Theonomy, yay or nay

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. I'm a black sheep among misfits.

A misfit in the trailer park at night. A misprint with the six cents.

Been sick ever since my brother died of an O .D. My two cents never made sense.

Either to me or anyone else inside of the sheep fence. My 9th Smith on my right side.

Why you staring at your cop dot sign and my John Hancock on the dotted line? Tell me what's the bottom line.

The bottom line is I'm not right. I'm not left, but this elephant won't fight. There's nothing left but the spotlight.

Hold my beer. You can find me in the moonlight. Moonlight. You can say what you want.

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. You can say what you want. You can say what you...

I'm wits in the deep end and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in.

My theology don't fit in. Black sheep of the Reformation sheep pen. To the

Reformed, I'm just another Baptist. Baptized again, the bastard child of Anabaptist.

Host to child of Reformation society. We don't need your education. Give me a

Bible and a brookshelf of dead men. Cigars, bourbons, and beer cans. Bow ties, tattoos, and bearded men.

Making Reformation great again. You can say what you want. You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want. You can say what you want, but you won't around me.

No, you won't around me. Around me. Around me. Around me. Around me.

And we are live. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is

Jeff. I am one of the pastors slash elders of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Tallahoma, Tennessee.

If you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee or the surrounding counties, please come and worship with us.

I'm with my good friend, Matt Ford. Matt, why don't you introduce yourself, brother? Hey, I'm Matt Ford.

I am 32 years old. I am married for 10 years.

I have been married for 10 years. I have four boys and another boy on the way. I go to Solomon's Porch Christian Community in Smyrna, Tennessee, and I'm the deacon there.

Happy to be on. Very happy to be on. Well, I'm happy to have you. A lot of y 'all might notice his name at least.

For the most part, when we're doing these videos, he chimes in and asks us really good questions.

And so me and Matt met at a church years ago called

Solomon's Porch. It kind of has a—like, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong,

Matt, but you could be a part—you can hold to the 1689, the

Westminster. And was there another one that you could hold to to be a part of that church? Yeah.

Yeah, there was. It's not coming to the top of my head right now.

Has that changed? It has. It has. Is this strictly Westminster now?

For eldership. For eldership. And you can subscribe to the 1646, and you can still be

Baptist. We allow an exception to baptism, but we don't accept the 1689.

You can be a Reformed Baptist, but you have to—basically, you have to believe in the covenants the way that we do.

But you can be—you do not have to hold to the mode of baptism.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, so I was going there for a little while, met him.

I was able to meet the Senillias, which Cal—Pastor Cal is my co -pastor at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church.

He does all the music there. And so it was a good time that I had. And also my daughter met

Pastor Jeremy's daughter, and they became best friends. So it was a sweet time that I had there.

So speaking of not being able to be a Reformed Baptist, 1689 covenant theology at your church.

So that's kind of what we want to look at tonight. So the topic is theonomy, yea or nay?

He says yea. I say nay. But we want to come at this as friends, right?

I mean, we're not enemies of the gospel. He knows how I feel.

I see his post. I think the thing that most aggravates me about his post is when he's going off on us

Baptists, on the mode of baptism in our children. So hopefully he'll feel more comfortable after tonight, and we can come back on and talk about that issue.

We'll stay away from that tonight, but we'll kind of dabble into the idea of the covenant, how his view of the covenant allows for theonomy, and how my view of the covenant does not allow for theonomy.

Would you agree with that statement? Yes. Well, your statement about how my view, my covenantal view, yea, allows me to have theonomy, and yours wouldn't.

Yes. Are you familiar with 1689 federalism? I might be off, so you can correct me the whole time, but I did dabble in it for a good bit.

I read Pascal Denault's book. I've read it twice. It's one of those books

I recommend to people. I tell them, please read it, because I think if you read the book, you will not be

Baptist anymore. Yea. Well, there's better books out there than that one.

I know quite a few Presbyterians who are coming to the Baptist faith because of 1689 federalism.

See, I'm proving wrong. I read that, but that and Jonathan Edwards' History of Redemption.

It was a buddy of mine. His name is Tom Agnew. He's a pastor of a church here in Smyrna. He was meeting with me, and he was like, man, you ever heard of 1689 federalism?

I said, no, I've never heard of it. At this time, I called myself a 1689

Baptist. Yea. So I started reading. I got really confused by their

Venn diagram, where it was like a 21st century Baptist guy in the middle, and that was me. That was me, and I was like,

I'm a 1689 guy. I'm not 21st century, and so I just started flopping between reading

Presbyterian people and reading Nehemiah Cox and the John Owen, reading

Pascal Denault, reading Keech's Catechism, but I ended up on a different side of the fence by the end of it.

Well, you know, we're still brothers, but hopefully after tonight, if you feel comfortable, we can come back and have that discussion pertaining to baptism, infant baptism.

So we'll call it infant baptism, yea or nay, right? Kind of work off of what we're doing tonight.

So do you want to go first, or would you like me to go first? No. Yeah, you talk as much as you want to talk.

This is different for me, so you talk as much as you want. If you do give me the floor,

I went back and I listened to your last podcast one more time.

You just wrote down Q &As and stuff. Yeah, so I went back and listened to that one as well.

It seemed to go about 145 miles an hour, right? Hopefully tonight we can slow it down.

But yeah, so when it comes to covenant theology, and I'm looking at it from a 1689

Baptist covenant theology perspective, so we would see that the covenant of grace was only announced like it was promised in Genesis 3 .15.

So if you look at Genesis 3 .15, I'll turn there real quick. And so the covenant of grace is really, for us, the curse given to the serpent.

So the serpent was cursed, and through his curse we receive a promise of the covenant of grace.

Verse 15 of Genesis 3 says, he's speaking to the serpent God here, I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed.

He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.

All right, so this idea of the seed of the woman, we see that it's passed through Abraham, it's passed through Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's sons, ultimately

Judah, David. Like you see this covenant promise that a Messiah is going to come, and he will sit on the throne of David and all the nations will be blessed through him.

So what we see here in Genesis 3 .15 as a Baptist 1689

Federalist is that there's only a promise of a covenant of grace, not the establishment of the covenant of grace.

It seems from my view that it's not until the offspring of the woman bruises the head of the serpent.

So that would be at the cross of Jesus Christ when Jesus is crucified. And so we would say that the covenant of grace is the new covenant.

The covenant of grace is the new covenant. All right. So if the covenant of grace is the new covenant, it did not begin.

The covenant of grace did not begin until Jesus Christ was crucified on that cross.

That means that it was not a part of the old covenant. And so since it was not a part of the old covenant, things pertaining to the old covenant is not allowed in to the new covenant.

So that's why we would say that circumcision is not a part of the new covenant because it's part of the old covenant system.

So when we get down to the judicial laws, the ceremonial law, we say that that's why our

Baptist faith, I was about to say Baptist faith message. Don't shoot me Baptist. Our 1689 lets us know that, you know, once Jerusalem was destroyed 70

A .D., so too those laws are no longer pertaining to them or to you and I.

That's just a quick summation of why we see that that the old covenant system is not brought into the new covenant.

It's because the covenant of grace was not inaugurated until the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

OK, can I ask you a question about what you said? Yes. So you said that it's promised but not established.

So you are saying that when he when he made the promise, that was not the beginning of the process of the covenant of grace.

Right now, I'm not saying that those in the old covenant were not saved by the covenant of grace.

Yeah, it's retroactive. Yeah, retroactive and retrospective. So they were looking forward to the promise where we are hindsight looking back at the promise.

Yeah, you make it you make a distinction between something being promised and something starting something being started.

Something correct. And we see that from the text of Genesis 315. Now, someone could show me an establishment of that covenant right there in Genesis 315.

I'll listen. I am a text guy. What are you looking for when you want it to be when you say show me it established?

What does that look like? Well, so from my point of view, it says that the offspring of the woman will bruise the head of the serpent while only bruising his heel.

And we know from the new covenant that that takes place at the cross. In John 12,

Jesus speaking of something that was about to come upon him. He says, now the judgment is here.

Now the ruler of this world will be judged. And that takes place on the cross.

We see that also in Hebrews chapter two, that he, through his death, barren resurrection, destroys the power of Satan.

And actually him itself. Go ahead. That in promising that is not the starting of the process.

Correct. Okay. It's not the covenant of grace established or inaugurated.

No. Okay. Okay. All right. So, and this is where I say my view on how this fits in.

Yes, please. Okay. All right. So, the way that I view the covenants,

I view them, basically, I guess I'll start it out this way.

I view them as covenants of promise. So it's multiple covenants of one promise.

And the promise being Genesis 3 .15. And the covenants, they're connecting.

So you have the promise that we just read in Genesis 3 .15. And then when

God establishes a covenant with Noah, you would see, you see that promise, that covenant that God's made with Noah, as God fulfilling and continuing his faithfulness to Adam and Eve and the promise that he made with them.

And that's why he preserved Noah. It's because he's fulfilling the promise that he made in Genesis 3 .15.

And he's being faithful to the promise that he made to Noah's grandparents.

And then when he does, you know, save Noah and his family, puts them in the ark and saves them, he comes out and then he's reaffirming that covenant, that, or that, that, the creation mandates.

You know, it's a, it's a second world, you know, it's a restarting. But it's, it really sounds a lot similar to the creation mandates.

And I think that Noah was familiar with those. Noah knew what his, what was taught to his, to his father and his mother.

And so when God establishes covenant with Noah, you have this huge arrow pointing back at the promise.

So it's, this is a covenant of that promise.

And then you have the next one with Abraham. And with Abraham, it's the same thing.

So you have Noah, you have Adam here, and Adam has, or Noah has locked in, like locked in with Adam.

Or he locked in with the covenant that he made with Adam. And Noah's pointing back at Adam.

And then you have Abraham locking in with Noah, and he's pointing back. And every time that God's making these covenants, he's, he's building upon them bigger and better.

And I see him as kind of like one of those little Russian dolls where you, you pop it open, and then there's like another smaller doll that comes out, except it's the opposite.

With the covenants of God, each one was bigger and better. And every time he made another covenant, he would, he would open up a covenant with Noah, and it was bigger than the covenant.

It was more clear than the covenant he made with Adam. And then when you get to Abraham, he opens it up, and it's even more stuff in it.

They're going to be, you know, children as much as the dust of the earth. There's going to have a land now.

And then you get Moses, and it's not only going to be children, but you're going to be like this holy nation.

You're not just going to be a nation with a lot of people in it. You're going to be a light to the nations. You're going to be the example that all the other nations are supposed to be.

And then he, he frees them up. He gives them a law. So now you got this whole, you got, you got a way to live that's even clearer than it was given to Noah in a way that was, because I agree with what you said the other day about how the deck log, the time that the

Ten Commandments was talked about by God to Moses, that wasn't the first time, you know, Adam had it as well.

But each time the covenant that God establishes with the covenant heads in the Old Testament, he's making

Genesis 3 more clear, and they're each connecting to one another.

And so every time that someone from Noah's family would believe in the promises that Noah told them that God was saying, or if they heard

God, or every time that the people, Abraham's family would believe the promises that their patriarch, that their mediator

Abraham was telling them about God, every time they put their faith in those promises of God, they were putting their faith in Genesis 3 15.

And so they were, all the covenants are coming back to Genesis 3 15, and every covenant coming out of Genesis 3 15 is

God being faithful to keeping Genesis 3 15, and it keeps getting bigger and better and bigger and better.

Then eventually get to the new covenant. And, you know, you have God on both ends of the covenant.

And we have better promises. We have the mysteries of the Old Covenant are revealed.

They're no longer, they're no longer concealed. The work of the Holy Spirit is, I mean, really, it's really the work of the

Holy Spirit. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is really explained through the letters of the apostles and the words of Christ.

So, yeah, that's how I see it. And so the, why mine has,

I guess it can fit theonomy is because theonomy was one of the gifts and the graces that was given to the people of God.

In the mosaic covenant. And we use those parts that were given in the mosaic covenant, the judicial laws and the ceremonial laws.

We use the general equity out of those. Now, the moral law has always existed. Like we agree on, the moral law has always existed.

It can't be abolished. It can only be kept. Hey, just one second. Brayden's trying to get on.

I'm going to let him in real quick. He'll kind of keep us from fighting. Hey, Brayden.

Knock it out. Did you miss everything thus far?

You know, I've got some of it. I apologize. I had gotten a phone call. And so I was in the middle of doing some church stuff.

And so I wasn't able to jump on here when I was hoping to. You're about to get podcast discipline, son.

I know. I know. Trust me. I feel it. I feel it's coming. And then it took like another 10 minutes to load my computer up to be able to get on.

So I apologize, guys. Yeah, I'm here. Go ahead and finish,

Matt. Yeah. So the moral law, as you know, it's preexisted. I believe the moral law comes from its expression in the nature of God.

And so as long as God has been, there's been a morality.

You know, God is good. God is good all the time. So, yeah, but you have the moral law that transcends, goes through all dispensations.

And then you have the ceremonial and the judicial law. And now we take the general equity out of those.

We take what I mean by general equity. My definition is we take the moral teachings from those laws.

Well, if you watched our show, we are for general equity. Yeah. Yeah. I watched.

But we're not for the theonomic. Yeah, I know. Yeah. But we're not for the theonomic movement because we think that more than general equity, you know, they say general equity, but it's actually a lot more than that's coming through.

And it leads to what's called pronominalism. So would you say that the old covenant and the new covenant are holding hands?

Are they locked arms like you were talking about? What's new about the new covenant?

What's new? You have a better mediator. You have better promises. You have a fuller revelation of Jesus Christ.

We're so full where we don't need another word. The mediator, his mediatorial work is so great.

We do not need another mediator. We cannot have another mediator. The work of the

Holy Spirit is on full blast. You know, in the old covenant, the work of the

Holy Spirit was very limited because the knowledge of Christ was very limited. The Holy Spirit is working and getting us to always pointing us to Christ.

But Christ was a shadow in the old covenant. So the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament saints is not to the capacity of the work of the

Spirit in the New Testament saints, given that we have a full Christ. The shadows are gone. That's another that's another thing that's different is we don't we don't need the tutor anymore.

The ceremony and the ceremonial laws are gone. So you would say that the tutor, which will get there is only the ceremonial.

Also, the laws given to Israel. We don't we don't have those anymore. Like I don't I'm not if I ever run for local.

For a town council or mayor or governor or any of that stuff, I would never say that people need to have fences on their roofs because that was something that was given to Israel.

I would promote fences around pools and that would be me taking a general equity.

Yeah. All right. So the reason why they had they had fences around their their roofs is because that's where people were.

Yeah, absolutely. Kicking back. All right. So just so people can understand the reason which, you know, like you're a

Presbyterian and you're for theonomy. Most people in your camp would not be for theonomy, but it is consistent

Presbyterianism in my view. So I would agree if I was a Presbyterian, I would probably be more of a theonomist style

Presbyterian. So just so people will understand the two views real quickly. I say that the covenant of grace is the new covenant.

It was not inaugurated in Genesis 315. Only a promise that throughout all the other covenants, those that believed in the promise would be rescued, saved, received the salvation that you and I receive under the new covenant by looking forward to Christ, but that the new covenant is distinct from the old covenant.

It is not holding hands. They have no part with one another. As you would say that they are not distinct, but the newness of the instead of a new covenant is more like a newness of the covenant, better mediator, better promises.

And you went through a lot that I just I'm not going to recite right now. So so so if you hold to what

I see as covenant theology, Baptist covenant theology, 1689 federalism, because the new covenant is not the old covenant, but it's new.

That means such as infant baptism. Right. The general equity for infant baptism,

I mean, for infant for circumcision is not infant baptism. Right. So I would say that the general if you want to speak in terms of general equity,

I would say that it's it's it's baptism for those that have been born again.

So I would say that it's the baptism is the sign, but it's not for infants.

It's for those that have been born again. I guess you can cliche say infants in the faith, but but so so we would see general equity as well.

Like we would see general equity, general principles as well, but not taking a one for one.

So we're not trying to establish the mosaic law. And and I get my standard for that from the new covenant, not from the old covenant, as you would would would say that there's a new covenant.

It's only a newness about it. I'm not I don't want to misrepresent you. So please correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, no,

I I think that the new covenant like Haps was talking yesterday when the other day when he said that there's some people that are so crazy and I was and I was listening to him and I was like, all right, what's you know, what's he going to say?

And he said in Jeremiah uses the word Kadesh and it means renew. And he's like, some people are so crazy to think it's just like a read, you know, and I was like, yeah, that's yeah, that's me.

So and he said that it changed when it became like an adjective as opposed to a verb or something.

