← Back to sermon library

Hi, I'm Jim Butler from the Free Grace Baptist Church here in Chilliwack, British Columbia. I'm joined with two of our Confessing the Faith Conference 2026. Two of the speakers, Pastor David Charles from the Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio, and Pastor and Dr. Richard Barcelos from Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Palmdale, California. There are two of the three speakers for our conference this weekend. The third is Dr. Jim Renahan, the president of the International Reform Baptist Seminary.

So, it's a pleasure for us to deal with some of these Ask FGBC questions. I've got a couple of pros with me, so I'm very encouraged by that. And we'll go ahead and start in the category Confessional Identity and Reform Baptist History. So, the first question is, what distinguishes Reformed Baptists from Anabaptists historically? Do they share the same roots? And that's directed first to Pastor Charles. An expert. An expert. Well, you know, of course, we've, in recent memory, we've had a book published along these lines by Matthew Bingham. And of course, our own Dr. Rinnehan, likewise, has been very helpful in distinguishing those two groups.

The particular Baptist and the Anabaptist they have common roots in the Christian religion. They're both reading the Bible. They're both reading the Bible, but it's not like the Baptists are a later, improved version of Anabaptists. The Particular Baptists have a completely different origin, arising more out of the English Reformation, Congregationalists specifically. So the early Particular Baptists labor it hard, going back to the first line of the Baptist confession of faith, to distinguish themselves from— That's right. It's on the title page. Right, exactly.

So, if we're to listen to their own witness and then the witness of others during that time, then, of course, our own better historians, there's no relationship. And that shows up not just simply historically, but actually how those two groups developed and their relationship, there's some similarities. Because like Rich said, they're both reading the Bible with a non-papist view. But that doesn't mean that they have a common origin. Of course not. Good. Rich, anything to add?

I think I spoke to at least one, if not two, men who have read all the extent existing literature from the 17th century, what we would call the Particular Baptists. And there's no known connection in the writings to any of the Anabaptist writings. Even though you can go on the internet and do a search and find out that Particular Baptists find their roots with the, with the men, with them, not the Mennonites. They, uh, Anabaptists.

And it keeps cropping up on Twitter through a particular person especially, but I don't think it's a legitimate thesis. Okay. And we certainly can be understanding. We're living in a good time where real history is being done. We have men like Dr. Renahan and Bingham and others who are going back, as you said, they're going to actually going back to the history rather than repeating something that's been repeated, repeated and left unchallenged.

And it just becomes a very convenient way to talk about the history, although it ends up being unfortunately very ill-informed. Yeah, a lot of either anachronistic interpretation of old things, imposing current views on ancient literature, or just depending on secondary literature, or tertiary literature, yeah, or whatever, a fourth. Somebody said what somebody else said, what somebody else said, but the first person that said it didn't prove it from the actual writings of those people. So, you know, that's a very sloppy way to do historical work.

And Dr. Renahan and Dr. Richard Muller and others have really helped, I think, the people. you know, I've actually met people who identify as Anabaptists, and some of their instinct—they're wrong, but I understand they want to so distinguish themselves from the medieval papacy. And so, the notion that there is this traceable Yeah. Back to the medieval church is so appalling to them. Yeah. And they think that Anabaptism... Jumped over. Somehow... Went all the way back to Paul, Jesus, and the Apostles. Yeah. Right. Yeah. and is the only faithful expression of the New Testament or something like that.

And you know, once again, this is where we live in a very good time, where others, not just in terms of Anabaptist Baptist, but that are helping us to think in a good way, more Catholic. small c. And they're helping us to go, I think, Rich, you were there in Toledo and you preached some lectures or gave some lectures where the Reformation didn't change everything. And that's a very solitary way for us to think about our religion and who we are as Protestants and as Baptists.

Doesn't Bingham argue from the primary source documents that particular, what became particular Baptists, were actually pedobaptists, and they— Congregationalists. Yes, pedobaptist congregationalists. And it was their view of the covenants and ecclesiology that drove them to confessing disciples, baptism alone. They didn't go back to the Anabaptists. It was within that kind of a context. That's what part of his argument is. Is that right? Yeah.

I think I can't remember when it was, we were, once we were all, all three of us were in Boston with the Presbyterian historian. So he was either there when he was at Fargo, but he was making the point too, that there, there was a desire and an enterprise Both with, you know, going back to Westminster and moving forward, they're all kind of wanting a pure church. Yeah, right. And of course, it was the particular Baptist in that same stream that came to the realization, to accomplish that, you have to begin at the very threshold of the church in the baptismal waters. Yeah, as I recall, a believer's membership. Yeah. And that's where outsiders looking in say, well, that's what the Anabaptists were doing, a believer's membership.

So therefore, he must have gotten that from them. It's like, but, you know, even there, you know, I think he perhaps even the Anabaptists have not been treated well by some of the historians because they weren't really a monolithic group either. Oh, no, they're all over the board. So they, you know, they're entitled to their own history. And the Anabaptist to a man didn't hold to the heretical celestial flesh view of the incarnation, right? Right.

And I think there are some Anabaptists that dispense with the sacraments altogether. So I mean, again, they don't really have this. Yeah, whenever you say the Anabaptists, It's kind of... You can say anabaptistic or something. Anabaptistic might be more accurate. Or anabaptistical. Yes, yes. And so we would say the particular Baptists were anti-antibaptistical. Yes. Yeah. All right. Good. So, what is Calvinism? I'll direct that to Pastor Barcelos. Can I quote Spurgeon? Sure. What did he say?

It's nothing but the theology of Jesus and the apostles or whatever. So we're in the 21st century now. So my experience with what men call Calvinism started in 1980s. I started listening to lectures and sermons on what men call the doctrines of grace or the five points. So its emphasis at that time, and I think in most people's thinking, is soteriological, the doctrine of salvation. and the so-called five points, which have a historical origin and all that stuff, and I don't think I even know the whole story about how they were called the five points or when, except Dort.

Total depravity, tulip, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation or perseverance of the saints. So it spells the flower tulip. So historically, that understanding and something related to it kind of collided.

And that is, how do we preach if unconditional election is true, if limited atonement is true, that Christ didn't expiate the guilt of every single elect and non-elect person's sins? Do we still preach the gospel to people? And if we do, what's the basis upon which there is warrant for people who hear the gospel to go ahead and repent and believe? And some people might want to make a distinction between a free offer of the gospel and a free and sincere offer of the gospel, okay? What I understand as a free offer of the gospel bases the warrant for the preacher to preach it and for the sinner to comply with what's being said is I heard John Gershner say it, God commands you. What is the warrant? What's the basis?

God and his word. You know, God says to, which that's the view I hold. I think, well, yeah, I don't need anything more. And I hope I'm accurately stating the other view, which says free and sincere offer. And so it's that additional language, and sincere. What does that mean? Or well-meant. Or well-meant, as if this isn't a well-meant offer. That's not well-meant. It is. And that's not sincere. So what is sincere and well-meant?

It seems to be that there's this There's this thing we'll call a desire in God for, in this case, non-elect people to believe, but he doesn't decree that they would believe. But it's still in him. It's an undecreed, kind of pent-up wish, a frustration. You know, many years ago, somebody had a post where they had a birthday cake, and, you know, does God wish, and there's actually technical language, and some of our heroes use language like that. Robert Dabney uses some language, I forgot the technical term, but for him, John Gill does, and Gill asks the question, Are there undecreed desires within God? And there's a Latin term he used, and I wish I would have memorized it or brought it in my notes or something, and he denied it. He says no. And I think he's right.

I don't think there's something in God that's kind of really hoping something would happen, but since he doesn't decree it, it's not going to happen, but he still has this in him. So we can say, oh, there are some undecreed desires that God has for you. So he really means this, but he hasn't decreed that you repent and believe. To me, it's just like, We don't have to go that far. Beyond the soteriological confusion of such a statement, the theological problems that that creates doesn't help anybody in terms of positing a God who desires things that He hasn't decreed. That's a place you really don't want to go.

Now listen, God knows things He hasn't decreed, like God knows that what his power is able to do and what he didn't decree that he could have decreed. Like he could have decreed— There are possible worlds— He could have decreed that David actually looked— As ugly as you. Looked older than me and was older than me, but he didn't. He decreed that David looks older than me, but he isn't older than me. I'm older than David, believe it or not, by three months. And more mature.

God knows that He could have done that. And then that's like the absolute power and the ordained power. Could God have executed His power in such a way as to make the earth larger than it is? Of course, He could have. Did He? Nope. He ordained it to be what it is. So those are good distinctions.

