The Christian Nationalism Statement

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. Black sheep among misfits.

A misfit in the trailer park at night. A misprint with the sixth sense. 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? Signing 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 whips 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. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Open Air Theology.

My name is Jeff Rice. I am one of the pastors, elders at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church here in Tallahoma, Tennessee.

If you're ever in the area, please come by and visit. If you're in a place where you don't have a biblical church,

I would suggest you figure that out. And Tennessee is a good place to live and we'd be happy to have you in Tallahoma.

I'm here with my good friend, Brayden Patterson. Brayden, introduce yourself, brother.

I am Brayden Patterson of Valley Baptist Church in Hagerman, Idaho. If you live in that area in southern

Idaho, it would be a blessing to have you at church on Sunday with us, worshiping with the saints, as well as I do a

YouTube channel called Reformed Ex -Mormon. I'd love for anybody to go check it out. It's just a blessing to be a part of Open Air Theology along with Haps Addison, who is not able to make it here with us tonight.

Haps Addison is in the process of moving to Tennessee. He's going to be a part of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, and he's going to help me get my drug program up and started.

As some of you may know, I wrote a repeatable 12 -step program called

Remedy. It's recovery through biblical discipleship. Brother Haps is going to come and help me actually get that started.

Let me get that started and help me write some curriculum for it.

What's up, man? How are you doing, brother? Oh, dude. Fantastic. Fantastic.

I was telling you earlier, as some of y 'all know, I have an electric bike, and I wrecked that thing twice today.

First time I just laid it down in my yard. I was kind of doing figure eights around a tree, and I was actually videoing it as I was doing it, right?

So that wreck is on video. Then a few minutes later, I'm kind of coming out of my yard, and I hear a voice, right?

It said, do a willy. I yanked the bar and kind of do a willy and fell back, and my butt hit my driveway, and the bike landed on my big toe, and my big toe is jacked up along with my butt.

I don't know if you can say butt on a Christian podcast, but I got a trailer in my back view, so it is what it is, right?

Well, you can't tease us like that. If you got it on video, dude, you got to post that thing later today, the first crash. That's something

I've learned is if I had a bad day and I failed already, it just means to give up. Don't keep on doing that.

I wished I would have filmed the second one, too, so that would have been cool, right?

Yeah. It would have went viral because I'm going to be honest with you. When I landed, I said a bad word.

Oh, did you? I did. It hurt. My butt hurt so bad.

I was trying to get up real quick, hoping no one saw me. I'm probably not going to be able to walk right for at least three weeks.

I'm going to have to have Pastor Cal to carry me up into the pulpit Sunday. So today's topic is a big, juicy one, right?

Christian nationalism. And our plan really is to just a few guys, some

Presbyterians, some Baptists come together, and they wrote a statement, and I believe Joe Webbin edited it maybe.

And it's been getting a lot of hype, gaining a lot of hype and causing a lot of drama at the same time, especially on the

Twittersphere and YouTube channel battles. And so as you all know, myself and Brayden, we are

Reformed Baptists, 1689 Federalists. We don't identify ourselves with a movement that's called theonomy.

We don't identify with theonomy because we are Reformed. If you are

Reformed, you don't have to add something else into the pot, right? Because we have the three uses of the law.

Second use of the law deals with how the government should use the law.

And so we don't have to add something that was started, let's say, 40 years ago.

We have something historical that's been here, that's stood the test of time.

And so we hold to law and gospel distinction, and we hold to the three uses of the law, as well as the three distinctions of the law.

And so our plan today is that we're going to, Brayden, I don't have it pulled up,

Brayden's going to read from the statement. Brayden's going to read each article from the statement, and we're going to say if we agree with it, and if we agree with it, we're going to give our opinion why.

And if we disagree with it, we're going to give our opinion why, right? And we're going to be looking at it from a

Reformed Baptist, 1689 Federalist position. And kind of glancing over it, there's a lot of things, a lot of things

I agree with, right? As long as they're not trying to take

Moses and drop him in America, I'm fine with that.

Transcendent law, Ten Commandments, bring it. What? We're right here.

We want that, we want that, but we don't want to kill off our mission field at the same time.

And so, and I know not all theonomists hold to that position, but we have talked to some who do hold to that position.

So I'm not straw manning anybody. There are some theonomists that they just, let's kill them all, right?

And so we're going to read this, Braden's going to read the statement, and we're going to give our thoughts.

And if you like it, okay, if you don't like it, okay, whatever.

I'm an ex -gangbanger. I've had people I've been ganged, I've been shot at, I got hit in the face with a brick.

You making a video about me, ain't going to do nothing to me, so it is what it is. You know,

I think it also, I'm happy that you brought up the three uses of the law since that was what we did. I believe our last podcast or our show, whatever you want to call this, over, it's been a hot second since we've been able to get on together and do one of these.

We were hoping to have HAPS here tonight, but like Jeff said, HAPS isn't going to be able to make it just because of moving stuff and whatnot.

But we are coming at this with things that we've already established in previous podcasts.

So I think that's something that anybody that's watching this should take note of, that we are not just jumping into this, diving into the deep end in that sense.

Jeff and I have been talking about law within the Bible for now a hot second,

I would say. So it's definitely something that's been on our minds. And so, like Jeff said,

I've perused this document already. I read the first half today pretty deeply and in depth.

And like Jeff said, there's a lot of things that seem to be pretty good in this document to start off with.

On another note, before we get started, just for anyone who may listen to this, if you do have tension and you want to have a conversation, we would love to have you on.

That would be great. And also, I've been trying to put this out there for all those who do hold to a strong view of theonomy.

I mean, again, we are Reformed Baptists, we're confessionalists, so we do hold to general equity.

You don't have to be a theonomist to hold to general equity. You just got to be Reformed. I am willing to.

Here's my challenge. Let's open the book of Galatians and let's walk through Galatians expositionally and have a conversation because I am convinced that Galatians shuts down any idea of it.

It gets rid of both the Abrahamic covenant according to the flesh.

That's where the circumcision comes in. If there is no sign, there is no covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant according to the flesh, not according to the promise or the spirit, according to the flesh.

And the Bible clearly states in Galatians 3 that the law, and it's speaking of Moses, was only until Christ.

Only until Christ. And until someone can exegete that passage, like I've been trying to get people to do,

I really don't want to hear anything else. I want to hear that Galatians, especially chapter 3, exegete it where it says that it is only until Christ, speaking about the

Moses law. So let's read this statement and let's see what happens. Yeah.

So I have it pulled up here, so I'll just read through the definition to begin with. And then

I will pause. After that, there's the introduction. And then after that, they get into the different articles.

So I'll read the definition to begin with. Definition. Christian nationalism is a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture's teaching that Christ rules as supreme

Lord and King of all creation, who has ordained civil magistrates with delegated authority to be under Him, over the people, to order their ordained jurisdictions by punishing evil and promoting good for His own glory and the common good of nations.

Isaiah 9, 6 -7, John 1, 1 -3, 3, 35, 17 -2,

Ephesians 1, 20 -21, Philippians 2, 9 -11,

Colossians 1, 15 -18, Romans 13, 1 -4, 1 Peter 2, 14,

Deuteronomy 6, 5, Matthew 22, 37 -39 is what they have here for that definition.

