← Back to sermon library

Hi, I'm Jim Butler from the Free Grace Baptist Church here in Chilowak, British Columbia. I'm joined with two of our Confessing the Faith Conference 2026. Uh 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. They're two of the three speakers for our conference this weekend. The third is Dr. Jim Renahan, uh, the president of the International Reformed 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 in recent memory, we've had a book published along these lines by Matthew Bingham. >> Mhm. >> And of course, our own Dr. Renahan likewise has been very helpful in distinguishing those two groups. The particular Baptist and the Anabaptist, they they have common roots in the Christian religion. >> Mhm. >> They're both they're both reading the Bible. >> They're both reading the Bible, but they're it's not like the Baptists are later improved version of Anabaptists. the particular Baptists have a completely different origin uh arising more out of the English reformation congregationalist specifically. So the early particular Baptists labored hard going back to the first London Baptist confession of faith to distinguish themselves from >> it's on the title page. Yeah. >> Right. Exactly. So if we're to listen to their own witness and then the witness of others during that time than of course our own better uh historians there's there's no relationship and that and that shows out not just simply historically but actually how how those two groups developed and their their relationship. There's some there's some similarities because like Rich said they're both reading the Bible >> with a a non papist view, >> right? But that doesn't mean that they have a common origin. Of course not. >> Good. >> Yeah. Rich, anything to add? >> Um, >> I 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 with the men with them, not the Menites, the uh >> Anabaptist. >> Anabaptists. And it and it keeps cropping up on on Twitter through a particular person especially, >> but um >> I don't think it's a legitimate thesis. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And we we certainly can be um understanding we we're living in a good time where real history is being done. We have men >> like Doc Rehan and Bingham and others who are going back as you said they're going actually going back to the history rather than repeating something that's been repeated repeated and and left unchallenged. And it just becomes a very convenient way to talk about the history. Although it ends up being unfortunately very um illinformed. >> Yeah. A lot of either anacronistic 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 who somebody somebody said what somebody else said what somebody else said but who the first person that said it didn't prove it >> from the the actual writings of those people. So >> uh that you know that's a very sloppy way to do historical work and Dr. Renahan and Dr. Richard Mueller and others have really helped I think >> the people >> and and you know I've actually met people who would identify as Anabaptist and there there's some of their instinct I'm they're wrong but I understand they want to so distinguish themselves from the medieval papacy and so the notion that there's this traceable >> back to the medieval church is so appalling to them. >> Yeah. >> And they think that Anabaptism >> jumped over >> somehow >> went all the way back and Jesus break. >> Yeah. Right. [snorts] >> Yeah. >> And is the only faithful expression of the New Testament or something like that you'll hear. 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 that are helping us to think in a good way more Catholic >> small C and [clears throat] they're helping us to go I think Rich you you were there in Toledo and you you preached some lectures or gave some lectures where >> the reformation didn't change everything. >> Mhm. >> And that's a very solitary way for us to think about >> Yeah. I agree. our our religion and and who we are as as as Protestants >> and and as as Baptists. >> Doesn't Bingham argue from the primary source documents that >> the particular what became particular Baptists they were actually pedaptists and they >> congregationalist >> Yeah. pedobaptist congregationalists and it was their >> their view of the covenants >> Yeah. and ecclesiology >> that drove them to >> y >> confessing disciples baptism alone >> y >> it did they didn't go >> back to the anabaptists it was within that kind of a context that's what his part of his argument is is that right >> yeah I think um I can't remember when it was we were once we were all all three of us were in Boston >> with the Presbyterian historian um >> Chad >> Chad Van So it was either there or when he was at Fargo, but he was making the point too that there the there was a desire and and an enterprise both with, you know, going back to Westminster and moving forward, they're all kind of wanting a a pure church. >> Yeah. Right. And of course it was uh it was a particular Baptist in that same stream that came to the realization >> has to be >> to accomplish that you have to begin at the very threshold of the church in the baptismal waters. >> Yeah. As I rec 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. sight. [clears throat] >> But, you know, even there, you know, I I think perhaps even the Antabaptists have not been treated well by some of the the historians because they weren't really a monolithic group either. >> Oh, no. >> They're all over the board. Uh um >> so they, you know, they're entitled to their own history. And 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 dispensed with the sacraments altogether. So I mean again, you don't really have this. >> Yeah. Whenever you say the Anabaptists, >> it's kind of >> say Anabaptistic or something. >> Anabaptistic might be more accurate. >> Or anabaptistical. >> Yes. >> And so we would say the particular Baptists were anti-antaptistical. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. Good. So what is Calvinism? [snorts] I'll direct that to Pastor Barcelos. >> Um, can I quote Spurgeon? >> Sure. >> What did he say? It's nothing but the theology of Jesus and the apostles or whatever. Um, so we're in the 21st century now. So my experience with what 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 sotarological the doctrine of salvation and the the so-called five points which have a historical um origin and all that stuff and I I don't think I even know the whole story about how they were called the five points or when except dort um total depravity tulip total depravity uh unconditional election limited atonement irresistible grace and the preservation or perseverance of the saints. So it spells the flower tulip [gasps] and um so historically um or historically that understanding and something related to it kind of collided and that is um how do we preach if unconditional election's true if limited atonement is true that Christ didn't expedate the guilt of every single elect and non-elect person's sins. uh 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 >> Mhm. >> to to [clears throat] go ahead and and repent and believe. And um some people might want to make a distinction between a 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 um the warrant for man for the preacher to preach it and for the sinner to comply with what's being said is I heard John Gersner say it God commands you [laughter] what is the warrant what's the basis God in his word you know God says to which I that's the view I hold I think well that yeah I don't need anything more and I I hope I'm accurately stating the other view which says free and sincere offer >> and so it's that it's that additional language and sincere. What does that mean? well meant >> or well meant as if this isn't a wellment that's not well and that's not um so um what is sincere and well- meant uh 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 to believe but he doesn't decree that they would believe but it's still in him it's an undecreed kind