And I don't really know about that. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess for the for the most part, my fight in this is that so many

Baptists are are falling under this camp. I got, you know, members of my church that are that have been dabbling into it.

I've been trying to fight it from the pulpit, but. That are 21st century

Baptists? No, they're they are 1689 Federalists. Falling into theonomy.

Yeah. Yeah. They're falling into the theonomy movement. But again, I was at one time three years ago,

I would have said I was a theonomist. But but then I really got to looking at it, you know, because because I hold a general equity.

But but the movement of the theonomy movement, the theonomic movement is is more than just general equity.

And I think if it's just general equity, there's no sense in making up a name for it.

Like like so I don't think Christians, churches or theology should be like rival gangs.

Right. You know, like saying I'm, you know, like if, you know, postmeal, theonomist,

Calvinist, you know, you know, like you had all these things. You see what I'm saying? They try to differentiate us from one another.

What is when you say theonomy is more than general equity? What what specifically do you mean?

Well, well, let me and Braden, please jump in any time, brother. Let me read you something and tell me if you agree with this definition.

Yes. Is that fair? So if you just Google theonomy, I just wanted to see what Google had to say.

I just put in theonomy and it says theonomy. From from Theos, God and Numos law is a hypothetical

Christian form of government, which in society is ruled by divine law.

Theonomists hold that the divine law, particularly the judicial law of the

Old Testament, should be observed by modern society. Would you agree with that? With that definition?

Yeah. Yeah. If observed doesn't mean a one to one carryover, then yeah. If observed means it should in some sense guide us for faith and practice, then yes,

I do believe that in some sense we use a judiciary law. Would you say that this is for even like the whole postmeal hope, you know,

Christianizing the nations? So would you say that this has to be even for nations that haven't been

Christianized? Like like in a way of establishing law for them to as like a a prepping for the gospel?

Yeah, I think that evangelism is going to happen on both on both ends. It's going to happen through just homegrown door knocking.

And it's going to happen through street evangelism is going to happen through local churches serving the poor. It's going to happen and we're going to make disciples of nations through regular citizens converting.

And then also through Kings. And I think that's why Paul went to Kings. Because nations,

I mean, Rome wasn't Christian when Paul was there. But Paul was like, no, I want to go talk to Caesar. I want to go talk to him.

And I think it's because Paul saw that, you know, we're going to pray for kings.

I'm going to evangelize to him too, because sometimes it just takes one king to reform and then the whole nation will follow suit.

We see that in Old Testament a couple of different times with the nation of Israel. But yeah, I do.

I think that God, Jesus Christ is going to put all enemies underneath his feet. Yeah, I think he's going to put all enemies underneath his feet.

And I think pagan countries that worship false gods are his enemies and he will put them under his feet.

And I think that he is. You and I were his enemy at one time.

Yes. And we were put under his feet through the preaching of the gospel, not by establishing a law that you and I or none of the apostles or none of the forefathers could bear.

Well, I don't I don't think you can preach the gospel without also establishing good works. Like that was one of the things that Paul talks about.

What do you mean good works? Good works that are in accordance to repentance and faith.

And how do we know it? Like by what standard is something good? And I think you go to the scripture and you look at it.

To the scripture or to the law? To Moses? Both.

Yeah. I mean, when I say scripture, I mean the whole thing, the whole counsel of God. Yeah. Well, I listen to a lot of theonomists, believe it or not.

And so when they say by what standard, for the most part, they're holding to the

Mosaic law. Like like that's the standard, because if you use the new covenant standards, we understand that that whenever Paul did preach to the king, he didn't bear.

He didn't try to get them to to to establish the moral law or or the judicial law, which would be.

That's not the first step. The first step is the conversion of the heart. Yeah, I agree. Yeah.

The first step is conversion of the heart because a king is supposed to promote good and punish evil.

Well, how do you know what's good and what's evil? You do through the Bible. Well, how can you interpret the Bible apart from the

Holy Spirit? You can't. So a king must be converted. I don't think there should be any political leaders that are not

Christian because they're supposed to promote good and punish evil. And nobody can know what that is apart from the scripture.

I agree with you about the political parties.

They got to have the Holy Spirit. So when Paul came, he came with Christ as king of kings. He died.

He buried. He rose from the grave. He has not ascended into heaven. He's been given a name above all names.

And every knee should bow. And it doesn't he doesn't say every knee, every knee will bow. But he looks at Kings and says, you are obligated to bow.

You should bow. Well, Paul does like every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

I think it's Ephesians. He says every knee, every knee should bow. Yeah, they're all.

I'm not sure if you know the verse. I might have. Yeah.

So so I definitely want to touch back on the whole idea of establishing law like like we see that in the new covenant.

I think if you like unless you have some question, a question for me on that same issue,

I think maybe we should go to some text. I want to ask you what your go to passages for it.

And then I think we need to look at the go to passage that everyone hangs on. And that is Matthew 517.

So just real fast. Let me interrupt you, Jeff, just because that just talking about going to the text and answering the question.

Jaylon Bachman just asked a question that I think it looks like she's definitely on the she would be on the

Matt's opinion. But Jaylon says, doesn't Paul hold to the

Old Testament standard of righteousness? Every sin Paul mentions that is unrighteous as a sin in the

Old Testament with a law against it. Homosexuality, murder, theft, idolatry, etc. Paul's standard in Christ.

Paul's standard is Christ. Christ kept the law. And I believe she's referring to First Corinthians chapter six.

Well, of course, I mean, because the the the precepts, the ceremonial and the judicial law comes from the moral law, the transcendent decalogue, the 10 words, the

Jews call them the 10 commandments. Right. All that comes from that.

So, of course, every bit of the judicial law is there because it's in one sense.

You can say they are doing general equity from the moral law as as these these.

I keep forgetting what what the Psalms call them. Precepts.

Yeah. Help me out if you know it. The rules of the precepts. And so so, of course, you know, of course, they're going to have that law language.

And, of course, Paul is going to be pointing to him. I mean, I point to him. But the idea that if we establish mosaic law and then the next thing you know, we're we're we're making it to where if someone's a homosexual, they're getting put in prison or being killed.

And there would be no such were some of you such were some of you take place through the new covenant.

OK, but but unless you have a question, I think we should go to some text and just. And again, if you have any question or if you

I'd like to hear the text that you would go to for me to to really consider. So so the text

I was talking about when I said should bow, that's Philippians two is when he uses the word should.

And when it comes to. You said that it ended up being where homosexuals are jailed or anything more or stone.

And you said that such would be some of you, and I think you're quoting Paul. He said he said in Second Corinthians, it would be that that portion of scripture she's talking about where he he names off a list of of sins and crimes that people were punished under the under the penal code.

And he tells the then believers that such were some of you.

But you've been washed, you've been cleansed. Well, here here is my blue collar. Only in theonomy for a couple of years now, off the cuff hot take on that is that in the law of God, you you saw lots of mercy.

And you saw lots of truth and in Ezekiel in 18 and Ezekiel 33,

God says, you know, I don't desire the death of anybody. And he says, if the wicked man repents, then he shouldn't die.

If the righteous man acts wickedness. He should the righteous man cannot count his righteousness to save him, and the wicked man would not be like put to death for his wickedness if he turns from his ways.

And he says, you know, I don't I don't desire the death of the wicked.

And so there's this sense in the law of God. You see that with Jesus, with the woman caught in adultery. One, they were wanting him to use the they were wanting him to keep the law, but they themselves weren't following the law.

They didn't bring the witnesses. And it would it would have been if Jesus would have broke the law had he just stoned her.

And so you're not going to catch him in a trap. They don't have the witnesses. And then he extends mercy. You know, he tells her to go send, you know, send no more.

And he is he allows somebody that's acting wickedness, allegedly to not be wicked.

And he doesn't he doesn't desire the death of the wicked if they if they repent. And so such were some of you that we were people who were adultery adulterers, but we repent.

And the death penalty is definitely not. The maximum of the death penalty in the in the

Old Covenant is not always does not always need to be the exact punishment.

It's the maximum, but it's not the minimum. The death penalty is not the minimum punishment. It's the maximum.

It's for the man that will not repent. It will not be faithful. So so so would you say that it would be going against his law if they do not like in Matthew?

I mean, in Exodus, Exodus, I believe it's 30 or 31 beginning in verse 12, talking about the

Sabbaths. Uh -huh. Talks about if you don't celebrate these Sabbaths, you are put to death.

And so. Do you think that that's not wise? No, I'm not saying it's wise or not wise.

Like, I agree with you that God's law is holy, that God's law is just.

But I also believe that Jesus has put an end to the penal code as well as the ceremonial law in the

New Covenant. And what he has put an end to, we should not reestablish.

And that's what I hope to show from the text. Yes. I agree. It's holy. Perfect. It's just.

You know, I deserve death. You deserve death. But we are a part of this such were some of you.

And I would I would say I just I would apologize for Jalen.

It's a he not a she. That was completely my fault. So you just never know being in 2022, almost 2023.

I apologize, though. So how I would answer something like that, though, is is if you're a member in my church and you miss so many

Lord's Day, so many Sabbath days of coming to worship with you. What I can do is as the pastor, and according to our bylaws that are even set up for us, is that you are no longer a member.

And in that sense, I've reached out to you. You are you're not a you're not in attendance to our church anymore.

I can reject you in that way. However, when extending grace goes to it, I can look at their situation and be like,

OK, well, you have this, this, this, that is going on. I'll show you grace that you are still a member, just inactive at the sense.

And when you come back, I'll welcome you back into the fold with open arms. However, if if somebody on the street, they're unregenerate,

I don't have any hold over them. I don't see how the Sabbath day, though it is right for them to come worship

God on Sabbath days. I don't see how that they can worship God without a regenerate heart on the

Lord's Day. It would be superficial. It'd be fierce, a pharisaical in the sense that they're just coming to the fill law without the heart that's actually honoring and worshiping

God. It actually goes back to the question he asked last week. Should the government for you ask the question, man.

So if I say it wrong, please let me know. But should the government force the first part of the deck log?

And then my answer was no. And I gave an explanation. But but that kind of goes with what you're asking there.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I do see, Brayden, where, you know, that's your sphere.

You have the ecclesiastical sphere, but you're not you're not in the civil sphere. But I do. I do hope that one day we are so reformed as a nation that has surrendered to the crown rights of Jesus Christ and the authority of Jesus Christ, where our government will promote the worship of its people to enter in that to that ecclesiastical sphere and be ministered by the be ministered with the gospel by you, by you guys.

So would you say that you would want that one to be a one for one? The death penalty for people that are

Sabbath breakers? Yeah. Or or just doing what we did as as having general equity. I'm sorry.

Or from what like how Brayden explained his position would be a general equity idea of it.

Yeah. And even more so just in the context of the church. Yeah. Go ahead, Brayden.

No, sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. My understanding of the general equity, how I would apply that is

I would have it would be for people that are basically have the middle finger in the air.

They're complete mockers. They are not repentant. You know, they're missing two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine months, one year.

And they are they are just unrepentant heathens that mock the one true and living

God. Not somebody who says, I believe every day is holy unto the

Lord, as Paul says in Romans four or 14, where he allows freedom of conscience there.

So those people are trying to are wanting to serve the Lord. They just believe that the

Sabbath is every day and those people should not be put to death. They are they are fulfilling what they believe that their conscience is leading them to worship the one true and living

God. Somebody that holds one day holy. They shouldn't be put to death because they don't see every day as holy.

You know, so I think there's a freedom of conscience there. The law has a lot of mercy in it. It's it's like the the

Sabbath breaker that was picking up sticks. You know, I don't think he he he like woke up and, you know, sometimes when

I was a kid, I'd wake up on Saturday morning, get ready for school. And then I'd be waiting for the bus and no bus was there because I got mixed up on my days.

So it's not like this guy got mixed up on his days and made a mistake and was like, man, I'm really sorry.

I mean, this is a guy that says you suckers over here can just sit here and not gather food, but I'm going to be gathering me some food.

Watch this. Watch me get tons of food. Watch me get lots of sticks. And that that kind of mockery,

I don't think should be tolerated. If you're a righteous king, somebody that is going to promote good, punish evil.

I think it is your obligation underneath the crown rights of Jesus Christ to to enforce that.

So he wouldn't be such for some of you. If he's not repentant.

Yeah. I mean, it's just like a pedophile. I'm going to I'm going to continue to to abuse children.

I don't care what your God says. He should be. Well, now you're getting into what

I would call crimes. Yeah, crimes. And I think that's not not worshipping, not going to church on Sunday and mocking the

Lord. It's going against the the decalogue. It's going against the first table of the law.

I think I think, yeah, those would be crimes. But I would also say, I think going to church on Sunday as an unregenerate, unrepentant person that is going to just obey the law.

Breaking the Sabbath. That is breaking the Sabbath as well. Yeah, there are there are different forms of it.

You know, there's always like it's like adultery and looking at a woman and actually committing adultery.

You know, you're not going to be put to death for the siege form of adultery, but you will be full, full, full force oak trees that are unrepentant should be cut down.

But somebody. So would you say the adultery, if you got two willing people coming together, cheating on their spouses, coming together and committing adultery, would you see that as a sin or a crime?

That's a crime and that's both. Yeah. So where would you see that as a crime?

I mean, I have it as has a law. We should use that general equity to have our own law. So like some things won't carry over like like fences on a roof.

But some things do carry over like don't murder, don't commit adultery. Yeah, well, murder, murder and adultery is one thing.

So so so since we're talking about a sex crime, let's let's put a sex crime with it.

So if you have two people coming together there, they're cheating on their spouses, which is awful. OK, we do not promote this, but they're coming together, you know, to to a man and a woman.

They agreed to come together and have an adulterous relationship versus a man seeing a woman.

And he forces himself on to her because that would be more of a crime in my book because the one party was not willing.

OK, so let me ask you this. In the Old Testament, do people die for adultery? Yes. OK. Is it because they sinned or because they committed a crime?

Well, I think it's because they committed a crime. I would definitely have to look at it.

I don't want to answer presumptually and and be unfair to the scripture. But I would say

I would I wouldn't see that as a crime today. Now, that's without me looking into that specific area.

You see what I'm saying? I guess. But I do see rape, murder because you're doing something to someone that doesn't want that something done to them.

That's what that's what adultery is. It does something to the children that they do not want done. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It definitely hurts.

It hurts people. But it's not the taking of one's life or the taking of, you know, because I was nabbed when

I was 11 and molested. You know, something was taken from me that I did not give away.

And so and you know, and I ended up I got PTSD over it. And, you know, like like it's messed up a great portion of my life.

You know, just in the last five years, has God been restoring what the locust has eaten?

You know, I now you know, like I had all this biblical knowledge that I couldn't let I couldn't speak about it.

Like I was just so timid. I couldn't have conversations with people. I ran away from so many churches and people in my life just because I did not know how to fight using my mouth.

So in PTSD, you have what's called fight or flight, fight or flight. And I was and as a gangbanger,

I was good at fighting with my fist. When I become a Christian, I can no longer use this. I use my feet and would run away from everything.

And but over the last five, six years, God has been God has restored me. And so I now can have these conversations and I'm not looking to run away from anything.

But yeah, I mean, something was taken from me and that was a crime. You know, the guy got 90 years.

So, yeah, I'm sorry about that, Jeff. And yeah, I think that the man, you know, especially unrepentant, there should be there should be penalties.

And where do you where do you understand what a just penalty is? And I think that's where you go to the scriptures. I don't just think that the scriptures teach what just laws are.

I think they also teach us how what a just penalty is, because you can have just laws, but not have just penalties.

And then, you know, you got a whole you create a monster of a civil sphere. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe the law is just and I believe the penalty is just.

My argument would be from the scriptures that I believe it was taken away, that it's not that that that just law and just penalty is not instituted in the new covenant is.

And so that's what we want to look to the scriptures of the New Testament. Do you believe that the law is summarized by love,

Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? Yeah. And I would see that in the in the two tablets, the 10 words, the two tables, the first table pointing to our duty to God.

And that's fulfilled by believing in the name of the son, Jesus Christ. First, John chapter three, verse twenty three.

And then the last table is fulfilled by loving our neighbor. We love our neighbor two ways.

One, we've got the fruit of the spirit. We're to be love, joy, peace, patience, like like we're to show the fruits of the spirit to our neighbor.

And if they harm us in any way, sin against us, we are to be forgiven.

And so and and if our neighbor that's and if I like if we're

Christian brothers, if I do something, if I sin against you, I confess that you are to be forgiven to me.

And so the two ways we're to display the fruits of the spirit and we are to be forgiven because we are human.

We are going to let each other down. Right. And so those are the two ways that we established the first table, believing in the name of the son,

Jesus Christ. And the second table, we love our our neighbors. And we do that by those two ways, the fruits of the spirit and being forgiveness.

