Covenant Theology: Laborers' Podcast

Good evening everyone and welcome to the Laborers Podcast. We're thankful that you're with us, you're watching, you're listening. Tonight we're going to be discussing covenant theology from different perspectives.

We hope you will.

Stick with us. Welcome to the Laborers Podcast which is a part of the Truth in Love Network. Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ. Subscribe and follow the Truth in Love Network on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and iTunes.

Now let's join our laborers for tonight's.

Broadcast. Welcome again to the Laborers Podcast. The comment line is now open. We would love to hear from you. How are you guys doing? Doing good. Doing good. Fantastic. Well tonight we're gonna be talking about covenant theology and I think these these questions are worded in a real deep theological complex way.

However, I was thinking about my own particular background growing up in rural Southern Baptist Church and maybe we can answer these questions with me in mind. Because back then I didn't know there was such a thing as dispensationalism or covenant theology, much less different forms of either types of theology.

So maybe we can keep keep me in mind as we talk about this subject of covenant theology from a Presbyterian perspective, Baptist 1689 Federalist, New Covenant Progressive theology, covenant theology, so many different avenues.

And I was thinking about this analogy this afternoon when it comes to somebody was asking me about having a discussion with them concerning cessationism. And the response in my mind that I would like to give is, yeah I can only represent my brand or how I understand how what I see in Scripture when it comes to cessationism.

And the analogy that that I thought of was, I don't know how you guys are, but my wife drives her car during the week, but then on the weekend or on Sunday I'm the one that usually drives us to church.

So when I get in her vehicle, what's the first thing that you have to do when you get.

In your wife's vehicle usually? Scoot the seat back, especially for me. Yeah, that's.

Right. You have to adjust the seat. And if you're really fancy, on your door you have a setting where you have preset. Oh yeah, I've seen those. And so though we both drive the same car, we have to adjust the seat and the mirrors a little bit differently.

And I think that's true when it comes to those of us who are in the cessationist camp. We drive the same car, but we sit at a little different angle and maybe turn the mirror a little bit differently.

So I can only give things. And the same thing is gonna be true for covenant theology. We're gonna be looking at it from a little bit different angle, but yet we're all driving the same car. Just we may see things a little bit differently.

So any other, anybody else have anything to say as we begin the podcast? If you really want.

Me to confuse you, I don't even hold to 1689 federalism. Not really. But that's a different conversation that we'll talk about later maybe. Good deal. And as.

Troy mentioned in our chat, this may be a two or three-parter because we don't want to rush through anything. And a lot of times we barely get through question one and two. So we can definitely do a part two or part whatever it takes.

Defining Covenant Theology and Its Major Views

So let me ask this first question and you guys just jump in from your perspectives. How does each theology define the concept of the covenant? And what are the key covenants emphasized in Presbyterian covenant theology, Reformed Baptist covenant theology, and New Covenant theology?

Not all at once. So within the.

Presbyterian vein, we look at the word covenant as referring to the way in which God relates to his people. You know, we look at Abraham, we look at all these things. The idea of covenant kind of runs through the thread of the Old Testament, even into the New Testament.

The word covenant essentially means like a contract. Now there's something binding, something established there. But when we talk about covenants in the Bible, this is essentially God's established way of dealing with his people.

And in the Presbyterian vein, we look at the general overview of the Bible and we see three covenants. So we talk about the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, and the covenant of redemption. I see Claude nodding and he's not even Presby.

So that just shows we've already got some common ground here. And the idea with what we call the covenant of redemption is it's essentially a covenant showing the unity of the Godhead. That God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, before the foundations of the earth, were resolved to redeem humanity when it fell.

That's the first covenant. The second covenant is the covenant of works, which in the Presbyterian sect, we look at that in the garden. We look at God dealing with Adam when he says, of any tree in the garden you are free to eat.

That's a commandment, you are free to eat. But of the tree in the middle of the garden you may not eat, for the day you eat of it you will surely die. And in that moment, Adam had the faculties, so to speak, to keep that one thing, to walk with God and be obedient.

But when he took the fruit and he sinned, he was no longer able to keep that, to walk with God as was desired. Now from that moment, the only way that Adam could be right with God is if it was given to him by grace.

And that's where the covenant of grace comes in, the idea that the way God deals with his people contains, what's the word I'm looking for, contains avenues by which he forgives, by which he redeems.

And I think, too, on the covenant, on that terminology covenant of works, I think too, Tyler, since you basically just gave a general overview of largely most covenant theologies, and one distinction that the Presbyterians would hold to the hardcore Westminsterians would be that that term covenant of works isn't there.

