Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
For the 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.
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.
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.
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 Alphamanda Radio were done with him about the so-called republication issue, etc. 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 and that what I was given from my opponent to interact with really didn't have enough in it to really warrant a response.
And so once the 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 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 so I was I was miffed by that. But I haven't felt the need to you know put out a giant article, 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 in the video I put out which I actually pulled the audio and put it on the Process of Witness was ignored.
And if 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. So when I first saw that I posted a video in response to it and I was thankful at least he you know admitted that that was his mistake that he had misrepresented me.
But that really but that would have been the end of it for me. I really was not although at the beginning of my video response to him I said yeah maybe we could do it 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. So two separate FMRA 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 response.
I haven't listened to those two programs to listen to a few minutes of each one and kind of got distracted by something and just started doing something else. But Semper Alphamata radio 95 program 95 the last section is the fatal flaw of Presbyterian covenant theology which I haven't listened to yet.
I'm gonna listen to it here on the fly and let Carlos you know say what he what he wants to say and and I'm going to respond to it. But one thing 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.
Do you guys really believe that here's the here is the the logical argument here's the premise and the conclusion. Premise one there is a fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology. Conclusion 1689 federalism is true.
Now do I do I really need to point out that doesn't follow from that premise? It doesn't. And this is something that J .B. Fesco and other Reformed authors have pointed out for a long time is when you do read the books and this this is one of my biggest one of the reasons I never was became a Reformed Baptist and reading Fred Malone and reading you know Waldron and reading and listening to Shriner and other folks from that perspective they they're not real big on a positive presentation of their position.
They just aren't. They will criticize us a lot and and are are happy to do that but it's kind of like by refuting us do you really think your position has been established? If you show that there's something wrong with our view does it follow from that that your view is rendered therefore correct?
And it simply doesn't. And you'll notice if you listen to the encounter listen to my opening statement you know 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 Northwest Reformed podcast something where he did five parts on 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 Saturday an entire Saturday which is something I really really really really try to avoid because you know my family needs me to be at home. I have a huge family and I have a lot of responsibilities a lot of things I do I oversee some of the homeschooling and everything else.
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. Now what 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 Carl Berg and John Murray and some of the stuff that's going on and trying to say that the Mosaic Covenant is purely the Covenant of Grace that's led to all this controversy blah blah blah.
I just want to say before I start listening to it that's 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. 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 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 is true and that's what blows my mind about it.
Like even looking at the at the label here it says Carlos and Tim read emails and give give some shoutouts 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.
I would go to a Reformed Baptist Church if I if I had no other options and there's Reformed Baptists that come to our church here and you know we love our 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 fatal flaw in Presbyterian Covenant theology.
That is fascinating to me because it's not then we they briefly discuss a positive biblical exegetical defense of our views on baptism as Baptists. 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 but no it's not that it's here here's the final punch here is the final concluding thoughts here's the fatal flaw in our opponents position and I'm kind of like guys that doesn't prove anything.
That doesn't prove anything about your position. It does not prove anything about your position. 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 Reformed Perspective on Baptism by J .V. Fesco.
Now I've been plowing through this book I've read a lot of the later chapters because usually when 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 read a lot of the later chapters because they deal with some of these more polemical issues read that a long time ago but was reading some of the earlier chapters not too long ago and came across something here that captures perfectly the problem the biggest problem I have with everything that happened with Brandon and everything that that you guys have done since then.
Listen to what Fesco says here in his introduction quote. Here he's talking about differences between the way that we go at this in the way that Baptists go at it. He says in one sense this may not seem at all that all that significant as as all relate baptism to Jesus in some fashion and many make reference to the covenant concept to some degree.
Often though that reference to the doctrine of the covenant is nominal and does not undergird the explanation of the doctrine of baptism. Such a reference appears in a recent book written by Baptist theologians titled Believers 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. The largest interaction with the doctrine is directed more at correcting Pado Baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism end quote.
Amen and amen. That is my biggest gripe with everything here even with talking with my brethren on the phone. There is no attempt made to positively state this position. Rather it's well here's everything wrong with your position and I just 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 Presbyterians? As if the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't exist? As if there is no OPC report on republication? Can you do that?
Can you set forth your position positively as if we don't exist? There's no Westminster Confession. There's no OPC report on republication. Can you just positively state your position? 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 is said that have no interest in what's actually being said but those that listened carefully know that was not done and that's why I have felt no need at all none to respond to say anything because nothing's been offered.
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 I sat at my computer with my fingers hovering over my keyboard expecting to get the 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 I had ever heard in my life. I really was and 12 minutes into the I think it took about 14 of the 20 that he was allotted.
12 minutes into it 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 I should have known better and my instincts were telling me that this is not going to be worth my time and it wasn't worth my time.
