonna get everything else wrong without a doubt.
47:41
But this, guys, I'm sorry, this is a straw man. It's a straw man. Doesn't appear to be properly reconciled.
47:50
And ultimately I don't think they can do it. Okay, what if I said, Carlos, your confession deletes the covenant of works.
47:58
And you have theologians out there on Sermon Audio that you can listen to, who are confessional Reformed Baptists who say there is no works principle in scripture anywhere.
48:07
And our confession doesn't teach it. Yeah, it mentions the covenant of works in chapter 20, but they cut and pasted that out of the
48:13
Savoy Declaration, which still had 7 .2 in it from the Westminster Confession. They didn't erase it the way you guys did.
48:20
So it's an irreconcilable contradiction you guys are on your way to heresy. I don't think you guys can do it. I don't think you can reconcile it.
48:25
I don't think you can explain why the covenant of works principle was deleted from your confession. Now, let me ask you, is that persuasive?
48:35
Is that persuasive? Are you on my side now? Nope, I'm sure you're not. It just says I'm not on yours.
48:40
But you know, they've tried and I don't think it's possible. I just think the Reformed Baptist view is so much more consistent and solid with the sharp distinctions and contrast between the old and the new covenant.
48:53
And that I just, I think that it just, there's a huge gaping, it's just a huge contradiction there that I don't think they can reconcile that.
49:07
But yeah, so definitely. Fesco, again, largest interaction with the doctrine is directed more at correcting
49:15
Pato Baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
49:23
What were we just told? What were we just told by Carlos? The Reformed Baptist view is just so much better.
49:29
And that's it. That's the defense. Here's everything wrong with you guys and our view's better.
49:35
Is that really, you think that's really gonna be persuasive to me? I assure you it's not. I don't think they can reconcile that.
49:41
But yeah, so definitely you'll wanna listen to that episode. It's excellent stuff.
49:48
I hope we can get Brandon on again in the future. I know we get very busy, but we may have to also publish some of his articles on our website, but he has a lot of really good, he's written a lot about this topic and I highly encourage everybody to seek his material out, read it, digest it.
50:08
I mean, it's a lot of good stuff. There's a lot to talk about here because there's different sides going on and it gets kind of heated in those
50:16
Presbyterian sides with respect to this. Yeah, and just for the record,
50:22
I think that you guys need to be as crystal clear about this. There is no one Reformed Baptist position on this, even though you have a confession.
50:30
Okay? In fact, I'm not aware of any two Reformed Baptists that agree on this stuff. I'm not aware of any two.
50:38
And this new idea, which of course we're being told is the original intent of the
50:43
Baptist confession. I'm wondering how it reconciles or if it even attempts to reconcile the absence of a clearly defined covenant of works.
50:53
Okay, I wanna post a link to the tabular comparison. Scroll down to chapter seven and look at what they deleted.
51:00
And then I'll post a link to Brian Borgman, to his complete denial that there is a works principle anywhere, not just in the
51:10
Mosaic covenant, but anywhere in the whole Bible. Anywhere in the whole Bible. And that's just a massive, huge contradiction.
51:18
You have chapter 20 cut and pasted from the Savoy Declaration that it's opening line is, this broken covenant of works.
51:24
I remember looking at that going, what covenant of works? You deleted it. So huge contradiction, huge contradiction.
51:32
How can you guys reconcile it? I don't think it can be done. Now, does that persuade you guys?
51:37
Does that constitute a positive case for my own views? No, it does not. Neither does this for your views.
51:44
No, in the Presbyterian sides, with respect to this and a lot of issues involved, but ultimately the problem is just, to me, it just seems like an insuperable problem for Presbyterians.
51:56
Yeah, I agree. Well, I really don't have anything to add to that.
52:04
But did you have any - Guys, what does any of that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism?
52:12
Okay, I'm not getting heated. Guys, I get passionate. I'm not mad. No offense.
52:18
It's almost comical to listen to this because you're not telling us how this relates to baptism. And brothers,
52:24
I asked both of you on the phone. I asked both of you on the phone, what does this have to do with baptism?
52:30
And neither of you could tell me. It's, well, you guys have this contradiction in your theology. You haven't shown that, but let's say that we did have that contradiction.
52:39
Let's say that there is a fatal flaw in our view of covenant theology. It doesn't follow from that premise that your position is true.
52:47
You still have to make a positive biblical exegetical case for it, don't you? Don't you feel the need to do that?
52:54
I've been arguing with Roman Catholics about Sola Scriptura for 20 years. And I used to go out on web forums and argue with them.