And I think when you really think through those kind of distinctions, to distinguish between God decreeing somebody's faith and repentance, and God desiring but not decreeing, I'm going, I don't—I can see the logic going backwards, but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think the Scripture requires—there's other ways to understand these texts that doesn't get you doing that kind of speculative So with reference to the exercise of power, as you just explained, yeah, that's absolutely correct. And I agree with that. Back to the birthday cake, I'm pretty sure a person was asked, do you believe that God desires to save the reprobate? Now, An affirmative response to that is not what you've just described. God has determined reprobation, but there's some part of Him that really desires that person's salvation. That to me introduces a whole host of theological confusion in terms of the being of God, and that's where I would be.

Yeah, good. I mean, to say that God desires the salvation of sinners, you got Bible texts all over, but God desires the salvation of the reprobate. Yeah, and we can make that other distinction between the so-called secret will of God and the revealed will of God. Yes, yeah.

And you know, I like doing Just the way God's put me together, I like doing evangelism. Give me a chance. I'm talking to somebody. I'm moving. But that was actually doing that was actually part of what God used in His providence to bring me to what we now call Calvinism. High Calvinism.

But, you know, the high Calvinism, whatever you want to call Calvinism, the Reformed faith, doctrines of grace, It actually rescues me from getting embroiled in all those questions, because now I know God has an elect people, and God, in His grace, will save them through the gospel. My only responsibility is to publish the gospel, right? I don't need to somehow... So you brought up, however we work through our soteriology, we can never do that at the expense of our theology. We can't somehow... And this is downhill from that. That's right.

Theology's first. Theology's first. And it conditions our understanding of everything. Who God is before what God does. So for us to offer to any given center, the truth of the gospel, we don't need to probe into the mind or the heart of God. The desires of God. Going back to John Gershner, it's sufficient that we've been commissioned, we've been told, we know the message to be given, and we know that we're to publish it far and wide. We don't need to somehow make God more emotive or more human.

Or even emotive. Right. And again, it was actually the understanding of these things from a biblical perspective that actually liberated me more, you know, now, and this is what I tell my people. I say, look, give them the gospel. That's right. Because God will, if they're elect, and I know that's the allergy that people want to avoid. If they're elect, though, God is going to save them. And, you know, as I listen to testimonies, I love, one of the things I really like about YouTube and whatever is being able to go listen to Jewish people, people who used to be trans or just really self-righteous, you know, hypocritical people, and listen to them talk about how they became a Christian. and even if they don't use the language. It's there.

Yeah, that's right. God saved me. Yeah, they acknowledge the effectual call without even knowing the phrase. And you know, once again, I've even heard the Roman church sing Amazing Grace. It's right there. I was blind. I was lost. I was wretched, right? And so, you know, how that came about, Now, there may be legitimate historical reasons for there to, you know, what is it?

Andrew Murray? Not Andrew Murray. John Murray? John Newton. The Baptist. Andrew Fuller. Andrew Fuller, right? Maybe there have been real distortions of Calvinism that's been, that denies the gospel, that denies God's grace. The way to repair those is to open up your Bible and go back to what the language of the Bible uses, rather than poor training. Yeah, that's right. Because God says to do it.

Yeah, I don't think one of my struggles— You know, the Gershner family is going to sue you. One of my struggles—I love John Gershner. I got a nickname from John Gershner. I got a book from John Gershner, Dear Rich and Nan. Thank you for housing such an unlikely transient as myself, John Gershner, in your exquisite palace," or something like that. Yeah, so over the years I've changed my view.

I was trained at the Master's Seminary, and I don't know which professor, or even if any professor taught this, but when I came out I held to the well-meant What's it called? Well-meant and sincere offer of the gospel because of more contemporary expressions of it and hearing sermons on it or lectures. The more I thought about, the more I thought, well, OK, so what you're doing is you're telling us God has the knowledge of his own decree. And the theologians like to distinguish between simple divine knowledge, God's knowledge of God and everything else, and the knowledge of vision. that which he has decreed to be, and then creation and providence are the execution of the decree. So you're saying his knowledge of vision, which includes everything that he has decreed and has since executed, which includes this, okay? This is a product of divine providence, right?

The Bible's a creature. The New American Standard. I got the new King James. Okay, thank you. You have the Bible. I got the upgraded version. Oh. New American Standard 2020? No. The blue gilting. So where was my thought going? Okay. So part of God's knowledge of vision, that which he has decreed to be other than himself, which by the way, God does not decree himself to be. God just is. But things that are other than God have to be decreed to be. So he has decreed to be, to exist, the Bible. And he preserves it and all that stuff. And he blesses it.

And we're saying, the free and well-meant offer says, I want to go back to God's simple knowledge to ground the offer of the gospel. And I'm going, you really want to do that? You know what that is? Yeah, I know what it is. It's a real heart, emotive desire for something that he doesn't decree. And it just sounds like there's like this schizoid kind of Frankenstein. And they appeal to texts. They certainly appeal to texts.

Yeah, I know. can be understood in that particular way, but can also not be understood in that particular way. Biblical Calvinism is consistent, and the texts that seem to go in the well-meant offer direction are better explained with the rest of the texts and the theology of the Bible and who God is in terms of His knowledge and in terms of His decree. And I would encourage any listener to read John Gill's Cause of God and Truth. any passage that may possibly appear to be contrary to a biblically, you know, regulated approach to soteriology, he deals with.

Dr. Voluminous dealt with it. And he was never shy to use to say things like, you know, this is anthropomorphic. Yeah, he's not shy to do that, and then he'll go on to expound the text as it is, because he's provided the necessary theological clarification, and then works through it.

He was a master, and we need to recover that, and not somehow you know, bring God down. That's going back to what we said earlier. At some point, this understanding of the well-meant offer that we're—sounds like we're all agreeing there's a better way to do it—that became like a litmus. Yes. Like, if you deny that, you're a hyper. That's right. And you're denying the confession and certainly denying Scripture. And you don't preach the gospel.

And I'm going, every week, all three of us, I preach every text. I don't care where I am. I think the purpose we have all the texts Each individual text is the purpose. We have all the texts of the Bible to present the Incarnate Son of God for us and for our salvation in His sufferings and glory. So every text somehow is related to that. And I preach it every week. And if I don't preach it in my sermon, we have the Lord's Supper every week to remind our people. Yeah.

And you mentioned hyper-Calvinism. So if the well-meant offer goes perhaps far afield on the one side, basically explain what is hyper-Calvinism? Only, at least you can correct me here, preaching the gospel to somebody that gives evidence of a prevenient, some sort of prevenient work of God in them.

Instead of just indiscriminately, you have an audience, you have no idea who's out there, you're just preaching the gospel. You preach the gospel to people that show signs of being elect. So what that causes in the people's own hearts, they're raised in that kind of environment, they're looking for evidences. obeying the gospel, they're looking for evidence. Evidence of what?

Whether God has predestined me. And so my pushback to that is, go to the Bible and ask yourself, if the Bible teaches you to try to peer into the decree of God, to find out the content of God's decree before you do what God says, And it doesn't do that. Secondly, go to any Christian and ask them, were you convinced you were predestined before you believed the gospel?

And you'll go, I didn't even know what that word meant. You know, when I came to Christ, I came because I wanted to. Later, I realized I was made willing in the day of God's power. I came freely and willingly, having been made so by His grace. But that's not what I—I wasn't sitting there going, I'm being effectually called. Divine power is being executed in accordance with the decree of God. The effect of will of God is changing my heart. Oh, He took the heart of stone out. Oh, there comes the heart of flesh. And when it was all done, then I went to Jesus.

The warrant for faith in Christ is not the knowledge of the decree. God commanded it, you know? Yeah. So, on the one hand, with the hypers, you've got a knowledge of the decree and what the well-meant offer. There's got to be this knowledge of the desire. It's not a well-meant unless...

Versus preach the gospel and understand if you're a hyper, yeah, God has purpose to save from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. There's a fixed certain group. It's not like somebody's going to jump in without having been decreed by God, but a failure to recognize that since in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

So the hyper-Calvinist says, well, if God's going to save me, he's going to save me. It's irrespective of means, irrespective of preaching. It's going to be this divine zap. I'm changed now, and I believe on the Lord Jesus. Well, the God who has ordained the end has ordained the means to get to the end, and that is preach the gospel, look and live, be saved.