I'm trying to pull up the statement. Did we send it on the...

Yeah, I sent it in the Facebook messenger. It's in there. Okay. I'm trying.

Or no, no, I did not actually. Let me hear. I got you though. I can pull it up and send it to you. You can put it in.

Hold on one second. And what

I'll do since this is sweet, amazing social media is I can go on to the chat that we're in right now and post it in there too.

So then everybody knows what we're talking about. This is what we're discussing.

There's a lot to look over. So yeah, it'd probably be good if we both are looking at it.

This is... But yeah, if anybody that's watching this would like to follow along,

I shared on my Facebook Jeff's podcast right now that we're in.

And I just left a comment with the link to the article that we're talking about right now.

I'm going to also post it on. Man, it's so small. I can hardly...

And I can keep on reading it just as long as you can keep on... I'm going to turn it this way. Have some decent understanding about what we're reading.

So yeah, let me read the definition again in short. Definition. Christian nationalism is a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture, teaching that Christ rules the

Supreme Lord and King of all creation, who has ordained civil magistrates with delegated authority to be under him, or the people to ordain their ordained jurisdictions by punishing evil and promoting good for his own glory and the common good of the nations.

What do you think about that definition? I don't see anything wrong with the definition.

Go ahead and read the introduction. Yeah, I would actually just pause real fast on the definition.

I don't think that's a thoroughly fleshed out definition from what I've heard other Christian nationalists talking about that to me is not...

Well, that's one of my problems with it is that there's no consensus, right? There isn't.

You have this group with Joe Evan, and I can't think of it.

I'm sorry. I don't know the other guys' names. Please forgive me. They come together, and they wrote this statement. But everyone who is waving the flag for it, like each one that I've spoken with or watched videos on all had something different to say.

It's kind of like with the Hothianomy thing, right? It's all over the board.

There's nothing set in stone. Yeah, it's hard. When we talk about doctrines and somebody says the word hypostatic union, everybody knows what you're talking about.

If somebody says Calvinism, everybody knows what you're talking about, right? Whereas with this, it seems like it's a very loosey -goosey definition.

And maybe even for somebody that was putting this document together, was watching this, I would encourage you to maybe be a little bit more fleshed out in your definition because, to me, that is not with enough clarity to what this document,

I think, is arguing for. Maybe that would be a helpful critique.

I don't disagree with the definition or anything that that definition is teaching, but just maybe some advice on that.

You want me to read the introduction now? Yeah, I'm trying to send it to a different file of mine, hoping it'll pull up better.

One of the things that I use my sermons for. All right, got it.

You got it now? Yeah, it's a lot bigger. A lot bigger now, okay. You want me to read it, introduction?

Yeah, I mean, it's still too small for me to, I'd really have to get on it. I got you. Yeah, no, I got you.

You just follow along. I can follow, but. Yep. So, introduction. Christian nationalism is primarily concerned with the righteous rule of civil authorities, not spiritual matters pertaining to salvation.

The desire for a Christian nation is not a distraction from the gospel, but rather an effort to faithfully apply all

Scripture to all life, including the public square. As such, Christian nationalism.

Stop right there. Stop right there. I have a problem with that. Okay. I have a problem with that.

It's not pertaining. I mean, so it says not spiritual matters pertaining to salvation, right?

There's no way to have a nation, a Christian nationalism, apart from gospel, it being spiritual, right?

Earlier, I gave a definition. Well, not a definition, kind of an analogy of a

Christmas tree. And I know some of you people, you know,

X the Christmas tree, right? So, I mean, if you're one of those folks, it is what it is.

You'll still get the analogy, right? When you put together a Christmas tree, you start at the base.

Normally, they come in three separate sections, right?

You got the base, the bottom, the middle, the top. And then you start putting the ornaments on.

And the last thing that you put on is the star, right? And so with me,

I see the star as being Christian nationalism, right?

And the base would be me loving my wife and my kids, me.

And I'm working my way up, right? I'm loving my neighbor, which is law.

Love is law. Love is a command. That's law. But it's still me doing what

Christ told me to do. And then I'm witnessing to my neighbors, right?

I'm preaching Christ. And I'm building the tree up, right?

In order to have what I would think true Christian nationalism, because if we're honest, like we want our nations to be

Christian, it's not about establishing law, you know, like top down, right?

The star. You don't start with the star. You start with the base of the tree.

Again, it starts with loving my wife and my kids, loving my neighbors. And the way that I love my neighbors is

I witness to them. And I want you to imagine if every Christian, every Christian was to go out and preach the gospel, knock on doors, do something, right?

We would see it. We would truly see a revival in our nation. And our society would be

Christian. And when our society becomes Christian, the majority, then the laws will reflect what the society hosts to.

You see what I'm saying? And so let's say that we vote, you know,

Christian leaders in whenever it's time for the next vote. Well, they come in and let's say they establish law.

Well, four years later, there's a chance that they have to leave. And another group of people enter in, right?

And they could change everything that the previous leader got started.

Like we've been seeing this over and over in our country. That's why it can't start there.

It has to start in the family. It has been out of the home to our neighbors, loving them, preaching

Christ, society, a reformation, a revival takes place in our society.

The laws will reflect the society. So to me, it has to begin spiritually. It has to begin with the gospel.

Does that make sense? Yeah, I think so.

One thing I was thinking about, as you were just saying that, and something that I've been thinking about today, is when we think about the term

Christian nationalism, Christian nationalism, if you were to break down those words, how would you define a

Christian? And most of the time we would say something along the lines of a follower of Christ. Someone who has been born again, who has been given faith to believe, and repentance to turn from sin.

That is a Christian. That is a Christian, right? And I'm thankful that you bring that up, right?

Because when we talk about the next word, nationalism, how would we define that word?

That would maybe be geographical, political, society, governing, laws, an ethnic group of people.

However you want to define that nationalism, I think we could all come to some rudimentary understanding of those things. Right. Nationalism, you cannot enforce law that creates somebody to be a

Christian. They have to be, as you just said, they have to be born again. They have to have repentance and have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be a

Christian. And the problem is this. If you were to establish that law, and the nations are not

Christian, what you're going to have next is rioting, civil war.

And Christians are called to live peaceably. And so it goes against.

Again, listen, I want our nation's Christian. I want it so bad that every chance

I get, I go and knock on doors and stand on street corners and preach the gospel. Because I believe it starts at the trunk.

I love my wife. I love my kids. I love my church family.

I love my neighbors so much that I'm willing to look like a fool before them so that they may hear

Christ, hear preached Christ crucified. Yep. I like it.

Well, do you want me to keep on reading? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Nope, you're good. This might take a few months to read all the way through.

It's all good. So I'm going to back up to the sentence prior that we just read over.

Actually, I'll just start at the beginning. So Christian nationalism is primarily concerned with the righteous rule of civil authorities, not spiritual matters pertaining to salvation, period.

The desire for a Christian nation is not a distraction from the gospel, but rather an effort to faithfully apply all

Scripture to all life, including the public square, period. That's where we left off last. So now this is the new sentences, the new section.

As such, Christian nationalism is not just for civil authorities, just as submitting to Christ's lordship is not just for civil authorities, but for all people.

