Covenant Theology: Laborers' Podcast

Good evening everyone and welcome to The Laborer's 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 Laborer's 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 Laborer's Podcast.

The comment line is now open. We would love to hear from you. How 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 our

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 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 that 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. You have to adjust the seat.

And if you're really fancy, on your door you have a setting where you have preset your adjustment.

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... And the same thing is going to be true for covenant theology. We're going to 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. 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. Yep, 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 might 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

Covenantal 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... Yeah, I was going to say, Claude gets me. And 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... We're not even... Didn't even mention the dispensational views, right?

Because the dispensational views see the covenants even in another whole different way.

I'm not going to 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... Oh, I could get them. Y 'all don't understand how wise this man is.

But 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 the reality.

The covenants were always cut based upon the death. In the Old Testament, it was the death of the animals.

That's the old covenant. 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 the old obsolete and not to stand anymore.

So 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 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 his 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 Troy should explain the dispensational view.

In dispensationalism, right, if you lay out most of what, if we're going to 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 going to lay it out into the

Abrahamic, the Adamic, right, from Adam, from Abraham, the

Mosaic, the Noahic, 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 often 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 going to 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 theology.

Troy, I've got two questions for you. So when it comes to, we've had different types of covenants mentioned.

We've, 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 types, 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? Yeah. 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?

Well, I think you answered my second question, because previously we lumped the covenant of works with Adam, and then you brought in the

Adamic covenant, and so you just kind of answered 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, Reformed 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 know if you would say it picked back up, or the only other person 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 trying to fulfill what

Christ has already fulfilled. You're not hidden in what he accomplished, but yet 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. Yeah, Elias. That's true.

Well, he kind of said my position title 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 a pato -baptist covenantal aspect where the covenant of works or covenant,

I'm sorry, covenant of grace began, obviously. And obviously, even non -69

Federalist, Reformed Baptists, Covenantal Baptists, they would also, if I'm correct, agree with the pato -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 69

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. 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, right, 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 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 in the new covenant, it was a unilateral covenant, one -way covenant, not two -way.

That's why that's the beauty of salvation, that it's 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,

Noah, 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.

Go ahead, Rob. I'm 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

Paul 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 Paul 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 I would just see as the covenant of redemption, obviously, like we mentioned, is between the

Godhead. There's a covenant between the Godhead before the foundations of the world. Covenant of works is, you know, is an

Adam 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 the covenant of grace started there.

I kind of view as a maybe this is just maybe more semantics where I view the covenant of grace is more of an umbrella, whereas it overarches from the post -fall

Adam all the way even into the new covenant, whereas it's an umbrella term, more of a theological term, covenant of grace.

So once post -Adam fell, what happened? God gave grace, right?

God could have easily damned Adam and Eve and physically have killed them.

They physically had died. They spiritually died. Right. 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, 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.

But which is, you know, it's more of the Richard Barcello's 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 pedobaptist 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 federalism covenantalism, just to distinguish it from when people hear 1689 federalism, they're thinking of, you know,

Richard Barcello's the Renahan father and son duo. The new covenant is the covenant of grace, that kind of thing.

But 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 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 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 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? 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, and God will do all of it.

God will make Abraham's descendants 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. Okay. 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 that God established with Abraham.

And yes, it was grace. But 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 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.

Now, 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 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

Abraham was commanded to keep and to do. It even says that to do this.

This is something that Abraham was commanded to do and to teach all his generations.

But nonetheless, it was a work of the flesh. But the work of the spirit, circumcision of the heart, is only accomplished by the

Lord. So when we're talking about the signs there, it's important that we 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. 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.

Yeah. If you guys want to jump in and give the distinction from your side, you're totally welcome to. That's what this program is all about, is giving the distinctions between 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 animals.

To me, that 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 Dan and I are digging into this covenant theology book.

But I'm going to agree when I think he's right. And he gives this analogy. We were talking about Abraham and being saved by grace in the

Old Testament. He gives this analogy. He says, it's like somebody having a loan and somebody come along and putting that loan in their name.

So whoever had the original loan is no longer responsible for that loan.

And the person whose 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

Abraham being saved by faith in the Old Testament.