It's interesting how people that might think that way don't apply that principle consistently in their life. They don't say, God has eternally determined and fixed in an infinite, eternal, and immutable way whether or not I'll live tomorrow, so I'm not going to eat. Or wear a seat belt. Or wear a seat belt. Or I'm not going to stop at stop signs. That's right. Nobody lives that way. Nobody lives that way. But they're going to want to use it against me. That's right.

Why do they do that when it comes to believing the gospel and not stopping at stop signs? Because the problem isn't outside of them. Now, my question for you two men, if I can ask a question, because I think we've laid out... Well, he has the questions. See, you're doing what you always do, David. You're taking over. This is Jim's show. Oh, come on.

I was predetermined to do this. And so was I. Okay, so I think you guys, we know and we've given a proper diagnosis of how we use well-meant offer, all that. My question is, like you, I became introduced to, wonderfully, actually, by God's grace, drug into the Reformed faith. I couldn't deny it. It's in my Bible, right? And I loved it. Against your will? Well, He empowered my will to do that, which was...

I've never really encountered a hypercalvinist. However, I went to bed one night. It was a Tuesday night, September, a calvinist. I woke up in the morning to discover You were a hypercalvinist. I was a hypercalvinist. So you met one. So like you, I've read this stuff. I know that there are undoubtedly those are out there, like you described it, that just say, if you're elect, you'll be saved.

But I haven't really encountered those people. How big of a problem is this, actually, that all this cure is trying to give to a problem that's really, we're creating more problems. It probably depends on what context you live in. We live amongst a very Dutch Reformed community, and there's certainly tendencies in that direction. Okay.

Aren't there— That's helpful. Aren't there denominations that I guess would be called hyper-Calvinist? They wouldn't describe themselves that way. They'd have a thousand members. I don't want to get into the weeds on some of that stuff, but no, it's a genuine problem.

The way it was described here, that there are people who generally say, if I'm elected, That's the—they may not say it or articulate it, but that's the mindset. So that's—so what I'm hearing you say, if I understand it, it's not so much—it might be, in the first place, coming from the mouth of the preachers, but it sounds like, to me, it's actually coming from the mouth of the unbelieving. Well, the preachers don't emphasize, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. They emphasize— But we do. But see, that's not... But see, you know, I guess I...

Rabbi Duncan, what did he say? Arminianism is all door and no house. Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door. Something to that effect. And I think that's accurate. And again, it is, there are tendencies. A Jew said that? Rabbi John Duncan. Whizzy of Scottish Presbyterian. I guess I take umbrage to the modification of Calvinism, because that's, you know, that's not even Christian.

Well, the hyper doesn't it indicate an over and above. Yeah. No, I don't like it either. Wasn't it, wasn't it a scroll that called it sub-Calvinism? But even there I don't. I think this, a lot of this depends on where you minister. You're in British Columbia, you're in Toledo.

There's probably not a lot of... No, three forms of unity. And there's nothing like that. By the way, the three forms of unity are fantastic. There's nothing like this where I minister. No. Oh, yeah. I mean, there is in California, but not where I am. But here's what happens.

And some of the fruits are usually, you know, there's a heavy emphasis on instead of you're a sinner, look to Christ and believe, it's you've got to really know your sin. You've got to really feel your sin. I mean, you gotta really, before there's this warrant to look to Christ, typically persons brought up under that type of preaching, when they are saved, if they are saved, assurance struggles are oftentimes huge. What does that hymn say?

All you need to do is feel your need for Him. This He gives you, this He gives you. It's going back and forth. It's balanced. So, Jim, so you've actually had to deal with this directly. You've thought through this a lot. If you're saying it's not you, you're not going to locate it in the three forms. No, the doctrinal. confessions are fine. So where do you think this, what do you think was the cause? Where did this originate and why?

Well, I can provide you... To help us. I can provide you and any listener with a very helpful booklet on the subject. There's an elder, a man that's an elder in the Netherlands Reform Congregation in Holland, His name escapes me, and I probably couldn't pronounce it anyways, but it's called, Salvation Has Become Complicated.

And essentially what he does is he says, the Bible teaches this, our confessions teach this, our fathers taught this, but our preachers presently don't preach this. And he sees it or locates it. I think it's not a 50-year-old document, but it's not 10 years either. I think he locates it in the 20th. 21st century, there's been a change. There's been a more hyper internal looking at oneself. It becomes mystical. Heavy mysticism. I think it's very subjective. It's horrible. Honestly, it's horrible.

But that's a very helpful booklet. And that's obviously in English? Yes. The guy's name is not Jan P. von Butler-Haven, is it? No, it's not. No, no, no. He's an elder in a church, I think, at NRC. So, and you know, there's varying degrees within three forms, churches, as to where they might fall in the continuum. But yeah, it's a real problem. And it does tend to point the sinner to the sinner, you know, his sin, his misery, his experience, his feelings, whatever sorts of things.

Not, not a lot of, you know, look ye in love. Extraspective. Look outside yourself. Be saved, all the ends of the earth. Well, see, because hearing you say that, that it's not in their, their, It's not in the documents. It's not in the documents. You know, given, you know, my love for church history, all of church history, you know, it does every group well to go back to their documents. Right, right, right. Because there are things that happen. Yeah.

So, like, I look at even our churches. I think we still view much of our religion through the lens of revivalism. Now, that might be controversial. I don't know what you guys think about that. No, I agree. But I think even there that—and the way for us to get a clearer view is to go back prior. to the evangelical, including the First Great Awakening. I know that's not popular to say.

So, I'm always kind of curious, like, where did things depart, right? Where did the wheels go off the track? One, because I'm curious, but also to help us. Not to do that. And to help those, you know, we're all old enough that we're very much thinking about the peace, the security, of our churches after we're gone, right? I very much am always thinking about the health and well-being of my church, other churches, sister churches, and so what is what's out there that we should avoid that we're just not aware of? That's right. So you're saying Part of the utility or usefulness of church history and historical theology is to provide an antidote for repeating the errors of history.

Those ignorant of history are going to repeat the same errors. You know, of course, somewhere in the Westminster documents, you have to be careful, it talks about not resurrecting old heresies. We're not talking about that. But just knowing what's going on. Where was the departure so that we can guard against them? So you hate revivals? Hang on. I don't want to get into that.

So the next question, and I think is excellent, what distinguishes a confessional Reformed Baptist church like Free Grace Baptist Church from Calvinistic Baptist churches associated with figures like John Piper or John MacArthur? So the question assumes a distinction between Reformed Baptist Church and Calvinistic Baptist Church. So, I agree. We can call Calvinism the Reformed faith. But I also agree that we need to nuance... Yeah, we would want to say more, even as we use the word Calvinism. Yeah. We would want to say more than that, you know, because the Canons of Dort are 100 years after Calvin.

And that's just the Reformed faith dealing with a contemporary issue, right? They didn't formulate the five points of themselves. They were responding to something that was troubling the church. And so the question is, what's the difference between churches like ours and a Calvinist? A confessional reform Baptist church and a Calvinistic Baptist church vis-a-vis John Piper.

Well, it's, which I, by the way, I really have grown. I've, you know, been on both sides of John Piper. I appreciate the man, wonderfully gifted man. in so many ways. He's done a lot of good for American evangelicalism in the late 20th century, early 21st century. However, men like him and others, the departures from what we recognize as the Reformed faith, and I would even say, now, if you're going to reduce Calvinism as you did, which again, it has precedent to reduce Calvinism to the five points, but even there, You know, I've often said, now speaking of Piper directly, my background—raised, baptized, catechized, Pentecostal, later charismatic. There is a distinction there. I've said, look, if you can't subscribe our first chapter, you don't get to claim to be Calvinistic or Reformed, because the previous ways of God revealing Himself have ceased.

So, Piper is out right there. So, then the question is, well, is it just cessationism? Well, it is, but it's because it's a part of—Dr. Renahan will talk about when you read our Confession, you have to read it horizontally. That's a part of a larger understanding.

And so, Thank God for Baptist churches that are becoming Calvinistic, right? I rejoice in that. It's wonderful, because what they're doing is they're seeing it really is all of grace. It's grace, it's grace, it's grace. So, how would we distinguish ourselves from them?

I mean, you can go through the catalog of theological concerns, whether it's the covenant, The law. Covenant of works. Covenant of works. Because Piper doesn't, as far as I know, hold to those. No, yeah. So, chapter 22, Sabbath. Law of Sabbath. Regular principle of worship.