After the Lord Jesus declared His sovereign authority, Matthew 28, 18, He gave the great commission and command and commanded

His followers, empowered by His everlasting presence, to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them and teach them to obey all that I have commanded.

Our Lord did not exclude all civil authorities from the command to submit to His authority and display allegiance to Him.

And then there's another paragraph down. Do you have anything to say about that? Well, I mean, you know, just the idea right here where it's speaking about the great commission, make disciples of all nations.

Again, this is ethnos, which actually could be translated as Gentiles.

Make disciples of all Gentiles. It's not necessarily, I mean, it would be in an interpretive standpoint to say that this is speaking of geopolitical nations versus Gentiles.

And again, I think I would say it's both and, but the only way for it to be geopolitical would be that the society becomes born again.

A nation is going to reflect the society, right, plain and simple.

So again, I'm all for discipling the nations, baptizing them because they're

Christian, not because they're infants, not because of anything else, but because of profession of faith and teaching them, right?

We had Jamie Terry on here. Do you remember that episode? And we spoke about Matthew chapter 28.

And one of the things that, of course, I can't remember everything that was said there, but we are commanded to make disciples.

This is us going out and preaching the Gospels. And those who come to faith, we baptize them in the church.

And they, those who have been baptized, are taught from the pulpit.

Like that's how it's done. And if you have that interpretation of that verse, hey, high five.

I'm with you there. That's what I was talking about earlier. It has to be spiritual. It has to be gospel first.

Yeah. Well, I think I just can't read this text and I would have issue.

And since it mentioned it, I guess this is a decent time to talk about it for sure. I have a huge issue with taking this verse and then applying it for us to the day to go to the, into civil magistrates and say that this text, like that's every time

I ever hear like a post -millennialist Christian nationalist talking about this text.

It almost seems like the only way they apply it is for the civil magistrate. Like this is for us to go and change nations, not just individuals, but nations.

And I just don't see that. First of all, as you said, it's ethnos, which is, it's the

Jewish disciples of Jesus. They're being told to go and make disciples amongst the

Gentiles. And we see that taking place in the book of Acts. And notice this. Jesus does not say, go to Israel and change their nation.

He says, go unto the Gentiles and change them. And he's not saying to the nation, like to the state.

He's saying, go and make the disciples, individual disciples, not large scale states, countries, all these kinds of things.

He's talking about you go out and you evangelize and proclaim my name amongst the people, not amongst the, whatever you would want to call it, amongst the states, essentially.

Like you said, I'm not advocating for somebody not to do that. I think that's totally right on. I've done that myself.

I've gone up and talked before people. I do that continually. And so I'm not arguing against that.

However, I think it's misapplying this text. If we're saying that this is primarily for a means of changing nations rather than changing individual disciples within nations.

I think that that's an incorrect take on this text. So, okay.

We recognize the existence of other definition of Christian nationalism.

We certainly do not endorse every iteration of Christian nationalism and explicitly repudiate some such forms.

As we were talking about earlier, there's no consensus on it. Yep. As will be evident in our affirmations and denials.

Yeah. Yeah. Which Christian nationalism is not, there's nothing new underneath the sun, right?

Christian nationalism has been a thing for a very, very long time. Right. And it always fails.

That's the other thing that people don't like to look at. I mean, Israel was

Christian nationalism, right? It was a geopolitical people who were governed by the law.

And they could not keep the law, right? The gospel is the righteous for the unrighteous.

The righteous meaning law keeper. Unrighteous meaning law breaker. They, plus you and I, have broken

God's law. We are the law breaker. God sent his son, the righteous, to keep the law in our stead as a substitute and to take our punishment for us not being able to keep the law in his death, right?

And that's why it was only until Christ, because it clearly states at his baptism, it was to fulfill all righteousness.

Well, I'm thankful that you bring up Israel because I think Israel is a prime example of this, right? That you have a nation that at majority is called

God's people. Not even just majority. They are called God's people in the text. God's covenant people.

They are people that have this law that's imposed to them.

But what typically, and we haven't gotten into this document so far, but I think the idea of what

Christian nationalism is, and I know that it says this later on, is to hopefully direct the people within the nation unto

God and have faith and saving faith in Jesus Christ, right? Which is a great hope.

I would hope for everybody I talk to to have that at the end of the conversation is hopefully I have directed them in that direction.

I totally am on board with that type of language. However, in Israel, the majority of the people were not true

Israel. Were not true Israelites. They did not have faith in the coming seed. There is a plethora of times where you see

God pouring out wrath against his own people because they don't have faith in Yahweh.

They don't have an actual saving faith in Yahweh. And so just because law is there, just because they have this outward appearance, in fact what you might have just done is just created a people that thought that they were secure in law rather than actually having faith in a future coming

Messiah. Romans 10, they saw it by law keeping and not as though it was by faith.

I'm glad that you brought that up. As covenant theologians, we would say that there's the one covenant of grace which is revealed in the

Old Testament. But as a 1689 Federalist, and I would debate anyone on this, it was only a promise.

And so you see this promise of a greater covenant throughout the

Old Testament. But they were never really told to believe in that promise.

They were told to keep the law. And in one sense, it's three uses of the law, right?

The first use is the law is a mirror. Again, I said this on that one episode.

If I go to the mirror, I wake up in the morning, I go to the mirror. The mirror reveals to me what

I look like. So if I wake up, my beard, it's kind of all everywhere. I got hair sticking up.

The mirror doesn't lie to me. Even when I get the hair down and the beard looking good, it still tells me that I'm ugly, right?

It doesn't sugarcoat anything. Well, that's what the law is to do. And so instead of the scriptures telling them to look to that promised seed, it gives them the law and tells them to keep it.

They should have been able to look at it and say, you know what? I cannot keep it. What else must

I do? And then the story of Abraham comes into play. Abraham believed

God. What did he believe? That an offspring would come from him that would inherit the land, keep the law, and bless the nations.

And by holding to that, looking to that, that's where salvation is found. Reckoned with righteousness.

Reckoned with righteousness. The law is a tutor. It points us.

It should be because of the first use of the law. It should be pointing us to the Messiah who then would come and fulfill the law, who now has come and has fulfilled the law.

And we are, like Abraham, justified, counted righteous by faith in the promised seed, which is the covenant of grace, which is the new covenant.

The Old Testament doesn't specifically point that out.

Like you can't say, here's a book chapter and verse where it tells you to look to the promised seed for salvation.

This is something that's revealed to us as we open up the passages of the

New Testament. But you can read it and see how Abraham was reckoned with righteousness and follow in the footsteps of Abraham.

And those that do, the Bible says they are the spiritual seed of Abraham. And that's why there was

Jews who were the physical seed of Abraham and who were also the spiritual seed of Abraham.

The physical seed of Abraham is no more. That covenant is no more. It's the spiritual seed of Abraham, the new covenant.

I think it's a great reminder, too, that the physical law -keeping descendants of Abraham crucified our

Lord and Savior, the seed of Abraham. These were people that were in a

Christian nation that did such a thing. Which is another conversation for another day.

But you talk about that example of people that are fooled into thinking they have a righteousness in and of themselves through the keeping of the law.