of pent a wish, a frustration. You know, many years ago, somebody had a post where they had a a a birthday cake and 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 but for him, John Gil does. And Gil asked the question, "Are there undecreed desires within God?" And there's a Latin term he used. Uh, and I wish I would have memorized it or brought it in my notes or something. And he denied it. He says, "No." And and and I I think he's right. I don't think there's something [clears throat] 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 there in him. So we can say, "Oh, there are some undecreed desires that God has for you." So he's really he really means this, but he hasn't decreed that you repent and believe. >> To me, it's just like you we don't have to go that far. Beyond the sotiological 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 that's a that's a place you really don't want to go. >> Now, [clears throat] 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 >> um >> as [clears throat] ugly as you >> looked [snorts] 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 3 months >> and more mature. God knows that he could have done that. So or [laughter] and then that's like the ordained like the absolute power and the ordained power. Could God have executed his power in such a way as to make a world larger than 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 when you 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 way ways to understand these texts that doesn't get you doing that kind of specul speculative >> so with reference to the exercise of power as you just explained. Yeah, that's absolutely correct and I I agree with that. Back to the birthday cake. I'm pretty sure >> the 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. You know, >> I mean to say that God desires the salvation of sinners, you got Bible texts all over, but God desires the salvation of the >> repro. Yeah. And we can make that other distinction between the so-called secret will of God, the revealed will. >> Yes. And you know, um I I like doing um just the way God's put me together. I I like doing evangelism. >> Give me a chance. I'm I'm talking to somebody. I'm moving. >> And but that was actually doing that is was actually part of what God used in his providence to bring me to what we now call Calvinism. >> High high Calvinism. But you you know the the high Calvinism whatever you want to call it Calvinism the reformed faith uh doctrines of grace it kind of it it 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 right >> through the gospel. My only responsibility is >> to publish the gospel. That's right. Right. >> I don't need to somehow so you you brought up we however we work through our siology. We can never do that at the expense of our theology. That's right. >> We can't somehow >> this is downhill from that. >> That's right. >> Theology is first. >> Theology is first and it conditions our understanding of everything. >> God is before what God does. So for us to to offer to any given sinner the truth of the gospel, we don't need to probe into >> the mind of >> the mind or the heart of God, >> the desires of God. >> It's well, going back to John Gersner, it's sufficient that we've been commissioned, we've been told, we we know the message to be given, right? >> And we know that we're to publish it far and wide. uh we don't need to to somehow make God more emotive or more human >> or even emotive >> right we just >> more palatable >> 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 I tell my people I say look give them the gospel >> that's right >> because because God will if they're elect and I know that's that's the alert all 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 I love One of the things I 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. Yeah. God saved. >> Yeah. They acknowledge the effectual call without even knowing the phrase articulating. >> And you know, once again, it's it's every I've even heard uh Roman the Roman church sing amazing grace. And it's just it's right there. >> I was blind >> and now >> I was lost. I was wretched. Right. And so I that you know why why how that came about. Now, there may be legitimate historical reasons for there to, you know, what is it? Um, Andrew Murray, not Andrew Murray, >> John Murray, >> John Newton, >> the Baptist, >> Andrew Fuller, >> Andrew Fuller, >> right? >> Maybe maybe there have been real distortions >> of of Calvinism. Yeah. >> That's been >> that denies the gospel, that denies God's grace. The way to to repair those is to open up your Bible and go back to what the language of the Bible uses and rather than torturing. >> That's right. Because because God says to do it. >> Yeah. I don't think one of my struggles. >> The Gersner family is going to sue you. >> One of my struggles. I love John Gersner. I got a nickname from John Gersonner. I got a book from John Gersonner. Dear Rich and Nan, thank you for housing such an unlikely transient as myself, John Gersner, >> in your exquisite palace or something like that. It was like, yeah. So, I I over the years I've changed my view. uh I was trained at the master's seminary and I don't know which professor or if even if any professor taught this but when I came out I held to the to the well- meant >> what's it called >> sincere well >> well meant and sincere offer the 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 okay so what you're doing is you're telling us. God has the knowledge of his own decree. And there's 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 pro 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 ex has since executed which includes >> this. Okay. This is a product of divine providence. Right. The Bible's a creature. >> The New American St. >> The New American Standard. [laughter] [sighs] >> I got the New King James. So >> Okay. Thank you. You have you have the Bible. >> I got the upgraded version. >> Oh, >> New American Standard 2020. >> No. the blue guilt or guilt. >> Um, so, so what what 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. >> Um, but things that are other than God have to decreed be decreed to be. So, he has decreed to be to exist the Bible and he preserves it and and all that stuff and he blesses it. Um, and we're saying the free and well-ment offer says, I want to go back to God's >> simple knowledge, >> right? >> To ground, >> right, >> the offer of the gospel. And I'm going, you really, you want to do that? >> You know what that is? [laughter] >> 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 skitsoid kind of >> and they text they certainly text I know >> that that you 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 Gil's cause of God and truth. any passage that may possibly appear [laughter] to be contrary to a biblically, you know, regulated approach to sotiology, he deals with >> Dr. Voluminous dealt with and and he was never shy to use to say things like, you know, this is anthropomod anthropomorphic. >> Yeah. He's not he's not shy to do that because he'll he 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 he was a master and we need to recover that and not be not somehow, >> you know, bring God down 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. >> You know, and and you're denying the confession and certainly denying scripture and and you don't preach the gospel. And I'm going, >> "Yeah, >> this 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 uh 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 my sermon we had the Lord's supper every week to remind our people. >> Yeah. And you mentioned hypercalvinism. So if the well-ment offer goes perhaps far a field on the one side basically explain what is hypercalvinism [sighs] >> only at least you can correct me here preaching the gospel to somebody that gives evidence of of a prevenient some sort of prevenient work of God in them >> u instead of just indiscriminately you have an audience you have no idea who's out there you're just preaching the