Regular principle of worship is, you know, and even that issue there, since we're talking more narrowly about a Baptist, The Baptists, I think even the General Baptists, which there's no relationship historically between the two groups, I think even they held to something close to, if not identical, to the regular principle of worship. That is a Baptist distinctive, an instinct, going back to the English Puritans. So, if you're not holding to that, by the regular principle of worship, that God regulates our worship by what He's commanded. if that's not a fundamental aspect of your church's worship and identity as a church, you're not Reformed.

And that's where, because, you know, even as we allow Calvinism to be reduced, but even Calvin, Calvin was so clear that, you know, how do you say, I know it's how impossible it is to convince the world that what they give, if they're just sufficient zeal, God doesn't accept it. That's Calvin. You know, I've often, when I'm instructing my people, say, look, the truth is, if you brought Calvin to the president and he had a conversation, after he gets over being unhappy that there are people calling themselves Calvinists, right, he's going to go, oh, so you agree with me. that we can only worship God as He's commanded us in Scripture.

That's at the front end of His thinking. And so, even there, I begrudgingly recognize Calvinistic Baptist churches, because it's like, well, you reduce Calvinism, or Calvin himself, in a way that... I mean, we do it, you know, you have to have shorthand. Sure. But there is a distinguishable difference between a Calvinistic Baptist narrowly defined in, say, a John Piper, and we're not picking on him. Or John MacArthur, a dispensationalist who held to the five points. Exactly.

So a dispensationalist is not going to affirm Chapter 7, the Confessions, certainly not Chapter 19. So basically what I think I'm hearing is that Reformed theology or confessional reform theology is Calvinistic. So, theologically, we affirm Calvinism, but there's additional things. You know, Sproul says, didn't Sproul say that Calvinism is, or reform theology is covenant theology?

Yeah. You know, what did the Reformation historically, what did it produce? Reformed documents, documents reflecting the principles that they were arguing for. And that would be in the great Protestant confessions and catechisms. I think that's, it's better to understand what a Reformed Christian is in terms of their confessional adherence. Do they hold to one of the classic documents? And by the way, the issue is not, are those guys saved? No, it's just an intramural debate in terms of who gets to call themselves reformed.

It seems like it comes down to that at times. When I say reformed, I'm basically making it the same as Protestant confessional. one of the confessions that came out of the Protestant Reformation. And then to drill down even farther, when I say I'm a Reformed Baptist, I'm saying I hold to the Second London Confession as the most mature expression of my understanding of Scripture, which happened to come out at the end of the 17th century, which is the most perfected Protestant doctrine document.

I'm kind of kidding. And they leaned on predecessors. I think that's helpful. I mean, you see where they tightened up language. They went with Savoy on some issues. They didn't go with Westminster. They leaned on those things in an informed way and took the best fruit. statement you just made, they leaned on others. But by the time 1677 comes around, when our confession was first edited and it became a product, they changed some terms. Now, did they do it willy-nilly? I don't like that term. Let's put it this way.

Or was there historical theological context for subsistences instead of persons and other changes? And the evidence is from the primary documents is that they were calculated changes. They were not willy-nilly. And Dr. Renahan, James, has shown that some of their changes, probably most if not all of them, are historical, theological, contextual, and They got it from pedobaptists because they were right.

And it was a more mature reflection on some issues in light of some heresies and whatever were going on there. And so I think it's a good thing. So when I read somebody that says, well, they changed it here, it's kind of arbitrary or whatever, or it's uniquely Baptist or it's uniquely particular Baptist or something like that, I'm going, No, I don't, I don't. I mean, there might be some stuff like some changes like that.

I'm sure there are. But there are most of them aren't aren't that way. They're not like, well, and they're borrowing from somebody else's arguments. Yeah. Yeah. I get really upset when outsiders look at our document and say, well, look at this weird change. You guys are strange. And sometimes I know for a fact that they're borrowing from Pedo-Baptist literature. They're borrowing from your guys.

You know something else, if I can, you know, going back to your original question as I'm listening and I'm thinking. you know, Calvinistic Baptists, right? You know, are there really churches that would just only denominate themselves as Calvinistic Baptists?

No. No. No. But, see, that's helpful. And we're, particular Baptist churches are specifically churches. And we don't have, again, we recognize John Piper as a very gifted, faithful brother, on and on and on. But our churches don't, We don't have a personality that we're organized around or a movement. Our confession. Yeah. Right.

In other words, what's at the front end and then brings up the rear end is our theological commitments that's rooted in something that actually goes back, you know, to the creeds and to the apostles. So at your church—and I've been to your church several times and your church several times. I've been to my church several times.

I hope, and I think this is the case, that our people are not trained to say, Oh, but Pastor David doesn't hold that view." Or, I hope, and I think this is the case, our people would say, we don't confess that. Our understanding of Scripture is summarily contained in our confession of faith.

And it does not have to do with—our boundaries are not Jim Butler, David Charles, and Richard Barcelles. Sorry, like Protestant papalism. Private potpourri. Yeah, private potpourri. You know, Pastor Jim says, Pastor Cam says. Evangelicals have, they've been rightfully taught to have an allergic reaction to papism, right? And oftentimes when they encounter us, creeds, confessions, catechisms. It sounds like papism.

It does. And one of the things that I actually want, when I'm trying to sell and I mean that in the best sense, are even the regular principle of worship. I tell people who are looking at our church or coming to church, I say, listen, those things, the confrees, the confessions, protect the church from me. Yes, that's right. And their anti-popery. Exactly. And I say this without a giggle, Pope is Antichrist, but that spirit is still very much alive and well. We all want a Pope. We want a Pope. Is there a Lutheran? No, Hodge says every man has a Pope in his own bosom, a desire to lord it over others.

And you know, as a pastor, it's like, I could lord it over my people. It feeds pride, and it subjects people to the wrong authority. The authority is not your pastor. And I like the way you said that. I tell my people this all the time. You shouldn't be driving to church going, I wonder what he's going to say this week. Are we going to get tongues? Yeah, you should know what your pastor's over against. You don't know the text.

You don't know the particular words, but you know he's going to expound a text and he's going to relate it to Jesus and to me and to unbelievers. He's going to relate it to our Lord. He's going to relate it to believers. He's going to relate it to unbelievers. Somehow, someway, he's going to do that.

And that should be an anchor for your soul instead of driving to church going, what's going to happen this week, you should already know. Within the safeguards of a confession that has stood the test of time. That heads you in, right? That heads you in. You're not going to get a woman preacher this Sunday. You're not going to get— Or next Sunday. Any Sunday. Any Sunday. You know, it's a protective thing.

And churches that don't have them, yeah, the pastor becomes the pope, whether outspokenly or not. He's the guy that runs the show. I have a friend that used to be at a large church, and I think he said it was either an unspoken or maybe even a spoken and written rule that in the Bible studies that might be held by the church, in the various Bible studies, you can't contradict the pastor. Wow.

Well, you know, again, I'm just reflecting over how people responded to these things. And they're like, well, isn't that restrictive? And I'm like, well. It's like the rails for a train is restrictive, right? Not all restriction is bad. Exactly. And I ask them, what happens if the train's not on the rail? What do we call that? They go, a train wreck. That's right. Or a derail.

They don't see the ecclesiastical equivalent to that. I love fishing on a riverbank. I'm not getting near a swamp, because I don't know what I'm going to step in, where I'm going to step. And so, boundaries are good. And especially the boundaries that God has given us in His Word has rightfully now been interpreted for 2,000. What kind of arrogance? I know that we can do it better. Oh, my goodness. Or we don't need.

The gifts that Christ gave to His church. Yeah, over the years, right. Ephesians 4 legitimizes and expects I'd argue creedalism and confessionalism. If Jesus gives gifts to the church in an Athanasius or an Augustine or a Calvin or a Luther, who are we to say, nah, we don't need those gifts. We can do it. We can do it. I just don't think so. I think we need the insights of the gifts that Christ has given to his church. We're not called to reinvent the wheel. Yeah. Amen.

So, the next question directed to Pastor Charles, are Reformed Baptists more Baptist or more Reformed? Well, if you take Reformed as a corrective that came about at the Reformation, it's a corrective of the perversions of the medieval church, and then also a correction to our cousins, the Lutheran, we're more Reformed. We're clearly in that stream. So, our sacramentology is Reformed. And in a lot of ways, we're Reformed as a corrective. But then we're Baptist and that we are a further correction. So, like what Dr. Barcelos was saying a little while ago about our confession, our confession really is a full flowering of the Protestant Reformation. And I know how this sounds, but if I didn't believe what I'm about to say, I would be a part of something else. I would be something else.