So being forgiven. We know what love is by the moral law of God. Yeah. OK.

The more that with them, with the moral law of God. Do you believe that the judicial law was an expression of the moral law of God?

Absolutely. I said that earlier. Yeah. And the ceremonial and the ceremonial. So there's morality mixed in the law and then ceremonial law.

Absolutely. And so what we do as Christians in the new covenant is we I think we come through the ceremonial laws.

We come through the judicial laws and we pull out the morality that it teaches. And I think that we should apply it to our life today.

I agree. OK. Yeah. So all I'm saying is I hold a general equity. Yes. In the civil sphere, they pull out the morality.

And I think that they should they should enforce it. Well, but that's where the problem is, because although I do believe in general equity,

I don't have to just ask the question. Brayden, would you look over the question while I answer this?

So while I do believe it's holy, it's good and we use it, but I don't believe that that establishing that is what we're called to do.

Nor do I believe that establishing that is is what's going to purify the world.

Right. Because it did not purify the Jews themselves. They were they had the law and they could not keep it.

They had the law. And under that law, I mean, like like we were talking earlier about Paul preaching to.

I can't remember his name. And that's to Kings, right?

Yeah. Yeah. To a grip of Paul's preaching to him the gospel. He's not preaching to him the law. The only time that we see anyone trying to get

Rome to establish the law is the Jews dealing with the crucifixion of Jesus.

You see, under the judicial law, Jesus was put to death under the mosaic ball by the false witness of two or three.

OK, Jesus, they said Jesus was a blasphemer. They had two or three witnesses. So they went to put him to death and they were trying to get

Rome, which which they did to to execute their death penalty. The Christians, you'll never see the

Christians doing that in Rome. They're not trying to get to establish the mosaic law. But what they are doing is preaching

Jesus Christ as Lord, which implies a way to live.

Yeah, absolutely. But I'm sorry.

In the way to live, there's different spheres that you live. One way that I live is I live in this house right here.

And so I'm a father. And so the scriptures teach me how to be a father in that familial sphere. It also teaches me how to live as a

Christian in the ecclesiastical sphere. I think the scriptures also teach how to live in the civil sphere.

And with the civil sphere comes a new jurisdiction. It comes new leaders.

And I think these leaders are established by God. They are God's deacons. They are God's servants.

I don't think that God created governments and wanted nothing to do with them. I think he wants very much so to do with the governments and where he even gave them.

He wrote the law of God on everybody's heart, the Ten Commandments. I would disagree with that.

I don't believe that the Ten Commandments are written on everyone's heart. I would say that everyone has a knowledge, a conscience, a knowledge of the

Ten Commandments. It's kind of like Moses. I mean, I said Moses, forgive me,

Moses. But Hitler knew that it was wrong to lie still.

Forgive me, Moses. Hitler knew it was wrong to lie, steal, kill, and all this other stuff. He didn't think it was wrong if he did these things.

Moses, it's going to extend some judicial law on you, brother. But if he was to do these things to Hitler, he was like, you lie to me?

You're going to die. He knew that was wrong. But only the believers in the New Covenant have the law in their heart.

So you're saying that they wrote it on their minds, but not wrote it on their heart. Yes. So everyone has a conscience.

So conscience is conscience. Everything that we do, we do it with knowledge. We know there's a

God. Creation declares His glory. And we know that it's wrong to hate or to not love our neighbors, to treat our neighbors as enemies.

In the sense that, you know, lying, stealing, all this other stuff. Like I used to,

I'd be street preaching or whatever downtown Nashville, and I would make a point to say, like, if I saw a group of guys coming by with their girlfriends, and if I was talking about how depraved men were,

I would say something. Sir, if you knew the thoughts that your friends were thinking about your girlfriend, you would stop right now, turn around and punch them in the face, because that's just how evil men can be, right?

I mean, your best friends could be desiring something from your woman, but you never know that because we don't read their mind.

But that friend knows that. We are depraved, depraved, depraved. We deserve death.

But again, my argument from Scripture is that that judicial law and those ceremonial laws are abrogated.

They are. They're abrogated. But I think the general equity still has to be—it's still obligated to be kept by the civil sphere.

Just because, one, the nation of Israel got demolished in AD 70,

I don't think that that also means that the moral law of God is demolished in the civil sphere.

I think that the moral law of God was given to governments, like you said, to curb sin, and it should be promoted in all governments across the entire globe.

I absolutely agree. But when it comes to the idea of how to—I don't want to make up words, but I don't know what else to say—how to generalize the equity, right?

How to establish this, because there's no consistency, right? There's no consent. Certain things are easy.

Murder, you die. If you commit murder, if you shed man's blood, by man your blood will be shed.

That's an easy one that all governments should just go to, capital punishment for anybody that commits murder.

Adultery. Let's go to adultery. Okay, adultery. I think that that is also an easy one. Adultery is committed, and it tells us what the most just penalty for— if there was a more just penalty for adultery, it would have been in the

Old Testament. But there was no—that is the best penalty for it. That's why

God gave it. God didn't give a second -hand penalty for adultery. I think he gave the best one, and it should be—

But again, you quoted from John earlier. Jesus did not stone the woman, nor did the man there.

And plus, Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, speaking of the guy that's having sexual relations with his stepmother, the general equity was not to kill him because he was committing adultery, but it was to remove him from the church.

And he was telling them that you're not even to eat with such a one. So theologians believe that chapter 5 of 2

Corinthians is Paul telling them to welcome him back into the church because he has repented.

So there has to be grace even in our general equity. So I do think—I think that you need to give the people the opportunity to repent because God doesn't desire the death of anybody.

And then two, it's not—I don't think—I don't believe that it was the sphere of Christ at that time.

And I don't think it was a sphere of Paul. Like, they were in the ecclesiastical sphere. They weren't in the civil sphere.

They weren't civil rulers. And so the power of the sword was neither in Christ's hand nor was it in Paul's hand.

So the church is never in that civil sphere. We're not to judge those outside the church.

Our judgment inside the church is excommunication, church discipline. Like if you're at a church that practices church discipline, they are what's called—they're a practice in general equity.

Yeah, I don't think that Paul or Christ had the civil authority to be able to put anybody to death, and that's why they didn't advocate for it.

But Paul does advocate and acts, I think it's 24, 25, 26, somewhere, where he tells them, like, look, if I did anything deserving to death, put me to death.

So would you agree with a T -shirt slogan that I heard that said, Moses over Marx?

What does that mean? I prefer the law of God over communism? Basically.

Yeah, I agree with that because communism has vacant— communism has vacant gate, no property rights.

But the law of God, the Decalogue says, thou shalt not steal, and that implies property rights.

Yeah, so I would say Christ over Moses. Now, that's how

I'm looking at things. When you get Christ, you get Moses. Well, Moses—the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Moses was building a house as a servant. Jesus came and built it as a saint. And so there's this comparison between the two, right?

Moses was a greater—Jesus is a greater Moses. He's a greater Adam. Now, we're almost in this, so an hour now, and I'm really a text guy.

So let's—so the—and again, anytime you want to ask any questions, just ask it. But the main text that's used by theonomists, which comes from a verse that Bonson used, was

Matthew 5, verse 17. If you want to turn there,

I'll give you a second before I read it. Matthew 5? Yeah, Matthew 5, verse 17.

I want to ask you something about what Bonson—you said pronomia? Pronomia? Yes.

Would you consider yourself pronomian? No, not in the sense that people—again, so let's just look at the word theonomy.

And you've heard me say this, right? I just don't—theonomy, theos, numos, God's law.

Like, I think that's good. Like, you know, it's a good word. But I think it's been turned into something that I don't represent.

I love God's law. I'm for—I read the

Psalms. I'm with David. I meditate on your law day and night. But I want to teach it correctly under the new covenant.

I'm for God's law. I'm pro God's law. But what they've turned it into,

I'm not for. Absolutely not for. As a matter of fact—go ahead. Pronomian, but not in the way that somebody turned that phrase into something?

It's the same thing with theonomy. Like, I want to say that I'm a theonomist because it means God's law.

But it's like the word gay. You know, gay does not mean happy in our area now, right?

But the initial definition of gay was happy, not homosexual.

But you said that there was two different—you said the opposite of antinomianism— Is pronomian. The opposite of theonomy is not antinomianism, but the opposite of antinomianism is pronomianism.

And you said theonomy doesn't need to be in the conversation. So you give us the two options, antinomian or pronomian.

Pronomian. And you would be pronomian, but not in whatever term that it might—

I don't think he was using it as a true dichotomy. I think what he was speaking of was that it was just on one end it would be pronomianism, and the other end would be antinomianism.

Yeah, so the movement of pronomianism is the establishment of all the Mosaic law, like ceremonial, judicial—

Is that what Bonson says? No, that's the movement that's out right now. Oh, okay. I don't know.

I think Bonson is— Bonson says that the ceremonial—he doesn't consider the ceremonial part of it because of Acts 10, where Peter has that dream.

But, of course, he's using the New Testament to make that interpretation. And I say, well, that's not fair because you won't do that when it comes to the judicial law.

And that's what I want to look at. It's that idea that he'll do that for the ceremonial, but he won't do that for the judicial.

The New Testament is clear that the judicial law is put away. It's done away. I think some of the confusion might be that it might seem like I want the whole judicial law, but I don't.

I will do a one -to -one carryover if something's super easy to see. But if something's a little bit more like don't boil a goat in its mother's milk,

I think that there's a moral equity being taught there. You're not supposed to use something that's supposed to nurture somebody and use it to kill them.

So I would equate that to the school system. I have no problem if somebody got up there at the town council meeting and said, stop with the

CRT in the school system. You're not supposed to boil a goat in its mother's milk. You're not supposed to use something like an education system that's supposed to build up people and use it to kill them.

And so I think that like but I'm not going to have that type of law. But maybe I mean, but I'm not I'm not going to stop somebody if they do want to say, hey, by the way, in the state of Tennessee, we're not going to be boiling goats in its mother's milk.

All right. That's fine. You know, because it does teach a principle. And this is like taking the birds and whatnot.

You know, you were you were allowed to take the eggs, but you couldn't take the mother because they wanted to promote life. And so you could take the you could take the eggs.

But if you take the mother, there's not going to be any more eggs. So you couldn't take the mother, but you could take the eggs. And, you know, so I think that's the general equity that you should be looking for and trying to apply that in your civil sphere.

So the mayor should get up there and say, well, I see this right here about not boiling a goat in its mother's milk.

You know what? I'm making a law today. They will not teach homosexuality and promote it in the schools with the

LGBT sex education class. It's not going to happen because of the general equity that I'm seeing in that law.

And I would applaud that. OK, because I'm again, I'm for general equity.

Yeah, but I'm not for the establishment hook, line and sinker of the mosaic law. Like I'm not for putting to death adulterers.

OK, because such was some of me. I was all right, which

I may be dishonest. We all are. But you were repentant.

You were repentant. That's the key. Absolutely. Is it that's why there's mercy there. But you were repentant.

But what if I didn't repent soon enough? You if you're given that would still be not such with some of you again, like if you're given the opportunity and you refuse to do it.

And that's what Calvin was doing was surveyed us. I mean, he was writing the guy letters, going and seeing him. He was telling him, look, stop doing this.

You got the same thing. Like with the Baptists who were being drowned to death because they wouldn't stop believing in believers baptism.

That's what I'm saying. Like if you ever watched that movie, The Book of Eli, that the enemy there, all he wanted was to get his hands on the

Bible so he can use God's law to pervert a nation. And it can very well be done.

That doesn't mean that God's law shouldn't be advocated for. It just means that people did it wrong. Well, I know you get it in the hands of the wrong man.

But that's what I was saying in that last video. There's no consensus of what it really general equity.

There's no consensus of it. Like I mentioned Calvinism. Like if I say Calvinism, you know that I'm talking about the tulip.

The five points, like there's something that is written down consistent.

If I say general equity, there's nothing like no one has done the paperwork to say that this is what it is.

And I'm not saying that it should be me. I said, I think a lot of people done the paperwork.

Oh, yeah. Like Gary North. You got Gary North. You got all these other guys that I definitely don't agree with.

Yeah. The key is, I think, freedom of conscience. We wanted to push like all God's truth matters, but doesn't equally matter.

And so they might have been trying to put a camel through the eye of a needle, you know, pushing too much stuff. And it just they should have kept this.

Like I think that the federal law should just be acknowledge Jesus Christ and his crown rights. Then the state laws can be like, well, we're going to be

Presbyterian. We're going to be Baptist. We're going to be Anglican. We're going to be Methodist. We're going to be, you know, you say it, you know.

And if you don't like it, you can go to a different you can go to a different state. But you don't have to you don't have to force a mode of baptism at the federal law.

Like you got to give people freedom of conscience here. That's one area I was going to talk with about was is with trying to keep civil and church distinct in some regards.

How can that be distinct when there is that judicial law that says if you are a Sabbath breaker, you're to be put to death?

Because then now that's therefore the civil is overreaching into church. And my reason

I ask that is I had a great conversation today with some some Lutheran brothers of ours who hold to a very different view.

It within Lord's Day's signs and and and expressions with the

Lord's table and baptism and so on and so forth. So how how can I be a Baptist? And and there's a

Lutheran church down the street that does something completely different. And if I think that they're violating the Lord's Day because I think that they are inappropriately doing something that I think is wrong.

How does that work now? Because now we have a civil government that we're bending

God's word at this point. I think that I think the what Paul teaches in Romans 14 is really good about freedom of conscience.

You got to give people grace and mercy. You got to let people work things out. You don't need to ever force a denomination.

We're supposed to make disciples of nation and promote that Jesus Christ and his authority and his lordship.

So if somebody has Jesus Christ as their Lord, we can't be their conscience. You know, he's he is lord of the conscience.

Ideally, I wouldn't mind it at all. If you had different states with different denominations or maybe broke it down even more where it was different towns or different counties with different denominations.

And give that give the people that the freedom that they need, that freedom that's in Christ. The Christ does allow this type of freedom.

That's why he talks about that. I mean, this is the Sabbath we're talking about. He's not talking about a minute detail of a denomination.

He's talking about one of the Big Ten. And even Paul is going, we give conscience here. And he's talking about something on the

Big Ten. So we definitely don't do a good job as Christians in America to give people freedom of conscience.

If you go one for one in Exodus where I was talking about, it wasn't a conscience and it wasn't what

I consider every day. Holy. It was the Sabbath day. Right.

I mean, there was a particular day that that this not working was was carried out.

Yeah. But in the new covenant, Christ comes and there is a little bit of a disagreement on what the new

Lord's Day looks like. Right. Right. But but if you use in the new covenant, that's what

I want to use to establish. My argument is the new covenant that that the judicial and ceremonial laws are abrogated.

And they're not that the Lord's Day went from the last day of the week to the first day of the week.

Right. It's not a hill that I would die on, but I worship on the

Lord's Day. And I see in Scripture that they're worshiping on the Lord's Day. I would say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, I hold to that, but that's not one. But, you know, like like I wouldn't not be friends with someone or have fellowship with someone that that, you know, that that was, you know.

So I don't want to use the seventh day Adventist as because they're they're a cult.

Right. But but but if you had someone that was, you know, like some reform Baptist or some

Presbyterians who said, you know, we see that it's going to be on. Saturday and, you know, they had the right view of the gospel, the right view of God, and they started having services on Saturday.

I would not in any way be protesting against them or something like that. We can have fellowship, hang out, do street preaching and stuff like that together.

Yeah. But do I think that they're violating the Lord's Day? Yes. Because my opinion of Scripture tells me so.

So therefore, how does that work in the civil code? Now, who who is who is obligated at that point to maintain that people are keeping the

Lord's Day? Because I'm saying they're not keeping the Lord's Day. But that's but the

Bible gives you two different views on the Lord's Day. It's going to it gives you the the the conscience, the freedom to hold either way.

Are you taking from us 14 in that in that area? Yeah. Now, like I said, if you're a complete mockery and you you know, you say every day is my day.

Every day is my day. You know, you're going to be called to repentance. And if you don't,

I think you should be tried and prosecuted. Stoned. I don't know if it's maybe something else.

I don't I mean, the death penalty is a possibility, but it's not. I don't think it's the it's the immediate first and minimum thing that you do.

You could do it. Maybe a sentence for, you know, a different type of sentence for a while.

Still no repentance. And then if it bring if the man brings the death penalty on himself, then he has brought it on himself.

But I think there's a lot of mercy and a lot of grace, a lot of calling to repentance, a lot of preaching of the gospel to that man.

It should not be immediate. You know, pull out that well -polished stone out of your cloak and start trying.