gospel you preach 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. Okay? They're not obeying the gospel. That's right. >> They're looking for evidences. Evidences of what? Whether God has predestined me. And so [clears throat] my push back 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 believe the gospel? You go, I didn't even know what that word meant. You know, when I came to Christ, I came because I wanted to. >> I was later I realized I was made willing in the day of God's power. >> Uh I came freely and willingly having been made so by his grace. But that's not what I I wasn't experience. I wasn't sitting there going, I'm being effectually called. Divine power is being executed in accordance with the decree of God. The effective 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 the in Christ is not the knowledge of the decree. That's >> right. >> Um it's 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-men offer. There's got to be this knowledge of the desire. >> It's not a well unless >> preach the gospel. If you're a hyper Yeah. God has purposed to save from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. There's a fixed certain group >> that God knows. >> 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 hyperalvinist says, well, if God's going to save me, he's going to save me. irrespective of means, irrespective of preaching, it's going to be this divine zap. They don't >> they think you know my I'm changed now and I believe on the Lord Jesus. Well, the God who 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. >> They It's 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 [snorts] 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." >> Yeah. Or wear a seat belt or I'm not going to stop at stop signs. >> That's right. >> You know, nobody lives that way. >> Nobody lives that way. >> But they're going to want to use it against them. 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 that. It's >> now Now my question for you two two men. Um if I can ask a question. >> Sure. >> Because I I think we've we've laid out >> Well, he has the questions now. You're See, you're doing what you always do, David. You're taking over. This is Jim's show. >> Oh, come on. >> I was I was I was predestined. >> You were predetermined to do this. >> Granted. >> Um >> Okay. So I I think you guys we we've we we know and we've given it a proper diagnosis of how we use well men offer all that. My question is uh like you I I became introduced to wonderfully actually by God's grace drug in to 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 [snorts] do that which it was >> okay. Good. 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 hyper. >> I was a hypercalvinist. >> So, you met one. >> So, like you, I've read I've read this stuff. I know that there there undoubtedly those are out there like you described it that just say if you're elect, you'll you'll be saved. We we can but I haven't really encountered those people, right? How how big of a problem is this actually that all this cure is trying to be 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 [snorts] that direction. Aren't there >> Aren't there denominations um that I guess would be called hyperalvinist that have >> they would they wouldn't describe themselves, >> right? Right. That have a thousand members and >> I don't want to get into the weeds on some of that stuff, but no, it it's a genuine problem [snorts] and and >> what what the way it was described here that there are people who genuinely say if I'm I'm elected >> that's the mind they may not say it or articulate it, but that's the mindset. So that's so what if if what I'm hearing you say if I understand it it's not so much and it it might be in the first place in the 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 but we do. But see, that's not But see, you know, I guess like >> Rabbi Duncan, what did he say? Armenianism is all door and no house. Hypercalvinism is all house and no door. Something to that effect. And I think that's accurate. And again, it it is there there are tendencies. >> A Jew said that. >> Yeah. Rabbi John Duncan. Yeah. >> Wiz Scottish Presbyterian. Scottish Presbyterian. I guess I take umbrage to the the modification of Calvinism because that, 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 [clears throat] uh Sproul they called it subcalvinism then? 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. >> Um >> Oh, yeah. >> I mean, there is in California, but not where I am. Where where But here's what happens. >> Fruits are are usually, you know, there's a heavy emphasis on instead of you're a sinner, look to Christ and and believe. It's you got to really know your sin. You got to really feel your sin. I mean, you got to 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 often times 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 balance. It's like, yeah. >> So, so Jim, so you've you've actually had to deal with this directly. you've thought through this. >> Oh yeah. >> Um, a lot. If if you're saying it's not you you you're not going to locate it in the three forms. >> No, the the the doctrinal uh confessions are are fine. >> So where 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 Reformed Congregation in Holland. Uh 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 a it's not, you know, 50-y old document, but it's not 10 years either. I think he locates it in the 20th >> 21st century that there's been a there's been a a change. There's been a >> more hyper internal looking at oneself, it becomes mystical, >> heavy mysticism. I think it's 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 English. >> It's not Jan P. Von Butler Haven, is it? >> No, it's not. No, no, no. He's an elder in a church. I think 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 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 [snorts] know, look ye and >> extra extive, >> not look outside and be saved all the ends of the earth. >> Well, see, cuz hearing you say that that it's not in their they're >> it's not in the documents. >> It's not in the documents. it, you know, given, you know, my love for church history, all of church history, >> you know, it it does every group well to go back to their >> do, right? Because there are things that happen. >> Yeah. >> Uh so like I look at even our churches, >> I think we still view much of our religion through the lens of of revivalism. Now that might be controversial. I don't know what you guys think about that. >> But I think even there that that and the way to for us to get a clearer view is to go back prior >> to the evangelical including the first great awakening because I know that's not popular to say. So I'm always kind of curious like where where did things depart? Right. >> Yeah. Where where did the 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 the the peace, the security of our churches after we're gone, right? I I very much am always thinking about the health and the 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, so you're saying part of the utility or usefulness of church history and historical theology is to provide an an antidote >> for repeating the errors of history. >> Yeah. >> Those ignorant of history or >> going to repeat the same you know of course uh was it uh somewhere in in the Westminster documents you have to be careful it talks about not resurre resurrecting old heresies. We're not talking about that. >> But just knowing what what's going on, where were the what what where was the departure so that we can guard against? >> Yeah. So you you hate revivals. >> Hang on. I don't want to get into that. [laughter] 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 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 we would want to say more than the the the you know because the cannons adore are 100 years after Calvin >> and that's just the reformed faith dealing with a contemporary >> issue right they they didn't formulate the five points of