The loan, the debt is being paid by Christ. He just happens to pay it later.

It's never in Abraham's name anymore. And to me, the covering when

God covered even Adam, to me, that's like a receipt from the bank.

Here's your receipt or a sign to look forward to what

Christ is going to do. The loan is in, if 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.

We're running out of time, and I at least want to get to the second question. So let me lay it out there, and you guys can jump in on this question.

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 covenant theology positions, they differ in their interpretation in the relationship between the old and new covenants, and how do they differ?

And so me as a rural Southern Baptist 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 those words used in scripture, old and new covenant, relate to this conversation of covenant theology?

And what are some of the distinctions between the old and new covenant? 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 facets, with all of these books, all these authors, all unified in one story.

So when we look at the old and the new covenants, essentially, we're trying to work out how these two pieces fit together.

How does the law with all of its sacrifices and all of that relate to Christ, the final sacrifice?

Claude brought out that in the old covenants, the picture is obey or die, essentially.

That there's either blessing or there's cursing based on obedience and adherence to the stipulations of that covenant.

While as with Christ, we see talk of grace, we see talk of forgiveness, that you've been watched, that we are essentially that Christ's obedience counts for us.

Just to start that off. Old and new covenant.

What does that mean? How does it relate to covenant theology? Hey, Tyler.

Never mind, Troy got put on the spot. I was going to say, I got thrown in the middle here.

I thought you were getting ready to say something. So, mainly the language that we have for the new covenant is that it's prescribed by Jesus, that it's given by the author of Hebrews several times.

I believe that was Paul. And so, they take what actually the sacrifice of Jesus, and they say, this is the new covenant.

Moving from this, the main thing in all of human history, in all of existence, everything is focused on that one time event of the cross.

And so, you have our brothers and sisters in the Old Testament, Abraham looking forward to the cross, and you have us looking back 2 ,000 years ago to the cross as the main point in history.

And whenever we read about this in the New Testament, because it was written 2 ,000 years ago, we see the language, the new covenant, that is, this is the new covenant that is given in my blood.

This is Paul over and over again. And I think while at that time, we see all the practices of Second Temple Judaism being the emphasis on, oh, it's the sacrificing of the lamb.

The Pascal lamb was a type of Christ. It was not

Jesus Christ. That was something that pointed to Christ, not anything that, no sacrifice of that type all throughout the entire

Old Covenant age brought the forgiveness of sins. It was the realization of that.

Did I hit your question, or did I run amok? No, and if I heard you correctly,

I think you helped me out a lot, and I'm going to ask Elias this question. Elias, do you think, would you be on board with me saying, drawing from what

Troy just said, that in a very simplistic sense, when we make a distinction between Old and New Covenant, the

Old Covenant is looking forward to Christ, and the New Covenant is looking back at Christ.

Is that too simplistic of an understanding? I don't want to say too simplistic, that's a true statement, yes.

The Old Covenant is looking forward to Christ, it is, but I feel like simplistic is more like a derogatory term to say, but it's definitely, that is a true statement there, but obviously it's what makes it new, because Christ has came,

Christ has fulfilled, right? That's what makes the New Covenant new, and he has inaugurated it, right, and fulfilled in his blood, right?

It's part of the blood of the covenant, which is Christ. Elias, would it be helpful to say, one substance, two administrations?

I know that's more of a Westminster type. Right, yeah. That could be helpful.

Yeah. I was going to say, it's all about Christ, but the distinction that I think

I was trying to make was, the Old is looking forward, and the New is looking back.

All both, and all are about Christ. And that's how we say that Abraham was justified by faith, is that essentially the promise to Abraham was for Christ, that through Christ all the nations of the earth will be blessed, right?

And so he's, the faith in which he places is Christ, but he's looking ahead to what is yet to come, while as us today, here and now, we look back to who

Christ is and what he's already accomplished. Exactly. Your analogy that you gave earlier,

Rob, about the loan, I have heard a preacher say it in a very simpler way of, you know, kind of how

I put it of, they were saved looking forward, we're saved looking back. He says, they were saved on credit, and we are saved on debit.