53:03
And it was amazing to me trying to argue with them about Sola Scriptura because they would attack
53:08
Sola Scriptura. They wanted to talk about Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not biblical. It's not explicitly taught. It's unhistorical.
53:14
It's unworkable. It's resulted in 48 ,000 denominations. And Sola Scriptura is bad. Sola Scriptura is not biblical.
53:20
We deny Sola Scriptura. And my answer would be, okay, what's your position then?
53:26
Well, our position is that yours is messed up and yours is wrong. Our position is that Sola Scriptura is wrong. Okay, right, right.
53:33
I got it. You reject my position. So what's your position? Our position is that you're wrong.
53:39
And guys, seriously, that's what this is. What's your position on baptism?
53:45
What's your position on baptism, guys? Our position is that Presbyterians are wrong. That Presbyterians have a fatal flaw in their position.
53:52
Okay, you have not shown that by any stretch of the imagination. You've not even tried.
53:58
Brothers, I love you guys, but you haven't even tried to interact with my opening statement. No attempt, no effort has been made to interact with anything
54:05
I said. And that's what guys like on our side that listen to the encounter that I have with Brandon, they said to me, did they even play your opening statement?
54:15
I mean, it was ignored. It was like you didn't even say it. It's like you didn't even say anything.
54:21
And I've been sitting here going, is anyone gonna actually interact with what I said?
54:29
Because all this talk about republication, the mosaic, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic. This doesn't have anything to do with the argument for why we believe households are still part of the visible church in the world.
54:40
It has nothing to do with it. Okay, just, I'm not, guys, for the overly sensitive people that listen,
54:47
I'm not mad, okay? We can be passionate and still love each other as brothers, all right? I get passionate, okay?
54:54
I don't imbibe from our effeminate culture. Okay, we shouldn't melt into puddles on the floor because there's passion involved, all right?
55:04
But did you have anything more to say on that? Just that we do plan to,
55:10
I do hope to write about this topic. You know, obviously we have very close fellowship with Presbyterians and I wanna kind of solidify this in my own mind and write about this and also discuss it.
55:26
Once I finish reading, I haven't finished reading the OPC report on republication and from what
55:31
I've already seen, especially specifically in Karlberg's critique of the report, they do appear to misrepresent
55:36
Klein in certain areas. So you have to be careful with that but you kind of need to read that.
55:43
That sets up a lot of the context for what the controversy is about. So we are planning to talk more about this in the future but yeah, there's just a lot of issues involved with this and we're talking about big picture things, how you reconcile the whole
56:02
Bible basically. So the infant baptism stuff as well is obviously tied to this but it's really a result of your view of the covenants and how closely you see them tied, specifically the old and the new covenants together.
56:15
So it just kind of really draws out the main issue, the main issue in Presbyterian covenant theology and that really is the big problem is how do you reconcile that, that Mosaic covenant to the covenant of Grayson.
56:29
No, it's not. That's never been the issue. That was no part of the argument many years ago when
56:36
I read everything in print that I could get my hands on, on this topic. No one keyed in on that issue at all.
56:45
No Baptists or Presbyterians ever focused on the Mosaic covenant. That's why after the encounter and I spoke with both of you guys on the phone,
56:53
I asked you point blank, I asked you point blank, what does any of that have to do with who we are supposed to baptize?
57:04
Nothing. Guys, you still haven't told me, you still haven't said.
57:11
What does any of that have to do with baptism? Just like at the end of the second program we did with Brandon, he jokingly said, therefore only professing believers should be baptized and everybody laughs.
57:22
I think that most of your listeners are probably still wondering, what does any of that have to do with who we're supposed to baptize?
57:28
I still don't understand why you're saying all this stuff. And man, guys, I've read a lot of people on baptism over the years.
57:37
I've taught on the subject a lot over the years. And this has never been the focus.
57:44
And the reason it's never been the focus, have you noticed that in the republication debate that's going on, this doesn't come up?
57:51
Because it's not related to it. Definitely interesting stuff to look forward to in the future.
58:00
My challenge to you guys, can you positively state your position?
58:07
Carlos, can you write an article that exegetically, biblically states this position as if there's no such thing as Presbyterians, as if there's no such thing as the
58:18
Westminster Confession, and as if there's no such thing as the OPC report on republication?
58:24
Can you exegetically, biblically present this position as if those things are true? No Presbyterians, no
58:30
Westminster Confession, no report on republication. If something's biblical, if something is true, you should be able to do that.
58:38
You should be able to do that. And you guys have stated your mind. I appreciate your passion. I just don't think they can do it.