themselves they were responding that's right to to something that was troubling the church. [snorts] And so the question is, what's the difference between churches like ours and a Calvinist >> professional reformed Baptist church and a and a Calvinistic Baptist church visav John Piper? >> Well, it's it's which I, by the way, I I really have grown. I've, you know, been on both sides of John Piper. I appreciate the man. Wonderfully gifted man. uh >> in in so many ways he 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 the departures from what we recognize as a reformed faith, and I would even say uh now, if you're going to reduce Calvinism as you did, which again it it has precedent to reduce Calvinism to the five points, but even there, you know, I've often said, now speaking of of Piper directly, my my background, I raised, baptized, catechized, Pentecostal, later charismatic. There is a distinction there. I've I've said, "Look, if you can't subscribe, >> there you go. >> Our first chapter, you you you don't get to claim to be Calvinistic or reformed because >> the previous ways of God revealing himself has ceased." That's right. >> So Piper is outright there. So then the question is, well, is it just ceasianism? Well, it is, but it's because it's a part of Doc Reahan will talk about when you read our confession, you have to read it horizontally. that that's a part of a a larger understanding. >> And so, thank God for Baptist churches are becoming Calvinistic, right? We we we I rejoice in that. It's it's wonderful because what they're doing is they're saying it really is all of grace. It's grace. It's grace is grace. So, h how would we disting 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, [clears throat] as far as I know. >> No. Yeah. So, >> chapter 22, Sabbath, >> law, Sabbath, >> regular principle of worship. regular principal worship is is you know and and even that that issue there since we're talking about more narrowly about Baptists you the the 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 to by the regular principle of worship that that God regulates our worship by what he's commanded. >> Right? >> If if if that's not a a a fundamental aspect of your church's worship and and identity as a church, you're not reformed. And 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 he say I know how impossible it is to convince the world that what they give if 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 to the present and you had a conversation after he gets over being unhappy that there are people calling themselves Calvinist, 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 that's that's at the front end of his >> of his thinking. And so even there I I begrudgingly recognize Calvinistic Baptist churches because it's like well you you reduce Calvinism or Calvin himself [sighs] >> in a way that >> I mean we do it you know you have to have shortorthhand but >> but there is a distinguishable difference between a Calvinistic Baptist narrowly defined >> in say a John Piper and we're not picking on him but >> or John MacArthur a dispens dispensationalist who held to the five points. >> So a dispensationalist is not going to affirm chapter 7 our confession certainly not chapter 19. So basically what I think I'm hearing is that >> that reformed theology or confessional reformed theology is Calvinistic. we affirm Calvinism, >> but there's additional things, you know, Sproul says, didn't Sproul say that that Calvinism is or reformed theology is covenant theology. >> Yeah. I I 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 in the in the great Protestant confessions and catechisms, >> right? >> I think that's it's better to understand what a reformed Christian is in in terms of >> their their confessional adherence. >> Yeah. Do they hold to one of the classic >> documents? And by the way, the issue is not are those guys saved or >> Right. Yeah. No, it's just an intramural debate in terms of who gets to >> who gets to call themselves reformed. It seems like it comes down to that at times. >> When I say for reformed, I'm basically making it the same as >> Protestant confessional. >> Um, 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 uh I hold to the second London confession as the most mature um expression of my understanding of scripture. >> Um which happened to come out at the end of the 17th century, which is the most perfected Protestant doctrine >> uh document. I'm kind of kidding and kind of >> and they leaned on predecessors. I think that's helpful. I mean, you see where they tightened up language. They they went with Savoy on some issues. They didn't go with Westmin that they they leaned on those things in an informed way and took the best fruit. >> The one of the That's a good statement you just made. They they leaned on others, but they by the time 1677 comes around when our confession was first edited and it became a product, um 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 and and other changes? And the >> the evidence is from the primary document 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 >> right >> 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. >> Um and so I think it's a 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 it's uniquely Baptist or it's uniquely particular Baptist or something like that." I'm going, >> "No, I don't I don't >> Mhm. >> 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 unique to Yeah. >> reflect >> and they're borrowing from somebody else's arguments." Yeah. >> Yeah. I 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 they're borrowing from betaptist literature. They're borrowing from your guys. >> You know, something else if if I can, you know, going back to your original question as I'm I'm listening and I'm thinking, you know, Calvinistic Baptist, right? I you know are there really churches that would just only denom denominate themselves as Calvinistic Baptist? >> No. >> No. So, but but but but see that see that's helpful and we 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 on but we our churches don't we don't have a personality >> that we're organized around or a movement it's right it's it you know we >> the our confession Yeah. Right. It's our it's in other words, what's at the front end and then brings up the rear end is is our our the our commit the 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 I and I think this is the case that our people are not trained to say, "Oh, but pastor David doesn't hold that view." >> Yeah. >> Or I I I hope and I think this is the case are people would say we don't confess that, >> right? >> Yeah. Our our understanding of scripture is summarily contained in our confession of faith and it does not have to do with our [snorts] boundaries are not Jim Butler, David Charles and Richard Barcel >> that becomes >> sorry like Protestant papalism >> private popery >> yeah private private popery you know >> pastor Jim says pastor Cam says >> evangelicals have right they they've they've been rightfully uh taught to have an allergic reaction to papism, right? And often times when they encounter us, creeds, confessions, catechisms, >> it's it does. And one of the things that that I actually when 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 come to the church I say listen >> those things the conferries the confessions protect the church from me. Yes popery antiopery. Exactly. It and and I say this without a giggle. Po pope is antichrist but that spirit is still very much alive and well. >> We all want a pope. >> We want a pope. >> And there are many men. >> No, Hajj says every man has a pope in his own bosom. Desire to lord it over others. >> That's right. And you know, as a pastor, it's like, >> yeah, 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 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 tonging Sunday?" You should know what your pastors are, 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 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 