There is a corrective with what constitutes the local church, who's to be in the local church. How does the local church relate to the magistrate? those are all necessary. And I would say, again, it's a necessary trajectory from earlier parts of the Reformation. And it came to a complete.

So I, although we can make, we can ask this question, right, which is more, I guess it depends on what the discussion is at the time. Right. So right now it's, and I understand that I'm very sympathetic to those who want to see something like what they call Christian nationalism. I understand that.

And, but when I have those conversations, I clearly become more Baptist. More Baptist in that context. Because I'm very much aware, and I'm a patriot, I love my country, very much aware of the Baptist influence. on our nation, particularly when it comes to liberty of conscience and distinguishing the church in the state.

Now, we've grown so accustomed to it, but the idea of free churches, you know, could you imagine being in an area where the government is taking tax money from you to support a church that goes against your conscience? We can't even imagine that. Well, the corrective to that was Baptist churches. So it depends on what the discussion is on the table, which way I tap. And if you were talking to an Arminian Baptist dispensationalist, you'd be more Protestant or more reformed than you would be Baptist. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's helpful. Yeah.

I have a question. You love the Bible and you love your country. I know that not simply because I know you and I heard you just say it, but I'm looking at your Bible and it has three ribbons. A red one, a white one, and a blue one. Look at that. I hope the camera shows us. Is that the Patriot's Bible? Since you're talking about my Bible, this Bible I think is nearly 30 years old.

And I was gonna retire it, but there's a man at church, this guy's what they call him a polymath. This guy can do everything, right? Makes good food, makes good beer. Am I allowed to say that on the podcast? Yeah, you can say it. And he saw that and he knew that I was, and he took it and he rebounded it with leather calfskin, put the ribbons in, did the blue. So now I'm gonna get another. Nice. Who did this, though? He did. The red guy and the blue. Yeah, he did that. That was the little patriotic pizzazz. Yeah, yeah. Good. No, that's, I think, a very helpful way to look at it.

I typically say, you know, we're Reformed in our understanding of theology or soteriology, Baptistic in our ecclesiology. But I would agree, if I'm dealing in a certain context, I'm going to probably emphasize the Reformed and Morpholite and then Baptist others. Yeah, you know, again, because labels are important. And I think the ones that we give ourself are more important because unfortunately, you know, I've been in the same week. I've been called antinomian and legalist. Right. I've been called a hyper Calvinist. So using those terms are really important.

But I think the the the what's helpful about the term reformed isn't just simply. you know, the soteriological recovery, right? It's also, as you know, I mentioned earlier, Rich was at Toledo, what the Reformation didn't change. So, again, just as a matter of helping people understand who we are, I often will say we're small-c Catholic and Reformed. with a Baptist corrective, right? So, I want to wrap my arms around all that, but I want to be the one that uses it in a way that's faithful to what those terms actually mean. Yeah. That's good. Yeah. Very helpful. What about you?

Are you a Reformed Baptist? Are you Reformed first, then Baptist? Well, and I, Can I be a Reformed Baptist without red, white, and blue ribbons in the scriptures, the written word of God? Because I would never do that. And if that's a litmus, I'm not a Reformed Baptist. Did you get this from Jerry Falwell? Let's move on from the red, white and blue ribbons. You know, when you meet my guy, Josh, you'll repent of everything you just said. All right.

Covenant theology and biblical theology. So this first question comes to Dr. Barcelos. How does the threefold division of the law help us see the new covenant? And how should we respond to Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? Yeah, that's a good question.

It's rooted in our confession, the threefold division of the law. The moral, natural law, law written on the heart, and as it is promulgated or made public, it's first on stone tablets, and then it's written in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. So that's the one aspect of the law, which seems to be clearly based on man's creation in the image of God with the law written on his heart. And that law written on his heart somehow, someway reflects something of God, you know, something in God. So that is, if that's by virtue of our creation and that we're always creatures, whether we're Adam unfallen, Adam fallen, or an Adamite, since the fall, under the old or Mosaic covenant, or just under the inaugurated new covenant, we're still creatures. So something seems to be of necessity has to transcend all those covenants and be common among all of us.

So that's what theologians have called the natural or moral law. But God has more laws than just the 10 words. So You look at the history of redemption or even pre-redemptive history, Adam had the law written on his heart, we know from Romans 2 and elsewhere. But also Adam had a positive law revealed to him in the garden, a prohibition, don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So that provides a distinction there between natural and positive or moral and positive. What is positive? It is something revealed above the natural. So then if you keep that distinction, you keep reading, there are other positive laws.

Abraham was told to offer his son Isaac up on Mount Moriah, Genesis 20. That's a positive law, but it's restricted only to Abraham. So it's covenantally bounded. It's determined by the covenant. Well, it's not just covenantally bounded there. I think it's an individual command for an individual person.

And it's not, it is a positive law within the orbit of the Abrahamic covenant, but it's not for all those in the Abrahamic covenant. But there are some positive laws conditioned by the covenant. Saturday, Sabbath, and the old covenant, Sunday, Sabbath, and the new covenant.

Circumcision is a positive law. restrict or alter or change the moral law at all. The basic moral principles of the Ten Words are trans-covenantal. But circumcision is not trans-covenantal. There was a time when it was not, and then there was a time when it was, and now it's nothing, you know.

So then if you read Moses, you have the moral law incorporated into the Mosaic or Old Covenant I think, with unique historical, redemptive historical appendages, like the death penalty for certain things, which are positive laws added to the moral law under the Mosaic economy.

There's also political laws or laws having to do with the polity, the government of ancient Israel. Judicial laws. Yeah, judicial laws. What's interesting is the judicial laws and some of the ceremonial laws with reference to worship, like the building of the temple. have to do with Israel in the land.

Okay, so there's a distinction made between moral or natural law and then wilderness laws, because there were, like the tabernacle predates the promised land, but the temple doesn't, but the tabernacle does. So there are some tabernacle laws that were instituted by God in the wilderness, and then once they got in the land and got their temple, the tabernacle laws are lost. So you have, even within Israel's experience, you have the rescinding or the abrogation by virtue of fulfillment of some of the positive laws, like the ceremonial laws having to do with Israel in the wilderness. Is it Junius, what he calls those? He's got a distinction between laws in the wilderness and laws in the land.

So it's a distinction within ceremonial laws under the mosaic old economy. So these distinctions weren't first invented by the Westminster Assembly's committee on the law, on Chapter 19. They predate that. And not only do they go back to the medieval—it's in Thomas Aquinas has something like that. And I think there's evidence before that the patristics were at least making it twofold, if not a threefold division. I think those divisions go back to the canonical writers of the Hebrew Old Testament. Call them whatever you want.

Moses uses different Hebrew words in strategic contexts. And once you read the entire Bible, you go, oh. Paul describes man at creation as an image-bearer in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and having a law written on his heart. So if it's of man to have the law written on his heart, then we all have the law written on our heart, whatever that means.

But then there's new laws introduced in the garden first with Abraham and others. with Moses that seem to not transcend their unique covenantal, historical covenantal context, they can be terminated. Right. They can point to something and once that to which it points comes, they function different than they used to. That's right.

So once you get to the New Testament and you read that, you realize there are some laws that seem to predate the inaugurated new covenant that are transcending previous eras and coming into our era, more laws, you know, and conditioned by the covenant under which they're being enacted. But there's also positive laws connected to the new covenant, like baptism and the Lord's Supper are positive laws. And I think, you know, church government's positive law instituted through the writings of the apostles and all that stuff.

What was the question? Three-fold division. It points us to the New Covenant. How should we respond to the Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? I think you have explained that. Yeah, you know, I think exegetically, you know, biblical, theologically, Exodus, you know, I don't think... It's too difficult. Exodus 20, moral law, 21 to 23, judicial law, 25 to 40, ceremonial law. The judicial is an expression of the latter table of the commandments. The ceremonial is an expression of the former table of the commandments.

Can I quote somebody? Very well known. He's Canadian. I'm not going to name his name, but he says, it's too cute. It's too tidy. It doesn't work. Yeah, you know, I've heard that about Calvinism and that makes me, it begs the question, should we expect God to not be tidy? Should we expect God to be illogical and fuzzy? Is that somehow commend a system more so? I just don't appreciate that.

Well, the same author in looking at Mark chapter two, the Sabbath was made for man. For the man. For the man and not man for the Sabbath. He says that the the majority view is that this, that our Lord is actually referring back to creation. And he says, however, that's too tidy, too cute, or something like that. And I go, well, why is it too tidy? Here's the reason. That was in a book called From the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. Here's the reason.