It's just kind of - I like that. Hmm, that's good. Anybody else want to make any distinctions on, clarifications on anything that we talked about tonight?

I think it's a good place to stop on question number two. We don't have time to move forward. Jay, did you want to poke me on something before we got rolling there?

No, because you ended up covering it. In fact, I already forgot what it was, but you ended up touching on it.

So I was like, oh, okay, cool. He knew where I was going with this. I do have a question. I don't want to answer it, so whoever wants to jump in, feel free.

I feel like we haven't given New Covenant theology enough attention, and so for anybody that might be watching or listening,

I don't know if they would want to know how that is. I mean, I kind of covered it at the beginning, but I don't know if anybody wants to go any deeper into it.

Again, I'm not as familiar with the distinction between Progressive Covenantalism versus New Covenant theology.

To me, when I hear them explained, I'm like, that sounds like the same thing. So is there somebody that can kind of explain what

New Covenant theology is and why it's different from the other types of Covenant theologies? If I'm not mistaken,

I think Keith Foskey is a New Covenant guy. He is. Yeah, he said he's

Progressive Covenantalism. I've actually asked him, so I'm waiting to hear back on the distinction.

He is. I know Thomas Schreiner is Progressive Covenantal as well.

Yeah, another resource would be Stephen Willem. Dr. Stephen Willem.

I'm not too up to speed on that one myself, so I don't want to talk out of turn on that one.

The term New Covenant theology, if you Google it, it's hard to find anything solid,

Jay. I mean, really, it is. It's like there's just muddy water in front of it, muddy water back of it.

It's hard to find anything really technically on it. But as far as I would say, one of the things is that Progressive Covenantalists or New Covenant theology, their focus is primarily the newness of the

New Covenant, how completely distinct and separate it is from the old.

Right. Obviously, I get that, where they are a little bit closer to Dispensationalism than the other kinds of Covenant theologies that we're talking about.

Because for anybody listening, the argument really is how much continuity we have from the

Old Testament into the New Testament versus how much discontinuity we have. Really, that's what it falls on.

That will determine your Covenant theology. So what happens with New Covenant theology is that they are more similar to Dispensationalism in the abruptness of the change, if you will, right, from the

Old Testament to the New Testament. So one of the things that I had mentioned earlier was one of our presuppositions under Covenant theology is whatever

God has not explicitly abrogated still applies for God's people today. But New Covenant theology kind of flips that the other way and says whatever

God has not, I guess, I'm trying to think of what the right word would be.

Whatever God has not repeated as a standard for God's people today is abrogated.

So like the Sabbath. Exactly, right. So under Covenant theology, you still have a moral law view of the

Sabbath, meaning you have to do something with the Sabbath in your Covenant theology, whereas New Covenant theology would say, well, the

Sabbath was not reestablished under the New Covenant. Therefore, we no longer have a

Sabbath day. Instead, Jesus is our Sabbath, right? So that's one of the distinctions.

Now, they're not dispensational in that they don't see God as having two peoples, right?

They would say that God's people are all of those who trust in Christ.

Now, they agree more with the traditional Covenant theology we've been talking about tonight in that sense.

But how the people of God function now versus how they function in the

Old Testament, that's where they look a little bit more like dispensational. So it's really kind of a middle way between dispensationalism and Covenant theology.

What I still don't understand, don't ask me about it, is what is the difference between New Covenant theology and Progressive Covenantalism?

I don't get it. Hey, what is the difference between New Covenant theology and Progressive Covenantalism? I heard

Troy knows about that. Troy? Uh, actually, I did hear something.

I was listening to something on that. I believe it was, there's a video on YouTube.

I believe it's called like the London Lyceum or something like that. You had one of the Renan boys. You had a

New Covenant. You had a Presbyterian. You had a whole bunch. You couldn't keep straight who was talking and who held what view, but it was cool to listen to.

But nonetheless, there was, it's just because it's muddy.

That there are people trying to distinguish their viewpoint from someone else, and it's not, it's not a big enough distinction to really put them in a completely different category, but there is a little bit of a thing.

It'd be like trying to separate Baptists out, you know? They're like, okay, there's a little bit of a distinction.