I was really disappointed and the folks on our side that listened to this that have asked me about it asked me didn't your opponent know what he was supposed to do? 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 and people ask me why did he ignore your opening statement it was almost like you didn't even make an opening statement. I said I don't know I don't know why did he ignore me I don't know it's kind of rude I was really put off by that.
I was sitting here ready to take notes when he was talking I wrote down nothing because I didn't hear any biblical exegetical arguments nothing was presented and now after you know more than two hours on Semper Ephraim on the radio which I will admit I have not listened to all of them because I don't I don't see the relevance of any of this to the to the topic before us I really don't.
I don't see the relevance of any of this to the issue before us. What do we get? What's the final punch? Here's why you're wrong. Instead of here is a positive biblical exegetical case for the position that we take.
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 Pato Baptist understandings of Covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
Now if you guys want to turn this into well we can show that your guys don't agree with each other. Guys please Reformed Baptists are all over the place in the way they understand this stuff. Brian Borgman I could play the quotations from the the sound files on Sermon Audio.
He denies completely that there's a covenant of works. In fact he says at no point has 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 and 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. So I'm wondering where is this going to go? What is the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology?
You know 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. He made the comment many people might be wondering what does any of this have to do with baptism?
And Brandon even jokingly said yeah therefore you only baptize professing adult believers or only only those who make professional faith can be baptized. And all three of you laughed. All three of you laughed.
And I'm sitting there thinking yeah that's what 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? We haven't been told.
And until we're really shown what is the punch of this position I don't understand what what it is exactly I'm supposed to try to respond to. I mean that's the biggest thing. The guys that the seminary students here that listen to the debate to the encounter asked me what was the point he was trying to make?
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 because I've said 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 whatever position you want you can take whatever view you want what does it have to do with baptism in the proper subjects of baptism?
Nothing. With that said let's listen to Carlos and let's see what is the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology and let's see is it is an effort going to be made to positively assert this other position or is it just going to be well look these guys disagree which is easy to do if you want to play that game we can quote your guys against each other fairly easily but let's go ahead and see so here's here's Carlos explaining the fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology.
On the phone I think you did a.
Much better job explaining this so I'll just let you continue. Yeah so this is.
Going to be kind of a forward-running commentary on the the part two of our interview with Brandon and because the the problem the so the OPC also published a report about republication. It's a fairly lengthy report that it's almost 100 pages.
You can download it from the OPC website and they you should definitely read that if you get the chance so and there's basically two sides of the story and we kind of laid them out in the in the interview so just make sure you listen to the interview and I'm still and I'm not completely decided as to where where this whole thing comes together.
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. 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? Have you guys noticed that the faculty at Westminster East and the faculty at Westminster West are all paedo-baptist?
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 on the matter. But when it comes to regarding the Mosaic Covenant as part of the covenant race you have a serious problem because how is it possible that the Mosaic Covenant which was sealed you know the seal of that covenant was basically the Ten Commandments.
It's law. It's like all law you know it's law.
Yes but it's given in the context of grace. What is the prologue to the Ten Commandments. Say I am Yahweh your God who brought you out the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage. It's given in the context of redemption.
Look at the last several verses of Exodus chapter 2. Why did God bring them out of Egypt. 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.
I don't understand why this is so difficult to.
Understand it's not you know there's a there's a works principle in the Mosaic.
Covenant that's simply undeniable right. And who's denying it. Who's denying that.
And what does that have to do with baptism. It is just flat-out undeniable. You can't deny it. But what has happened in Presbyterianism as I as I like as I understand it there's essentially been two schools of thought that have developed to try to reconcile that problem.
It's not a problem Carlos is.
There's to reconcile that problem no matter who you read. Among the Puritans they understand that the law was never given to be the means of justification before God. 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. 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 and we're justified by law keeping. That's not it at all.
Has no it has no works. Principle tied to it. 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 Mosaic Covenant. None I.
Can't think of anyone that's ever said that. So that view which I believe was also held by John Murray and that view was has basically led to the errors the errors of Norman Shepard and the current justification controversy.
It led to a.
Conflation of works and and faith. And so it took over 300 years for someone to finally make this kind of an error. John Murray is just plain wrong. Um he tries to assert well you know there's no covenant of works per se.
He calls it the abdamic administration. He actually says that well we don't believe that there's a covenant of works in Genesis. 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.
And it makes sense that that you guys wouldn't believe in a covenant of works because the London Baptist Confession chapter 7 .2 was deleted it was erased out of that confession. And then the only other reference to the covenant of works in the 1689 London Baptist Confession is in chapter 20 which is cut and pasted from the Savoy Declaration which was the 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 which the 1689 guys did. So what is the color. 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 now.
But 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. Well no that would be the you would need to let guys define their own position and and then try to interact with them on that basis.
Inflation of works. And.
And faith because it was so dangerous and damaging to say that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of grace and that you know do this and live is essentially.
Principle. Yeah and I'm not aware that John Murray ever said that. I'm not an expert on on his writings. I've got the four volume set and I've read a redemption accomplished and applied many times and I've read some of his other shorter writings.