We have that even today. I was reading an article on this earlier. But even in the

Bible Belt today, where do we see some of the most largest numbers of attending

Christians? Or when I say Christians, I put parentheses around it, right? Bible Belt, right?

Where do we see the most amount of people that don't actually know Jesus in the United States for the most part that are confessing to know

Jesus? The Bible Belt, right? Because they are in this atmosphere that teaches

Christ, yet they are fooled into not actually believing in Christ. They fool themselves into thinking they have something that they really don't, right?

It's kind of like in the Presbyterian Church. It is. The idea that you have these

Presbyterians. Again, I love my Presbyterian brothers. But the idea, you baptize your infant.

Your child grows up thinking that it's in the covenant. And even if the infant, when it grows up, does profess faith in Christ, that person still has the sin of not obeying the gospel in the sense of receiving baptism.

We have not received the sign. They have not received the sign. They haven't. Millions of Christians, when they die, they're going to die without receiving the sign because they were told that they had already received it.

How many Christians have you talked to that have said, Oh, I'm a Christian.

I was baptized when I was a baby, right? There's so many that I talked to about that. And that's like their evidence of salvation.

And I'm blown away with that kind of a response, right? Same here. It's ridiculous.

So just because you're born into something like a Christian moral stance nation does not mean, therefore, you are a

Christian. That's why I have an issue with that term, Christian nationalism. Before you read any more, let me read what

Romans 10 says at the very beginning. And this was what, let's say, if the Christian nationalism, what's been stated here is established tomorrow, 50 years down the road, this is what it's going to be.

Brothers, my heart, desire, and prayer to God is for them, speaking of the Jews, and for their salvation.

For I testify about them, they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

The knowledge here would be the coming of the sun. For not knowing about the righteousness of God, which is

Christ, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Right? We're trying to establish a law, and by people keeping that law, they're going to be considered a part of Christian nationalism.

And Christianity, it's by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

The message is preached. God grants faith and repentance. If that doesn't happen, that's the righteousness of God is being found righteous in Christ, not in law keeping.

Right? Who among us as Christians keep the law?

If you're raising your hand or patting yourself on the back, brother, you don't know

God. You don't know God. You need to repent.

And I would like to get into 1 Timothy, but there's a lot of article here, and we'll get to it eventually.

Maybe not tonight, maybe in the 40th message on this, but keep reading. So, you may sign this document and delineate if you affirm civil authorities, legislations, both tables of the law, or only the second table after the article.

It can never be both tables. They said both tables. They have an either or option in this document.

It can never be both tables. No, it absolutely cannot be. We cannot force people to believe in Christ.

1 John 3, verse 23 and 24 tells us how you keep the first table of the law.

And that's by believing in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ. You want to keep the first table?

You want to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and all your strength? Believe in Jesus Christ.

We cannot force people to believe in Jesus Christ. I wish we could, and it actually took, but we can't.

We are honored to receive signatures now. If you affirm the statement as it stands, we do not accept anonymous signatures.

In July, we will host an editorial summit to discuss any necessary amendments.

Follow the next day by a conference. Details forthcoming. We affirm and deny the following propositions.

Article 1. Yep. Article 1, the source of truth. We affirm that the

Bible is God's Word, breathed out by Him as the only sufficient, certain, inerrant, infallible, necessary, and final authority for all saving knowledge, faith, what we must believe, and obedience, how we must live.

We affirm that the light of nature in man and God's works in creation and providence reveal

God's power in nature, leaving civil authorities without excuse for failing to govern justly as His servants.

Yet this knowledge is insufficient for repentance unto life in salvation. All truth, claims, and ethical standards must be tested by God's final

Word, which is Scripture alone. We affirm that the Bible is clear in all essential matters.

We deny that true beliefs, good character, or good conduct can be dictated by any authority other than God's revelation.

That's Article 1. Do you have anything to say about it? Do you affirm? Uh, there's nothing that's popping up to me.

Yeah, I didn't see anything that I disagree with. Especially how this article's being written, that it's going just for this, like, it's being written like the

Westminster or the 1689 in the sense of starting with God's Word, right? Right. However, it's focused on law.

Like, that's obvious when it's talking about in here. So, again,

I don't, I think that any way that somebody should be living their life should be according to God's revelation.

So, I think that there's nothing that I see that's popping out. Yeah, I think all men should believe in Jesus Christ and love their neighbors as themselves.

Yep. Article 2. Do you want me to keep on reading Article 2? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Okay, Article 2,

Orthodox Christian Faith. We affirm that nations are commanded to honor God by officially affirming that Orthodox Christian faith is historically and universally defined and affirmed in the creeds.

Example, Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian's Creed. We affirm that many denominational confessions articulate the

Orthodox Christian faith. We affirm that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone, revealed in Scripture alone to the glory of God alone.

We deny that a Christian nation must require or preclude membership in any particular confessional trade or denomination.

Hmm. Hmm. We deny that...

What do you think? I'm having... We deny that a Christian nation must require or preclude... Yes, it's that first sentence.

We affirm that nations are commanded to honor God by officially affirming the

Orthodox Christian faith as a historical and universal defined...

Like, I'm not trying to be a Biblicist. No. A lot of these guys claim to be

Reformed Biblicists. And I know all men are called to repent.

And so, I mean, you have to look at it. Again, we're...

So, I'm about to say something. If you're new to this channel, that might make the hair on your back stand up.

But we affirm Calvinism, the sovereignty of God. And although we know that all men are commanded to believe and repent, we also hold that truth side by side with the truth that all men will not believe and repent.

All that the Father gives to Jesus will come.

And so, my only reason for bringing this up is that it's speaking in the...

That nations are commanded to do so. And, again, are they saying nations as an individual people?

Or... You see what I'm saying? So, it's kind of hard. Like, I wish someone was on here that had this document so I can understand what they mean by nations.

But even then, we would need to get somebody that helped write this document to really truly understand, right? Because every

Christian nationalist and theonomist has a different definition for... As a lot of, again, not harping too much on those that believe in such, a lot of doctrines people have different definitions for, which is at fault for either the definition...

The term isn't well defined then throughout history apparently. But the issue that we would have is if we could ask somebody what they mean by that and we might get different answers depending on who's answering.

You know what I mean? Yeah. We affirm that nations are commanded. Yeah, I'm going to say

I think that's okay. I don't know. I think that... I mean, I like the... I would like that, you know,

I mean, you know, there is one faith, Orthodox Christian faith.

And it would be great if all nations... You know, but I just...

Like, is there a... And there could be, but is there a passage of Scripture that actually affirms...

Affirms this? I think I don't think there is.

Yeah, like I would like for there to be. But if you ask the people, I mean, if you ask the people in my congregation, like I'm a

Bible person. I want to... Again, listen, I love church history. I'm all about church history.

I mean, I study it all.

But I mean, in order to say something like that, like I... Again, a lot of these guys claim to be

Reformed Biblicists. And like, does the Bible actually say these things? It'd be nice if it did.

I don't think it does. So... Well, so take note of this real fast.

And this is something I would caution somebody to take notice of in this. Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed are the three creeds that are mentioned right here.

That'll be important. Because in the next article, there seems to be a contradiction in application.