I don't think that's the way it should be. Right. Yeah. So to answer,

Jaylen, just just to give you my thought on that. If somebody says they're a three point Calvinist, they never refer to them as a

Calvinist. They always refer to themselves as a three pointer. Right. If Jeff says there's no such thing as a three point

Calvinist. Yeah, that's not true. Yeah, but but you get what I'm saying, though, that at three point Calvinist never refers to them as a

Calvinist. I even talked to a Lutheran today that says I am not a Calvinist, but I hold to the four points of Calvinism, dropping the

L because it's Christmas season, Noel. And so he doesn't know the perseverance of the saints either if he's a

Lutheran. OK, fair enough. But you know where I'm going with this is that if somebody says they're a Calvinist, that means that they're they're more than likely going to be a five point

Calvinist. Yeah. Yeah. I'm a Calvinist. OK. Like in the sense of satirology.

Right. Calvin Stotis, Kids Baptist. I'm messing with you. Well, he didn't really have a kid to live, so.

But he would have. He would have. Anyways, I would really like to look at this text if we can.

I don't know how much longer you got. I'm fine. OK. My kids are in bed. We've read the Bible.

They're in bed. Well, I do love that. I absolutely love that about you, brother.

I love that you love your wife. You love your kids. And I see that over Facebook, you know, the things that you do.

And I don't like it when you talk about Baptists, though. Those are only for you. Jump through the screen.

Well, well, hopefully you'll feel more comfortable and we can come back on here and have a have that conversation in the future.

Because, I mean, I hope, you know, like I do love you. I see your brother. Same. Same. Same here.

OK. All right. So you guys, too. Yeah. I already know you have watched so many of these podcasts.

I didn't want to come on unless you were on, Brayden. I don't blame him.

I mean, have you seen the mustache? Yeah. Mustache is good. All right.

So chapter five of Matthew, verse 17. Like this is this thing to be the key verse that Bonson led out with.

It says, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.

I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

So the Greek word here for fulfill, Bonson translates as complete.

It's the Greek word palero. I think I'm saying that right. I have bad English. I got really bad

Greek palero. But but Bonson says that this he translates it as complete, that he did not come to abolish the law, but to complete the law.

Now, if that's true, that's the only place where this word is used. It's translated that way.

Every other place in the New Testament, I think it's like 14 times just in this gospel. It's translated as fulfill, not to complete.

But if you look at the Greek, it can mean to confirm, to complete. But but it's never translated that way.

And so. I'm taking the initiative and I'm saying so like we all love

Jeff Durbin, right? So Jeff Durbin, if you listen to his preaching on.

On Matthew 24. So I'm so sorry, verse 13 again, and I'm a reverse 18.

I mean, verse 17 and 18. Do not think that I've come to abolish the law. So Jeff would say that this right here is he's saying that do not even think to think.

Do not even begin to think that I've come to abolish the law of the prophets. I did not come to abolish them, but to fill them for truly.

I say to you, until heaven and earth passes away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law until it is accomplished.

Now, in Jeff Durbin's sermon on Matthew 24, it speaks about heaven and earth passing away there also.

And he would say that the heaven and earth is, which is the interpretation I hold to, is

Jerusalem. When Jerusalem was demolished, the temple fell 70

AD. That's when heaven and earth passed away. But I'm not sure if he takes the same interpretation.

I try to find the sermon on this verse. I can't find it. I'm not sure if he takes that same interpretation here.

If he does, which he should, if he was consistent, then heaven and earth has passed away.

Right. And if you say that the the ceremonial law is no more, then you have to say that the law has been abolished because the smallest stroke and letter.

He says not even the smallest stroke or letter, but the ceremonial law is more than a stroke or letter.

Now, if you look over here at a at Ephesians chapter two. It's in verse 15, but I'll read verse 14.

It says for he himself, speaking of Christ, is our peace, who made both the groups, the groups are

Jew and Gentile, one and broke down the divide and wall of a partition by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that he himself might create the two.

The two contained in ordinance so that he might create the I'm sorry, the two into one new man making peace.

So here it tells us that Jesus, through his flesh, through his death, has abolished the law.

Not the moral law, not the moral law, but the judicial and ceremonial law has been abolished.

I agree. All right. But you're trying you're saying we should resurrect. I mean, because I read this quote earlier.

Theonomy from Theos, God and Numos law is a hypothetical

Christian form of government in which society is ruled by the divine law.

Theonomists hold that the divine law, particularly the judicial law of the Old Testament, should be observed by modern society.

Yeah, it should be observed. Like how can how can a man make his way pure? You know, how can how can I know what's good?

I can know what's good by reading the scriptures. And then I pull out the general equity and then I use the general equity to establish laws that pertain to Smyrna, Tennessee.

Yeah. So I would say that's true for the church. I wouldn't say that that non -Christian governments are to do these things.

But there's but you don't I don't believe I don't know if this what you meant, but I do believe that governments are supposed to be

Christian. I do too. I do too. So if I think there's a particular way that they are made

Christians and it's through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yeah. Not by establishing law.

Yeah, but that's the goal. Like what do you what do you want Christians to do whenever they do get in government? Do you want them to establish good laws?

Yeah, but I don't want them to establish something that Jesus has tore down the dividing wall of hostility.

Well, I don't think you should. Yeah, you shouldn't establish. You shouldn't just pull it out and say we're going to follow letter for letter the

Torah. Again, I heard a theonomist today, a reformed theonomist today says that that you don't need a government paper about law.

All you need is the first five books of Moses. I don't know. For me, that's an incomplete.

I might be wrong. You know, I am what I am. I am new into this theonomy.

I've only been wrestling with this for like three, four years now. So I'm I'm you know,

I'm not one of the the guys in the 80s or 90s that really picked through the law. But I would see that as an incomplete statement.

Like you do need the books of the Bible, but you pull out the general equity. Yeah. And some things are

I think are super simple. I would say adultery. You know, we have a just penalty for that murder.

We have a just penalty for that. Blaspheming like someone uses the Lord's name in vain.

We just stone them, right? Unrepentant and saying, no, I am going to use the

Lord's name in vain. I'm going my whole my whole life. I want vanity. I don't want anything to do with this.

Curse God. Curse God. The person shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, you don't immediately go to them.

This is this is a really this is a genuine question that comes from Scott, and I'll play it off on my own experience.

Would you read the question? Yeah. So let me read it first. Who and how would true repentance be confirmed and discerned of judicial actions as contingent on repentance?

You alone know, know the heart, hearts of all the sons of men. If you go to the top right of your screen,

I don't know if you've already seen and you click comments. You can read along right there. So if if I was

LDS for 19 years and I was firm to be LDS, I was blaspheming God for 19 years.

I think we could all say amen and agreed that I was sinning against God for my thinking. I could become like him.

Right. Right. But you when should I have been put to death for 19 years?

I've been put to death when I was seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Or should we have waited 20 years to see if I was going to become a Christian? And how does that repentance play out?

Is I think how this guy is asking it, how do we discern and know what repentance even is? I think we know what repentance is by the fruit.

Bare fruit worthy of repentance. Yeah. Very fruit worthy of repentance. You know, so should

I have been put to death zero to 19? By Joe Schmo on the street?

No. But by, you know, a civil leader that has the actual authority and the laws, the the power vested in them by the by Jesus Christ.

And the law is established in the land. Like, I don't think you can come out today and do it. I'm against that.

If the governor of Tennessee said we are establishing general equity and we are going to kill blasphemers starting now.

I think that's a terrible idea. I do not think you need to do that. I think that there is a kingdom of heaven is like leaven in a lump of bread and it takes time.

And you've got to bring everybody to it. There needs to be a lot of explanation. There has to be a lot of pastors on board promoting godliness.

You need to have fathers teaching it to their children. You need to have corporations that have turned their heart in such a way to where they're like shutting down on the

Sabbath day. And then when you when you have this this base, when you have this established, then you can promote those things.

But I think that everything's got to take got to be in steps. To go back and say,

I'm not too sure how old you are, Braden, but let's say you said the first 19 years of your life.

Let's say that was 10 years ago or something like that or 15 years ago. 15 years ago, no,

I think that would be a bad decision to start putting people to death that are of other religions.

That should not be the case immediately. So if in a thousand years from now, let's say post -millennialism, this snowball is continuing on, it's becoming a larger and larger snowball, right?

And let's say now LDS religion is a fringe, a hidden society in the sense that they're hiding underground from the

Christian government. That is now with Christian leaders. Should Christian leaders that are kings and governors in our society.

They find out that 10 -year -old Braden, and this is all hypothetical, but 10 -year -old

Braden is LDS. He has a firm testimony. And I'll tell you right now that there was no law, no nothing that would have ever brought me out of the

LDS church. So I would tell you right now, 10 -year -old Braden would be unrepentant. What are they obligated to do?

Well, one, I'm very glad at the mercy of God because God might change in this hypothetical situation.

Absolutely. This is taking you down a rabbit trail and I don't want to do that. No, it's okay. He might change 10 -year -old

Braden's heart. Maybe, maybe not. But if Braden doesn't, he's going to be underneath the authority of his father.

He doesn't need to pay for the sins of his father. And so at that moment, I'm not too sure on what you would do with 10 -year -old

Braden. But I don't think, do you think it's unjust for blasphemers to be put to death?

No. Okay. So then it's not, then it's not a bad answer for me to say they should be because it's not unjust.

I would say that they shouldn't be, but the, yeah. If it's just, then it's righteous.

Well, it is righteous. It is just, but the standard that I'm seeing things is different than your standard.

I'm seeing things under a new covenant, not two covenants attached to each other.

And I would see that God is the one that's going to judge the outsiders. Yeah. So the punishment now is body and soul thrown into hell.

Does he use the civil sphere to punish people? Yes, absolutely. Old covenant, it was, it was the, do not fear those who can destroy the body.

Old covenant system was, could only destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.

The greater judgment, and that's what Hebrews chapter two is pointing out. Chapter two, verse two.

Let me turn there real quick, which I had a different reason for looking at it earlier.

Hebrews two, verse two, it says, how will, how will we escape? Chapter three.

Is that what you're saying? No, no, no. It's two, chapter two, verse two and three. If the word spoken through angels provided unalterable and every trespass and disobedience received a just penalty, right?

You're talking about a just penalty, the law of Moses. How will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

That salvation first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard.

So new covenant, the greater law is not receiving this salvation of what

Jesus Christ has done. And as you get into, as you get into verse five, it actually explains that more.

But, but, but, but I can say with the writer that it was just, it was good, but it's not under the new covenant.

So in Galatians three, it says that the law, and it's speaking about. It's actually speaking about the two tablets that were handed down to Moses from angels.

It says that that was only until Christ. The judicial.

Yes. Because it comes out of the two tablets, the general equity out of the judicial and saying, well, but why don't you pull the general equity out of the.

Okay. Let me ask you this question. I think this will be my main question.

I would, I would like to ask. We got to ask that question here in a moment.

What if the Jews, so, so they don't have a temple, but what if they decided to build a tabernacle and establish the ordinances and sacrifices?

The Jewish people, the Jewish people. Yeah. What standard would you use to protest against that?

I want you to know that you cannot use, you cannot use the new covenant. Why? Because you're not allowing the new covenant for the judicial.

I'm using the whole scripture. The argument of by what standard, the argument of by what standard is

Moses. Well, the moral law. You can't use Moses. No, the moral law carries over. The ceremony in the judicial has been abolished, right?

And so. But all they're doing is general equity. They're pronomia. They're trying to establish God's law.

No, it's not general equity. To sacrifice bulls and goats. It's a one for one. It's a one for one.

Yeah, well, I don't believe in one for one. To sacrifice blood. But you do when it comes to adultery. The penal code for murder.

Because that's a moral law. That's not, that's not. By what standard do you use for that? The moral law, the

Ten Commandments. All right. So why can't you use that same moral law to argue against ceremonial?

Well, because the ceremonial and the judicial is an expression of the moral. The types and shadows have been stripped down in the

New Covenant. The writer in Hebrews tells us very clearly that we are not to erect that temple anymore.

There's not going to be another priesthood. And so it's very, very clear. But I just read to you and you agreed that the law, the judicial law was taken away too.

It was. It was. That's why they don't need to do it. That's why you would tell the people that are

Jewish and they're establishing it. You go, hey, we don't do this anymore. It's prescribed to us in the New Covenant that we don't do this anymore.

I see a lot of inconsistency there when it comes to those that are trying to establish the judicial law versus trying to establish the ceremonial.

I'm not trying to. The reform pronomians are doing both. They want both. When I say judicial law, if I'm establishing judicial law,

I mean a Smyrna, Tennessee judicial law that is based on the general equity found in the Old Testament law of God and in the

New Testament law of God, the whole thing. When you say judicial law, I'm not.

It sounds like you're saying the trying to. Penal code. I'm trying to say the penal code. Yeah.

I'm not trying to erect it one for one. I'm trying to take. But you are on certain things, right?

Yeah. Sabbath, Sabbath. Blasphemers. Blasphemers. Because we still have that stuff.

But the stuff that pertains to the nation of Israel that we no longer have, we no longer have those laws. But the things that we do still have, we should we should promote those things.

And. But. But. But. But again, Paul does not stone the guy. Jesus does not stone the woman.

Jesus says, if someone slaps you on your cheek, turn to him the other. Don't in turn slap him.

And to answer this person, Jaylen, I hope I got your name right. Please. I didn't. If you watch last week's message, you will know that I was strongly promoting that very idea that the that the transcendent law, the moral law was a good.

We see that in Genesis. Like that was before Moses. It was written down with Moses, but it was before Moses.

Adam knew it was wrong to lie, steal, kill and so on and so forth. When they were killed, Abel, he had the law in his conscience.

He knew that it was wrong. He said, do you think God created governments after the flood?

Well, I believe God is sovereign. So I believe I believe if I fall down right now, it was predetermined.

He established he established the church. Right. We believe that God instituted the church.

Correct. We believe that God instituted the family in Genesis. Correct. Do you believe that God instituted the civil sphere in Genesis?

That's what you're asking. Yeah. After the flood that he because before the flood, there was banishment.

But after the flood, God says, we're not doing that anymore. Right. The whole set of wicked people. We're going to actually have.

Yeah. I mean, I would have to say yes. OK. If you push me to it, I have to say yes.

Governments are still in existence today. Correct. Does God want something to do with them or does he allow them to just be neutral?

No, no. I believe he does. But but I believe the prescription of which that takes place is through the preaching of the gospel, baptizing disciples.

Are you saying that the civil sphere should never put the death and murder? No, I'm not saying that at all.

OK, so by what standard do they put them to death? Because you gave me two examples where nobody was put to death.

Yes. Yeah. Well, I'm saying that it's not so. So it's not the church.

So it's not for me to make to to establish my governor or whoever is in charge to put someone to death for death.

Right. Like like I mentioned earlier, what happened to me? That guy deserved death.

All right. A sentence to prison for 90 years. Right. He deserved death.

But I I'm not going to the you know, his where his where his prison is and protesting that the government should put him to death because of Moses.

I mean, the Mosaic Law. What would be the message that you would preach to him? Why do you believe he deserved death?

I mean, did he deserve death? Again, the Mosaic Law. But if I saw the man,

I wouldn't put him to death. I preach Christ to him. I'd hope he would end up being such were some of you.

When I first started ministry, when I first started ministry, I was locked into a jail cell with 40 men and some of them had committed that same crime.

So does the civil sphere. That's that's not their sphere to say.

I'm going to you know, we're going to preach the gospel to you. They have the power of the sword there to promote good there to punish evil.

And so do they have the do they have do you believe that they actually have the power of the sword like they're allowed to?

Absolutely. Absolutely. By what standard do they come up with these punishments? I don't know their standard.

Okay. I don't know their standard. Like I haven't dug into it in that sense because they're not.

I mean, I mean, everyone knows it's wrong to murder where they come up with the general equity of of not putting them to death.

I don't know. Like, you know, if they're doing it a one for one, it would be the same type of punishment.

You know, I for I tooth for tooth. You stabbed a man to death.

If you sentence him to a lethal injection, that's that that's not actually one for one.

One for one. That's not what Moses, the law of Moses is talking about. A man should take a, you know, if someone,

Michael Myers, a family, his punishment under the Mosaic law would be that, you know, someone goes and Michael Myers him.

You know, I don't I don't know. I'm not too sure. I for an eye tooth for a tooth.

I mean, how would you general equity that? And what Jesus said is someone slaps you right. Turn to him. You left.

But I think the scripture just promotes, you know, stoning for the death penalty not for certain things.

It does not. But when it comes to other harms, you say that again. I'm sorry.

In murder. I believe it does. I mean, I don't think it's something, you know, somebody somebody does that.