But it's 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 Mosaic Covenant is pure grace. And there's no there's no works principle anywhere in it.
How could anyone say that when clearly I mean even the work of Christ the the curse-bearing work of Christ is couched in the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree quoting from Deuteronomy there in Galatians chapter 3.
So there's no doubt about it no doubt about it that it is part of it is a it is a works inheritance covenant. 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. It is.
Essentially a grace principle that it just totally confuses law and gospel it.
Blurs everything together and it I agree with that completely and that is that is part of what happened there at Westminster Seminary with Norman Shepard and and all the the stuff that's going on since everything together and.
It just it creates it's it creates false teaching. It leads to false teaching and.
The London Baptist Confessions deletion of the Covenant of Works. And that creates heresy to that creates false teaching because as Brian Borgman has said who is a Reformed Baptist scholar there is no works principle.
God has never interacted with man on the basis of work for this and I will give you light life. In fact all of God's interactions as Brian Borgman a 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. And you have in fact a works principle everywhere. So that's a false gospel too. Now what what does that get us here.
So am I my friends across the way you're going to go. Oh okay our confessions wrong. What will will repudiate it. And join your team. 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 I know I don't know that I don't know if Tim and Carlos actually embrace that position or not.
But if that is what you hold you need to try to define it positively like Fesco said there. But listen to that sentence again the largest interaction with the doctrine of the Covenant is directed more at correcting pedo-baptist understandings of Covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
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 I wonder.
If we're gonna be it leads to false teaching and there's a very good article on the Trinity Foundation website written by Mark Carlberg and Carlberg. I guess I can't remember what it's called but uh we talked about it in the.
Part it it's called troubler of Israel and it's his response to the.
Republication report we talked about it in the part two of the interview but he wrote he kind of catalogs the history of behind this and how it kind of led to the false teaching of Norman Shepard and all of the you know subsequent mess that happened at Westminster Seminary as a result of this view.
And so that if you know that view of reconciling the the Mosaic Covenant with the Covenant of Grace created that serious of a problem. Now the other way to reconcile it has been essentially represented by Meredith Klein.
And so Meredith Klein his view is basically the more biblical view it's the more can it's the more it's the more biblical view. But it still creates a problem because he held to the view that the Mosaic Covenant is still part of the Covenant of Grace.
It's just that he had to kind of divert. So Brandon basically says that Meredith had to diverge on the original Westminster Confession on certain parts because they held to a very I guess a very sort of like a rigid view of seeing the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Grace.
And if you want guys.
As a person who was educated at a reforms institution I can tell you exactly what they're talking about. I said this in my opening statement. I said it during the cross-examination. I said it to both of you guys on the phone.
So I'm gonna say it again here. The law has a different function in that it shows us our sin it shows us the obedience of Jesus Christ. But the context in which it was given was grace. 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 redemption. Redemption. You know Robert Raymond has an excellent section of the systematic theology explaining this perfectly. Okay the law was given for Israel to reflect the character of God to the nations around them to be that by which they express their gratitude.
But it certainly was law. It certainly had a works obedience curse. Curse for disobedience blessing for obedience principle. Here's a Carlberg says on page two of that Trinity Foundation article. Listen carefully to this please.
Traditional mainstream reform theology has taught from the time of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the single ongoing Covenant of Grace.
Now before you start objecting it is undeniable. There's a works principle here. No one has ever denied that listen. Peculiar to the Mosaic economy however is the operation of the works inheritance principle in a restricted sphere or manner.
Number of explanations have been provided with an historic reform theology concerning this unique covenant arrangement in the period extending from Moses to Christ. 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 Bartianism was on the ascendancy in most reform circles in Europe and elsewhere.
Now what is Bartianism. Well the theology of Karl Barth and Bart 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 of liberalism and they called it neo-orthodoxy.
But it was really just a new form of liberalism. Now Murray as Karlberg says here clearly was not a Bartian but his novel teaching did imbibe some of the new thinking that was quickly gaining ground. And so it was Murray who opened the door at Westminster to the radical deviation in covenant theology struck by Shepard and his staunchest supporter Richard Gaffin co-author 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 the thing started to fall off the tracks there. Okay now what does this mean with.
With regard to baptism. I don't know. We still haven't been told. I I'm doubting very seriously that that Carlos is going to actually tell us how this is related to baptism. But maybe he.
Will. 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 Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace. See. But Carlos.
You need to qualify that the way that those authors did. You got you guys. Seriously it's difficult for me to listen to this because you guys are acting like Presbyterians and people that have written on this topic are idiots.
Oh it's undeniable. There's a works principle. None of them have ever denied that. None of them have ever denied that. When I was in seminary and when I when I was taught covenant theology we were taught this.
I hope you guys are listening to me. 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.
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. They're not saying that. No one's saying that if anyone had ever said that I would never have embraced the position.