And you might catch it. We'll see. Article 3, The Standard of Justice.

We affirm that God's Word is authoritative on everything to which it speaks.

And we affirm that God's Word speaks abundantly regarding the nature and importance of civil government and justice.

We affirm that God's moral law is enduring and binding on all people throughout all time, including civil authorities and nations.

And that it is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. We further affirm that every political thought must be taken captive to the obedience of Christ.

We affirm that Christ will judge every civil authority according to their conformity to His command.

We deny that there is any objective standard by which to discern justice from injustice outside of God's revelation written on the heart and most perfectly revealed in Scripture.

We deny that faithful civil authorities may rule autonomously from the rule of Christ. We deny that God approves of Christian embracing any political ideology or position prohibited by Scripture.

It looks like they deny theonomy right there. That's what I'm saying.

And the reason I'm saying that is because they're making mention to moral law, which comes from both the

West Minister, the Savoy, and the 1689 as the threefold distinction of the law, which is moral, judicial, and ceremonial.

The issue with that is that moral, judicial, and ceremonial, that distinction is not laid out in the

Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, or Athanasians' Creed. So that is a denominational creed, though.

And so how, therefore, can we have articles… Do you see what I'm trying to say, where I'm going with this?

I agree with that. I honestly think Article III is very well -worded. I love

Article III. I'm right there with you. I know that they don't understand this, but it's something that we have pointed out before, that you have the moral, the judicial, and the ceremonial.

The judicial and ceremonial are not written on our hearts. The moral law is written on the heart.

Now, I know that we had a… Coming to Jesus moment.

Yeah, well, like this brings up an interpretation in Romans chapter 2 where it talks about the

Gentiles with the law written on their heart. And I know that you and I have understood that it had to be

Christians because only those that are in the New Covenant have the law in their heart.

But separately, without talking to each other, you and I both came to this conclusion. Yeah, separately without talking to each other.

But I also see another way where it could be speaking about those that are not in the

New Covenant. And that's the heart of stone, right? Every person has a heart of stone.

And I think in Ezekiel where it talks about the heart of stone and the law, he removes the heart of stone.

Speaking about, you know, they were trying to keep the law to justify themselves before God versus God putting his spirit in them to keep the law.

So it's not them keeping the law. It's the spirit of God keeping the law in them. You see what

I'm saying? So I don't know which interpretation is true, but I know for sure that only

New Covenant believers have the law written on their heart of flesh. And I also know that everyone is self -righteous.

I'm going to say, I think, I totally, totally think that it says that they who keep the law without knowing the law,

I think that that's a testament to them having a heart of flesh being put inside of them. Yeah, I do too. And, you know,

I think, but that's where like the 1689 has very clearly laid out.

And I haven't thoroughly, I don't know if it's worded the exact same way in the other confessions as well.

I'm pretty sure it does. But that's where at the very beginning in the chapter of creation, it lays out that man has been created with this rule of righteousness.

Right. Then you go to man, rule of righteousness. And when you look and you can use these things with scripture and you look and see what the people of the creators of this confession were seeing, you see in here that those 10 commandments, the moral laws, that transcendent law that makes up part of what the image of God is.

Image of God becomes corrupt. It becomes a poor image of the creator.

Now it's still the image of God, but it's twisted and mangled. It's now in the image of Adam. And so it's this heart of flesh or a heart of stone that continually still has that law there that still makes up the imago

Dei, but it's poorly being kept, not being obeyed to all those things. And in those confessions, it then says that God saw it necessary to then give the sun -dried judicial laws that expired with that nation.

I don't have the confession in front of me right now. And when you look at Matthew, I think it's 22.

When you look at Galatians chapter 3, when you look at these texts, Romans chapter 5, it talks about this law that's separate than the moral transcendent law that's added, right?

The moral law has always been there. Judicial and ceremonial added.

It's something different. It still might have components of that moral law within it. But it's added.

It hangs upon it. It was given to for a reason and a purpose. It's not part of the image of God.

It was added. If it was a part of the image of God, everybody before the law was given weren't image bearers then apparently, right?

So there's big issues theologically if we say that all of the theonomic judicial ceremonial was always the existing.

If the whole mosaic law was written on our heart, then our nation, when someone was murdered and they couldn't, they were unable to find the person that murdered him.

So you have an unsolved murder. If that whole law was written on our heart, then our nation would go out to find out when this person was murdered, was it closer to Tennessee or was it closer to Alabama?

And if it was closer to Tennessee, then Tennessee would take a bull and sacrifice it in the place of the one who killed him.

I mean, that's what they're trying to do. That law is not written on our heart. But everyone knows that it's wrong to lie.

It's wrong to steal. You're telling me you have never gotten the urge to go out into the middle of Tennessee and go kill a bull.

You're telling me you've never gotten that and pulling on the heartstrings. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. And I would like to go shoot a bear with you.

But you see what I'm saying? Absolutely.

It's different. These are things that they're told to do. These are commands that they're told to do, and they're told to do it because it's not written in their heart.

Yep. They're told to do it with the purpose of bringing about the Christ. Before Moses went up on that mountain, every one of them

Jews that were there knew that it was wrong to lie, that it was wrong to steal. I mean, take Joseph's brothers, for instance, in Genesis.

They sewed their brother into slavery. They lied to their father. They told him that Joseph had died.

They knew that they did wrong. I mean, even pleading with Joseph when the father was dying.

They lied to Joseph. Father told us to tell you. You see that right there, even in the garden, right after Adam and Eve break

God's law. What do they do? They try to hide and cover themselves. They knew that they had messed up, right? They were convicted of sin, right?

It's abundantly clear that there's a moral transcendent law, and that's part of the image of God, and it's not including judicial and ceremonial.

Hitler, Mussolini, all these guys, the

Muslims that flew the planes into the towers, they all knew that it was wrong to lie, steal, and kill.

They didn't probably think it was wrong for them to lie, steal, and kill, but if you lie, stole, or killed someone they loved, they'd kill you.

They would know. Well, let me read this denial statement that they have in here.

We deny that if – that there is any objective – oh, wait. Did I already read that one?

Yeah, you read that one. Okay, my bad. You read all of Article 3. My bad. Okay, so we're both saying that Article 3 is great, and it denies theonomy.

Yeah, it affirms the Ten Commandments, and it denies – It affirms what you and I have been saying this whole time.

We've been saying it for how long now? That a nation is to use the Ten Commandments. The nation is to use moral law, not judicial and ceremonial.

Moral law is something that everybody can be held to. Judicial and ceremony was only for the nation of Israel. Right, to bring about the promised seed, which in turn fulfills the law and brings about the gospel.

Which there might be general equity things in there that you can pull out, but always – We are reformed.

We are general equity. We hold to general equity. Love it. Okay, so Article 4. I'm happy that we totally, fullheartedly agreed with Article 3.

I read that one, and I was really hoping that we would both agree on that. Article 4, the definition of a nation.

Okay. So this will be good. We affirm that a nation is not merely an idea, abstract principle, or ideology, but tangible, defined by a particular body of people in a particular place.

We affirm that a particular people are necessarily bound together by a shared culture, customs, history, and lineage, while sharing common interests, virtues, language, and worship.