And I had a friend, I think it was Pastor Dunn, when I wrote something, it could have been the Garden Book, he said, do you think guys push back on the threefold division? Now, I don't want to put these words in Pastor Dunn's mouth, so it's the way I took it. It's basically, basically, whoever said this, because they want to watch NFL football. Because they don't want to deal with the perpetuity of the fourth commandment. Do they deny this stuff for that? And I said, you know, that's a good question. I don't know men's motives. I don't know their hearts. It's probably best not to do that. But you're right.

I think exegetically and then synthesizing our exegesis, doing some biblical, redemptive historical biblical theology, And for Paul to say circumcision is nothing, he doesn't do that with murder. He doesn't do that with adultery. There's an obvious distinction between a positive law and something that's perpetual. And I think the Philip Ross book, From the Finger of God, it's excellent.

And how the prophets, when they'd upbraid old covenant Israel, it wasn't because they ate jackdaws. It wasn't because they ate bearded vultures. It's not that those weren't transgressions, but it was moral law. It was murder. It was adultery. It was theft.

That book, Philip Ross, when I heard about it, I got it and I devoured it. I read it twice. I said, this is so good. And in the back of my mind was, I want to write a book on the threefold division until I read that book. And then I saw two reviews of it. One was by a New Covenant guy on Amazon. I don't know if it's still on there. And it was really bad. And then I ordered a book in honor of G.K. Beale. Hendrickson, I think, published it.

Oh, from... It's got some good articles. The New Eden to the New Eden or something? I don't know what it's called, but it's got some good articles, except this one by a certain Canadian New Testament scholar. It's a review by D.A. Carson of Ross's book. Oh, okay. It's horrible. Really?

And then it's in honor of G.K. Beale, who, in his big fat... It holds to the perpetuity of the creation Sabbath. And I thought, well, that's kind of a cheeky way to honor the man, to disagree with a book he probably really likes. But yeah, that book by Philip Ross, From the Finger of God, that's really helpful.

And you know, am I remembering correctly, because you just brought up circumcision as nothing. Yeah. But it's not absolutely nothing. It still teaches us something. Well, we need the circumcision of the heart. It's nothing in terms of a positive law to be enacted under the new covenant. And we are the true circumcised to worship. So we're not just We're not discounting the language, we're just allowing, to your point, the New Covenant now. The moral law is assumed by Paul, and the ceremonial law is assumed by Paul, but different in terms of obligation on the part of New Covenant citizens.

Yeah, because that very text, if I'm remembering correctly, he goes on to say circumcision is nothing, what matters is new creation, keeping the law. Oh yeah, in 1 Corinthians, yeah. Right, right. Now, the question would be, How do we think about those previous? So, like we just said, circumcision is still there in a more full spiritual sense, right? And then we also have the positive law, for example, don't muzzle the ox. which now is applied to those who... Yeah, that's a good question. 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5 quotes Deuteronomy 25, 4. And it is a positive law from the...

So how do we deal with that? Because Paul is applying something that applies literally to oxen in the Mosaic corpus, but he's applying the text somehow, some way, to guys like us, pastors, you know? So what's going on? I think what's happening there is there's a letter-spirit assumption in the Apostles' hermeneutic.

There's a principle behind the positive law that's getting applied. Just like you said, there's moral law, there's There's a moral principle that's perpetual and trans-covenantal behind the oxen tax, which is, I think, the eighth commandment, thou shalt not steal. But here's where that might get a little bit tricky, because that would legitimize theonomy. So in the judicial laws of Moses, make sure you have a fence or a roof. So that people can't fall off. The obvious principle is the sixth commandment.

So, you know, this desire to take everything judicial law. I like the confession, you know, it's it expired with that body politic of the Commonwealth of Israel. The general equity is still abiding. I mean, I don't know that anybody knows what general equity means, but I get it. You know, there's this moral principle, the morally perpetual principle, the moral and perpetual principle.

And yeah, so similarly, Paul does that with. Yeah, yeah. But does he do it? One to one with the state. No. Yeah. Yeah. And that's that there's a huge assumption. Yeah, that's right. That, you know, America is the New Covenant theocracy. Red, white, of course. Yeah, that means red, white and blue ribbons. You fit right in. You know, your your your covetousness is ugly. You have a white beard, a blue shirt. You have red socks. No, your handkerchief is red, right? Actually, one I will wear later.

Okay, we need to get back on subject here. We need to? Yeah, that's a good question. We could go for hours on that stuff. I'm actually writing a chapter for a book on the threefold religion. Because I agree with you. I have an allergic reaction to theonomy, right? But I love my Bible. And so even like with the dietary laws, I don't think that, you know, because Hebrews makes it clear, our hearts would be strengthened by grace, not by food.

Right. But at the same time, you know, as God is instructing his son there, what what is what's going on? What's behind that? Right. What is going on behind? And I, you know, I want to I want to say it's keeping them from engaging in the pagan nations around differentiating them. Yeah, because because a meal was much more than Just sustenance, yeah. It would mean some sort of intermingling. Fellowship, yeah. Now maybe, I don't know, but I like thinking about what's going on there.

That phrase, in the land, when you're in the land, then a law is expressed. I think that's very important. There's a distinction being made there that some laws are to be enacted in the future when you're in the land, but not until you're in the land, which means they don't transcend the land. There's something unique about the land in the history of redemption. God is using ancient Israel as the means through which the incarnate one would come. And once the incarnation comes, that special theological purpose is When they're vomited out of the land, when you're in the Gentile nations or in exile, those laws that were applicable to life in the land assume your preeminence in that land, over that land.

So yeah, there's a temporariness built in. Yeah, and while they're moving through the wilderness, they're not able to plant and harvest in a seasonal way. So that's anticipating. Yeah, being in the land. Something unique and typological about the land. And if that's true there, then what is going on as they're in the wilderness that is unique to that historical place as well? And I'm sure that there are things that, well, for example, gathering manna.

By the way, isn't it Simon Kistemacher? Did he do his PhD on the wilderness wanderings of the church in the book of Hebrews? I thought it was in Psalms. Somebody did that. And they argue that the wilderness is typological of the Christian life. There's a lot of resistance, there's a lot of unbelief. And it's adolescent phase for Old Covenant Israel. God calls them, my firstborn in Exodus 4. And maturation comes when they inherit the land. referred to that as their adolescence, God, you know, chastening them, the first generation not entering into the land. And the land is ultimately typological of Immanuel's land. That's why old people, when you ask them besides the John Bunyan connection, you know, how's brother Harry doing? Well, he's 92 and was in the hospital or whatever. He crossed the river. What river? The Jordan. And he went into glory, absent from the body, present with the Lord. We use that language. And I think that goes way back in the history of the Church. That goes way back.

There's a book, Jean Danielou? What's the name of that book? Really helpful with all this stuff. He walks through the Exodus and he shows the type-anti-type stuff throughout Scripture in the Patristics. Very helpful book. Typology of the Fathers or something. Good, good question. This is also, I think, practical, a practically good question, because you've already mentioned, you know, somebody that is somewhat representative of this school of thought.

And it comes up, are New Covenant theology and progressive covenantalism compatible with the 1689? Yeah. Well, it's interesting because New Covenant theology doesn't have a monolithic statement, the same statement among all of them. And before Gary, I almost said Gary North, Gary Long died, he articulated a covenant of I don't think he liked the word works.

Yeah, we're in, we're doing, you're getting the Garden Book. Oh, the Garden Book. Yeah, I note that in there, which is a move in the right direction, I think. And the reason why Dr. Long did it, who I think was the best writing New Covenant theology guy. And his book on definite atonement Yeah, yeah, that was good. Right, right.

He's got another book on law or something that's not very good. But this book, this last book, was his most mature thinking, and he concludes there was a covenant enacted by God with Adam in the garden. And how does he do it? Romans 5 and Hosea 6-7. So he's got a hermeneutic going. He's going, I'm not just going to read the garden isolated from the rest of scripture. It's not a biblicist reading. Yes, so I really appreciated that.

He allowed subsequent revelation to make explicit what is implicit in antecedent revelation. A covenant in the garden, using that language, requires the rest of the Bible to help us interpret what's going on. And when you do that, there was somebody I read that said the garden should be read through the lens of the Apostle Paul. And I want to extend that and say the garden should be read through the lens of Genesis 3 through Revelation 22. I thought it was intriguing, though, because we are in that book, your book, Getting the Garden Right, and I haven't read long.