gonna happen this week?" You should already know >> within the safe guards of a confession that has stood the test. But that headed you in, right? >> You in you're not going to get a woman preacher this Sunday. You're not going to get >> or next 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, you know, the church in the various Bible studies, you can't contradict >> the pastor. Yeah. >> Wow. It's like, >> 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 the rails for a train is restrictive." Yeah. Right. >> Good. Not all restriction is bad. >> Exactly. And And if you And I ask them, "What happens if the train's not on the rail? What do we call that?" They go, "The train wreck." >> That's right. >> Or [snorts] see the elastical equivalent of that. You know, 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 in and now been interpreted for 2,000. How what kind of arrogance >> I know that we can do it better. >> Oh my goodness. >> Or we don't need the the gifts that Christ gave to his church >> over the years, right? Ephesians 4 legitimizes and expects, I'd argue, crealism and confessionalism. If Jesus gives gifts to the church in an Athanasius or an Augustine or a 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 I just don't think so. I think we need the the insights of the gifts that Christ has given to his church. We don't We're not called to reinvent the wheel. >> Yeah. Amen. Uh 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, were more reformed. We're we're clearly in that stream. >> So our sacramenttology is reformed and and in in a lot of ways we're reformed as a corrective, but then we're we're Baptist and that we are a further correction. And so like what what Dr. Barcelus was saying a little while ago about our confession, our confession really is a full flowering of the Protestant Reformation. >> And I I know that how this sounds, but if I didn't believe what I'm about to say, I would be a part of >> be something else. I would be something else >> right >> that are that there is a corrective with who what 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 it's a a necessary trajectory from earlier parts of the reformation and it came to a complete so I I although we can make we 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 and I understand I'm very sympathetic to those who want to see something like what they they call Christian nationalism. I understand that and but when when I have those conversations I clearly become more Baptist >> more Baptist in that context >> because I'm I'm very much aware and and I'm I'm a patriot. I love my country. very much aware of the Baptist influence on our on our nation particularly when it comes to liberty of conscience and and distinguishing the church and 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 we can't even imagine that. Well, the corrective to that was Baptist churches. So, it depends on what the the discussion is on the table which way I I tag. >> And if you were talking to an Armenian Baptist dispensationalist, you'd be more Protestant or more uh reformed than you would be Baptist. >> Yeah. >> I think that's helpful. >> I I I have a question. You love the Bible >> and you love your country. And 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 >> and they're a red one, a white one, and a blue one. >> Look at that. I hope the camera shows that. Is that the Patriot? >> Is that the Patriots? >> Talk about So you're talking about my Bible. This Bible, I think, is nearly 30 years old. >> And I was going to retire it, but there's a a man at church. This guy's a 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 Bible? >> Yeah, you can see it. >> And um he he he saw it and he knew that I was and he he took it and he rebound it >> with leather calf skin. Put the ribbons in. Did the the blue. >> So now I'm going to get >> Who did this though? >> He did the red and the blue. That was the little patriotic pizzazz. >> Yeah. >> Good. No, that's a 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 sotiology, 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 more fully and then Baptist others. >> Yeah. You know, again, because labels are important. >> Yeah. And I think the ones that we give ourselves are more important cuz unfortunately, you know, I've been in the same week I've been called Antonyomian. and legalist, right? I've been called a hypercalvinist. U so using th those terms are really important, but I I I think the the the what's helpful about the term reformed isn't just simply uh you know the sotiological recovery, right? It's also as you know I 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 we're small Cath Catholic >> reformed with a Baptist corrective. Right. So, so I want I want to I want to wrap my arms around all that, >> but I want to be the one that uses it in a in a way that's faithful to what those terms actually mean. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Very helpful. >> What about you? Are you a reformed Baptist? Are you reformed first, then Baptist? >> Well, can I >> can I be a reformed Baptist without red, white, and blue ribbons in the scriptures, the written word of God? Because I I would never do that. And if that's a litmus, I'm not reformed Baptist. >> Did you get this from Jerry Fwell's history? >> Let's move on from the red, white, and blue ribbons. >> I don't, >> you know, when you meet my guy Josh, you'll you'll repent of everything you just said. >> Okay. >> All right. Covenant theology and biblical theology. So, this first question comes to Dr. Barcelos. How does the three-fold division of the law help us see the new covenant? And how should we respond to Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? >> Yeah, it's a good question. It's rooted in our confession, the three-fold division of the law, the moral natural law, lot law written on on the heart and as it is uh 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 um [clears throat] 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 [snorts] um 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 [snorts] you look at the history of uh 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 [clears throat] 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. uh 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 um offer his son Isaac up on Mount Mariah. Genesis 20, that's a positive law, but it's restricted only to Abraham. The entire >> So it's covenantally bounded. It's determined by the covenant. >> Well, it's it's not just covenantally bounded there. I think it's an individual command for an individual person. Um, >> at least certainly not 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. It's just >> there are some positive law conditioned by the covenant. Saturday Sabbath and the old covenant, Sunday, >> circumcision is a positive law. Okay. So, but and it doesn't restrict or alter or change the moral law at all. The basic moral principles of the 10 words are transcendental. But circumcision is not transcendental. There was a time when it was not and then there are time when it was and now it's nothing, you know. So then you if you read uh 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 um 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 of ancient Israel. >> Yeah. Judicial laws. What's interesting is the judicial laws and some of the ceremonial laws with reference to to worship um like the building of the temple have to do with Israel in the land. >> Okay. Okay. So, there's distinction made between moral or natural law and then wilderness laws cuz 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 rescending or the abrogation by virtue of fulfillment uh of some of the some of the positive laws like the ceremonial laws having to do with Israel in the wilderness. Uh is it Junius what he calls those? He's got a distinction between laws in the wilderness and laws in the land. Uh so it's a distinction within ceremonial laws under the mosaic old economy. So these distinctions