We affirm, in regards to place, that a nation is definitely set by both its borders and times physically defined by God.

Thus we affirm that nations should rightly maintain autonomous government of their people and place with the necessary rights and duties to prioritize the security of its people by maintaining its borders, providing for its common defense, and repelling invasion from without and insurrections from within, promote the prosperity of its citizens, and enforce justice.

We deny that a nation should secede its sovereignty to international bodies that may subvert the will of the national interests.

For a global order, we deny any efforts to establish a one -world governmental system before the return of Christ.

As such are a reenactment of the Tower of Babel. We further deny that sovereign nations must only be composed of mono -ethnic populations to be united under God.

Therefore, as Christian nationalists, we utterly repudiate sinful ethnic partiality in all its various forms.

Where is that? The denial, I feel like that's something we could probably read 20 times and still be scratching our heads.

What do you mean? It reminds me, sometimes

I'll listen to Doug Wilson, and he'll say something, and I'm like, yeah,

I agree with that. But then I'll ponder what he said, and I'm like, hmm, he snuck that one in on me.

You see what I'm saying? But the idea here where it says, in the denial, it says that we deny any efforts to establish a one -world government system before the return of Christ.

Isn't that kind of a denial of post -millennialism? Isn't it a denial of Christian nationalism?

Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, so you want

Christians to be governed under the one faith, the one orthodox faith of Christianity, which nations will get into government.

How is that not a one world? I mean, we just want the whole world to be saved, right?

Wouldn't it, like, so let's say the United States becomes a Christian. I think it's a little weird too.

If the United States became a Christian nation, like full on, let's just say it became, everybody became

Christian. Let's just imagine that for a moment, right? Everybody became a Christian. Mexico, that would be great.

And it wasn't because the law was preached, it was because the Holy Spirit moved. So let's then say

Mexico became all Christians too. Wouldn't, and if Christian nationalism was taking place in both of those places, wouldn't borders be removed and people joining together?

Like, that's how I would imagine that would go, right? I'm not going to let my

Christian brother who is of another ethnic background enter into my country unless they got the right documents.

Yeah, like, I don't know. That's weird. That's strange. Like, I don't understand the reasoning for it.

That's what I'm saying. Because so far they've already denied theonomy. Great, like I'm a

Christian nationalist. Right. Who would have thought? Yeah, who would have thunk it? Quote, Jeff Rice.

I'm a Christian nationalist. Thank you. Yeah, don't. If someone puts that out there, yeah, you will see me one day.

And I got the guns, okay? So, but doesn't that, like,

I thought that kind of denies what post -millennialism is. That the stone overtakes the whole world.

Yeah, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

The stone that's cut out by no human hand strikes the statue on the feet that grows into a mountain that covers the whole world.

That stone is both Christ, representing the incarnation, and his kingdom.

So, if that's, like, that's the post -mill, because most Christian nationalists, I would assume, are coming from the post -mill camp.

Well, that's all -mill, too. Well, fair enough. But what I'm saying, though, is, like, isn't this kind of teaching the idea that it's not one rock covering the earth, but rather pebbles covering different states and countries and nations?

Yeah. Like, I don't know. It's a rock that's been – it's a rock that grew into a mountain that has shed it.

So – shed it. Is that a word? That sheds, like, as it's going across the nation, it's leaving –

It's leaving borders. It's creating walls. Yeah. Yeah, that border right there, that's the rock.

President Trump 2024. And it could be that I'm an idiot, and I'm not denying that.

I don't get it. I'm not affirming it either, but I'm not denying it. I don't get what they're getting at with it all.

There's nothing – I think their definition of a nation is proper. I think it's good. I just –

I – and maybe this is coming from maybe – and I don't know all the writers of it. I know

Joe Webbin is not a – So, if you look at the next article, it begins with a – go ahead and read

Article 5. I think that – Yeah, let's do it. Like, this should maybe – I'm hoping this will answer some questions that we had.

Probably not, but let's do it. Let's – I'll have to end here on Article 5 too, so let's pick up on Article 6.

Yeah, we'll end here, and just remember, then the next time you're able to get on, we'll pick up on Article 6.

Okay. Article 5, The Nature of Christ's Lordship and Kingdom. I hope I have an okay reading voice for everybody out there.

We affirm that in addition to possessing the titles of Savior, Messiah, and many others,

Jesus, the Son of God, who is truly God, is also the King of all earthly kings and Lord of all earthly lords, and the lawmaker for all earthly lawmakers.

I'll pause there. One world government. One world – what was it? We deny one world government?

Yep. How is that not one world government? If it's the same Lord over all earthly lords, and they're all obeying one

Lord that is above them all, that should be one government, right? Yeah. I mean, if you just look at the fact that whenever – so Jesus turns, takes a little boy's sack lunch, five biscuits and two fish.

This group of people whom he fed was upwards to 20 ,000 people. They saw that it correlated with what

Moses did in the wilderness. And they remember what Moses said, that one like me was going to come.

Listen to him. They saw the shadow lead into Jesus' feet. And it says that they wanted to take him by force and make him king.

His disciples would have been all for that as well, which is why he runs his disciples off, makes them leave to Capernaum, and then he chases out the other people, and he goes off to pray.

Christ did not come to be an earthly kingdom. If they would have took

Christ, crowned him king, he would have been doing less than what his proper position was.

He didn't come to be an earthly king. He came in kingdom intrusion to establish the new covenant, the kingdom of God.

If he was an earthly king, there is no king of kings. You have to be transcended king to be king of kings.

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be delivered over to the

Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. And you're saying that we're not saying that his kingdom isn't here.

It's just not of the world. No, absolutely. He tells his disciples who are in the world that you are not of the world.

But you must be born again to see or enter into my kingdom. To see the kingdom.

If you're not born again, you cannot see this with your eyes nor enter with your feet the kingdom of God.

If Jesus would have been crowned, if they would have took him by force and crowned him king, then the purpose for which he came for was not accomplished.

He came as the transcended king in kingdom intrusion.

His kingdom is not going to be geopolitical in one sense. It's going to cover the whole earth.

The kingdom of God is alive and well in Africa, China, and America, Europe, name it, claim it.

Maybe not so much in Europe. Right, right, right. Okay, so he is the lawmaker for all earthly lawmakers.

He is the possessor of all authority in heaven and on earth. We affirm that as God, Jesus Christ is preeminent over all creation, sovereignly rules over all things visible and invisible in heaven and earth and hell, and ordains all things according to the counsel of his perfect will for the good of those in him.

We affirm. So I was just thinking that that still comes from the confessions that we've already previously mentioned, which is additional confessions that was already laid out earlier.

So I think that that is just interesting that they did not mention the

West Minister Savoy or 1689 in confessions earlier. Does that make sense what I'm saying? Yeah, they only mentioned the creeds.

Yep, but anyway. And they didn't mention the Chalcedonian definition.

No, that's important. Yeah. So we affirm that in his meditatorial rule,

Christ rules by his spirit and word through the saints in their earthly authority.

We also affirm that as a sovereign king of kings, Christ has commanded all civil authorities,

Christians and non -Christian alike, to execute his will on earth to orient humankind toward...

So orient, orient, or I cannot say that word right now. You can't say Philippi. I can't.