Never a covenant of grace. And if you want more information on on this topic there's a very good podcast dedicated to the theology of Meredith Klein called I think it's called the glory cloud podcast.
It's by a one of I think one of Meredith Klein's students or I don't know if it was a direct student but they were there. They're basically kind of like protégées of Klein and so and so was Karlberg. Karlberg is another one of the he was on Klein's side.
He took Klein's view regarding this issue and that's the view that I take too. And.
Always have taken. If that's 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 as.
I can say it 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 Mosaic Covenant is kind of a mixed covenant that you have.
Yes it has works tied to it. There is a works principle in the the Mosaic Covenant but the underlying aspect the underlying covenant the underlying principle is that of grace and and by that they mean that the Abrahamic Covenant underlies the the Mosaic Covenant such that there are grace aspects even in the Mosaic Law.
Like you know the sacrifices the sacrifices were for forgiveness of sins things like that. So they try to they try to somehow. Would you deny that Carlos.
Would you object to that. I mean look at look at the end of Exodus chapter 2. Listen now. It happened in the process of time that the king of Egypt died. Then their children the children of Israel groaned because of the bondage and they cried out 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 and God looked upon the children of Israel and God acknowledged them. Why did God go get them out of Egypt.
Are you saying that it was because of their works. Because they did good works. Why did God go get them out of Egypt. Grace grace the giving of the law itself. The prologue already quoted it to you in Exodus chapter 20.
What does it say Exodus 20 when God finally gets them out and they they go out and he gives them the law. And God spoke all these words saying 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 systematic theology on the unity of the covenant of grace. And he points out that recognizing a law principle does not mean that we we think the whole thing is pure works or something like that.
I don't. I don't get what you're saying. Or that or that there's no grace at all there. I mean clearly the redemption of the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage was in response to was God graciously doing.
It wasn't because of their obedience or their works. Is that what you're saying. Are you saying that they tried to say that there was some kind of underlying. Isn't that what the text of scriptures tells us.
Isn't that why God got them out of bondage. He remembered his covenant promised Abraham Isaac. That's grace. Isn't it so. I'm thoroughly confused at what the what your point is. And also I'm just going to keep going back to this.
What does any of that have to do with baptism. Anyway I will say this you the three of you are utterly unique. In my experience I have never heard reform Baptist go this direction ever in my.
Life never never heard it sacrifices. The sacrifices were for forgiveness of sins things like that. So they try to they try to somehow reconcile this this tension between it being a most a covenant of works and a but still being a part of the covenant of grace.
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 I guess modify or or clarify the Westminster confession. I and I believe that's what Carlberg says like this.
This is something that Presbyterians need to draw attention to and to reconcile because it hasn't been fully developed now. Brandon has an interesting take on this because he says that it has been developed and that is it's basically it leads to saying that that the the confessional view is that there is no that the original Westminster view was that there was no legal there was no works principle tied to the 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. I mean.
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.
Nineteen point. Two. This law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. Now listen closely. And as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in Ten Commandments and written in two tables.
Covenant of works. That the law the law as a covenant of works was delivered on Mount Sinai. Yeah. Yep right there in the Westminster confession. There's no tension here to be resolved. It was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in Ten Commandments and written in two tables.
So it is a republication of the covenant. Well how can you say it's in the context of grace. Exodus chapter 2 the last three verses of that chapter and the prologue to the Ten Commandments. 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. Was it because they did good works and were brought out. The reason they were redeemed out of Egypt was grace alone.
And the context in which that law was given was grace alone. And I think that that's a key critical point that you guys are really missing here. It sounds like you're saying it's all works and there's no grace at all anywhere in that.
And so I I'm I'm unsure where you're coming from there. I don't. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. And again again I'm not sure what a that has to do with what a that has to do with this proper subjects of baptism either and I really don't.
I don't see any of that anywhere.
But the problem again is that it's so clearly works there's so clearly a works principle tied to that covenant. I mean that Leviticus a Carlos are you.
Suggesting that Presbyterians like myself don't believe that. Are you suggesting we don't believe that. Or can you cite people that say yeah that it's part of the covenant of grace and what we mean is there is no works principle or obedience principle anywhere in it.
Is that what I mean. If that's what our guys are actually saying I mean are they actually saying that. I'm not. I've never read anyone that actually says that there's no works principle anywhere.
Leviticus 18 5 again it says do this and live yeah and that's the whole con that's.
The whole basis. If you wanted to go to heaven that's what you need to do. 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. And 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 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.
I think it's I think it's true. He was influenced by Bardian is in this idea that you know even before the fall all of God's dealings with Adam were by grace alone. That doesn't. That doesn't help anything it doesn't clarify anything that that leads to very serious error which it has.
But it's not because of the Westminster Confession it's because of a departure from the.
Westminster Confession and by the way our Scott Clark is also on the Meredith Klein side. He's more like Klein Clinton you know side of this so that there there's a controversy about this regarding specifically the history of.