didn't weren't first invented by the Westminster Assembly's committee on on the law on chapter 19. They predate that and not only do they go back to the medieval it's in Thomas Aquinus has something like that and I think there's there's evidence before that the Petristics were at least making it at least making a two-fold if not a three-fold 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 the 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. And then and 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 they can point to something and once that to which it points comes um [clears throat] they function different than they used to. >> That's right. So, um, once you get to the New Testament and you read that, you realize there are some laws that seem to >> predate the the inaugurated New Covenant that are transcending previous eras and coming into our era, moral laws, you know, >> [clears throat] >> um, and conditioned by the by the covenant under which they're [clears throat] 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 points us to the new covenant. How should we respond to the Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? I think you have have explained that. >> Yeah. you know um >> I think exegetically you know biblical the theologically >> Exodus you know I don't think it's too difficult Exodus 20 moral law 21-23 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 you know former table of the commandments >> can I quote somebody very well known Canadian. Um, 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 it makes me it it begs the question, should we expect God to not be tidy? Should we expect God to be illogical and fuzzy? Is that somehow commended system more? So, >> I I I I just don't appreciate that. >> Well, the same author in in in looking at Mark chapter [clears throat] 2, >> the Sabbath was made for man, >> for the man, >> for the man and not man for the Sabbath. He says that the uh um the [clears throat] 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? >> God, 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 I think it was Pastor Dunn, u when I wrote something, it could have been the garden book. He said, "Do you think guys um push back on the three-fold division?" Um, [clears throat] now I I don't want to put these words in pastor Dunn's m mouth. So, it's the way I uh took its is 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 but you're right. I think exoggetically and then synthesizing our ex Jesus doing some biblical redemptive historical biblical theology. Um >> 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 >> positive law and something that's moral. And in I think the Philip Ross book that >> Oh yeah. >> from the finger of God. It's excellent. and how the prophets when they'd upgrade old covenant Israel, it wasn't cuz they ate jackaw. It wasn't cuz they ate bearded vultures. Not that those weren't transgressions, but it was moral awe. 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 I in my back of my mind was, I want to write a book on the three-fold division until I read that book. And then 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. [laughter] >> And then I ordered a book in honor of GK Beal [sighs] Hendrickson I think published it. >> Oh. From >> it's got some good articles. >> 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 DA Carson of of Ross's book. Okay. >> It's horrible. And then it's honor of GK Beal who in his big [clears throat] fat >> holds to the perpetuity of the of the creation Sabbath. And I thought, well, that's kind of a cheeky way to to honor the man. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> To disagree with a book he probably really likes. And >> but yeah, that book by Philip Ross, From the Finger of God, that's really good. >> Christian focus really helpful. Yeah. And you know, am I remembering correctly because you just brought up circumcision is nothing. >> Yeah. >> And >> but it's not absolutely nothing. It still teaches us something. >> Well, and we need a circumcision of the heart. >> It's nothing in terms of the positive law to be acted under the new covenant. >> And we are the true circumcision to worship. So we're not dis >> we're not discounting the the language. We're just allowing to point the new covenant. 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 he if I if I'm remembering correctly he goes on to say circumcision is nothing uncircumc what what matters is >> new creation >> keeping the law. >> Oh yeah. In first Corinthians. Yeah. >> Right. Right. Now the question would be how do we how do we think about those previous so like we just said circumcision is still there >> Mhm. [clears throat] in a more full spiritual sense, right? And then we also have the positive law uh for example, don't muzzle the ox, which now is applied to those. >> Yeah, that's a good that's a good question. 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5 quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. >> Uh and it is a positive law from the moment. So, how do we deal with that? Paul because Paul is applying something that applies applies literally to oxen >> in the Mosaic Corpus but he's applying the text somehow someway to guys like us pastors you know so how what's going on I think what's happening there is there's a there's a 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 case and judicial, yeah, case law or whatever. Um, there's a there's a moral principle that's perpetual and transcendental behind the oxen text, 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, you make sure you have a 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 or the commonwealth of Israel. The 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 morally perpetual principle. And Yeah. So, similarly, Paul does that with >> Sarah. But yeah. Yeah. But does he do it onetoone with the state? >> No. Yeah. >> That 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, >> red, white, blue. Red, white, and blue ribbons. You fit right in. >> You know, your [laughter] your uh 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 on back on the subject here. So, >> we need to >> Yeah, that's a good question. Just we could go for hours on that stuff, you know. Well, because you know, >> I'm actually writing a chapter for a book on the three-fold >> because I agree with you. I have an allergic reaction to theomy, right? But but I love my Bible. >> And so even like with the dietary laws, I I don't think that, you know, because Hebrews makes it clear our hearts would be strengthened by grace, not by food. Right? But [snorts] 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 I want to I want to say it's keeping them from engaging in the pagan nations around them. >> Yeah. Differentiating them from >> Yeah. Because because a meal was much more than sharing >> just sustenance. >> It would it would 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. I I >> that phrase in the land when you're in the land this is then then a law is is is expressed. Um I think [clears throat] 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 >> done. Yeah. >> And when they're vomited out of the land, the or you know, 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 not there's a temporariness built in. >> Yeah. And while they're while they're moving through the wilderness, they're not able to plant and harvest in a seasonal way. So that's anticipating being in the land unique about the ant and typological about the land too. >> Yeah. And and if that's true there, then what what is going on as they're in the wilderness that is unique to that historical place as well? And I I'm sure that there are things that Well, for example, gathering mana, >> right? That was absolutely. >> By the way, the um isn't it Simon Kismacher? Did he do his PhD on the wilderness wanderings of the church in the book of Hebrews? >> I thought it was in Psalms. >> I don't know. >> Somebody did that. Um 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. So