Philippi, Philippi, Philippi. Orient humankind toward himself through the moral law.

We affirm that Christ alone through the blood of his cross grants repentance and forgiveness of sins to reconcile sinners to his father.

What do you think about that? Well, I think it's kind of stepping on each other.

It's kind of like someone dancing, and they keep stepping on their partner's feet. You know, like that last – not the last affirmation, but it's – we affirm that he – hold on.

Man, this is small writing. Mm -hmm. Christ's rule by the spirit and the word through the saints in their earthly authority.

In their earthly authority. Yeah. So we affirm that in his meritorial road that Christ rules by his spirit and – okay.

Oh, yeah, okay. Here it is. We affirm – hold on. We also affirm that as sovereign king of kings,

Christ has commanded all civil authorities, Christians and non -Christians alike, to execute his will on the earth.

Okay. So did – I – that last part of that sentence

I'm absolutely against now that I'm thinking about it. What I just read?

No, just right after what you just read. To execute his will on earth to orient humankind toward himself through the moral law.

Yeah. I don't – I just don't know why – like, where are they getting that from?

I mean, is that from Romans 13, what they're saying? It can't be. It's not there.

I mean, I'm not on here as someone who doesn't actively daily read his

Bible, right? You know, again,

I'm not trying to be a Biblicist because I know that, you know, the

Bible teaches some things that it doesn't explicitly say. But I'm just trying to figure out where they –

I mean, because heathens are going to heath, right? Heretics are going to heretic.

Yeah, I mean, I don't expect – I don't expect Christians to act like heathens, and I don't expect heathens to act like Christians.

So I'm just confused right there, man. I really don't know what to say because I don't know what they're trying to say.

I mean, it's one thing to put ink to paper. Maybe these guys that did this, they need to go through this article by article and give us an exposition of what they mean.

Well, in the scriptural sources that they're using too, they need to also have citations in each one of them to what scripture verse is correlating to what sentence that they're saying in here as well.

Because, like, I'll be honest with you. Like, I don't know if what they're saying on that last portion is that by obedience or through promoting – like, and this is me adding words to what they're saying –

By civil authorities, civil magistrates promoting moral law, is that going to make men be more – are they going to be better – not salvific better, but better people, like better neighbors in general, right?

Like, is that what it's getting at, or is it getting at saying that mankind – like, the purpose of civil authorities is to push moral law so that through the moral law, people can come to God?

Because we come to God not through moral law, but through the way, the truth, and the life, which is

Jesus Christ. Yeah, the moral law is only – It's a mirror. It's a mirror, right?

It's a mirror. It's a curve. And it's our guide. It's not the guide to unbelievers.

It's the guide for Christians. Believers, yep. Yeah, unbelievers are not going to open the word of God and see how they are to live.

Like, this is something that Christians do. I hope all Christians do.

And then maybe – or is that like a super post -meal portion of this article where it says –

Well, not all that did this article are post -meal. No, so I don't know if maybe this is just a post -meal person that wrote this part that got it through to execute

His will. So like, are we talking about the secret will, the revealed will?

What will are we talking about of God when we say that is the question I have on this? To execute

His will on earth to orient humankind toward Himself through the moral law.

So that just doesn't – Is this the prayer where Jesus said, Thy kingdom come,

Thy will be done? Like, is this what this is speaking about? And it's through the law that He fulfilled?

I just – I'm seeing like a super – I don't know. I don't like that.

That seems like a workspace salvation when I see something like that for people to be doing.

Again, ladies and gentlemen, we're coming at this from a historical 1689

Baptist Federalist position. I don't know how to look at it any other way.

When I read the Bible, I'm going to be honest, I read it with my tradition.

My tradition helps me to understand the Bible. I believe what I hold to as a

Reformed Baptist is the right view. If it wasn't, I would not be a

Reformed Baptist. And so covenant theology has helped me to understand

Scripture. Baptist covenant theology to be more particular. And what

I'm seeing here, I don't like. But again,

I like to give these brothers the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they clear it up. If anyone hears this,

I think it would be great to go through and do an exposition of what it is that y 'all are saying.

Because just putting the words on a document for people to sign, I don't think that's good enough.

Because interpretations can be taken, and I don't know what you're saying here.

So what is the – I know you have to leave. The denial. Yeah, let me read that part real fast.

So we deny any theology which would seek to segregate sacred aspects of life where God's word is authoritative and supposedly secular aspects of life where a

Christian must operate by a standard other than God's word. We deny any theology which claims that bringing

God's word into the civil sphere is unwise, unfruitful, sinful, or anything other than fitting and required.

We deny that Jesus' kingship and lordship are merely heavenly, or that His word is only authoritative over confessing

Christians. We deny that solely by virtue of their claims to authority or the claims of those who support them, and any human or group of humans who claim to be a civil authority are in actuality recognized by God to be civil authorities.

Thoughts? I do – like when it says merely heavenly, yeah, no,

I don't think Christ's kingship and lordship is merely heavenly. I don't think that. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a stab at all millennialism.

It is. 100 % it is. And all millennialism doesn't teach that. No, but I know it's a stab at all millennialism, like when

I read that. You know, and I told you this before we went live, so every one of these, if you look at the scriptural references, a lot of the references for what they're writing is the scriptures that they're using is over and over and over and over again.

One that you'll see consistently used in this document, from what I can remember when I read through it prior,

I'm looking now to see if I can find it, is Philippians. Oh, they used it other places.

Well, I already know if we were to, which I know people don't want to listen to all this, but if we were to read the affirmative and the denial and actually read the scriptures to where it was speaking of it,

I think we would have a lot more problems. I do too. And the reason why

I choose not to do that, and I know you do the same, is because they have not laid it out like the confession. So like in the confessions, it'll give a sentence and it'll have a one.

It'll give a sentence, it'll have a two. And in the proof texts, it'll have the one and the two.

It'll tell you, it's a sign to let you know that this proof text is for this sentence and this proof text is for this sentence.

And it does not do that. If it did that, I think that maybe we should do that, especially in places where we have trouble, but we would have to go through here and take forever to figure out which proof text they're using to speak about it, which

I think that's faulty. I think they need to redo that. And I'll back up and say

I messed up. So they do reuse some scripture verses in different sections as well, but it's not as regulative as what

I thought it had been. So I apologize for saying that. But they do use things over again in different sections.

And I'll just speak on this one, which I know, however they're applying it in this text. So Philippians chapter two verses nine through 11 is the text that says that Christ, therefore

God highly exalted him and gave to him the name that is above all names, that at the name of Jesus all knees shall bow in heaven on earth and under the earth, and all tongue shall confess

Jesus is Lord. That's the text, right? And I just quoted it off of memory and so I might have messed something up in that.

But that text, if they're using that in any other way other than to say that Jesus is

Lord in this, you cannot apply that text to mean

Christian nationalism. I'm sorry, but you just cannot. That text is quoting from Isaiah 45 where it's talking about both the righteous and the unrighteous.

They will both be bowing the knee, not out of nations doing this, not out of anything along those lines, but God's judgment being brought against those that are angry at him and him justifying those that seek him, right?

The bowing of the knee to the name of Jesus, to the name of Yahweh, to the being

Yahweh has nothing to do with nations being converted to Christianity.