Federalism but there wasn't a controversy for the vast majority of the time since the confession was written. It's something that developed recently 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.
But again I'm still scratching my head. What does this have to do with baptism and who we are supposed to baptize 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 and so it let me let me ask this though. I pointed out if you look at I'll post this in the show notes. 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.
Chapter 7 of the London Baptist Confession deletes the Covenant of Works. Now what would you guys do if I did it. The fatal flaw of Reformed Baptist covenant. See they don't believe in a covenant of works.
And that's gonna lead them to heresy. And yada yada yada. Would you. 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.
Would you. That's why that's not where I'm gonna camp out and try to make my case. When I discuss the issue of baptism and the proper subjects of baptism 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 you know Fred Malone is the most mysterious Reformed Baptist out there. When Brandon did his first video he said Malone. Fred Malone does not hold this position. 1689 federalism.
And then in one of the programs he said well he leans towards it. 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.
Well will the real Fred Malone stand up. What does the guy actually believe. What does he hold this position or not. I I don't know. But here again you know Carlos just listening to this. What does any of this have to do with baptism.
What does any of this have to do about. I would love I would love to respond to your position. But you won't tell me what it is. All you.
Want to do is try to criticize mine so it looks like there needs to be clarity on this issue more more drawn out more developed so that so that people don't end up on the wrong side of the fence like the Murray.
You know that the extreme view that says that there is no works principle at all 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 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 and all of God's dealings with man before and after the fall are purely on the basis of grace.
Does that. Do you find that persuasive. Are you guys gonna change your mind because of that. Course. Not just as this has no effect on my my.
Views either view that says that there is no works principle at all in the.
Mosaic Covenant. Can you cite a Presbyterian a theologian who says that. Can you give me examples of anyone that says that. I would love to see examples.
Of individuals who say that the Mosaic Covenant so it's just a new record. To me it's an irreconcilable contradiction because the new covenant is by grace.
Through faith alone. You know that the Abrahamic Covenant was by grace through faith alone. To you know who thought that Paul. How was Abraham justified by grace through faith alone he says in Romans chapter 4 citing Genesis 15 6.
And Abraham believed in Yahweh and it was accounted to him for righteousness not a him who works the wages 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 just as David also speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.
And then he cites the first two verses of Psalm 32. The Abrahamic Covenant was by grace through faith alone 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 to faith along. You know that the works principle does not. You don't get in by works. You don't stand by works. It hasn't. 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. If so why did Paul think it was Paul. Paul certainly thinks that 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 based along through faith alone in Christ alone and so with that understanding in mind that and it's the covenant of grace you know it's supposed to be the grace and so how can it be grace if it's.
You know you 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 going to be damned and cursed and so on and so forth.
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 our guys our side is not saying that anyway.
But let's say let's say for the sake of argument that they were saying that let's just say that 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.
What does that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism. We haven't been told yet and if we certainly weren't told in the encounter 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 and seeing that now I see why how that that is a serious problem.
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 Mosaic Covenant somehow tie that into the covenant of grace. It's just. I don't see I don't think it's possible you know.
Okay let's say let's say for the sake of argument. All right. It's in no way should perform part of the covenant of grace. All right. You got us. What does have to do with baptism Carlos. What does that have to do with the proper subjects.
Of baptism somehow tie that into the covenant of grace. It's just. I don't see I don't think it's possible not without not without some you know you would have to break it up into pieces and you know things try to basically some of the stuff that client I tried to do and our Scott Clark and you know the all they do.
Is exegesis of the key texts. This has never been something difficult to me guys. It's just do you exegesis. Exodus chapter 2 the final three verses. Why does God go down there and get them out. Because of the promise the gracious promise he made to Abraham.
And then the context of the giving of the law is gracious. I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of land of Egypt out of the house of bondage. The law was intended to function for those redeemed people very much the way it functions for us today 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.
This is not complicated there's no need for for all of this. And again like I said pick any view of it that you want. Pick any view of the Mosaic Covenant that you want. What does it have to do with.
Clark and you know the Carver like that they're trying to I guess in some sense develop and reform and sort of solidify this this crucial aspect of Presbyterianism that just doesn't appear to be properly reconciled.
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 God's ever done with man's on the basis of grace. And I've actually preached on this.
I preached an entire sermon on the the need for a clearly delineated Covenant of Works and I've used the same quotation from Abrakel that I think I think Carl or Carlos you use the same quotation that ignorance of this covenant you know make someone suspect and everything.
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. But this guys I'm sorry this is a.
Straw man it's a straw man doesn't appear to be properly reconciled and ultimately I don't think they can do it you know. Okay what if I said Carlos your.
Confession deletes the Covenant of Works and you have theologians out there on sermon audio that you can listen to who are confessional reform Baptists who say there is no works principle in scripture.