If somebody picks apart your body, you you're obligated to pick apart their body. I mean, I hope.

But I think I think the civil government, the standard that they have is the law of God.

Now, they don't pull it one to one, but they pull as much general equity as they can. The clear passages first. The second, the not as clear passages in, you know, you have to take the whole

Bible in consideration, old and new covenant, and put and put those together and come up with. Let me ask you this.

Just a hypothetical question. Do you think that everything points to Christ?

Yes. Right. Everything points to Christ. The Pascal lamb points to Christ. In my opinion, it does not point to the

Lord's Supper. You said Pascal lamb? The Pascal lamb, Passover lamb.

I don't believe it points to the Lord's Supper. I believe it points to Christ. John said, Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Circumcision. I believe that points to Christ. The circumcision of Christ is him, the crucifixion, like everything points to the crucifixion of Christ.

Our baptism doesn't point back to circumcision, but it points to Christ Jesus dying for our sins.

We're buried with him in baptism. Do you think, again, I'm just asking the question.

I'm not saying that this is something I'm going to teach or anything like that. But in God's predetermined plan, he established this law so that the

Jews could put Jesus to death because they did put him to death under the law of Moses, under blaspheme, under the false pretense of two or three witnesses.

And we're trying to reestablish something that he's put an end to. That's my fear.

There's no way that you can exegetically preach through the New Testament and say that we need to establish the

Mosaic law because he's put an end to it. That was a burden that you and I or no one could carry.

It's a yoke that we cannot carry. Yeah, I don't think any reformer does. I mean, nobody that's confessional is going to say they didn't reestablish the

Mosaic law. Yes, yes. The Pronomian movement are reformers. Yeah, but then not really, though.

I mean, not really. They'll tell you they are. I'm doing a rebond for one right now.

I mean, I don't know exactly what they mean, but if they mean a one -to -one, the confession's against it.

The confession says that that's done. The laws of Israel are no more

Israel's no more. Yeah, but you being a consistent Presbyterian have to go against your confession if you're a theonomist.

I don't think so. I think the confession talks about general equity. General equity is not theonomy.

Theonomy is the establishment of the judicial laws of the

Old Testament. Yeah, I take the morality that's summed up in the law, and I apply it to my life today in whatever sphere that I'm in.

Applying it to you is one thing versus trying to force government, trying to force pagan nations to apply it.

But if you are in the seat of a government, if you are a king of your nation.

But is there a Bible verse where a Christian is doing that very thing?

There is a Bible verse of the Jews doing it. Crucify him. We have no king but Caesar.

So they're trying to get Jesus crucified under the Mosaic law for blasphemy under two or three witnesses.

There is no Christian doing that. Are you saying that because there's not an example of a Christian ruler in like Rome hasn't converted yet, that that means that Christians are not supposed to step into the civil sphere and act

Christian? No, no, no. So Paul did not tell Felix to establish the

Mosaic law. But what he did do, he preached the gospel. That's the first thing you do. But what did he expect

Felix to do once he converted? What do you think he expected him to do? To love

God and love his neighbor. He loves God by believing in the name of Jesus Christ. And he loves his neighbor by showing the fruits of the

Spirit and forgiving. How can you forgive if you're putting people to death?

I mean, just go back to the Reformation. Did they forgive people in the Old Testament when they put people to death? Say that again.

Did you forgive people? Was there room for forgiveness in the Old Testament when they were putting people to death?

I say yes. I forgive you, but here's a stone. Bang. If they repented, then they were not put to death.

In Ezekiel, it says very clearly, a wicked man that acts righteous should not be put to death.

But we're all wicked. Yeah, but he's not talking about original sin with Adam.

He's talking about acts of wickedness. Like sin is lawlessness. Could you pull up that verse?

Let's look at it. Which verse? The one that you were just talking about. In Leviticus.

Ezekiel. Or Ezekiel, sorry. I thought you said Ezekiel. I didn't hear. Yeah, Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 33.

It's in both of those. I'm not exactly sure which. I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it, but all my notes kind of look the same.

Oh, Ezekiel 32. Because it's chapter 18 and chapter 33,

I get the verse 32 confused. I do that too often. So Ezekiel what?

33, you said? 1832 is the first one. 1832. Okay. For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, declares

Lord Yahweh, therefore turn back and live. All right.

But does this, so I haven't read the context. Is the context someone has done something wicked and repented or someone has done something wicked?

Yeah. Let me go down. Because in my view of Ezekiel, this is speaking about the nation of Israel.

Verse five says, if a man is righteous and does what is just and right, if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, does not oppress anybody, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, covers his nakedness with his garment, does not lend an interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes justice between man and man, walks on my statutes, keeps my rules by acting faithfully.

He is righteous. He shall surely live. Who has done that? What? Who's been able to do that?

A righteous man. Job was a righteous man. Yeah. I mean, there's a righteousness according to, you know, not with justification, but there's a way that Christians act righteous.

Like when the Holy Spirit comes into your life, he starts producing in you acts of righteousness because sin is lawlessness, which means righteousness is lawfulness.

And so when the Holy Spirit comes, he starts producing in you good works. But I would say even right now, so you and I, we receive

Christ by faith. We are positionally righteous before God on the basis of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us.

But even then, I would say that this is something that you and I are not consistent with. Yeah, I agree with that.

Nevertheless, this person right here, I don't think is a hypothetical man.

I don't think in Ezekiel 18, five, he's talking about a hypothetical man. Well, when he talks about a righteous man in the

Bible, I see that as them looking at the promise. Jesus, I mean,

Moses was counted righteous. I don't believe that anyone has ever lived out this list that you just named because none is good.

No, not one. All have sin. People can still do things by faith, and people can still not take a bribe.

I mean, I think there's somebody that's not taken a bribe before. And their whole life. And they're talking about something that's repentance.

But that's not what it says. It doesn't say that he's repentant. Well, that's verse five.

I'm sorry. Verse 10, it says, if he fathers a son, it's violent.

And so he starts talking about what the son does. In the very end of verse 13, it says, he shall surely die.

His blood shall be upon him. So he's establishing what a righteous person is. And he's establishing what an unrighteous person is.

Then he says in verse 19, why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?

And he goes on to say in verse 25, that the way of the Lord is, but he says, but you say, talking about like the here of the law, the here of this, but you say, the way of the

Lord is not just here now. Oh, house of Israel is my way, not just, or is it your ways that are not just when a righteous person, verse 26, when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it for the injustice that he has done.

He shall die. So you can't like use your, your righteousness that you've been done for. You can't be like, well, you know,

I've been faithful to my wife for 45 years. I think at, at year 50, I think I'm just going to let it loose.

I think I'm done. I'm done being faithful and I shouldn't be put to death because I was faithful for 45 years. It doesn't work like that.

A righteous man that commits an injustice, he shall die for it again. When a wicked person turns away from wickedness and has committed what he has committed and does what is justice, right?

So there's the repentance. It says he shall live in verse 27. You know what? That just reminded me of no disrespect.

I was assemblies of God for a long time. And I felt like I lost my salvation.

Every few minutes, every few minutes, I was having to pray that prayer, walk that out, shake that hand, sign that card.

Because I felt like I over and over and over, I would lose that justification that I had.

And, and that's what that reminds me of. This is why Jesus Christ lived the life.

So part of the gospel is Jesus Christ lived the life that you and I could not live. You're saying took my punishment.

He took my punishment for breaking that law. You're saying because there's, there's mercy in the law.

It makes people doubt. No, no, no. I'm talking about. So this is the mercy. This is the mall.

This is where, if you keep these, I'm sorry. If you keep these things, there's mercy. No, not if you keep them.

It says, if a wicked man repents, yeah, he shall live.

He shall save his life because he considered and turned away from all the transgression that he committed.

He shall surely live. He shall not die. Yeah. But that's what I was just saying. So like, you know, when I was at the assemblies of God and I, you know, let's say

I was assemblies of God and I, you know, I was watching a movie and next thing you know, I showed a woman in a bikini or something and I lost it.

All right. I just committed a sin. I've lost my salvation. I've repented. I, I, I told

God I was sorry. I won't do it again. I repented. I got my salvation back. Oh, commercial. Here it comes.

You see what I'm saying? Like, you just like, like how many times do I repent before the axe falls?

Every time. Every time. You repent every time. But it just goes back to what

Brayden was talking about with. Is there not repentance in the new Testament? Do you not repent every time? And then did Christ come and then now it, it released you from your obligation to repent?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, let me just throw my thought in here real fast and, and because what

I think, what I think I'm seeing right now is, is who's, who's able to repent? Only the Christian is it's the

God. God has repented us only the Christian is. So what happens? So there's a couple different things, right?

We're going to either create, in my opinion, when I hear this, is people that are faking repentance.

Even in the Christian, it's going to create a legalism, pietism. And I'm just thinking in Galatians 3, it says, ''O foolish

Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

This is the only thing I want to learn from you. Did you not receive the spirit of the works of the law, or by the hearing with faith?

Are you so foolish, having begun by the spirit? Are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you not suffer so many things for nothing, if indeed it was for nothing?

So then, does he who provides you with the spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing by faith?

Just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. So we know that those who are of faith, those are the sons of Abraham.

And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by saying, by faith, proclaim the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying that all the nations will be blessed.

What I see, and I'll be just straightforward with you, it almost seems like that this theonomic movement is a

Judaizing without circumcision. It's a Judaizing saying you need to do these things in order to really be truly

Christian. And I'm not, like what Jeff said, I love you, brother.

But that's just kind of how this is coming off. It sounds like it's teaching this pietism.

You have your own righteousness that you need to exhibit before others. Yeah, to me, it goes against the gospel.

If Jesus lived the life that I could not live, and he took my punishment in his death, and was buried, rose again on the third day, triumphant over death, then there is no putting me to death, because he took my punishment.

He took my punishment. Do you think that the gospel promotes good works? I believe that those that are in Christ, who have received

Christ by faith, that good works are prepared for them, Ephesians 2. So the

Christian life has a life to be lived. In Romans 8, he talks about that he's giving life to this mortal body also.

So Christ didn't just save us spiritually, and then not have us to live a life to be lived out.

So Christians are supposed to be directed on the way to live. And I think that you're going to judge a tree by its fruits.

And so the Christians have a life to live. And in the ecclesiastical sphere, when that Christian is living out their life, and they commit sins, they should repent as fast as possible.

And the pastor should counsel them, or the other church body should counsel them when they commit sins.

Now when the Christian commits a crime, there needs to be,

I think, a time of repentance. There should be just laws. There should be just penalties.

And I don't think that just because it calls for a wicked man that doesn't repent to die, that it's an unwise thing.

I don't think it's unwise because it did it here. I think the accusation of it creates hypocrites,

I think that that falls on us. But that doesn't mean that what God has prescribed is bad.

I think that that is our fault that it produces hypocrites. Like in verse 31 in Ezekiel 18, it says,

Cast away from all your transgression that you committed. Make yourself a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die,

O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord. So turn and live.

And now if a hypocrite's made out of that, it's the hypocrite's fault. It's not God's fault. And so that doesn't mean that just because a hypocrite can be made, therefore we shouldn't do as God has established for us to do.

But I want you to notice that in that verse, you're telling people to do something that they don't have the ability to do.

And that's the area I was going with. The law and gospel. You have to have a distinction between law and gospel.

What don't they have the ability to do? To turn to God and repent. Repentance is granted to us.

Well, I mean, they do have... They don't have the ability to keep the law and live. Because I would say even in the superficial sense of somebody, like an unbeliever repenting by stopping sinning in this very general term of repentance.

Say, let's say I flipped off the cross as I walked by a church. You just blaspheme God. You need to repent.

That person that repents, even if they're not truly born again, that sin of them saying sorry in a superficial way is still sin.

They're just sinning, sinning, sinning, and they're never, ever repenting. It's all worthy of death.

I would say that that person is deserving of the death penalty every single time, because that would be a just punishment for somebody like that.

Yeah, but you got to take him at his word. And then you judge a tree by its fruits. But you have in Deuteronomy 31, where God says, where Moses says, you know, choose this day whom you're going to serve.

And he says that it's not too hard for you. I mean, it's in your mind. It's in your heart. It's in your mouth.

Just say it. Just follow the Lord, because they did have the ability to do it.

Now, their hearts were hardened, and so it was impossible for them. But it was an easy thing for somebody to do.

Like, we don't have to. It even says in Deuteronomy, it says you don't have to climb the highest mountain. You don't have to travel across the seas.

You don't have to go down in the depths of the darkest valley. It's very simple to be Christian. You believe it.

You say it. You know it. You believe it. You say it. But it is an impossible thing to do because the

Lord is in control of the hearts. But nevertheless, the obligation still remains on the people.

It's the same as when God says, Christ says, be holy. Now, just because I can't be holy doesn't remove the obligation for me to be holy.

Now, just because these people cannot give themselves a new heart and a new spirit does not remove the obligation that God requires of them.

The same is in the New Covenant when Paul tells us all these works, all these ways to live.

Now, Ephesians 4 all the way through 6 is a big, huge exposition of the

Decalogue on how to apply the Decalogue in your life. You have Paul working through in Titus.

But nevertheless, I can't keep those myself. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But nevertheless, I still have the obligation to do so.

I still have that obligation to do it. And I think in the law of God, you see mercy sprinkled.

They have the obligation to follow God. And when they don't follow God, they have mercy sprinkled into their law.

You have Ezekiel 33. I think it's even clearer.

I think it's Ezekiel 33. It's even clearer. He says,

And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said, Surely our transgressions and our sin are upon us, and we are not awake because of them.

How can we live? Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live, turn back, and turn back from your evil ways.

For why will you die, O house of Israel? You, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteousness shall not deliver him when he transgresses.

As for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it for when he turns from his wickedness.

The righteousness shall not be able to live by righteousness when he sins.

Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered.

But in injustice that he has done, he shall die.

And then he says the reverse for the wicked. And he says at the end of it, he says, I will judge each of you according to his ways.

And this is the reason why, you know, Jesus doesn't kill, doesn't advocate for the civil authorities to put to death a woman that's caught in adultery.

Because there is mercy sprinkled into the law of God. And I think when it says that the law came through Moses and grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, I think that that means that we have the law in its shadow form and its incomplete form and it's not totally lived out form.

But Jesus came full of grace and full of truth. He rightly applied the law of God, all the grace in the law of God and all the truth in the law of God.

With Moses, we just had the law. We didn't have Christ, the substance of the law, to enact or to show us how to do it.

But Jesus Christ came full of grace, full of truth. He is the exposition of the law of God.

And I think that's what you have in Ezekiel. I think you have mercy being shown, a righteous man being shown for what righteousness is.

And I don't think these are hypothetical people. This is why David did not die. When he committed adultery, it's because of this verse.

But what if, I mean, I know David was a king, but if David wasn't a king, he probably wouldn't have had the prophet that would come to him and call him to repentance.

And so in the same sense, if that scenario took place to the average Joe, he would have been put to death.

Well, if the prophet comes and the average Joe repents, Israel's obligated to keep this part of the law of God.

You can't use the law to break the law. All right.

So I'm really enjoying this. I think, you know,

I hope I don't sound bad. No, not at all. Okay, good. No, not at all.

So what we have here, like if you just take the progression of, so I want to look at a progression.

Okay. If Adam breaks the law, they will die.

So if you eat of this fruit, you will die. So the sentence is death. And we know that that was not a physical death that took place then, though they did eventually physically die.

Right. So we see this as the curse that fell. I don't know. Do you believe in the covenant of works?

Yes. Okay. I know the Doug Wilson's crowd would switch the name up and call it a covenant of life and say that there was grace there that if Adam would have kept that covenant, he would have been obligated to thank

God for the grace he had to keep the covenant. I think that's true. Yeah, I agree with that. Yes, I don't.

And by that, I would say that that's not truly a reform view. But the progression that I see is that in Genesis 6

God destroys the world with water giving grace to six. And he says that he's not going to do that anymore.

And then he establishes a kingdom people and this kingdom people were given rules keep the law to live in the land, break the law, you'll be removed from the land.

Certain crimes through that law you can be put to death. We see that Israel could not keep that law.

They were removed from the land, uprooted at least twice. All right. And that there was a death penalty for certain things.

Jesus comes in the new covenant. It changes everything. He's telling the Jews not to fear those who can destroy the body but fear, talk about under this mosaic law if you break something they can destroy your body but fear him who can destroy both body and so in hell.

Under the new covenant all these wicked people that we're talking about they'll get their punishment for the wages of sin is death.

Right? Sin itself carries the death penalty. To quote Ray Comfort, death is the arresting officer that comes to take you to God's prison.