refer to that as their adolescence. God, you know, chasening them, the first generation not entering into >> and the land is ultimately typological of Emanuel's land. >> That's why old people um when you ask them besides the John Bunan connection, you know, how's brother Harry doing? Well, he's 92 and was in a hospital or whatever. He He crossed the river. >> Yeah. >> What? What river? >> Right. >> The Jordan. >> The Jordan. That's right. >> And he went into glor 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. Oh, yeah. >> That goes way back. There's a book Jean Jean Danielu. >> Yeah. >> What's the name of that book? I don't know. >> Really helpful with all this stuff. He walks through the Exodus and he shows the type antitype stuff throughout scripture in the Petristics. a very helpful book typology the of the fathers or something. >> Okay, >> 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 um are new covenant theology and progressive covenantalism compatible with the 1689. >> Yeah. Well, it's interesting because New Covenant theology doesn't have a a monolithic statement, the same statement among all of them. [gasps] >> And uh before Gary, I almost said Gary North, Gary Long died, he he he articulated a covenant of I don't think he liked the word works. >> Yeah, we're in [snorts] we're doing you're getting the garden. >> Oh, the garden book. Yeah, I I note that in there, which is a move in the right direction, I think. And the reason why uh Dr. long did it who I think was the best writing new covenant theology guy. >> His book on definite atonement was good. Right. Right. He's got another book on law or something that's not very good. But um but this book this last book was his most mature thinking and he concludes there was a there was a covenant enacted by God with Adam in the garden. And how does he do it? Romans 5 and Hosea 67. So here's he's got a hermeneutic going. He's going, I'm not just going to read the garden isolated from the rest of scripture. >> Yes. >> So, I I I really appreciated that he allowed subsequent revelation to make explicit what is implicit in anticedent 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 uh somebody I read said the the garden should be read through the lens of the Apostle Paul. >> And I I want to extend that and say the garden should be read through the lens of Genesis 3 through Revelation 22. >> I I thought it was intriguing though because we are in that book, your your book, Getting the Garden Right. And I haven't read long. I'm reading what you provided specifi. >> I didn't either. I got it off. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I read the entire book. He affirms the Romans 5. He affirms Hosea 6. He affirms some sort of a covenant with Adam in the garden post or prefall, but not the covenant of works as it's been historically taught. >> Not as a proirment. >> Yeah. >> There's not an esqueological prof who you're talking long very long. When did he die? >> I don't know within 5 years or so. I I I really appreciated and applauded and try 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. Are you you guys aren't to that point? We're still >> 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 challen and the progressive covenantalist cuz they have a creation covenant now. Um I disagree with how it's articulated in the basis for it but I'm writing a chapter on for a book on that too. Um, [clears throat] 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 full colors, the new 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 1-3, 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 can't 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 a an work unto a exalted end. >> That's an illogical. >> Yeah. Work to an end. And and so when you do that and you put it all together, [snorts] um they won't be they won't call themselves new covenant or progressive covenantalists anymore. They'll they'll come over to the a 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 going to help them. >> Yeah. So, Pastor Butler just used the word biblicism and and you certainly have dealt with new covenant theology for a long time, right? Would would you 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 word? >> Some of them seem to revel in that. >> Yeah. >> In the few quotations that are provided. I think the older some most of the older but even Dr. Long, [clears throat] you know, who says he doesn't like covenant works [snorts] for >> Oh, yeah. They all seem to have it not in the Bible. No, he talked about um he's dealing with the three-fold 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 two-fold division of it. And but neither of those words are in the Hebrew or Greek. And and you have other ones saying new covenant theology attempts to use Bible words to explain Bible doctrines. And you got to >> but you can't do that with a Jehovah's Witness at your front door. >> You can't get away with >> they'll quote John 1:1 and all you can do is use Bible words, you know. >> So >> I think probably the quick answer because there was a a >> no. >> Yeah, I'd agree. And I think it would come down to, you know, certain key chapters in the confession. So >> 197 1922. >> Yeah. And you see the connection back to the Calvinism and reformed thing. You know, everybody wants to be I I I've seen this Calvinistic Baptist 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 they don't. There's certain not exceptions. You remember >> little here here and there. They're talking cold >> big ones. Um you remember the Philip Ross? >> He was picking on who was he? Who was the guy in New York City? The PCA. He's he's >> Keller. >> Tim Keller. >> Oller. >> 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 got to rebuild the whole system. >> And I I think that's the way to look at it on [clears throat] on some of these law Sabbath issues. >> Well, okay. So, can we apply in this conversation which I think is, you know, really helpful. Can we apply the same thing when we talk about the covenant of redemption, the intertrinitarian? 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's a that that to me is a big >> If you just say it's it's where 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, >> Yeah. And you say, "Well, it's the Bible's way of speaking about the degree in in redemptive historical language, but it's not like the father striking hands with the son." Yeah. You know, because you read John Flavl, he he uses that language. It's glorious. >> It's glorious when you read it, but it's anthropomorphic. >> My son, there's a lot of miserable. [laughter] >> Would you take them to be yours? Would they be your bride? >> Oh, that's fantastic. 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 we we don't think that we're speaking unifically about the eternal relations, but we're saying there's like an the relationships that are covenantal relationships. >> And it sure seems that way in John's gospel, Jesus is conscientiously repeated to do a specific task. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Thou hast when the sun comes on the earth he says thou hast prepared a body for me. >> Oh yeah. >> It was a prepared the incarnation was a prepared thing. >> And [snorts] with that flav quote there's theological parsing. No devotional warming >> doxological praising. Yeah. That's just beautiful stuff. It's using um our experience as creatures to teach it's using creatures to teach creatures something about the creator but not on a onetoone 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 beautiful carried. >> Beautiful. >> If you look the word carried up in Hebrew lexicans that were that were put together by dead Germans who were liberal and probably in hell. the hell suffering. >> Carrie means carry. Therefore, God has >> arms. >> The Mormons are right. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, we're not. We're not going to do that. Um, we're running. I'm going to probably be more selective here. >> Lightning round. >> So, >> 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 proipological exesus and why does it matter for reading the Old Testament christoologgically? 