I think in the Westminster it's referred to as a covenant of life. Yes. So that's just a distinction in the terminology, but even the Westminsterians and the 1689ers understand and hold to that as.

Being one in the same. Yeah. I think Tyler's summation actually covers Westminster Presbyterian, or even you could say even covenant of continental reformed, right? We don't want to leave you guys, you Dutch reformed guys that are watching out there.

Everybody talks about the Scottish Presbyterians, but hey, you guys hold to the same thing, so definitely include them in that vein as well. And I would say that Tyler nailed it on the head, not just for, I guess you could say pedo-baptist reformed types, right, whether it's continental, Presbyterian, Westminster.

That even included reformed Baptists who hold to covenant theology. Where we see the distinction is on some of the implications, particularly of the covenant of grace, right? Now we have some reformed Baptists, particularly, especially, I should say, not of the 1689 variety that may or may not hold to covenant theology as Tyler just described it.

They may hold to something called progressive covenantalism, and I'll be honest with you, I don't really get the distinction between that and new covenant theology. I know that there are some slight differences, but their view of a covenant—their covenantal view is slightly different in that the emphasis is on the new covenant, right?

And what the implications of the new covenant are for God's people at that point in time, which is now, right? Because we're looking back at Christ, whereas in the Old Testament, people were looking to Christ.

New covenant theology, without getting too much into it, unless Rob wants me to, essentially is a little bit different from the covenant theology of Presbyterians and reformed Baptists in that it has a lot more discontinuity.

So what they're going to say about God's covenants is that, unlike traditional covenant theology, where we view certain aspects established within the covenants as binding on God's people today, unless otherwise abrogated, they would say, well, no, no, no, everything before the New Testament, that no longer applies to God's people.

God now has a new covenant, brand new, with His people, with new expectations, new promises. That's why it's called new covenant theology. So hopefully that kind of gives you guys an overview of what the differences are, which is why, for example, under covenant theology, the Westminster and the reformed Baptist covenant theology, we will say, yes, we still uphold the Ten Commandments.

New covenant theology would say, no, we uphold the law of Christ, right, which is love God, love neighbor. So there are some differences like that. Rob, I don't know how far you want me to get.

Into it, or is that good? Oh, you can keep going, and I'll be glad for Claude, because if I'm not mistaken, I think Claude leans more towards the New Covenant side of things, if you want to elaborate.

I'm somewhere between 1689.

Federalism, again, it's pretty broad, and Jay, again, like Tyler, he just nailed it right on the head, given the distinctions and the qualifications on that, because this is such a big, big topic to consider, just to add to what both Tyler and Jay have said concerning, because really the key of this conversation is about establishing the right understanding, or at least a basic understanding, definitional understanding of what covenants are, of what covenant theology is, so that when you get into it, then you've got a working knowledge of what you're going into, right, and you're not going into it, you know, with your eyes closed and your hands feeling for the wall, and stumping your toe, and cussing, and doing everything else.

So covenant theology, and so covenant theology, like Tyler said, seeks to understand, right, it's about understanding that nature and that relationship between the divine covenants, and there are folks who will, so, and we're not even, didn't even mention the dispensational views, right, because the dispensational views see the covenants even in a another whole different way.

I'm not gonna go into that. Troy might be able to talk to you a little bit more about that, understand, or he'll be able to, let me say that. Oh, does he have the charts? Oh gosh, you don't know. Oh, I could get them.

Y 'all don't understand how wise this man is. So concerning the covenants, right, so Tyler, you said that the covenants are a contract. I would say a little bit, to go a little bit further with that, it's more than just a cold contract, but it's an agreement between two parties, and the stipulations are always, always cut, so to speak, that's the old language that's used for a covenant, you cut a covenant.

The stipulations are always upon the premise of the shedding of blood and death. How's that for super happy golden time? But that's, that's the reality. The covenants were always cut based upon the death.

In the Old Testament, it was the death of the animals. That's why it's the old, that's why I say that's the old covenant. In the New Testament, in the New Covenant, the blood was shed by our Lord Jesus Christ, which makes it new, and our Keeper says, which makes it better, which makes it, which makes the old obsolete and not to stand anymore.

So we, this, this whole covenantal framework, like Tyler said, revolves around those overarching covenants. The covenant of redemption, the covenant of.