Is every Baptist just a Baptist? It's like, no, well, I'm a Reformed Baptist. No, I'm an

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. I'm a Southern Baptist. It's like, okay, we get it. You're Baptist, but what the little distinctions.

But those I can explain to you, is he saying? So I, I just don't,

Claude put me on the spot there because he, I, the first thing I said was don't ask me. I know,

I know, I know. I'm joking. Next Thursday, we're going to ask you to be fully prepared to give a lecture on it.

We're expecting it on your Providence perspective. We need a 15 -page paper on the distinction between Covenant, or Progressive Covenantalism, Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology.

That's a good, that's a good teaser for Providence perspective or the Labor's podcast. I'm not doing that.

Well, as, as we wrap up and, and Tyler, I'd like, I'd like to ask you to share the gospel and Elias when he finishes, if you'll pray for us.

But as we wrap things up tonight's Labor's podcast, I just want to, to share with everybody my, my love for my brothers and, and what

God has doing, doing amongst us where he is, I believe that God is doing in us, is growing a love in us for one another.

Um, through, through our, even despite our differences.

And, um, and I think I, and I desire, and I hope that God will continue to use us to example, love for one another, because for so many years and for so many different myriad of reasons, um, and I can't explain them all.

Why people want to stay in, in their own groups and not branch out and, and love all their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Um, I believe that God is working in us to, to show people what that looks like to love one another, despite our differences, we hold to the fundamentals of the faith.

There's only one and true living God. He's the Trinity and, um, his son is

Christ who is our savior. Um, and we, we hold to all the fundamentals of the faith, but all those secondary issues, you know,

God has called us to, to bear with one another and we bear with one another. And we, we love one another through, through all those things.

And we hope that that comes through as we have our conversations. And as we have our conferences that, um, we can, we can do that and, and have these conversations in a loving way.

So I want to express my thanks to, to God, to our savior, the

Holy Spirit doing that in us, giving glory to God, showing, um,

I, I pray that we are bearing his image through that. And it's only because of the grace of God through the

Holy Spirit. So I want to give him praise and I want to express my love for, um, the guys that are here tonight and the guys that couldn't make it, that, that desire to be here, all the guys in the

Truth and Love Network. So, um, that's, that's my expression of love to you guys. And I appreciate you all.

So Tyler, will you share with us the gospel? I'd be glad to. Our whole discussion tonight has been on this thing called covenant and working out in our minds, how

God relates to his people. How does the God who is infinitely wise, infinitely good, infinitely holy, infinitely just relate to people that are none of those things?

That is essentially what we're grappling with is how does God interact with us? And why, why would he interact with us?

Because the Bible tells us that every single one of us has sinned and fall short of his glory, that none of us are righteous, not even one, that we are altogether not what he is.

Even if you stacked all of us, all of us together, we would not produce God's righteousness. That the closest we get is filthy rags.

And yet God has provided his son for us. And he died that perfect sinner's death after living that perfect sinless life that you and I could never live.

And he died as a sinner in the place of sinners. He rose again from the dead, triumphant over death and hell.

And he beckons us unto himself. And not only does he beckon, but we're also told that he hears.

My favorite Psalm is Psalm 130. Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord. O Lord, hear my voice.

Let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications. If thou, Lord, should mark iniquities,

O Lord, who shall stand? If he was to keep records of our sins, who would be left standing?

None. And yet we're told to cry out. Because, verse 4, there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared.

And we at the Truth and Love Network, we implore you to cry out to God. To seek the

Lord while he may be found. To call upon his name with faith, with repentance, with empty hands and broken hearts.

Because those are the people that God saves. And the people that cry out genuinely, even from the depths of our sins, he hears.

He restores. He redeems. He saves. All right.

Let us pray. Almighty God, who by your

Son, Jesus Christ, did command the apostles that they should go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Grant us who you call into your church. Be ready to obey your word and fill us with the hearty desire to make your way known upon the earth and the saving health among all the nations.

Look with compassion, Lord, upon the people that do not know you and all the multitudes scattered abroad like their sheep without a shepherd.

And bring them into your fold, Lord. And through the same Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Amen. Amen.