Anywhere in our confession doesn't teach it. Yeah it mentions the Covenant of Works in chapter 20 but they you know they cut and pasted that out of the Savoy Declaration which still had 7 .2 in it from the Westminster Confession.
They they didn't erase it the way you guys did. 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. 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. Is that persuasive. Are you on my side now. Nope. I'm sure you're not it just as I'm not on yours.
But you know they've tried and I don't I don't think it's possible. I just think the the reform Baptist view is so much more consistent and solid with the sharp distinctions and contrast between the old and the new covenant and I just I think that it just it there's there's a huge gaping there just it's just a huge contradiction there that I don't think I don't think they can reconcile that but.
Yeah so definitely. Fesco again largest interaction with the doctrine is directed more at correcting pedo-baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
What were we just told. What we just told by Carlos. The reform Baptist view is just so much better. And that's it. That's the best of defense. Here's everything wrong with you guys and our views. Better.
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 but yeah so definitely you'll want to listen to that episode. Yeah excellent stuff. I hope we can get Brandon on again in the future and we can get 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 you know highly encourage everybody to to you know seek it seek his material out read it digest it and it's a lot of good stuff. There's a lot to talk about here you know because there's different sides going on and it gets kind of heated you know with in this in those Presbyterian sides with respect to this and a lot.
Yeah.
And just for the record I think that you guys need to be as crystal clear about this. There is no one reform Baptist position on this even though you have a confession. Okay in fact I'm not aware of any to reform Baptist that agree on this stuff.
I'm not aware of any to. And this this new idea which of which of course we're being told is the original intent of the of the Baptist confession I'm wondering how it reconciles or if it even attempts to reconcile the absence of a clearly defined covenant of works.
Okay I want to post a link to the tabular comparison. Scroll down to chapter 7 and look at what what they deleted. And then you know I'll post a link to Brian Borgman to his complete denial that there is a works principle anywhere.
Not just in the Mosaic Covenant but anywhere in the whole Bible. Anywhere in the whole Bible. And that's just a massive huge contradiction. You have chapter 20 cut and paste it from the Savoy Declaration that its opening line is this broken covenant of works.
I remember looking at that going what covenant of works. You deleted it. So. Huge contradiction. Huge contradiction. How did it. How can you guys reconcile it. I don't think it can be done now. Does that.
Does that persuade you guys. Is that. Does that constitute a positive case for my own views. No it does.
Not neither does this for your views no with in this in those 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.
Yeah I I agree. Well I really don't have anything to add to that but did you have.
Any guys what does any of that have to do with the proper subjects of baptism. Ok. I'm not getting heated guys I get passionate. I'm not mad. It's no no offense. It's almost comical to listen to this.
Because you're not telling us how this relates to baptism. And brothers I asked both of you on the phone. I asked both of you on the phone. What does this have to do with baptism. And neither of you could tell me.
It's what you guys have this contradiction your theology. You haven't shown that. But let's say let's say that we did have that contradiction. Let's say that there is a fatal flaw in our in our view of covenant theology.
It doesn't follow from that premise that your position is true. You still have to make a positive biblical exegetical case for it don't you don't you feel the need to do that. You know I've been arguing with Roman Catholics about soul scriptura for 20 years.
And I used to go out on web forums and argue with them. And it was amazing to me trying to argue with them about soul scriptura because they would attack soul scriptura. They wanted to talk about soul scriptura.
Soul scriptura is not biblical. It's not explicitly taught. It's unhistorical. It's unworkable. It's resulted in 48 ,000 denominations. And soul scriptura is bad. Soul scriptura is not biblical. We deny soul scriptura.
And my answer would be okay. What's your position then. Well our position is that yours is messed up and yours is wrong. Our position is that soul scriptura is wrong. Okay. Right. Right. I got it. You reject my position.
So what's your position. Our position is that you're wrong. And guys seriously that's what this is. What's your position on baptism. What's your position on baptism. Guys. Our position is that Presbyterians are wrong.
That Presbyterians have a fatal flaw in their in their position. Okay. You have not shown that by any stretch of the imagination. You've not even tried 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 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.
I mean it was ignored. It was like you didn't even say it. It's like you didn't even say anything. And I've been sitting here going. Is anyone gonna actually interact with what I said. Because all this talk about republication the mosaic this doesn't have anything to do with the topic doesn't have anything to do with the argument for why we believe households are still part of the visible church in the world.
It has nothing to do with it. Okay. Just I'm not guys for for the for the overly sensitive people that listen I'm not mad. Okay. We can be passionate and still love each other as brothers. All. Right.
I get passionate. Okay. 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. But did you.
Have anything more to say on that. Just that we do plan to. I do hope to write.
About this topic you know we obviously we have very close fellowship with Presbyterians and I I want to I want to kind of solidify this in my own mind and and write about this and and also discuss it once I finish reading.