Works, and the covenant of grace. Despite the, um, the differences that we're going to talk about tonight, would you all agree that a general overview of covenant theology is, and to summarize what you guys said, is we believe that through God, this is how God decided or chose to relate with this creation through covenants.

Yes. And then after that, we talk about our differences. Sure. Right. Okay. As opposed to the dispensational view. Right. Right. I guess maybe, maybe.

Troy should explain the dispensational view. In the, in dispensationalism, right, if you lay out most of what, if we're gonna start talking covenant theology in depth, right, like going into more than just the definitions of, here's what new covenant theology broadly kind of means, and this is what 1689 federalism kind of means, this is what your Westminster kind of broadly means.

If we start laying out the covenants, you're gonna lay it out into the Abrahamic, the Adamic, right, from Adam, from Abraham, the Mosaic, the Noahic, and if you, and then, of course, at the coming of Christ, right, whether you believe that's at his birth or at his resurrection.

And one thing, whenever you take those, you will notice that it actually lays out very, very, very nicely with a dispensationalist chart, just because you can't get away from the fact that something happens at these covenants.

And so, just from reading the Bible, do I agree with dispensationalism? Not so much anymore, but that is not to say that it is, that our brothers that hold to it, which is most of the United States, are off in egregious error.

When we talk about covenant theology and dispensationalism, I think it's important for anybody that's watching that's starting to study into these things to understand that this is mainly gonna be your hermeneutic for understanding your Old Testament.

It's what to do with, what do you do with Mount Sinai? What do you do with the law? What do you do with the fact that, you know, at one point in time, we were told to sacrifice bulls and goats, right?

And understanding how that is brought out into the new covenant. And so, it's really breaking that down. Dispensationalism, as far as that goes, they would understand it in sections of time. Like, look, God revealed this to this people at this time, but it does lay out nicely with covenant theology.

Old and New Covenant in Relation to Christ

Troy, I've got two questions for you. So when it comes to... we've had different types of covenants mentioned. Tyler talked about grace, redemption, and works, and you guys have also brought up the Adamic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and covenants and their names given by men.

So what's the relationship between these covenants named after men and the covenant of works, redemption, and grace?

Scope. Okay, so if you... if I say the covenant, the Adamic covenant, Adam, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, right? I'm talking about specific times. And so, the discussion that we're going to be having tonight is which one of those should be categorized covenant of works and which one of those should be categorized covenant of grace.

So, we understand the Abrahamic covenant where God says, you know, I will give you... there will be an offspring, right? And there will be a people. There will be a kingdom. Do we put that as... can you hear me?

Okay. Do we put that as covenant of grace or do we put that as covenant of works? And it's all upon looking at the individual covenants that God makes with these people that the covenants are named after and sorting them into, is it works or is it grace?

Is this the gospel that's being preached or is this law that is given for some reason? I think you answered my.

Second question because we've... previously we lumped the covenant of works with Adam and then you brought in the Adamic covenant, and so you just kind of answer that question. The Adamic covenant is going to be lumped in there or categorized with the covenant of works, so I appreciate that.

And then also.

I would also argue the Mosaic covenant as well, but that kind of gets into your Presbyterian-Baptistic difference of seeing when the covenant.

Of grace appeared. That was going to be one of my other questions when it comes to this because going through the book with Dan, Reform Covenant Theology by Harrison Perkins, I'm learning that to me, from what I understand when I read it, the covenant of works ended with Adam because he could not fulfill the covenant of works.

He was not able to see it to its completion, fruition, and so there was an end and then the only other... I don't that could fulfill it was the second Adam who'd come in Christ. So how does the covenant of works, how does the Mosaic covenant, as you mentioned, relate to.

The covenant of works, or does it at all? I think a very simple definition of where it says, do this and this will happen, or don't do this and that will happen, points it to the fact that this is law.

This is not that of faith. So I would hold to 1689 federalism as of right now, and of course, I'm still diving into this from a very dispensational background, but yeah, so I would see the fact that the covenant of works, even continuing on into today, that if you are born and you do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are by definition still in that covenant of works because you have a legal obligation to... you are either... you are trying to fulfill what Christ has already fulfilled.

You're not hidden in what he accomplished, but yet you are you are trying to do that by your own righteousness. So let me see if you'd.

Agree with this. So the relationship... What happened after the breaking of the covenant with Adam, our relationship with God's commands changed. Does that sound.

Right? Yes. Yeah, I would say that the gospel was offered in there, right? The proto-evangelium, right? The seed of the woman would crush that you have both the covenant of grace and the covenant of works there preached.