Right? And if you're not in Christ that prison is hell. Right? Death is the arresting officer coming after the wicked to take them to God's prison.

Everyone, we've all sinned, we're all going to die but the difference with the believer is even though he die yet shall he live because we're in Christ.

So ultimately through the new covenant that death penalty is carried out but it's not by mining your hands.

The punishment is by God himself. The punishment by the one who can throw both body and so into hell.

And as the church we're not to establish the mosaic law. Our concern should not be punishing people per se but it should be reaching them with the gospel.

Does the state have the power of the sword? The state does, yes.

The church does not. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. The church does not but the state does. So that's why we don't put people to death is because I don't have the power of the sword but they do have the sword.

But if you had it, if you had Calvin's power, if you had the power that Who was the civil officer?

Well, there was people at this time that were able to do these things, right?

I mean, I'm just thinking about the I can't think of his name. not even

Cervaeus but Luther, there was a guy that was a Baptist put into a holding cell deep into the ground.

His body, his remains were recovered much later on in life and he was held there just for the simple fact that he would not renounce believers baptism.

Right? Luther knew he was there and probably could have had the power to get him out but did not.

Again, the best of men are men at best, right? But when you put that kind of power in the church's hands,

I think I just don't like it. I mean that we should stop trying to do what

God has for us. But it's not for the church. Again, whatever this whatever the government sets place like again, let's go back to the guy that did that to me got 90 years.

Should he have been put to death according to the law of Moses? Yes. There was a time in my life before I was a

Christian if you'd have put the man in front of me I'd have cut his throat, right? You know, in my gang banging years

I would have brought justice to him. But now as a Christian I pray that the gospel is being ministered to him.

It would have been sin if you did that. Would it have been sin if I did that?

It would have been. Yes, absolutely. Because you don't have the power of the sword but there is a civil sphere.

I'm just trying to show how I believe that he deserved death and at one time I would have I would have happily given him that punishment.

Yeah. You see what I'm saying? I think it's just the category that I believe that the civil sphere is a servant of God and they have like authority, right?

So like where did the civil king where does Governor Lee get his authority?

He gets it because it's derived from the authority of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is king of all kings.

I think it says in Revelation somewhere that all the kingdoms of the earth are the of the

Lord and his Christ or something like that. Like they all he's the Lord of the nations and Tennessee is included in a nation and so he is the king of Tennessee.

He's the rightful governor of Tennessee and any authority that Governor Lee has it's derived from King Jesus.

Now you've been a post male so this could very well point out a difference that we have.

So I don't hold to Kingdom Theology. I don't know if you know what that is but I don't hold to Kingdom Theology.

I also don't hold to the fact that the kingdom of God is the only thing on earth, right?

I believe that the church is um I believe that the church is a visible representation of this kingdom and it's it's not a kingdom with four walls like you can't say oh look there it is here let's enter into our with our feet right?

It's not something visible and it's not something that the unbeliever doesn't understand what it is that we do and so I believe that the kingdom of God is a kingdom among kingdoms.

So these silver spheres that you're talking about that they are a kingdom among the church is just among these many kingdoms that are all over the world.

It gives the same idea of Israel when they were under Egypt or Israel when they were

Judea when they were under the Babylon Babylon. So they were a kingdom people among a kingdom people.

Right now the church is on a larger scale. The people everyone who is a believer in Jesus Christ is in the kingdom of God right now present tense it's not a four wall kingdom it's in the midst of all the other kingdoms it's among them right?

But we are in the middle of this you know like the kingdom of the

USA whatever you want to call it the church is among that the church is among China the church is among all these other kingdoms that we are among and he has given to them the sword and so like I have a councilman in my church and I encourage him you know climb the ranks you know do what you do but don't but you can't expect the pastor or the church you know to be in that spheres right?

There's only so many things that I can do Brayden can do or anyone can do well you're separating powers but you're not separating morality the civil sphere has the same morality as the ecclesiastical sphere and the ecclesiastical sphere and the civil sphere have the same morality that the family has and the same so when you say morality are you speaking of the transcendent moral law?

Yeah yeah I'm just saying like what is good what is evil right they have it in their mind but it's not in their heart well

I think that's what they they're a law unto themselves they're a law unto themselves is it

Romans 2 where he talks about this that everybody has the law of God and they're a law unto themselves yeah well

Romans 2 talks about um let's see you're talking about in verse 12

I believe Romans 2 12 it says for all have sinned without the law and all will also perish without the law and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law this is speaking of the differentiated between Jew and Gentile and it's kind of like in Acts 17 where it says that there was a time of ignorance that God overlooked but now it's called all men everywhere to repent see it says in verse 14 for when

Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do what the law requires they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law so they got the law but verse 15 says they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts well

I believe that this right here is speaking about Christians yeah it's Gentiles verse 14 but when it's talking about the

Jews too so he's writing to a church a church in Rome who was predominantly a

Jew it was a Jew at one time but then you had the persecution under Claudius took place and after Claudius dies the

Jews come back to the church at Rome which is now predominantly Gentile and they are not getting along right you got heads bumping and so he's kind of pointing out go ahead verse 12 says all for all who have sinned so he's lumping everybody in this and he says they show so the all here is not the all here that he's speaking about he's pointing out

Jew and Gentile yeah so when he says for they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts

I don't think it's just Jewish people no no no he's speaking about the

Gentiles who are Christian the only time the law is in your heart is for a believer the new covenant is

I will write my law in their heart on their mind and in their heart yeah the new covenant that I will write in their heart is not like the covenant

I mean that is very distinctive for believers in the new covenant is to have the law written in their heart and it's intimate with the removing of the stony heart and placing in being born again that's how the new covenant in a

Baptist mind is working is that that's when the law is written on our hearts yeah I mean he's right into a church again you have the same thing in Ephesians right the divide and wall of hostility has been taken away but yet the

Jews and the Gentiles are not coming together we have the Galatians where they're wanting them to become more

Jewish they have to circumcise John's saying that you walk in darkness you think verse 14 is talking about Gentiles that are

Christians when it says for when Gentiles who do not have the law you think I'm talking about Christians yeah because it's speaking of because they're not under the law they weren't brought up under the mosaic law yeah they didn't have the law they by nature did what the law requires he's talking about without instruction without instruction from Christianity they still did it it it what what how

I view this because Jew and Gentile is a common thing that takes place all throughout the book of Romans is it's referring to the same

Gentiles that was also engrafted into the vine that's spoken of in Romans chapter 11 and so by being engrafted into the vine the olive branch the

Jews were removed from them doing the law was a showing of them having the law written on their heart and having faith in Christ for their righteousness well whether or not they have they are

Christians or not Christians in verse 14 he is talking about the fact that they were

Christians they by nature did what the law required where does it say that before they were

Christians who do not have the law yeah okay so if you read Galatians when

I preached through Galatians it was a common thread that anyone that wasn't uh so so when it says those that are under law were

Jewish and those that were not under law were considered sinners because they did not have the law and Paul says if we would tear down for what we try to if we rebuild what we try to make them sinners meaning that they're not anymore part of the

Jewish uh nature I just I see that verse differently when he says for when Gentiles who do not have the law by nature so he's trying to appeal to their natural state apart from being

Christian apart from having the law apart from having the covenants and everything when they're aliens from the commonwealth of Israel when they're strangers to the promises they still did what the law required of them because they are a law unto themselves it doesn't say that they got the

Christian law it says they're a law unto themselves even though they didn't even have a law they show they show that the work of law was written on their hearts yeah but so so whenever you

I was just going to say real fast though after though it talks about because it's talking about the heart it's that common theme when when does that heart take place later on in the chapter it talks about how you are not a

Jew if you're circumcised of the flesh but you are a Jew that is circumcised of the heart it's focusing on how

Gentiles are the true Jews that actually have faith in Christ because they have a circumcised of the heart the ethnic

Jew is a true Jew by having a circumcision of the heart not anything that has to do with the flesh yeah so like the idea of Romans like I just want to kind of bring this you know the idea of Romans is to Jew and Gentile again it was it was the church was predominantly

Jew at one time the persecution of Claudius in Rome Claudius dies they come back the church is now more

I mean more Gentile -ish than it is Jewish right and so now they're coming back and in chapter 1 beginning in verse 18 you know

Paul's kind of lining out that everyone knows there's a God right the same way that if someone's driving down down the road

I see them in the car I know that there's a person driving the car I don't have to see the person driving the car I just know that there's a person

I know there's a God because of creation but then he starts getting into how how people suppress the truth and if you were to cross -reference everything that's taking place here it points to the

Jew but Paul seems to be speaking to the Gentile and then when you get in chapter 2 he says and I don't know why you're judging because you do the same thing right so all he's doing is he's comparing

Jew and Gentile this whole way and so anytime that it talks it's specifically speaking of the circumcised and the

Jew and those that are not circumcised not under law it's always speaking about the

Gentile and so he's not saying that they're unbelievers he's just pointing out something obvious that they would have said about each other the

Jew was under the law the Gentile was not under the law and according to Galatians they would have been called sinners if you're not a

Jew you were a sinner Jews didn't consider themselves sinners because they had the law like this is a big theme that runs over the

New Testament the letters okay um in the London Baptist Confession it says that um on the law of God chapter 19 paragraph 1 it says that he gave uh to Adam a law of universal obedience written on his heart and then in the um section 2 it says that same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall yeah which has to do with the

Imago Dei right because after the Imago Dei was corrupted and it was fallen that law that was first there as the standard remained the standard that is still written upon the heart that is circumcised through belief in Jesus Christ or through regeneration it so it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall was delivered upon uh delivered by God so you're saying it was only it's only on the heart of man to be a continual perfect rule of righteousness after the fall to just the people who believe but it's not no no no it's always above everybody that law that was first written on the heart as the

Imago Dei is still above everyone but it resides intimately with those that have been born again inside their heart so it's conscience knowing that it's right and wrong but it's inward change when you are born again you do believe that the law of God was is written on every man's heart no the law of God is written in everybody's mind in a conscience and it's above everyone but it's it's only written specifically on people's hearts according to Jeremiah 31 31 through 34 and Hebrews chapter 8 6 through 12 it's only written on the believer's heart so do you disagree with your confession when it says the same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect law of righteousness?

The first law that was written on man's heart which was given to Adam is still the perfect law yes it is still the perfect law it does not say in the confession that it is written on every single man's heart that has been born since Adam well how how does it continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness if it's not written on their heart?

It's because it's still above them it's still God's law it's still that transcendent law it's not dependent on me if it was dependent on me then it wouldn't be transcendent so you say it's written on their mind but I don't see that anywhere in your confession where they make a distinction between a heart and a mind it says it it says it right there that same law that was first written on the

Harlem and heart continued to be the perfect rule of righteousness after the fall that was the rule that was above them that was the perfect rule for everyone but you see somewhere in here where it pulled it out of the heart and put it in the mind no

I'm just using language trying to to bridge that understanding that that law according to Hebrews chapter 8 is only intimately written on a believer's heart however from all creation we know that there is a

God and that is manifest and we know right and wrong and we sin against God because of that so in some way it's in the conscience

I can't think of a Bible verse that just says it's in the conscience but that I'm just trying to bridge that language right there saying that the ceremonial law and the judicial law was given directly to Israel I wouldn't have known to sacrifice lambs or to be circumcising my child on the 8th day however

Israel knew those things and they knew the penal code for those things however somebody on the other side of the world would have known that murder is wrong they would have known that adultery was wrong they would have known these things because that was the moral code that was above their head that was first written on the human heart that's one of the things that I'd like to point out

I don't think you should just use nature to come up with just laws if you are in the civil sphere because we have something greater than nature it's like you know if I got

I'm not going to keep walking around with a flashlight to find my way around the house when I can put the light switch on and get light everywhere and so I think that the general equity that's all throughout the scripture is so it's the lens that helps you interpret the natural law so I'm not as a civil leader

I'm not just going to use the natural law to try to come up with laws I'm going to use the better lens the whole the new covenant

I'm going to use the new covenant to help understand the old covenant and I'm going to use the revealed revelation

I'm going to use the revealed bible to help me understand how to make the judicial laws what translation is that the revealed bible

I want to get one so let me ask you this I know we're working on two hours and something we need to bring this to a close

I gotta I gotta go to work in the morning I'm going to kind of just bring it back to the text real quick the new covenant

I asked a question earlier if the Jews were to establish circum I mean if the

Jews were to establish a a temple which seems really impossible but they could build a tabernacle out in the desert somewhere and start doing the animal sacrifices and is there okay we can really really clearly like you said that you can clearly argue that like speak against that from the new covenant scriptures the new testament right you go to Hebrews and so on and so forth um how how would you argue for what you're saying in the new covenant in the new testament scriptures how would you argue for theonomy without using the old covenant scriptures how would you argue that under the new testament your position because I would argue that it's done away with which

I have been I showed scripture the law was only until Christ speaking of the judicial the ceremonial how would you argue that from the new testament that your view of theonomy and establishing a

God's law and civil government um only using the text okay um

I think there's parts where um in Romans where Paul calls the law spiritual

I don't think it's um something that should be ran from but something that should be promoted

I think Paul promotes and he said we're not under that law too in that same little section yeah we're not under the curse of the law but like even as our confessions say um what was the curse of the law do this and live death yeah yeah but yet we want to put people who are living here in this world um there's still um the civil there's still the civil sphere who has the sword like they've been given the sword by God to put people to death um

God gave it to them to do that um where is that in Romans so Romans six um is that at the end of six seven say again right

I'm sorry oh just I was asking what Bible verse though is it the wages of sin is death is that the one that you're talking about or no

Romans so Romans 7 12 says so the law is holy the commandments holy righteous and good um

I myself served the law of God with my mind so it was something that Paul did strive to do to serve the law of God with his mind um and then in Romans eight he talks about that Christ came to live in him and to put to death the deeds of the body so that he can live so he was supposed to put to death the deeds of the body so he can live righteously with the members of his body like that's that's why he's putting to death the deeds of the body to promote

Godly living in the New Testament and I mean all over the New Testament doesn't promote

Godly living and then how do you know what is good you know it by looking at the law that's why

Paul says I want to do the law of God in my mind like that's what I'm trying to do I'm trying to do this but my body won't do it like I put the flesh

I serve the law of sin but that doesn't mean that Paul's not trying to serve the law of God with his mind he's trying to do that he wants that he promotes that and that's why he promotes converts to Godly living and he does it through Ephesians 2 and Ephesians I'm sorry

Ephesians 3 and 4 5 6 so are you saying that in chapter 7 of Romans the where he goes to this um you know

I do not do what I want to do but I do the very thing that I hate this whole conversation here that the thing that he wants to do is the law of God yeah he's wanting to he's wanting to be righteous and that is righteousness is lawfulness sin is lawlessness righteousness is lawfulness he wants to be a righteous man so you're saying the things that he does he does not want to sin he wants to live righteously a lot a lot of theonomists would disagree with that interpretation they say he's trying to sin no they would just see it more in lines of okay so like I don't remember okay so if you look at verse 14 of Romans 6 it says shall not be master over you for you are not under the law but under grace and so then it starts saying well shall we what then shall we sin because we are no longer under I mean under the law but under grace may it never be so there's this argument of grace and law right and so the idea here is that it breaks down into two him doing what he wants to do because Paul was a

Jew and so I would say him doing what he wants to do is to live by grace through faith and him trying to live under the law is probably what

Paul was struggling with because he was so much brought up in the Jewish system like if he wants to live by grace through faith like what what's that life look like it looks like a righteous life he's not trying to be unrighteous yes loving

God by believing in Jesus Christ and loving your neighbor yeah it's not loving

God by for the whole law is fulfilled in one word you shall love your neighbor as yourself but if you bite and devour one another watch out for you are not consumed by one another yeah so I think in keeping in keeping in step with the spirit in Galatians five if you're led by the spirit you are not under the law nor the works of the flesh evident sexual morality impurity sensuality so he goes on to talk about all these things and he says

I warned you before those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God but the fruit of the spirit is love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness gentleness self -control against such things there is no law so he says let me ask you this how do you inherit the kingdom of God you were born again so you you go from not believing hearing the message preached given faith to believe would you say that that's what being born again is that you've given faith to believe yeah all right but that's everyone all right every one of us cannot enter the kingdom of God unless it takes place unless we're born again and so we have to you know it's kind of like taking that scripture as a whole you know and ultimately there is a future part of this kingdom when

Jesus Christ returns and he consummates everything right the establishment of the kingdom of God has taken place it's among you it's in your midst we're a kingdom among kingdoms

I don't know if postmillennialism can argue against that because it's visually taken place

I do see the argument against two kingdom theology because I don't even hold to that can argue against you know the kingdom of God being everywhere well no that that we are a kingdom that the kingdom of God is here but we are also among kingdoms