I haven't finished reading the OPC report on republication and from what I've already seen especially specifically in Karlberg's critique of the report they do appear to misrepresent Klein in certain areas so you have to be careful with that.
But you you kind of need to read that that sets up a lot of the context for what the controversy is about. So I you know we are planning to talk more about this in the future but but yeah there's just a lot of issues involved with this.
And you know we're talking about big picture things. How you reconcile the whole Bible. Basically you know so the 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.
So it just kind of really draws out the main issue the main issue in Presbyterian covenant theology and that's really the big prep that really is. The big problem is how do you reconcile that. You know that Mosaic.
Covenant to the Covenant of Grace. No it's not. That's never been the issue that was no part of of the argument. Um many years ago when I read everything in print that I get my hands on on this topic.
No no one keyed in on that issue at all. No Baptists or Presbyterians ever focused on the Mosaic Covenant. That's why after after the encounter and I call I spoke with both of you guys on the phone. I asked you point-blank.
I asked you point-blank. What is it. What is any of that have to do with who we are supposed to baptize. Nothing did we guys. You still haven't told me. You still haven't said. 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 only professing believers should be baptized. And everybody laughs. I think that most your listeners are probably still wondering what does any of that have to do with who were supposed to baptize.
I I still don't understand why you're saying all this stuff. And guys I've read a lot of people on baptism over the years. Okay. I've taught on the subject a lot over the years. And this has never been the focus.
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. Because it's not related to it.
Definitely interesting stuff to look forward to in the future.
Yeah yeah my challenge to you guys can you positively state your position. Can 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 Westminster Confession and as if there's no such thing as the OPC report on republication can you exegetically biblically present this position as if those things are true.
No presbyterians. No us mr. confession. No report on republication if something's biblical. If something is true you should be able to to do that. You should be able to do that. And I, you guys have, you know, have stated your mind, I appreciate your passion, I just don't think they can do it.
Presbyterians are self-contradictory. I'm going to state my mind. I don't think you guys can do it. I don't think you can state this position. That your view is on baptism without, without criticizing mine.
Can you state them positively? As if Presbyterians don't exist, there's no OPC report on republication, and there's no Westminster Standards. Can it be done? I don't.
Think you can do it. Yeah, and you know, we both hope to read some more on this whenever we have time. But that's, that's where we're at right now. Yeah, and just a quick, quick.
Reference, 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, for Reformed Baptist theology, like a primer, is a Pascal Denault's book, The Distinctiveness of, I think it's called The Distinctiveness of 17th Century Baptist Common Theology.
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Common Theology, I think it's called. It's really cheap on Kindle, I think it's like four bucks. You definitely want to get a hold of that book. It's an excellent book. 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. So that's a great place to start for more.
On this, on this topic. Yeah. My question is, can you summarize the position positively without referring to mine? And let's, let's say for the sake of argument that you've shown it, there's a fatal flaw in my theology.
There is a fatal flaw in Presbyterian covenant theology. Are you guys saying, therefore, 1689 federalism is true? Is it your position that that logically follows from showing that? That there, premise, 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. You've shown that a controversy has come up in recent decades because of the influence of Bardianism and because of people who've tried to say there's no, there's no covenant works anywhere in scripture.
And, you know, like I've pointed out, I could show that there's reformed abbots at odds with each other. I mean, even in just this brief foray into this topic with you guys, Fred Malone doesn't hold a 1689 federalism.
In one of the programs you did with Brandon, Fred Malone leaned strongly towards 1689 federalism. I emailed Brandon and he said, Fred Malone does hold this, this position. And in fact, Fred Malone endorsed Denault's book, which I'm, I've got on Kindle right here and I'm looking at, there's Fred Malone's name, endorsing it, endorsing a position that Brandon said he doesn't hold.
So I'm thoroughly confused about where he's coming.
From and how they view them. So that's a great place to start for more on this, on this topic.
Yeah. Let me just look at one more thing and then we will go ahead and close out. I want to, let me see, let me see. Dead air, dead air. The Trinity Foundation was still doing.
Their book sale. They are. Yeah, they have a, they have a sale going on for the rest of the year. The 2018 half year resource sale, 50 off list price of several titles, you know, ranging from the, you know, against the churches, several good stuff here, Christian philosophy, Christian view of men and things.
They have a lot of good titles on, half off,.
So take advantage of that. Okay. I guess you're probably about done there. Yeah. Go, go to the Trinity Foundation. I've got almost everything in their library, almost everything that they've ever published.
And we put those books out on the book table for sale, dirt cheap, subsidized for the congregation. So great stuff. 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 and his commentary on the Westminster standards.
I think it's an excellent summary as Gordon Clark was, was very brilliant and very good at making things understandable and points out, really points out a lot of the things that I pointed out in my opening statement, which like everything else I've said on this has been ignored or misrepresented.
But I love you guys. Sincerely. We, we definitely have profound differences on this subject. 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, of our children.