Who's.

Ready to jump in? Elias hasn't said anything yet. Well, he kind of said.

About my position time in the beginning, so I was like, oh, he took the words out of my mouth. But yeah, I mean, yeah, you kind of... obviously, like Troy mentioned, obviously, they would be disagreeing with the paedo-baptist covenantal aspect where the covenant of works or covenant of... I'm sorry, covenant of grace began, obviously.

And obviously, even non -1689 Federalist Reformed Baptists, covenantal Baptists, they would also, if I'm correct, agree with the paedo-baptists in the sense of, yes, the covenant of grace started before the new covenant.

In the old covenant, there is the covenant of grace there. You're right. Right. That would be me. Yeah. So obviously, I would disagree with a 1689 Federalist where they would say, no, the covenant of grace started with the new covenant, where I would say, no, I believe it started in the old covenant.

I believe it started right at the fall of Adam. After the fall of Adam, covenant of grace started. No, I would agree with that. So... Well, you would agree with that, Troy, you're saying?

Yes. Yeah, I would agree that the covenant of grace was for all... Abraham was saved by faith. He was in the covenant of grace, but it was only through faith that he was saved. Right. That's where... Sorry, Troy, I don't mean to cut you off.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Pastor Claude. That's where I would... I think it's important that we go a little bit deeper there, too. Again, remember our foundational understanding of what covenants are, so on and so forth, as we're talking about this further now.

So, a covenant is ratified or made legal, made effective upon shed blood, right? So, when we think about, and Troy said a minute ago, the significance of understanding that there are, again, in 1689 federalism, whether you're 1689 federalist or not, the scriptures teach that in 1 Corinthians 15, right, that man is represented by Adam in creation, right, and in Christ in the new birth, the second Adam.

So, in the garden, Adam broke the covenant, right? And he fell. Death was pronounced upon him, sin upon all. We know all that, right? So, that, again, was a covenant of works. So, the covenant of grace was proclaimed in the Proto-Evangelion, but it wasn't ratified until Christ came, shed his blood, died on the cross, right?

Because that was the institution of the New Testament. We know that because Jesus told the disciples at the supper, this is the New Testament in my blood, which is being shed for the remission of many, right?

So, I'm just following the biblical track on this. So, certainly, the covenant of grace or the new covenant, that's the identifier there. They're synonymous together, I would say. The new covenant or the covenant of grace wasn't ratified until Christ died.

So, but, however, like Troy said, too, Abraham was saved by faith, looking to Christ. So, I would say it like this, I would paint a word picture like this. So, when Christ died on the cross, retroactively, reverberating even back through all time, the Old Testament saints were saved, reverberating forward through time until Christ returns again.

All the, quote, unquote, New Testament saints are saved, right? All with the epicenter being Jesus Christ. That's the picture that the scripture paints, not that the covenant of grace had been ratified in the Old Testament.

It was proclaimed in the Old Testament. But every covenant, every single covenant from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, even the Davidic covenant, all those were covenants based on, if you do this, I'll do this.

If you disobey, it's death. It's blessing and cursing all the way through until the new covenant. And then the new covenant, it was a unilateral covenant, one-way covenant, not two-way. That's the beauty of salvation, that salvation is all of the Lord and not of us at all.

God doesn't save us based upon those covenant terms in the Old Testament, you do this and live, you do this and die. God saves us based upon the work that Christ himself has accomplished on the cross, plus nothing, minus nothing.

So that's why I hold the view of the old covenant included all of those covenants, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, all those, but they weren't the application of the new covenant. What makes the new covenant different is that it was completely new, unlike the old covenant, where the old covenant was two-way, and the new covenant is a one-way covenant.

Let me...

So, Rob, I'm sorry. Sorry. I was just going to ask Elias one question. So when you guys see that the covenant of grace started back then, as opposed to what Claude just described, correct me if I'm wrong or describe it the correct way, is that because in the eyes and mind of God, because the covenant amongst the Trinity had already taken place, it was seen by them as already completed.

Is that why you see that the covenant of grace is there in the Old Testament as well? So you said the covenant of the Trinity. Are you talking about the covenant of redemption, you're saying? Yeah, the covenant of redemption, the covenant that was made amongst the Trinity, that one-way covenant that Claude was talking about when he was talking about between the Trinity that was ratified in Christ.

Well, I was talking about the covenant of grace. Right. The covenant of redemption is the agreement between God and the Spirit. Right. Yeah. The covenant of grace is what Christ brought.