I mean it just depends on what sphere like I would call my family a small kingdom my church a small kingdom so we're all you know but would you say that it is the kingdom of God like you can see it and enter into it

I think the kingdom of God is all encompassing it encompasses all of life all of Christ for all of life that's his kingdom when

I say may your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven Jesus Christ is in total he has total jurisdiction and authority over every single thing that's happening in heaven and I pray the same here that all men everywhere would surrender to Jesus Christ as surrendered as they are in heaven

I hope they'd be that surrendered here and that he would there would not be anywhere he would not be known and people would not look to him and say what does he require and Paul in Galatians says faith working through love when you go what does love look like love looks like keeping the commandments love looks like loving your neighbor as yourself so in the future kingdom of God whenever so I'm saying this as an optimistic all male because I don't believe that the consummation has taken place like it's an there's an already not yet idea to the kingdom of God because Jesus is not here on earth there's not four walls there's not as an established kingdom when you say kingdom you're thinking of like four wall of course you're you're looking at it in spheres we're looking

I'm looking at it as in Jerusalem was a kingdom

Rome was a kingdom that's two different kingdoms right Jerusalem and Rome are two different kingdoms

Babylon was a kingdom the kingdom people were put into Babylon ultimately the kingdom of Rome enslaved the

Jewish kingdom the kingdom of God is the people of God we don't have a four wall kingdom that people can visually see with their eyes and walk into with their feet in order to see and enter the kingdom you have to be born again yeah and so but I believe that one day when

Christ returns there will be that physical kingdom you can see with your eyes and the physical kingdom that you can walk into with your feet but as long as Christ has not returned that can never be a reality on earth because it would eliminate the being born again so so whenever that kingdom is established on earth as it is in heaven will we be obeying

I mean will we be under the law yeah I think there's freedom under the law just like when

Israel was saved in the Old Testament from Egypt the very first thing God did when he freed them from slavery is he gave them a law because they were free to do what they wanted people in heaven so so in heaven is a visible kingdom

I would say that right now in heaven there's a visible kingdom you can see and enter you see what

I'm saying but it's not here right now so are those in heaven under a law that they can break no they can't break it but the moral law even in heaven will not be it won't be abolished like it'll never be abolished it comes from it's an expression of the nature of God and it's not a shadow and it's not a ceremony it's not a type and the future kingdom that's going to be on earth and having the full capacity of heaven on earth and that law is still governing us will will we be able to break it no

I don't think we'll be able to break it so it's not the same as the mosaic law because it was keep the law in order to live the law changed because we changed our capacity to break the law will not be a possibility anymore it's not because the moral law changed it's because our we change that's why we're not going to break it if we're not going to go weary of doing good in heaven because we have glorified bodies it's not because the morality of the law somehow changed now we're not going to grow weary of doing good anymore the reason why we're going to keep it in heaven forever is because we'll have glorified bodies not because the law changed or do we have glorified bodies because God has done something to us or that the law has done something to us uh yeah it's definitely because of the

Lord yeah but we will keep the law like it's not going to go anywhere yeah yeah

I believe that we will love our God with all of our hearts so my name is strength by believing in Jesus like 1st

John chapter 3 verse 23 says and we will love our neighbors as ourselves yeah but I don't believe that the whole practicing that love is going to be worked out because the part of practicing that love is forgiveness right if someone is not loving or joyful or patient with me you don't think we'll practice that in heaven

I think I think we'll practice forgiveness in heaven but in order so so so would you say that I would

I would be sinning against you in order for you to uh apply forgiveness to me no but you could have sinned against me in this life and in heaven

I'm going to be able to overlook a sin like I've never been before yeah well

I get that but that's definitely not what I'm asking it's just the idea of being able to to not love my neighbor no you'll be able to laughs

I think that's what I'm saying I mean that's wait for that day laughs yeah I think yeah

I think you'll be able to but I don't think when it says let us not grow weary of doing good I mean I think that that's that's going to continue into the next state too like we're not going to grow weary in doing good we're not going to give up we're always going to persevere and so I think

I just think there's so many times in the in the in the

New Testament where he promotes godly living and if you are a Christian in the civil sphere you're you're going to have to figure out in what way do you rule will you rule with the authority vested in you by Christ well how would

Christ rule and I think you're going to go to the scripture and he would not stone the adulterer he would turn the other cheek he was he was he was not he was in the ecclesiastical sphere but in the in the civil sphere

Christ established the civil sphere and he did give them the power of the sword he did give them the ability and the right and encouraged them to be the avengers of God's wrath like to take away the sword from the civil sphere is to take away the wrath of God you can't so couldn't you say that the civil sphere

I'm sorry my English ain't great that will the sword if if we try to cause them to establish or to hold a different sword are we going against God because he has given him this sword yeah he's he has not they're the avengers of God's wrath so they're supposed to promote good and punish evil so are they not promoting good and punishing evil if they're if they're not under the if they're not according to God's law so I would say that they are

I would say that the guy that did that to me is being punished yeah he is being punished yeah is it the wisest punishment yeah probably not but you know

I mean you know I'm not again I'm not out there protesting hang on stone all this stuff like that actually

I again I hope that he's been given the gospel and God has given him grace and faith to believe yeah and I do think that there's something to say about just putting people in cages

I'm not a big advocate of prisons or jails I'm not either but it's where so if God is sovereign again like I think we don't hold the idea when it comes to this we're not trusting in God's sovereignty he is sovereign well he's sovereign in my life too but you're always going to call me to repentance and to live better so I can look at the judicial system and say hey stop with the cages and they can't

I don't think you can do that I think that just because something hasn't sanctified itself to the right degree doesn't mean

I can't disagree with it yeah absolutely but at the same time we have to what I'm trying to say is we have to trust that we are where we are and things are the way they are because God is sovereign yeah but again for me as a pastor

I've not been given that I don't know a lot about politics there's nothing I don't think I can do but I tell you what

I can do and it's what I was harping on last week the one law that I know that the new covenant has in it is for those that are in Christ to be making disciples you see what

I'm saying and I believe that if that was being done if every Christian was and tell me if you agree or disagree please tell me if every

Christian was doing that we wouldn't be worrying about establishing a law because Christ himself would be living in the hearts of people and they would be loving

God and loving their neighbor people that have the Holy Spirit in them still need direction so even if you have every unbeliever in the world should we be governed by if you don't do this you're going to die when

Jesus Christ lived the life we couldn't live and took our punishment so that's where the whole thing doesn't does the government still exist has

God taken away his avenger of God's wrath right now no then yes we should do that because God has not taken away governments and so if a

Christian let's say sleeping with his stepmom the government should put him to death and church the church shouldn't handle it with church discipline the church should handle it with church discipline do exactly what

Paul said now if he gets found out by the government the government should encourage him to put that breaking point okay where but I love you yeah

I love you too I think but if the government does find out about it you know he should be called repentance and doesn't matter how righteous he was in his life he will not be saved by his righteousness he will surely die

Paul says throw him out to the devil so that his soul may be saved and we see in chapter 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 it's funny how I was in chapter 5 that's what you do that's what you do in the ecclesiastical sphere but in the civil sphere it has a different way to act it's a totally different way to act well it's like I hope there never comes a day where we can't say and such were some of you instead of saying everyone everybody is dead now because such were some of you well

I hope that everybody repents too but nonetheless if they don't God did have deacons on this earth that he's given the sword to kill them like he established a government to promote good and punish evil and so I'm not going to take away

God's wrath God has a soul I would say God has already taken away the judicial penal code has he taken and I can use that and I can show that in the new covenant but a theonomist can't argue against it from the new covenant

I think we can I think we can he says that the government is the avenger of God's wrath the government but it doesn't say that they're going to use the mosaic wall well what does it mean to because we see in the new covenant but we see in the new covenant that he has removed the law he's taken it away it's abolished yeah but they've been given a sword swords are not made to pet people they're made to kill well

I got them hanging on my wall I ain't killed nobody on my sword but the government the government the government has been given the right to do it like they are the avengers of God's wrath and we are to submit to that authority and if I if I lived under authority where it was the mosaic wall guess what

I'd be doing not rebelling I'd be doing what I'm doing right now right

I keep I don't think I keep spilling as much as I should but all

I'm saying is that the the law of God is given to the civil sphere the moral law of God and they are required to use the general equity to establish laws in their own land and they should they should carry them out and it does include a death penalty because he gave them a sword they are the deacons they are the servants of God's wrath so that they someone just posed the question where there is no law there is no judgment

Romans 2 speaks to that issue verse verse 12 which we've already covered maybe they just got in here it says for all have sinned without the law will also perish without the law so there is judgment the ultimate judgment comes for those that don't believe in Jesus Christ yes but that's not what he's talking about in Romans 13 yeah

I know someone has brought up a question oh yeah you know

Romans 13 the government doesn't bear a sword for no reason and I agree again the guy that did that to me he's he's facing the sword of our government and and and I'm not against what's taking place

I don't think that's what I would advocate it for but again I'm not out there protesting like it doesn't keep me up at night yeah

I mean there's nothing there's nothing we can do there's nothing I can do yeah um

I'm not too sure what verse they were talking about and I can't I can't see these comments it just says where there's no law there's no judgment and then it's question mark so I don't know if they were trying to state something or if they were asking a question and I just wanted to point out that yeah

Gentiles before they were you know the Gentiles before they were ever you know before the law was even given into the world before Moses was given the law written out people were were punished for their sins right judgment ultimate judgment comes upon so that sins will die after the death comes the judgment what do you say about verse 31 when it says do we then overthrow the law by this faith by no means what chapter chapter 3 and it says by no means we uphold the law yeah okay so chapter 3 verse what uh 19 31 31

I'm sorry okay do we do we then abolish the law through faith may it never be on the contrary we establish the law yeah again

I think it's just speaking about Christians so it's not talking about Christians going out into the government and establishing law this is speaking about what you and I would agree on general equity but that general equity is only done in the church okay so I was going to ask

Brayden that where I wrote down where Brayden you said general equity is for the house of the Lord house of God for the people of God um they we cast people out of the temple you were talking about Jesus going into the temple yeah and my question for you was so do you believe that general equity is for the civil sphere or for the father in his home or is it only for the ecclesiastical sphere say what law did you refer to again just general equity general equity in regard to moral law or judicial law or ceremonial law yeah

I think the moral law is I equate the general equity with the moral law when

I look at don't don't um you don't separate those things I'm finding the moral law in it and I'm pulling it out

I'm tracking you on it so and let me be clear from last week so I'm still trying my hardest to understand this theonomy stuff so I'm studying it out so that quote that you're talking about earlier was me just throwing out an idea that we see

Christ uh very clearly in my opinion hold some judicial penalty in the sense of casting somebody out when it's taking place in his house and so my my reference to those things was that in Hebrews chapter 3 we see that Christ is a better builder of his house and that house is the kingdom of God that the kingdom that is not of this world and so in that way uh

I think general equity explicitly for those things absent of the pen penal code is for the church however the moral law that's that transcendent law is the only thing that I think

I can hold a civil government to because that's something that is above their head I can't go to my governor and I think if I'm not separating the ceremonial and the judicial I can't go to the governor of Idaho and say

Brad Little I think we should be circumcising our children on the eighth day whatever example you want to do I can't do that because that's not a transcendental law that holds him guilty before the

Lord the law that's above him is the ten commandments that he doesn't honor God that he doesn't love his neighbor so you have the ten commandments in the civil sphere but not the first table so you you only have commandments five through ten no

I would say that you have all ten so all ten the governor of Tennessee mayor of mayor of Tullahoma is supposed to uphold the first table it it is it is upon their conscience to do so they will violate it and I think that that's how man tries his best to be moral until they break it and then they try to change it right and we see that we see that throughout history we always try to adapt law to fit our sin so when it comes to thou shalt not murder right um would you

I would use like general I would pull the the moral law of the moral law like the moral law of the

Decalogue on that one is like you're not supposed to do something that's going to stop future life so I'm not supposed to kill to protect the future um it doesn't just mean that I'm supposed to not stab

Braden in the chest next time I see him it means that I should organize my life in a way that promotes

Braden's life I should do things to promote his life like in the positive it doesn't just have a negative but also as a positive so that means that as a

Governor of Tullahoma or I mean the Mayor of Tullahoma Governor of Tennessee you're going to promote laws that say no drinking and driving because you want the you want to promote sober driving so it's it's legal to soberly drive it's illegal to um drive while impaired and like so you would make not only the

Decalogue as the law like you wouldn't say it's sinful or a commandment of man to make drinking driving illegal you'd be like of course you have the

Decalogue right you'd be like yeah you have the Decalogue it implies no drinking and driving right

I would I would say that they have the moral standard that is transcendent and that's what leads them to say those laws

I again I wouldn't appeal to judicial penal code this that I would fall back on the

Ten Commandments is where I would be falling for those and you would say would you say it's just to have a law that says no drinking and driving well

I would say so just going back to the confession that I hold to that I think that the law that is which one paragraph two and one or you read part of paragraph two let me just read all of Terah two and three real fast it says the same law that was first written in the human human heart continued to be the perfect rule of righteousness after the fall that's the that's what would

Jeff and I I would assume Jeff and I would hold to is the transcendal transcendent law that is not dependent upon anybody else that it is stemming from God it was delivered

First four commandments continue to our duty to God and the other six, our duty to humanity.

These are found in the fullness of God's law. Love God and love your neighbor. In paragraph three, it says, in addition to this law, usually called the moral law,

God was pleased to give to the people, and this is important to note how this is worded, to give to the people, this is talking about an ethnic group, to the people of Israel's ceremonial laws containing several typological ordinances.

In some ways, these concern worship by prefiguring Christ's gracious actions, sufferings, and benefits.

In other ways, they revealed various instructions about moral duties, since all of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until a new order arrived, they are now abolished and taken away by Jesus Christ as the true

Messiah and the only lawgiver. He was empowered by the Father to do this. To Israel, so it's still speaking of to the people of Israel, this ethnic group, this ethnic kingdom of God.

He also gave various judicial laws which ceased at the same time their nation ended.

These laws no longer obligate anyone as part of that institution, only their general principles of justice continue to have moral value.

And the reason that these general principles have moral value, and the reason I was leaning and said that last week with the people of God, is in my,

I really do like that analogy that Jeff uses with the scaffolding. There's one more that I thought of that I thought was really, really good.

So right now, where I work, there's a fire house that's being built. And on the site project right now, there's already a house there.

It's where the workers go in to look at the blueprints and look over what they have. And so in my opinion, in the Old Testament, what we have is that building.

It's the place that's in the place where the actual building's gonna be placed. They have the blueprints, they have the builders, they have the construction outline, they have the game plan, they have the order sheets, they have all those things that are there that prefigure the actual building.

However, when the actual building comes, that building gets out. That's no longer a part of the firehouse. That thing is taken away.

And those, and so, I mean, even on that analogy, the foundation is Christ, next is the apostles, the church is built upon that.

We are those living stones that are a part of that kingdom. And so - That analogy kind of shows your

Baptistic too, because - Yes. If I'm not mistaken, Matthew, you believe that the church is

Israel. And as - Yeah, I believe that Israel was for the people of God underneath the old dispensation of the covenant.

And so the new covenant, the church is the, the congregation is the people of God.

So as a Baptist - We would say that, as a Baptist, we would say that the church is the eschological

Israel. Yeah, there was actually really, I would argue there were two Israels in Israel.

Yeah. There were two Israels in Israel. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that too. But by it being the eschological

Israel, we're saying it's the same thing. It's distinct in one sense as the new covenant is from the old covenant.

Yeah, and so how I push that, yeah, that new covenant, that new fire station, that new building that is being built doesn't have the plans that were in it prior.

Those things were fulfilled when the building took place. So I would view the judicial and the ceremonial laws as preserving the seed that was in the woman, the pregnant woman that was carrying forth the

Christ, it preserved that seed. And when the seed came, that woman is no longer, that building is no longer, those plans are not needed any longer because the shadow has become the substance.

Yeah. That's part of being, I think that that truly is going to be the breakup.

And that's where I really do appreciate what Jeff said earlier, because I think you're being a consistent Presbyterian when you're saying these things.

But this is where I think Baptists need to take a step back and realize that no, this kind of has a divide because of the difference that we see with between the covenants.

Yeah, I don't mind denominational differences. Oh, yeah. Yeah, what I do like in denominational differences is consistency.

Like you should hold me to be a consistent Baptist, meaning that I believe that the

Lord's supper should be taken by those who have professed faith, right? And have been baptized, not those that, like if I didn't believe that, you could say, okay, well,

I thank you that you're letting these infant children take communion, but you're not being consistent, right?