We have profoundly different views of ecclesiology and things like that, but we still agree on the things that matter the most. But this guys, just for the, for, for the record, this is it. This is all I've got to say.
I put together an opening statement and that opening statement was ignored. And I've preached on this topic. Brandon put out a video. I believe it's still out there. He's admitted he, he misunderstood me, but I believe it's still out there.
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. 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.
I'll link to those sermons so you can actually listen to them. And I, I would encourage people, when you listen to my sermons, when you listen to me preach, get your Bible and follow along in the passages.
And I can even link to the manuscripts. I actually put those manuscripts up on Sermon Audio. 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 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.
And brothers, I was really hoping you would, you would tell us why. Why the fixation on, on this? Is it, is it really, is it just because there's Presbyterians that are fussing and fighting with each other on this?
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, like I said, don't, don't you see how easy it would be for me to pit your guys against each other?
Even, even this view, the 1689 Federalism view is, was evidently lost for a long time. 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, from long ago.
And so there's, there's been a movement to recover the original intent. Okay, so we can, we can point out there's, there's a, there's a diversity of, of thought and diversity of the way that this has been articulated.
The best way to, 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. 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. 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.
The Baptist confession deletes the Covenant of Works, therefore, it's contradictory. It's going to lead to a false gospel. I mean, we could play that game if you want to, but is that really going to get us anywhere?
I really don't think that it is. So, you know, you got to let the two sides, the two, you know, individuals that are talking define their own position. I mean, if, 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 going to be persuasive to you?
I bet you anything it wouldn't be, just as none of this is persuasive to me. I made an opening statement. 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.
I did my homework and came prepared for that encounter, and still that opening statement has been ignored, 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 I find persuasive about this, because I don't, to attribute to us, you guys believe there's no works principle anywhere.
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. 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.
The giving of the law was given in the context of God's gracious redemption of the people of Israel, 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 Mosaic Covenant.
And Westminster Confession, chapter 19, points 1 and point 2. Point 2, this law, after His fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai. So yeah, it is a republication of the covenant of works.
Not that anyone could ever be justified by it, 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. But the fall of man into sin has made that impossible, and so we look to the covenant of grace alone for our redemption.
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. The law brings about wrath, and it's not just the giving of law. It's the law as covenant, as covenant.
The law as covenant brings about wrath, Romans 4 .15. Therefore, justification is by faith, so that it would be according to grace. Justification has 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.
And God's administration of that one overarching covenant has always included households. And 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.
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 New Testament?
Would you expect Jesus, for example, to say to Zacchaeus, for today salvation has come to this house? Wouldn't you think that he would have said, today salvation has come to this man? Because only Zacchaeus repented and believed, right?
But he doesn't say that. Paul baptized the households of Crispus and Gaius. Other than that, I can't remember if I baptized any other. And what is the antecedent there? Any other households. Cornelius believes his household is baptized.
Lydia believes her household is baptized. Is that what you would expect to see? Remember I pointed out 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 Lord our God shall call.
What were we told when we, during the debate, when that happened? We were told, well, go read 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, 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. 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? It's a short passage.
Tell us what he really means. But I've agreed with Ligon Duncan on that where Duncan said, if Peter, in fact, is emphasizing the individual component of the new covenant, the way he put that, the promises to you and to your children and to as many as are far off, as many as the 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. You no longer have the child, a descendant, household principle has been terminated now.
Why put it that way, Peter? What is wrong with you? That is the dumbest thing you could have possibly said. How confusing would that be to them? But like I said, like everything else 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? And just want to emphasize it one last time, but what Fesko said is the reason that I was never persuaded by any of the Baptists I read.
By Malone, you know, Paul Jewett was a Presbyterian, but his book was promoted by Reformed Baptists, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. And listening to all the debates and listening to Brian Borgman, listen to all of them, the reason I never found any of it convincing is exactly what Fesko says here.
He says, the largest interaction with the doctrine of the covenant is directed more at correcting Pato Baptist understandings of covenant rather than setting forth a positive exposition of the doctrine as it relates to baptism.
Exactly, exactly. And so that's what is missing. And that's why I've never found this to be even remotely persuasive. What's obvious to me is that the household principle very much still in place because the gospel has not changed.
What has changed is how much we know about it. And that's all. So brothers, I love you. You guys are my friends and my brothers, and I'd go to church and worship next to you guys. 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. You guys are two of the sharpest men I know. You guys have stood your ground on the gospel issues. I am so, so, so thankful that you guys have done that, that you haven't backed down on that.
And I pray for you guys. I pray for your families, for your covenant children, even if you don't see them that way. 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 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 Presbyterians, and so that's not the issue. It's not, well, we love children more than you guys because we baptize them.
That's not it at all. That's not it at all. 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.
Maybe we can talk about it more, but this is it, guys. 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. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, located at 108 Bridwell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee, 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. 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 .bridwellheightspca .org, and may the Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you, the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.