Right. So, you know, I would just see as the covenant of redemption, obviously, like you mentioned, is between the Godhead, is the covenant between the Godhead before the foundations of the world. Covenant of works is, you know, is an atom in the garden before the fall, right?

God says, if you do this, you have life. If you don't, you have death. And I would say post fall, Adam, it was it was the covenant of grace started there. I kind of view as a maybe this is just maybe even more semantics where I view the covenant of grace is more an umbrella, whereas it overarches from post fall, Adam, all the way even into the new covenant, whereas it's an umbrella term of more of a theological term, covenant of grace.

So once post Adam fell, what will happen? God gave grace. Right. God could have easily damned Adam and Eve and and physically have killed them. They physically had died. They spiritually died. Right. God was God is not a liar.

I'm not saying God says you shall die. They spiritually died. I think we can all agree there that they were they became spiritually dead at that moment on the fall. But he gave them a promise. Which was right.

He gave to Eve the seed of the woman, of course, to the serpent. Right. That is the first promise we see of the Messiah. So I believe. And what does God do? He covers them with the skin of an animal. Right.

God said that is what we say is this grace on God's part where he takes a sacrifice, takes the skin and covers them by that sacrifice and covers the our first parents. Right. So I see that there. So I see that as an umbrella term, covenant of grace, starting at the time of post fall Adam and fulfilled in Christ.

And let me let me just say one thing, because I until probably very recently, I held to a more distinct like what Claude just described, which Claude correct me if I'm wrong, but would you say that the new covenant is the covenant of grace?

Yes. OK, so that's classic. I mean, that that's, you know, 100 percent 1689 federalism, which is, you know, it's more of the Richard Barcelos, Sam and James Renahan type of federalism. But while I think that that 1689 federalism has a lot correct.

Right. And I'm not saying that you're wrong necessarily. I could be wrong on this. I'm still kind of trying to land my plane somewhere on this. So it's not like I'm 100 percent committed, but I am leaning towards I don't even know really what to call it, because I'm leaning towards saying the new covenant is not the covenant of grace.

But under the new covenant, the covenant of grace is fully revealed. And so I think that lands me somewhere between 1689 federalism and sort of Westminster, Peto Baptist covenant theology, while still remaining a reformed Baptist covenant theology.

It's actually one that people like James White holds to. It's kind of an older sort of Baptist covenant theology, which I call it 1689 covenantalism, just to distinguish it from when people hear 1689 federalism, they're thinking of, you know, Richard Barcelos, the Renahan father and son duo.

The new covenant is the covenant of grace, that kind of thing. But I've been looking into it. It's very hard to look into it because there's not a whole lot of resources out there. So I've really had to dig.

But, you know, it's some of the older reformed Baptist of the 20th century. That's why James White, he calls himself an old man. That's why he holds to it, because some of the older reformed Baptists would agree that the covenant of grace was seen throughout the Old Testament, whereas 1689 federalism says that it was it.

I heard I heard somebody once from from the 1689 camp say, think of it as an IOU pointing to the covenant of grace, which is the new covenant. Grace was given in the Old Testament, but pointing to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace.

And that's the distinction, right, where the older sort of reformed Baptist covenant theology says, no, the covenant of grace was active in the Old Testament. The newer 1689 federalism says, well, the grace that was given in the Old Testament was pointing to the ultimate covenant of grace, which is the new covenant.

And so that's why I wanted to clear that up, because even even in that, there's so many distinctions like and it's like it's like Rob said at the beginning, we're all adjusting the chair of the vehicle slightly every time we get in and there are so many intricacies, so many details and things like that.

Now, you might say, well, hold on. So if the covenant of grace was active and fully, fully, yeah, fully active in the Old Testament, why are you baptizing your babies? Don't you know that the covenant sign was applied to infants in the Old Covenant after God had given grace to Abraham?

Right, because that's what that's what God did with Abraham. He established a covenant with Abraham, which was not really asking Abraham for any in return. So it was grace, right? Your descents will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, you know, and God will do all of it.

God will will make Abraham descendants of people. And so the covenant sign was circumcision, right? That's where the pedobaptist comes in and says, and Elias or Elias or Tyler, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong here.

But you say, you see, the covenant sign was applied to the one under the covenant and his children. So that's why we baptize our infants. Would you guys say more or less that's correct?

Right, yeah, in a simplified way, yeah.

OK, sorry, I'm trying to I'm trying to buy things just for the sake of argument. So where I would where I would distinguish that is I would say I was the that God established with Abraham. And yes, it was grace.