And so I appreciate someone who's a Presbyterian and they do the infant communion or they do the theonomy idea because I think it's wrong, but I think it's consistent, it's consistent.

And I applaud you for your consistency is the same way that you should applaud me for my consistency, right?

Even though you think I'm wrong, right? You see what I'm saying? I mean, there's, yeah. And again,

I understand your position. I used to hold to theonomy in this movement, but owning my confession more and preaching verse by verse,

I saw that you cannot be a reformed Baptist and be a part of the theonomic movement.

You can hold to general equity. Now, how does that apply?

I think it's gonna differ from people to people because there's nothing set in stone right now.

Now, a hundred years from now, they could be. And I'm glad that I haven't been given charge of the person that has to set it in stone.

That's what I was getting at when I was talking to Brayden was like, how do you apply that general equity?

Do you think drinking and driving, being against law is an application of general equity? Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So then in that instance, do you have general equity being applied outside of the

Ecclesiastical sphere? I'm saying that it's general equity in the sense of, it's not because Israel had those judicial laws given to them, but there was still general equity in the moral 10 commandments prior to Israel ever being a nation.

So I'm saying that the new kingdom, the new covenant that we're a part of has general equity that much more because they're the eschatological

Israel. But other people still have general equity because that's always been the standard that's above everybody's head.

So they still know right from wrong because of those things. So you don't just have general equity captive to the

Ecclesiastical sphere. You have general equity over all men because all men know there's a

God and have the law pressed upon. Yes, but I'm saying it's the 10 commandments.

I do divide those things in the sense of saying that the judicial law, though it might be a flowing and outpouring and maybe even an expansion of the moral law in some ways, it's not the 10 commandments.

There's a divide there is what I would say. So I'm sure you guys are familiar with it, but like if I'm in the civil sphere and I'm taking the deck log and I'm going, okay,

I'm gonna use this and I'm gonna create laws with general equity of the moral law. Like I would look at the

Old Testament as case law. You know how there's like law, then there's like precedent. And I think a lot of the

Old Testament in the Old Testament, when they start going through, if you have an ax head and you fling it backwards and the ax head flies off and kills its neighbor and it starts going into how to handle that, you can use, you don't have to use, it's not like now we only have laws for murder if an ax is involved.

It's like now you can use the general equity of what's being taught about that ax situation and apply it to somebody that is playing with fire or if I do.

I do have a legitimate question. I really wanna ask you now that I think about it. So who, so, and this kind of,

I'm not trying to take you down a rabbit trail, but I really want you to think about this. So was

Israel responsible as a nation and kingdom, ethnic people of God to uphold the judicial law, to uphold penal codes?

Were they the ones that were in charge of killing the murderer, to put to death the murderer?

Yes, the, yeah, the king, yeah, the king. So how does that now work that we are still

Israel, that we are the church, they were the church, that they could put somebody to death?

I mean, how, why can't I now go and find adulterers on the street and stone them to death?

Why can't I be the one to do that? Because I have a king that's much better than the king of this state of Idaho.

Why can't I be subject to my king and not bow the knee to the king of Idaho and follow through with the judicial code because I am true

Israel? I think the revelation of God has, it's progressive.

And so like at the beginning, you have Adam, that's a prophet, a priest, and a king. He is it all.

And then with Abraham, you have him as a king and a prophet, and you have him as a priest.

But as the law is revealed book after book, time period after time period, you have the spheres being, especially when you enter into Moses, like Moses was a prophet and he was a priest, but still he had

Aaron talk on his behalf. So they had where Aaron was the one that was actually performing the sacrifices.

And then you had, even Aaron, you had a distinction where you had the Levites, the ones that were actually going into the people that were from Aaron, not the

Levites didn't all go into the Holy of Holies, but the people from Aaron did. So you start seeing the offices, the spheres that God has created, you start seeing them being separated and clearly revealed.

So when there's an office of a prophet, God makes it a prophet.

And then he fully goes into detail on what a prophet's gonna look like. And then he makes a priest and then he describes them the clothing and exactly what they're gonna do when they get into the

Holy of Holies. Then he talks about a king and he says exactly how a king's gonna operate. So as scripture moves down the line, you have the offices divide and become bigger and better and more clear.

And so by the time you get to the New Testament, the offices are distinct. Christ has swallowed them all up and he's invested his power into the ecclesiastical sphere.

Like when Jeff talks, he talks with power invested from Christ. When you preach, you preach with power invested into you by Christ.

And same as with as a father, when I father my home as a patriarch, I rule in the way that Christ is the head of his church and he laid down his life for his wife and I should father in that way.

And there's a power invested in me by Christ as my older brother or as Isaiah says, like the eternal father, as he is that to me,

I am that to my family. And same for the civil sphere, they have power vested in them. And as Christ is the

Lord of glory and all the kingdoms are his and they are the Lord's and he rules them and he reigns them and he gave them the sword and they are to be the avengers of God's wrath.

And so in that sphere, they are allowed to do that, but not me. It's not in the father sphere and it's not in the ecclesiastical sphere, but it's in that sphere.

So as the scripture, I guess the summary as the scripture progresses, the offices get divided, they get clear and the power of the sword is given to one office.

It's not given to all. So even if, okay. So even though it's that we're the

Israel God. So I'm trying to think real fast with this though. Yeah, because we're being the

Israel God then, because if Christ is the fulfillment of those three offices,

King, priest and prophet, but yet kingdoms are still subject and are to be kingdoms of his because he has authority over them.

Then how was Daniel to behave in the kingdom of Babylon when it was a kingdom within a kingdom?

Should he have, should he, wouldn't in a sense him, by him not judicially punishing these people that were worshiping a false

God that were making themselves God, right? You have Nebuchadnezzar raise a gold statue because he was wanting to be treated as God, right?

Look and then, and look at how my, look at my sovereignty, look at my majesty before he's made to eat the grass of the land, right?

According to even Leviticus, Leviticus either 34, 19 or 1934, I can't remember. In those ways, those people are blossoming

Yahweh. And so they're failing at their duty to be the king of that kingdom that is underneath the kingdom of Christ.

How is it, wouldn't Daniel be bowing the knee to Nebuchadnezzar by not putting Nebuchadnezzar to death?

I don't think Daniel had the authority. He wasn't given that sword. He wasn't.

But when we talk about like people being righteous, he was one of the only, one of the four people that were the righteous of Israel that were still there.

So wouldn't it have been upon him to follow through with following that code of God and not bowing the knee to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.

Or tell Nebuchadnezzar that he has to keep the Mosaic law. Yeah, even that.

And I'm just giving this kind of as a general thing, I'm thinking in that sense, if Babylon was a kingdom underneath the kingdom of God in the sense that Christ had authority over it,

Daniel, in my opinion, was bowing the knee to Nebuchadnezzar instead of to Christ by not advancing the

Mosaic law, by not putting people to death, by not punishing people because he was one of the only ones that was righteous.

I think in the sphere of authority, Daniel wasn't over Nebuchadnezzar. So he didn't have the authority given by God to do that.

But he was given an authority over the people at one point and I don't, there's nothing that's recorded about him putting the people to death, which

I mean - And I think that they did, you know, Daniel did interpret those dreams for Nebuchadnezzar and the -

Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar, yeah. So he did, he did do those things. You know, he did tell him like, look, you can't be doing this.

You need to follow the one true God. Absolutely. So he did. So earlier, if I'm not mistaken, you said that only those that have been given that sword and that spheres can put to death.

So earlier we were talking about in Israel, if someone had committed a sin, only the king could put them to death.

Is that what you said? Yeah, yeah. When it comes to trials and whatnot, yeah.

But what about an adultery trial? Because we saw in John 8 that they picked up stones to stone her.

Well, Jesus - It doesn't say that the king was aware of this in any way or that he made a decision. I think it's just Jesus and they're trying to misuse the law.

Like they don't have, they don't have - So you don't think they was really actually going to stone her? No. I don't think that you can read the text and come away with that conclusion.

No, I think they were going to try to stone her illegally. I think they were going to try to illegally stone her. She wasn't worthy of death.

But why didn't Jesus say, well, you know that you can't stone her because you haven't went through the king and the courts and there hasn't been a trial.

Yeah, he says, yeah. I mean, he asked for witnesses. You know, they're not there.

Who has no sin? Cast the first stone. You know, he's going through it and they're, nobody's, they don't -

So why did he ask for witnesses? Well, they don't bring the man. Jesus isn't going to kill him.

Jesus isn't going to kill that girl. That's not, there's no trial to be had there if they don't bring the man. I mean, because I would say that the witnesses would have been those that brought her.

Cause it gives you the idea that, you know, this could have been, this woman probably had barely any clothes on. Adultery, right?

Yeah. A woman that's caught in adultery. That she was caught, yeah. But it - Epicurean adultery. Yeah, I don't think that the witnesses came forth and Jesus, even in the way that he says, like, if you don't have, he who has no sin can cast the first stone.

He's saying things like, look, you know, every one of you guys could be guilty of the same thing.

And what you, and he doesn't put them to death because Jesus won.

Like I said this a couple different times. He wasn't acting in the king's sphere at that moment.

He is a prophet, but he's not a king. So that he's not the one to hear the trial.

He's one to act into the ecclesiastical sphere. And then the ecclesiastical sphere, you bid men to come die, repent, die to themselves.

And you tell them to live righteously. See, I do think though Christ was acting in the role of king by saying he who is without sin be the first to cast stone.

He had the right to throw the stone and he didn't throw the stone. He had the right to stone all those people there and he didn't do it.

And I think when he says that he was without sin, he isn't saying that you could be possibly a violator of the same thing.

I think what he's referring to is without direct reference to this, of course, James 2 .10,

it says for you that has broken the least of the commandments are guilty of them all. That the death penalty ultimately relies upon the king and that's

Christ. And that's not up to me to put somebody to death for that. You believe Jesus was acting in the kingly sphere, an earthly kingly sphere when he came?

Not earthly in the sense of physical, but that he was the kingdom. He was the king that was sent unto his people.

And that was a trial with a physical alleged adultery. And he was not in that sphere to make that call.

I think so all authority in heaven and on earth. I think that he had that right. After the resurrection, he goes into heaven.

At the resurrection, he goes into heaven and there's an inauguration where then at that moment, he's given -

Where does it say that he goes into heaven after the resurrection? Well, he's given the name above all names.

And is that Philippians? Yes, I would say that that was during the Ascension. During the

Ascension is whenever he received the Daniel nine, I mean, the Daniel seven. That he went up to the father.

He went up to the angel, the angel in the base. Because like, because in his death resurrection,

I mean, his death, he went to the, he's meant to preach to the spirits in prison. Yeah, yeah, you know, you think when he came back, he wasn't the king of all kings and all authority hadn't been given to him.

The only way you get all authority is if God the father makes you the king of all kings. If he's gonna say all authority has been given to me, that means he has the title.

Well, Psalm two calls him king then. So, you know, he was, he's always, he was always king.

Well, that's talking about an eternity. And then he says, whenever Pilate was questioning him, he says, are you a king?

And he mentions that his kingdom is not, he says, you say that I am. Yeah, yeah.

So right then he was king. And he said, but he said that his kingdom was not of this world. Meaning that it's not something that you have to worry about taking over the role,

Pilate. It was after the resurrection, after the resurrection. Well, he was king then because he said, he tells

Pilate, you say that I am. Like he didn't say, no, I'm not king. I gotta, I got, there's some things that I gotta do before I get crowned.

That's why, that's why Pilate put on the cross, Jesus, the Nazarene king of the Jews was because Christ did proclaim to be the king of the

Jews, which he is king of the Jews, those that have been circumcised of the heart, which I am a

Jew. So you think he's always been, he's always been the king of all kings? Yes. Absolutely.

Yeah, I would disagree. Yeah, I don't think there's anything that he's put on, added to himself, whether on anything.

I mean, like the only thing that he took on was flesh. And that didn't add to his nature.

Psalm two, you believe is the covenant of redemption, right, in eternity. Ask me the nations, I'll make them your heritage.

Ask that question again, I'm sorry. Psalm two, you believe is the covenant of redemption in eternity.

Psalm two. Well, I don't believe that. And I'll make them your heritage. Why do the nations plot in vain?

And he says, the Lord looks and he laughs, right? And so he tells Christ, ask me in the nations,

I'll make them your heritage. Yeah, I wouldn't say that that is a depiction of what took place in the covenant of redemption.

Like that's how it went down. I think, yeah, but I think that is the covenant redemption. I don't,

I don't. I see the covenant of redemption is more or less the father. It's kind of like the idea of Calvinism and election.

God elected a people, God the father purposed to save a people and he will save them by sending his son to accomplish the purpose in his death, burial and resurrection.

And that the Holy Spirit applies the purpose through the message of Jesus Christ. I would say that's the covenant of redemption.

That's the triune covenant. So when does that conversation take place? Ask me. In eternity past.

Yeah, in eternity past. Okay, yeah, yeah. So that's in eternity past. So I wouldn't say that Psalm 2 could be that, but I don't, there's nothing clear that says, hey, this is it.

Or I wouldn't argue and say that it was. What I'm saying is that that is him outside of time.

But in time, when he's born lowly, he is in his humanity.

He is not the king. He is not given the authority over all nations until after he accomplishes the divine conquest to conquer sin.

When he accomplishes the divine conquest to conquer sin, then he has earned the name above all names.

He has put the death sin and he rose to life and God the father bestows on him a name above all names.

But until he has his divine conquest and does the retrial made, goes into the wilderness, is tempted by the

David, lives the righteous life. Until he does that, he totally puts the death sin.

He doesn't have the name above all names. He's not the king of all kings. So what

I think you're doing is you're conflating him being king with him sitting on the

Davidic throne. Of course, he doesn't sit on the Davidic throne until his resurrection.

That's the idea. If his resurrection was the sign that he was sitting on the

Davidic throne, but in his resurrection, he didn't know like it wasn't like, he didn't actually sit down on a throne in his resurrection, but Peter says that his resurrection is proof that he's the one that sits on the throne.

Yeah, I think it's like Psalm 25 when he says, lift up your heads O gates, lift up your heads O ancient doors so the king of glory may come in.

Who is this king of glory? The Lord mighty in battle, right? But wasn't he the king of glory prior to those gates opening?

The king of glory may enter and it means that he's already those things. Yeah, he just accomplished it. He just went down to heaven and kicked some butt.

I mean, he just went down to earth and kicked a lot of butt. Yeah, he just went down to heaven and kicked a bunch of butt and now he's going up to heaven and he's the first human that could put his hand on the latch and walk into heaven rightfully so.

And now he has been given, he becomes at that moment, the king of all kings by divine complex.

It just doesn't seem to compute though with what took place with him and Pilate. You say that I am like,

Yeah, he didn't actually. It's kind of like rhetorical. Well, there's a lot of things that he didn't answer, but you wouldn't turn that against him.

I mean, I don't know. Gentlemen, I think we can do this for another three hours.

I really do got to get up early in the morning. I know, I got to get up at 3 .30.

Yeah, let me read with you brothers real fast, real fast. And let me pray real fast after this as well.

Just saying real fast over and over again. So real fast. Verse one, Psalm one. How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.

But his delight is in the law of Yahweh and his law. And in his law, he meditates day and night.

And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its seasons. And its leaf does not wither.

And in whatever he does, he prospers. Let's pray. Lord God, I just do thank you just for this conversation.

I do thank you for the contemplation of your law and delighting in your law, Lord. God, let us be rejoicing that we are a part of this new covenant and that we have a new mediator that did come to earth, kick some butt,

Lord. And I just thank you for that. Lord, thank you for putting your feet on our backs, making us your footstool,

Lord. And we just say this in your name, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. All right, Matt, I'm gonna end this, but don't hang up.

Don't click off. All right. That was rich. Yeah, yeah.

I enjoyed it and I hope to have you back on either to finish this subject or to get on a

Baptist Presbyterian trip. Yeah, I'll let you guys take me around a little bit on infant inclusion.

I'm okay. All right. As always, we love everybody.

Thanks for staying with us. And if you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee, please come check us out.

I believe Brayden would echo that. Eggerman, Idaho. Southern Idaho, come check out

Valley Baptist Church in Eggerman. It would be a blessing. Or Reformed Ex -Mormon on YouTube. Matt, do you have any last words, brother?

Bless anybody that has stayed with us throughout this time. You're true. Yeah, thank you so much, you guys, for letting me be on.

I was, there was not one minute of the day that I didn't think about doing this.

I was really sad. Well, we really enjoyed having you on, man. Hopefully we can get you back on. It was a blessing. Thanks, man.

I know I missed the first part of the show, so it was, but it was a blessing, catching up and thank you again.