58:44
Presbyterians are self -contradictory. I'm gonna state my mind. I don't think you guys can do it. I don't think you can state this position, your views on baptism without criticizing mine.
58:57
Can you state them positively as if Presbyterians don't exist, there's no OPC report on republication, and there's no
59:02
Westminster Standards? Can it be done? I don't think you can do it. Yeah, and we both hope to read some more on this whenever we have time.
59:15
But that's where we're at right now. Yeah, and just a quick reference.
59:21
If you want some good material, we'll try to list it in the show notes as well, but if you want some good material, a very good place to start for Reformed Baptist theology, like a primer, is a
59:35
Pascal Denault's book, The Distinctiveness of, I think it's called
59:40
The Distinctiveness of 17th Century Baptist Covenant Theology. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, I think it's called.
59:49
It's really cheap on Kindle. I think it's like four bucks. You definitely wanna get a hold of that book. It's an excellent book.
59:55
I've read through some of it already. I need to finish it still, but he does a great job outlining the differences and kind of comparing and contrasting the different covenants and how they view them.
01:00:05
So that's a great place to start for more on this topic. Yeah. My question is, can you summarize the position positively without referring to mine?
01:00:19
And let's say for the sake of argument that you've shown it, there's a fatal flaw in my theology.
01:00:26
There is a fatal flaw in Presbyterian Covenant theology. Are you guys saying, therefore, 1689
01:00:31
Federalism is true? Is it your position that that logically follows from showing that premise?
01:00:38
There's a fatal flaw in Presbyterian Covenant theology. Conclusion, 1689 Federalism is true. You haven't shown that there's a fatal flaw in our understanding.
01:00:46
You've shown that a controversy has come up in recent decades because of the influence of Bardianism and because of people who have tried to say there's no covenant that works anywhere in scripture.
01:00:56
And like I've pointed out, I could show that there's reformed Abbas at odds with each other. I mean, even in just this brief foray into this topic with you guys,
01:01:05
Fred Malone doesn't hold a 1689 Federalism in one of the programs you did with Brandon. Fred Malone leans strongly towards 1689
01:01:12
Federalism. I emailed Brandon and he said, Fred Malone does hold this position. And in fact,
01:01:17
Fred Malone endorsed Denalt's book, which I've got on Kindle right here and I'm looking at.
01:01:23
There's Fred Malone's name endorsing it, endorsing a position that Brandon said he doesn't hold.
01:01:29
So I'm thoroughly confused about where he's coming from. It's in how they view them. So that's a great place to start for more on this topic.
01:01:40
Yeah. Let me just look at one more thing and then we will go ahead and close out.
01:01:47
I want to, let me see, let me see. Hold on.
01:01:54
Dead air, dead air. The Trinity Foundation was still doing their book sale.
01:02:01
They are. Yeah, they have a sale going on for the rest of the year, a 2018 half year resource sale, 50 % off list price of several titles, ranging from the, you know, against the churches, several good stuff here,
01:02:17
Christian philosophy, Christian view of men and things. They have a lot of good titles, half off, so take advantage of that.
01:02:24
Okay, I guess you're probably about done there. Yeah, go to the Trinity Foundation. I've got almost everything in their library, almost everything that they've ever published.
01:02:34
And we put those books out on the book table for sale, dirt cheap, subsidized for the congregation. So great stuff.
01:02:41
There's great stuff in Gordon Clark's, What Presbyterians Believe. If you want to actually find out what we do believe, you could read the chapter on baptism in his commentary on the
01:02:51
Westminster Standards. I think it's an excellent summary as Gordon Clark was very brilliant and very good at making things understandable and really points out a lot of the things that I pointed out in my opening statement, which like everything else
01:03:05
I've said on this has been ignored or misrepresented. But I love you guys, sincerely. We definitely have profound differences on this topic in terms of who's supposed to be in the church and who's supposed to be considered as part of the visible church and their status, the status of our children.
01:03:24
We have profoundly different views of ecclesiology and things like that.
01:03:30
But we still agree on the things that matter the most. But this guys, just for the record, this is it, this is all
01:03:37
I've got to say. I put together an opening statement and that opening statement was ignored.
01:03:44
And I've preached on this topic. Brandon put out a video. I believe it's still out there. He's admitted he misunderstood me, but I believe it's still out there.
01:03:52
So if you want an example of how not to listen to sermons and how not to engage in polemics, you could take a look at that video.
01:04:01
I actually deleted my response to it. I put out a response to his entire video, correcting his numerous errors and his very bad, gross, out of context citations from me, from my sermons.