I'm reading what you've provided. I didn't either. I got it off AI. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I read the entire book. He affirms Romans 5, affirms Hosea 6. He affirms some sort of a covenant with Adam in the garden pre-fall, but not the covenant of works as it's been historically taught. Yes. Not as a profirment. There's not an eschatological profirment in it.

Long is who you're talking about? Gary Long. When did he die? I don't know, within five years or so, but I really appreciated and applauded and tried to do that in the book and say, this is what New Covenant theology and progressive covenantalists need to do, not just on this covenant, but the divine rest as well. You guys aren't to that point yet.

You're going to see, I'm going to take basically the hermeneutical the operations of hermeneutical principles that were going on in Gary Long's mind. And I'm going to challenge, and the progressive covenantalists, because they have a creation covenant now. I disagree with how it's articulated in the basis for it, but I'm writing a chapter for a book on that too. But I'm going to say you take the same hermeneutical grid, allow the scripture itself to shed light on the scripture, especially in light of its fulfillment, and that which was in black and white becomes clearer, becomes not full colors, the new covenant, you know, inaugurated new covenant. But we use the language of fulfillment to help us with the language of promise.

And I'm going to say, take that to Genesis 2, 1 through 3, the divine rest. What is that? God's tired? No, Isaiah tells us he never sleeps or slumbers. He can't be tired. So whatever rest is signifying, It has to be something that's worthy of God, but something instructive for man. It's the divine exemplar thing. Do as I've done. Work unto an exalted end. Work to an end. And so when you do that and you put it all together, they won't call themselves progressive covenantalists anymore. They'll come over to the fuller confessional expression of covenant theology. But, you know, they're not going to hell because they don't yet. But some of them are, slowly but surely, and I think their hermeneutics are going to help them.

So Pastor Butler just used the word biblicalism, and you certainly have dealt with New Covenant theology for a long time, right? Would you say that that's part of their problem, that they're not cognizant, that they're approaching the Bible from a My reading trumps all these, this other work. Some of them seem to revel in that. Yeah. In the few quotations that are provided. I think the older, some mostly older, but even Dr. Long, you know, who says he doesn't like Covenant Works. Oh yeah, they all seem to have it.

It was not in the Bible. No, he talked about He's dealing with threefold division, and he doesn't like it because moral, ceremonial, and civil aren't used in either the Hebrew or Greek text. But he calls it moral and something else. He's got a twofold division of it, but neither of those words are in the Hebrew or Greek.

And you have other ones saying New Covenant theology attempts to use Bible words to explain Bible doctrines. And you've got to appreciate that. It's not a bad thing. But you can't do that with a Jehovah's Witness at your front door. They'll quote John 1 and all you can do is use Bible words. So I think probably the quick answer, because there was a no. Yeah, I agree. And I think it would come down to, you know, certain key chapters in the Confessions. So 19 and 7, 1922. Yeah.

And you see the connection back to the Calvinism and Reformed thing. You know, everybody wants to be, I've seen this, Calvinistic Baptists call themselves Reformed Baptists. You push a little bit. No, they're not Reformed, they're Calvinistic. And there's a lot of guys that love the 1689, but they don't, there's certain, not exceptions, here and there. They're talking whole chapters. Big ones. Remember the Philip Ross. He was picking on, who was he? Who was the guy in New York City, the PCA? Schlissel? Keller? Tim Keller. Oh, Keller. Okay. Was it Tim Keller?

Somebody who was, he calls it a precision strike, extracting the perpetuity of the Fourth Commandment out of the confession. He says, it's of a cloth. You pull that string, and a lot of other doctrines fall flat, and you've got to rebuild the whole system.

And I think that's the way to look at it on some of these Law Sabbath issues. Well, okay, so can we apply in this conversation, which I think is really helpful, can we apply the same thing when we talk about the covenant of redemption? the inner Trinitarian. If you deny that, can you say that you're... Well, the Confession sets it forth. Yeah, I think it depends on how you parse it out. Yeah, that to me is a big...

If you just say it's... we go to texts like Luke 22, there's a covenant that the Father covenanted a kingdom to the Son. then there's something pre-temporal about the divine will. If you just put it in the decree, and you say, what's the Bible's way of speaking about the decree in redemptive historical language, but it's not like the father striking hands with the son, yeah, you know. Because you read John Flavel, he uses that language. And it's glorious.

It's glorious when you read it, but it's anthropomorphic. My son hears a lot of miserable things. Would you take them to be yours? Would they be your bride? Oh, that's fantastic. Yes. You know, once again, it's one of those things that we were discussing earlier, is allowing our theology to also inform how we read our Bible, that there's analogy, right? There's not, we don't think that we're speaking unifically about the eternal relations, but we're saying there's like the relationships that are covenantal relationships. And it sure seems that way in John's Gospel.

Jesus is conscientiously sent from the Father to do a specific task. Yeah. When the sun comes on the earth, he says, thou hast prepared a body for me. It was a prepared, the incarnation was a prepared thing. And with that flable quote, there's Theological parsing? No. Devotional warming? Doxological praising? Yeah, that's just beautiful stuff.

It's using our experience as creatures. It's using creatures to teach creatures something about the Creator, but not on a one-to-one kind of a... It's Deuteronomy 1, God reflecting through Moses on the wilderness. I carried you through the wilderness just like a father carries his son.

Really? Carried? Beautiful. If you will look the word carried up in Hebrew lexicons that were put together by dead Germans who were liberal and probably in hell. Hell suffering. Carry means carry. Therefore, God has arms. The Mormons are right. No, we're not. We're not going to do that. We're running, I'm going to probably be more selective here. Lightning round. Yeah, put a timer. You got 30 seconds. So this one for David's first, and then, you know, Rich can speak to it as well.

What is prosopological exegesis, and why does it matter for reading the Old Testament Christologically? Well, I think we gain a view of that by reading the New Testament and understanding how the New Testament is making use of the Old Testament. And by that term, we're seeing into the inner Trinitarian, going back to the covenant of redemption, where they're speaking to one another about the redemption that's going to take place. And what was the second part of that? And how, why does it matter for reading the Old Testament Christologically?

Yeah, without it, we flatten the old, we flatten the Old Testament revelation. And we fail, we actually go back to having blinders on, where Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 talks about how there's a veil over their, their eyes. So, without, without making, recognizing that, we don't get to Christ as the scriptures have meant for us to get to Christ. Once you see it, it's one of those things, really, you can't unsee it. And the way that the apostles, I think, Rich, how do you say it? Jesus taught us through the apostles, taught us how to interpret scripture.

Yes. Right. And it's a window. for us to see the glory of the triune God. When we see the author to Hebrews saying, He says to the Son, and then quoting a Psalm, and then we listen to Psalm 110, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, or Psalm 2, ask of me and I will give you the nation. It's a window for us to see the relation between the Father and the Son. But it also helps us to just make heads or tails of these conversations that are taking place. that are not David.

You just quoted Psalm 40. In Hebrew, it's unashamed. When he comes in the world, he says something that, so right there, infant Jesus, we're to understand is the one who was in Psalm 40 in Hebrews 2, further than what you're going to preach. He says, and then he's talking about Jesus, and then he quotes Psalm 22.

And I think that helps us when we read the Psalms to see that they really are about Jesus. They really are. He's the subject. He's the author. And Jesus as the Son of God. Yeah. The relations, like you were saying, the eternal relations come through, through that recognizing that lens. That lens, that's right.

Can you turn to Hebrews 1? Can we go back to the terminology? Yeah, prosopological. And maybe mention the Matthew Bates book and then I'll have something to say. Apological, prosopon, person, logical, words about, or words spoken by a person, and literally means this, words spoken by a person of the Godhead to another person in the Godhead through either an apostle or, in this case, the Old Testament, through the writer of Scripture. So in Hebrews 1, I've got to get my glasses. Yes, I need glasses. My sermon notes are now 18 font, so I don't have to use glasses. I still use eight.

To which of the angels did he capitalize, did God ever say, and then he quotes Psalm 2, and then verse 6, and when again, and when again, when he again brings the firstborn into the world, he says, Psalm 8, Verse 8, but of the Son, He says, now watch this, your throne, O God, what's that, Psalm 45? And then, and verse 10, you look at this, Lord, referring to Jehovah, so He says, of the Son, or I think the New King James says, to the Son. And that's Psalm 102, 25 to 27. So you go back and what, who's our favorite Psalms? Pierce. Pierce. You go back and read Pierce.

