TPW 53 Final Words on Baptism Encounter and Response to Carlos

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.