01:04:14
I'll link to those sermons so you can actually listen to them and I would encourage people, when you listen to my sermons, when you listen to me preach, get your
01:04:21
Bible and follow along in the passages. And I can even link to the manuscripts. I actually put those manuscripts up on Sermon Audio.
01:04:28
Many people have contacted me and told me those were extremely helpful. And you will notice in the sermons I've preached, there's no reference anywhere to the
01:04:34
Mosaic Covenant as being the decisive factor in any way, shape or form as to who we are supposed to baptize because it's not relevant to that.
01:04:44
And brothers, I was really hoping you would tell us why. Why the fixation on this?
01:04:50
Is it just because there's Presbyterians that are fussing and fighting with each other on this?
01:04:56
Is it, well, look, they disagree about something. We'll say that that's the fatal flaw and that therefore that's what's wrong with them. I mean, guys, like I said, don't you see how easy it would be for me to pit your guys against each other?
01:05:07
Even this view, the 1689 federalism view was evidently lost for a long time.
01:05:15
And because all these Baptists apparently were taught covenant theology by John Murray, so they were more influenced by him than they were by Nehemiah Cox and these other guys from long ago.
01:05:27
And so there's been a movement to recover the original intent. Okay, so we can point out there's a diversity of thought and diversity of the way that this has been articulated.
01:05:41
The best way to go at this issue, however, is to simply go to the text of scripture, go to the word of God, instead of, okay, here's my understanding.
01:05:48
Well, here's Presbyterians that disagree with you. Guys, if we played that game, I could do that all day, all day with you guys. Well, here's how we understand it.
01:05:55
Well, that's not what this guy believes or this guy believes and this guy said that this is wrong and this leads to this and this guy denies the covenant of works and this guy denies that.
01:06:02
The Baptist confession deletes the covenant of works. Therefore, it's contradictory. It's gonna lead to a false gospel. I mean, we could play that game if you want to, but is that really gonna get us anywhere?
01:06:10
I really don't think that it is. So, you know, you gotta let the two sides, you know, individuals that are talking define their own position.
01:06:19
I mean, if my response to everything you say is to go, well, that's not what these Baptists have said and they understand your confession this way, is that gonna be persuasive to you?
01:06:29
I bet you anything it wouldn't be, just as none of this is persuasive to me. I made an opening statement.
01:06:36
I came prepared. I did my homework. I worked hard on that. I worked a Saturday. I came in early, stayed late, read articles and everything else.
01:06:42
I did my homework and came prepared for that encounter. And still, that opening statement has been ignored.
01:06:50
And so, it really leaves me scratching my head. It really does. And I don't understand what my brethren across the way here are going to think
01:06:59
I find persuasive about this. Because I don't, to attribute to us, you guys believe there's no works principle anywhere.
01:07:10
The Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of grace. And there's no works principle anywhere in it. Guys, I've never read anyone that said that, ever.
01:07:18
Never read anybody that says that. And if they do say things like that, they will qualify it because you can't get away from the fact that the redemption from Egyptian bondage was an act of grace.
01:07:29
The giving of the law was given in the context of God's gracious redemption of the people of Israel.
01:07:34
And yet, there is that obedience blessing, disobedience curse principle right there. And in fact, the work of Christ, the work of Christ is couched in terms of him bearing the curse of the
01:07:48
Mosaic Covenant. And Westminster Confession, chapter 19, points one and point two.
01:07:54
Point two, this law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. And as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai.
01:08:03
So yeah, it is a republication of the covenant of works. Not that anyone could ever be justified by it.
01:08:09
But if someone could start out sinless and maintain that sinless obedience their whole life, yeah, they could go to heaven and be justified by it.
01:08:15
But the fall of man into sin has made that impossible. And so we look to the covenant of grace alone for our redemption.
01:08:21
We don't look to the law. We look to grace, we look to God's promise. And that's the way Paul teaches us to do it.
01:08:29
The law brings about wrath. And it's not just the giving of law, it's the law as covenant, as covenant.
01:08:35
The law as covenant brings about wrath, Romans 4 .15. Therefore, justification is by faith so that it would be according to grace.
01:08:45
Justification's always been exactly the same for everyone. From the time Adam fell and the announcement was made of the proto -evangelium, the gospel pronounced to Adam and Eden, that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, all the way down to today, everyone that's ever gone to heaven has gone to heaven on the basis of grace alone.
01:09:00
And God's administration of that one overarching covenant has always included households.
01:09:07
And the one thing I pointed out in my opening statement, which like everything else I said was ignored, but I'll go ahead and say it again.
01:09:17
If the new covenant now is emphasizing individual professions of faith as being the sole basis upon which the sacrament of baptism can be administered, would you expect to see households being baptized in the
01:09:35
New Testament? Would you expect Jesus, for example, to say to Zacchaeus, for today, salvation has come to this house.