The prophet of Christ, prior to the incarnation of Christ, is personifying the Father speaking to the Son about the Son prior to the Incarnation. So then we can go to this and say the Apostle of Christ is speaking about the Father speaking to the Son in Psalm 102.

And the son, according to Paul, is Yahweh. But if you read the context, the last referent to he is Elohim. So if you put it all together, you go, how is the son in his pre-incarnate state Elohim and Yahweh? If he is, And he is. The prophet before the incarnation identifies the son as Elohim and Yahweh. And the apostle after the incarnation of the son identifies him as Elohim and Yahweh, Elisha Yahweh. He does Elohim too.

Therefore, whatever the incarnation entails, it can't entail a diminishment of Yahwism, or Yahweh-ness, and Elohim-ness in the Son. Right? Whatever He was prior to the Incarnation, He has to be that once the Incarnation comes, because He doesn't change. Same yesterday, today, and forever.

Which, by the way, is Hebrews 13.8. I think it's an echo of Psalm 102 as well.

Do you remember years and years ago, before Dennis Prager got really big, he did a radio show in LA, and he had Greg Bonson, a Jewish rabbi, and a Catholic priest on? Did you ever hear that? I'm sure you took me off to it. I probably did. Anyways, it was really good. I know that sounds like a set up for a joke. They locked into a bar.

But basically, Prager asks, what's the non-negotiable fundamental element of your faith? In other words, you've got to embrace this one thing or you can't be considered a Jew or a Catholic or a Protestant. And Bonson did really well. He basically cited Romans 5, 8. But one of the things that had come up in the midst of that was callers. And basically somebody called in and said there was no Jewish expectation for a divine Messiah. And that is so patently false.

And Watson did a good job, you know, look at Isaiah 9, he cited a few times. But I've often thought this, the modern expectation of the messianic expectation for just a unique man, you didn't get that from the Old Testament. You get eternal father from the Old Testament. You get, you know, sitting on the right hand of Yahweh from the Old Testament. You don't get...

And what's the Micah 5.2? From Everlasting. His goings forth are from the ancient of days. Yeah, that's an interesting one.

Oh, yeah. You ever hear James Dolezal lecture on that text? No. Oh, man, it's Trinity Classics. But even our Lord Jesus, and, you know, when He's dealing with the Jewish leaders of His day, would assume that they would understand, how is it David says, the Lord said to my Lord... Exactly. Yeah, yeah. That's not Jesus reinterpreting the New Testament, casting new meanings. The prophets of Christ knew about the sufferings and glory of the incarnate Son. That's right. They didn't know all the details. They couldn't explain it the way...

By the way, if they lived during the ministry of our Lord and the apostles, they would have gone, wow, this is better than I thought. This is what I wrote about. Much better. Yeah. Isn't that, I mean, that's exactly what Peter says in 1 Peter, right? Talking about the prophets. That's right. They prophesied of the grace that would come to you and make careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. So the prophets knew. We're talking about... That's right.

Have you ever read Gill on that? It's really good. On this passage here? Yeah, it's really good. And John Brown and Gill and Matthew Poole. Those are some of the three most helpful. Gill says, carefully searching and inquiring and searching. Is that what it is? I think it's that second word. Every time it's used in subtuate or whatever. in relation to a person searching for something, the object that they're searching is the law, is the written word of God. So Gill makes the observation, how are they doing this? He said, by prayer, by considering their own writings, By considering the writings of Moses, by considering the types and prophecies and other writings, they're doing the analogy of faith. And they're realizing we're not just ministering to our own generation. We're ministering to some sort of generation to come.

Things were, but... Are you preaching your sermon? Dark? No. I just lectured last week on hermeneutics, and we finished with this passage. Things were dark and obscure. John Brown says, things remained dark and obscure until either the fulfillment of that to which it pointed comes, or a further explication.

With the Incarnation, Sufferings, and Glory of Christ and the New Testament, we have both. We have the fulfillment and a divine testimony, a divine interpretation of the redemptive historical act of the Incarnation, Sufferings, and Glory of our Lord, which is, by the way, The reason why we have a Bible is to tell us there's an incarnation, sufferings, and glory of our Lord coming, or it has come.

I'm going to just do one last. I mean, there's still a few more. I'm sure Wim will carry them over to the next session that we do. But I think this is just at a practical, it's under the category of worship and church life. And just in terms of practical Christianity as individuals, as families and as churches, why have two church services on a Sunday? Like, what's the rationale? I mean, our churches, we have a morning and an evening worship. Because four might be too much. Four might be too much. And there are two testaments. Well, I would say this.

We've always had two services. Now, right now we do what's called back-to-back, so we still have an a.m., p.m. because people are traveling a long distance. Much, much of the time on the Lord's Day, well after the Second Service, people are still together, and it's a wonderful time. But it's anchored in the Scripture itself, the morning and evening sacrifices. We find that carried over. Remember Acts, I think it's four, where the apostles were on their way to pray the hour of prayer, which was sometime mid-afternoon. And it's the Lord's Day. what else would you want to do other than being with God's people in His worship?

So, I think there's different, multiple layers, but I think there's scriptural precedent. Yeah, and I think just the identifier that it's the Lord's day, it's not the Lord's morning. And I think practically, it helps us to keep the Sabbath or observe the Sabbath, which I know that some people think that's Judaizing. But granted a Sabbath, granted a chapter 22 is accurate in our confession, It's just a practical benefit and help to keep the day, you know, instead of...

The few times we've had to cancel because of snow, which we don't get a lot here, thankfully, you just... I've always felt weird on Sunday night not being in church at the time when I'm usually in church. And I know that's not probably the best rationale. I just felt weird. Apart from that, you are weird. I am weird. But it's just... I like Turretin, you know, or some of the older writers.

People have, with the day specifically, when there's not a regard for the Lord's day, religion doesn't usually flourish well. It doesn't go well. And I think that there's gradual diminishment of the day by the, you know, excising of a service in the day or replacing it with other things that aren't bad, you know, a discipleship group or let's get together and eat spaghetti and then study a book. You could do that other day. Is corporate worship and the means of grace need to take priority on the Lord's day? You know, there's a weariness and a desire on the part of a lot of Christians, because we recognize, if you're old enough, you recognize that Christianity's influence on the culture has really diminished.

And as simple as it is, we could have a great influence on the Lord, on the culture, because it used to be even if you were a pagan and you didn't go to the church, you had to close down the shop. That's right. Or the shop was closed down. So even there, there's something transcendent that's invading the culture. Right. And I think there's a there's a way we could have a really important, salutary influence on the culture by just being obedient. And I'll say this, too.

There are times I wake up Sunday morning and I'm tired, or even the prayer meeting. But you know what? I've never ended the Lord's Day with God's people with anything other than joy. Man, I wish I didn't come. It's never happened. You can be a bit sluggish in the morning and you get revitalized. That's the revival I believe in. The revival of the means of grace that God blesses and encourages the soul. Yeah, it's just it's practically beneficial.

And if, you know, going you mentioned because four would be too many, but one is great. And I'm not against those churches for whatever reasons. They only have one service. But boy, we get to do this twice. We get to enjoy the morning and evening sacrifice, as it were. You know, when I was when I was a child, Pentecostal, My mom would make us go to both services. And you know what?

I wish I could have a little bit of time with my mom. She's in glory now to say, Mom, thank you. The only regret I have about the Sabbath, there's one thing, is how many years I did not make good use of it. That's the only thing I have that I wish if I could go back, I would certainly keep Sabbath joyfully. It's not a burden. It really is a delight. It's a delight.

And I don't think we're saying that just because we're pastors, because in truth, we're pretty busy and laden down with a lot of things. But, you know, if I tell you a personal story, for 18 years, I was bivocational. And I get people to ask the question, how do you do both? And sometimes I look back and I wonder at the same thing. But, you know, I can honestly say it was because I kept Sabbath. Having that one day, even though it was quite a busy day, it just changed me in ways that are wonderful. It's like talking about how much money tithe, right? I had a friend that would say, I've learned I can live much better on 90% trusting God than not trusting God with 100%. And the Sabbath is the same kind of thing.

Just trust God. Just do what He says. Trust Him. Obey Him. There's no other way to be happy in Jesus. Which is true. I used to not like that, but it's true. Trust and obey. Two more minutes. Any other thoughts on the second service or the two services? No. Okay. Well, good.

Thank you both for being here. First and foremost, having great expectations for our conference this Friday and Saturday. Chapter three of our Confession of Faith of God's Decree. And thank you as well for participating in the podcast. And I'm thankful that you guys are staying at my place. So let's go eat. Good time. Go eat. All right.