But what what is one of the principles of covenant theology? It's unless God abrogates something, it's still in effect. Correct. So was circumcision abrogated in the new covenant? I would say, yes, it was.

And so therefore, the implications of the new covenant sign have to be understood according to what God has established. And so that's why I would say, yes, Abraham's children obtained the covenant sign of circumcision.

But in the new covenant, it's a new and better covenant where God says my people shall all know me. Right, Jeremiah 31. And so because of that, the covenant sign is established exactly as the New Testament says that it's established.

Repent of your sins and be baptized. And so that's that's where we have those distinctions. So I just want to lay all of that out there to explain that even within covenant, we're going to have a lot of different perspectives.

And to that building on building, I guess, parallel to what you said there. So in reference to the covenant with Abraham. So you have two accounts in Genesis 15 and Genesis 17, Genesis 15 is where God or Abraham cuts the animals in pieces, puts him to sleep, and God, like a flaming torch, walks between the pieces ratifying the covenant, right, without human agreement.

In in Genesis 17, verse 10, he said, The Lord said, This is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you and your offspring forever. Every male among you shall be circumcised. Now, circumcision was the sign.

But it wasn't the seal. That's the distinction. That's another distinction to keep in mind. Circumcision was the sign, but it wasn't the seal. The seal of salvation is the circumcision of the heart. The natural circumcision is what Abram was commanded to keep and to do.

It even says that to do this. This is something that Abram was commanded to do to teach all his generations. But nonetheless, it was a work of the flesh. But the work of the spirit, the circumcision of the heart is only accomplished by the Lord.

So when when we're talking about the signs there, it's important that we that we keep also keep that distinction and that understanding that the sign of circumcision was a work of the flesh. But the circumcision of the heart is the work of the spirit of God, which only God can.

Accomplish. But hey, I wanted to give you guys an opportunity already. If you wanted to jump in there, do what? I'll hush, guys. I'm sorry. I'll hush. I missed you all. I do miss you guys when we're not together as well.

Um, yeah, if you guys want to jump in and give the distinction from from your side, you're totally welcome to. That's what this program is all about, is giving the distinctions between the different the different forms of covenant theology.

I've been thinking about an analogy that I wanted to give for a few minutes in the last. I'm glad you brought up the God covering Adam and Eve with the with the animals. To me, that's kind of goes along with the analogy that I want to give.

And I think it's funny that I'm giving an analogy from a Presbyterian, but it's only because it's only because Dan and I are digging into this book. But I'm going to agree when he's when I think he's right and he gives this analogy, we were talking about Abraham and being saved by grace, you know, in the Old Testament.

He gives this analogy, he says, it's like somebody having a loan. And somebody come along and and putting that loan in their name, so whoever had the original loan is no longer responsible for that loan.

And the person who name is now on that loan, it doesn't matter when they pay at all. It's not in the original person's name anymore. And that's kind of how he describes, you know, Abraham being saved, you know, by faith in the Old Testament, the the loan.

The debt is being paid by Christ, he just happens to pay it later, it's never it's never in Abraham's name anymore. And in the to me, the the covering when when God covered even Adam, to me, that's like a receipt from the bank here.

You know, this is here's your receipt or a sign to look forward to, you know, what Christ is going to do. The loan is in, you know, if you're your faith is in me and the Messiah to come, it will be paid and it's no longer in your name.

I thought that was such a beautiful analogy. Let's we're running out of time and I at least want to get to the second question. So so let me lay it out and you guys can jump in on this question. So so revert back to me as a rural Southern Baptist who doesn't know anything about this.

The second question is, amongst all these different theology positions, they differ in their interpretation and the relationship between the old and new covenants and how do they differ? And so me as a as a rural Southern Baptist who who doesn't know anything about these different forms of covenant theology, the only thing as far as covenants go, the only two words that I ever heard related to covenants is old and new covenant.

That's my only concept of covenant, old and new covenant. So how does how does those words used in scripture or new covenant relate to this conversation of covenant theology? And what are some of the distinctions between the old and new covenant?

The Old Covenant and the New Covenant in Scripture

Who wants to jump in? Well, essentially, what we're looking at is we're trying to figure out how the Old Testament and the New Testament fit together. We're looking at what hath Moses to do with Jesus, essentially.

How does the law and Sinai and all that, how does that fit into and complement the words of Christ? Because it's one God, one author, one story that he's telling with all of these these facets, with all of these books, all these authors, all unified in one story.