01:09:44
Wouldn't you think that he would have said, today, salvation has come to this man? Because only Zacchaeus repented and believed, right?
01:09:51
But he doesn't say that. Paul baptized the households of Crispus and Gaius.
01:09:58
Other than that, I can't remember if I baptized any other in what way. What is the antecedent there, any other households? Cornelius believes his household is baptized.
01:10:07
Lydia believes her household is baptized. Is that what you would expect to see? Remember I pointed out
01:10:14
Acts 2, 38 and 39, for the promises to you and to your children and to as many as are far off, as many as the
01:10:20
Lord our God shall call. What were we told during the debate when that happened? We were told, well, go read
01:10:27
Cal Beisner. We weren't told what he said. I haven't read what he has said. But guys, if debates can be done that way, well, if I look hard enough,
01:10:36
I can find someone that will say something that sort of agrees with my position. That's not how you do debate. You go to the text and you do exegesis.
01:10:43
And I even said at that portion of the discussion, why don't you just tell us what he said? Can't you give us the summary of it?
01:10:48
It's a short passage, tell us what he really means. But I've agreed with Ligon Duncan on that one, where Duncan said, if Peter, in fact, is emphasizing the individual component of the new covenant, the way he put that, the promise is to you and to your children and to as many as are far off, as many as the
01:11:06
Lord our God shall call, that is literally the worst way he could have said that. If he's actually trying to emphasize what my brothers across the way here are saying, that this change has happened.
01:11:16
You no longer have the child, a descendant household principle has been terminated now.
01:11:24
Why put it that way, Peter? What is wrong with you? That is the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.
01:11:29
How confusing would that be to them? But like I said, like everything else
01:11:34
I said, it's what I said has been ignored. So can this position, can the position that you guys hold be positively stated as if we don't exist?
01:11:44
And just wanna emphasize it one last time, that what Fesco said is the reason that I was never persuaded by any of the
01:11:52
Baptists I read. By Malone, you know, Paul Jewett was a Presbyterian, but his book was promoted by Reformed Baptists, Infant Baptism and the
01:11:59
Covenant of Grace. And listening to all the debates and listening to Brian Borgman, listen to all of them. The reason
01:12:05
I never found any of it convincing is exactly what Fesco says here. He says, the largest interaction with the doctrine of the covenant is directed more at correcting
01:12:14
Pato Baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
01:12:24
Exactly, exactly. And so that's what is missing and that's why I've never found this to be even remotely persuasive.
01:12:32
What's obvious to me is that the household principle very much still in place because the gospel has not changed.
01:12:39
What has changed is how much we know about it. And that's all. So brothers,
01:12:45
I love you. You guys are my friends and my brothers and I'd go to church and worship next to you guys.
01:12:51
If the circumstances made that necessary, I'd have no problem doing that. I love you guys dearly. I appreciate the work you guys do.
01:12:58
You guys are two of the sharpest men I know. You guys have stood your ground on the gospel issues.
01:13:03
I am so, so, so thankful that you guys have done that, that you haven't backed down on that.
01:13:08
And I pray for you guys. I pray for your families, for your covenant children, even if you don't see them that way.
01:13:16
I pray for your covenant children, that they would come to know Christ at the earliest possible age and that you guys will disciple them as I know you are and teach them how to pray, teach them, make sure that when they're in church, that they take the hymnal, if you guys use hymnals, and make sure that they sing along, that they bow their heads for the prayers and that they open their
01:13:34
Bibles as soon as they can read. I have no doubt you guys do that. There are Baptists that are far better at discipling their covenant children than many
01:13:41
Presbyterians. And so that's not the issue. It's not, well, we love children more than you guys because we've baptized them. That's not it at all.
01:13:47
This is purely a theological disagreement. I'm thankful that it's a non -essential, although it does mean that our respected bodies are divided from one another, which is sad, but maybe we can talk about it more, but this is it, guys.
01:14:01
This is all I've got to say about this for a while. So I'll just go ahead and leave it at that and thanks for listening.
01:14:14
This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Brittle Heights Presbyterian Church, located at 108 Brittle Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee.
01:14:21
And you've been listening to the Protestant Witness Podcast. Please feel free to join us for worship any Sunday morning at 11 a .m.
01:14:27
sharp, where we open the Word of God together, sing His praises, and rejoice in the gospel of our risen Lord. You can find us on the web at www .brittleheightspca
01:14:36
.org. And may the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you.
01:14:42
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. ♪ Christ our Son, the one true