So that's one thing. I see it used several times in this document as one of their scriptural references and it kind of irks me because I just preached on this last

Sunday and I know that that's being taken out of context. I haven't listened to your message on it.

Send me the link and I will. Are you saying that speaking of the last day, the final judgment, since every knee will bow whether you bend it or it breaks type of thing?

Both, current and future. Definitely current for you and I. Totally current for you and I.

So in Isaiah 45, when Isaiah is prophesying about a day of Babylon coming and seizing

Israel and then not only that, but another pagan nation releasing

Israel and killing off Babylon, right? Cyrus, Medo -Persia, right? The king would bow to the other king.

What's unique in that text is that in Isaiah 45, it says that I am

Yahweh. There is no other Savior. There is no one other righteous. It goes through this stuff about how there's only one

Yahweh. And it says, to me, all knees will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance.

And then it says after that, men will come after me. Men will seek after me.

Those that are angry at me will be put to shame. All of the seed of Israel will be justified.

And then Isaiah 46, verse 1, it says, Bell will bow over, Nebo will stoop over.

They will be a burden for the back of the cattle, right? What's being said in that text is that,

I think it's a current and a future thing for him, right? That the bowing of the knee to the name of Jesus or to the

Yahweh is one of God's wrath is already abiding upon you, and it will be poured out upon you, right?

So currently, the unbeliever, whether they like it or not, are technically bowing the knee to Jesus because the wrath of God is abiding upon them.

There will be a day that it will break when they do truly bow it, right? Even the false gods that Isaiah is prophesying about,

Nebo and Bell, they bow the knee. It says that they fell over. They stooped over.

They fell. They bowed the knee to Yahweh. And that's applied to Jesus in that text.

So it magnifies Jesus as deity because it's talking about Yahweh in that text. And it's talking about salvation in the sense of salvation and condemnation, that everybody will get one of those two things, right?

It's not talking about Christian nations. It's not talking about creating a geopolitical nationality that seeks after Christ.

That's not what that text is teaching whatsoever. And that's the bad thing with proof texting like it is doing.

The context determines the proof text. And so, again,

I think that they need to go through here and let us know which verses are going with which sentence so that those who want to affirm or deny it have an opportunity to see if their proof text actually goes with the context that's being taught.

Yup. Yup. I just, yeah.

It irks me when I see something like that. And I just know that just because I preached on that this last Sunday, right?

And like very, very present on my mind. And I know that that's where a lot of post -millennialists will preach from, saying, oh, you see, all the world will be converted and come to Christ.

No, that text is not talking about the whole world coming to salvation. Right. Nor is that a text that talks about the whole world becoming keepers of God's law or promoters of God's law.

That's not what that text is talking about whatsoever. That's saying that whether you're in Jesus or you're angry at Him, your knee is going to bow.

It's going to be in shame or it's going to be in thanksgiving, right? And then even one text I went to, which was just connecting to the point of at the name of Jesus, even every tongue will confess.

When you look at Matthew chapter 25, where He has the sheeps and the goats separated, both the sheeps and the goats say,

Lord, when did I see you like this? Lord, when did I not? When were you naked?

When were you hungry, Lord? They both say those things. So it is most definitely a already and not yet that's taking place.

Like when you look at it from the Ezekiel 36, verse 26, where it talks about the removal of the heart of flesh.

He sprinkles with clean water. He removes the heart of stone, gives the heart of flesh, and He puts His Spirit within them.

Even in that Spirit causes them to keep His statutes. The sheep didn't even know that they kept

His law. Matter of fact, they don't have the power to keep the law. The Spirit within them fulfilled what needed to take place.

Because we in and of ourselves, we can't please God. But the Spirit of God can please

God. I tell people all the time, if you see me do something righteous, well, that's the

Holy Spirit. When you see me mess up, yeah, that was me. Well, that's where I don't understand that statement in the prior one, where it says that to orient humankind towards himself through the moral law.

I don't care to himself. So it's talking now not just a horizontal judge or ruler of civil authority that's looking out and judging somebody or giving law to somebody.

You're talking now the vertical. God, is He pleased by what mankind does? And I don't care who it is, if an atheist, an unbeliever, does the most good thing that we can look and say they found the cure for cancer.

I'm sorry, it's still nothing but a worthless rag before the eyes of the Lord. Even if you have this morally good looking thing, they are not satisfying

God at all. They are not doing anything pleasing to Him. And so that's where I'm sorry, but you cannot orientate humankind towards God through moral law without being born again.

You just cannot do that. Yeah. Now, before we go, so this is not in the statement yet.

And probably, I don't know if it will be, but I've been listening to a lot of things on this.

And a lot of certain things are being said about pastors in the pulpit and how we need to be political in the pulpit.

And I want to right now say to anyone that's listening, and these guys have probably never listened to this podcast, and that's okay.

That's not the role of the church, right? The role of the church is word and sacrament, right?

The minister is to be committed to preaching exposition through the word of God.

Now, if the word of God that he has decided to open up and preach through expositionally speaks on a matter, they are committed, they need to be committed to speak on the matter.

Yeah. Right? But the purpose of being the gathering at the church for the minister is to serve the word and sacrament.

And the purpose for the sheep is to receive the word and sacrament, not to have these political conversations.

Like that's not what it's for. And I can tell you that every time that I have, because I have done this,

I have felt the need to do that. And I did not feel good in my spirit. I did not feel good in my spirit.

Yeah. And I know that might scare some Reformed people off, but don't let your

Reformed theology harden the spirit that's in your life that God has placed in you.

I pay attention to the direction that I feel the

Holy Spirit lead in me. And I believe that my job as a minister is to open up to a book of the

Bible and to expositionally walk through that book of the Bible and speak about what it's speaking about and to distribute to my congregation not only the word, but the sacraments.

Those who have been baptized, who have taken the sign of the covenant, they receive the

Lord's Supper. That's the ordinary means of grace. That's what the church is for.

The church is not for unbelievers. It's for believers. You can take that.

The church is a hospital, not a hospital. What is it?

Not a country club for saints, but a hospital for whatever. I know which one you're talking about.

That's garbage. Throw it out the window. The church is the gathering of believers.

It's when the body of Christ come together. The temples gather and now are the bride to partake in word and sacraments.

Anything else, I'm not with it. So anything you want to say before we close?

Glorify God. Love your neighbor. Pass. We missed you, brother. Again, everybody, hey, we love y 'all, those that wrote this statement.

We love y 'all. We hope you accept this in good charity.

The next time that we come back, we'll pick up in Article 6. We plan on walking through this.

I think, Brayden, I haven't said this to you, but if no one's willing to open up Galatians with us and walk through it, maybe you and I and maybe

Habs can open up Galatians and we can have something on video of what

Galatians is actually teaching. Verse by verse, walk through it and show how.

I mean, because a lot of them are speaking about the Galatian heresy and at the same time promoting the

Galatian heresy. And maybe we can just walk through there and show them that.

And maybe by doing so, God will grant them repentance. Anyways, we love y 'all.

If you're in Aggerman, Idaho, come check out, what is it, Valley Baptist? Valley Baptist.

If you're in Tallahoma, Tennessee, come check out Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. And we are out.