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 we're seeing into the inner trinitarian going back to the covenant of redemption where they're they're speaking to one another about the redemption that's going to take place. What was the second part of that? >> And how why does it matter for reading the Old Testament christoologgically? >> 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. And once you see it, it's one of those things really you can't unsee it. >> And in the way that the apostles I think Rich, how do you say it? Uh Jesus taught us to through the apostles taught us how to interpret scripture. >> Yes. >> Right. And and it's a window for us [clears throat] to see the glory of the triune. Amen. I mean 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. But even he David >> you just quoted uh Psalm 40 >> in Hebrews unashamed unashamed just >> when when he comes in the world he says something that so right there infant Jesus were to understand is is the one who was in Psalm 40 Hebrews 2 further than what you're going to preach he says and then he 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 the relations like you were saying, the eternal relations come through >> through that that recognizing that lens. You get that lens. That's right. >> Can you turn to Hebrews 1? Can we go back to the terminology? >> Prological. So, >> and maybe mention the Matthew Bates book and then I'll have something to say. Prosopological, pro upon >> by person, >> person [snorts] logical words about or words spoken by a person. And it literally means this word spoken by a person of the Godhead to another person in the Godhead [clears throat] through either an apostle or in this case the Old Testament through the writer of scripture. >> So in Hebrews 1, I got to get my glasses. Yes, I need glasses. My sermon notes are now 18 font. So, so I don't have to use glasses. >> For 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, [clears throat] he says, now watch this. Your throne, oh God, what's that? Psalm 45. >> And then and verse 10, you look at this. >> Yeah. Lord referring [snorts] to >> Yahweh Jehovah >> Jehovah. So he says of the son or I think the New King James says to the son and that's Psalm 102:25-27. 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 in according to Paul is Yahweh. But if you read [clears throat] the context, the last reference to to he is Elohim. >> So if you put it all together, you go, how's 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 son of the son identifies him as Elohim and Yahweh at least Yahweh he does Elohim too. Um therefore whatever the incarnation entails it can't entail a diminishment of Yahwehism or Yahweh >> and Elohimness in the sun. >> 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. >> Um, 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 it. Anyways, it was really good. I know that sounds like a set for a good joke. They walked into a bar, but but basically Prager asked, "What's the non-negotiable fundamental element of your faith?" In other words, if you got to you got to embrace this one thing or you can't be considered a Jew or a Catholic or a Protestant. And Bon did really well. He basically cited Romans 5'8. Um, but one of the things that that had come up in the midst of that was callers and and basically somebody called in and said there was no Jewish expectation for a divine Messiah. >> And [clears throat] that is so patently false. And Bonson did a good job. You know, look at Isaiah 9. He cited a few texts. 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 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 to Micah 52 >> from everlasting his going forth our going days. >> Yeah, that's an interesting one. You ever hear James Doel lecture on that text? Oh man, his trinity classes. >> But even our Lord Jesus and you know when he he's dealing with the Jewish leaders of his day would assume that they would understand how was it David says the Lord said those aren't those 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, 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 first Peter, right? Talking about the prophets. >> That's right. >> They prophesied of the grace that would come to you. made careful searches inquiry seeking to know what person or time the spirit of Christ within them was indicating as he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glorious to follow. So the prophets knew we're talking about >> that's right. >> Have you ever read Gil on that? It's really good >> on this passage here. >> Yeah, it's really and John Brown and Gil and uh Matthew P. those are some of the three most helpful. Gil says carefully searching and in inquiring and searching. Is that what it is? I think it's that second word. Every time it's used in subtit >> uh in relation to a person [clears throat] searching for something, the object that they're searching is is the is the law >> is the written word of God. So Gil makes the observation. How are they doing this? He said by prayer. um by considering their own writings, by considering the writings of Moses, >> by considering the types and prophecies in other writings. Yeah. They're doing the analogy of faith. >> Yes, that's great. >> 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 um hermeneutics and we finished with this passage. Um things were dark, dark and obscure. John Brown says things remained dark and obscure [snorts] until either the fulfillment of that to which it pointed comes or a further explation >> with the incarnation sufferings and glory of Christ and the New Testament. We have both. We have the fulfillment and a 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 the one last. I mean, there's still a few more. I'm sure William 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 worship and church life. And just in terms of practical Christianity as individuals, as families and as churches, why have two church uh two church services on a Sunday like what's the rationale? I mean our churches uh we have a morning and an evening worship >> because four might be too much. >> Four might be too much. So, >> and there are two testaments. [laughter] >> Um, yeah. Well, I would say this, we've we've always had two services. Now, right now, we do what's called backtoback. So, we still have an AM PM, but that's because people are traveling a long distance. And 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 it's anchored in the in scripture itself. The morning and evening sacrifices. We we find that carried over. Remember uh Acts I think it's 4 where the apostles were on their way to pray the hour of prayer >> which was sometime midafter afternoon >> and it's the Lord's day. What what else would you want to do other than being with God's people in his worship? Mhm. >> So I think there's there's different multiple layers, but I think there's scriptural precedent. >> Yeah. I think just the 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 it's just a practical benefit and help to keep the day, you know, instead of I the 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 being in church at the time when I'm usually in church. And I know that's not probably the best ration. I just felt weird. >> Apart from that, you are weird. >> I am weird. But [gasps] it it's just >> I I like Turin, 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 disciplehip group or let's get together and eat spaghetti and then study a book. You can do that other days. Corporate worship and the means of grace need to take priority on the Lord's day. You know, there's a 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 as simple as it is, we 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 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 a there's a way we could have a really important salutoy influence on the culture by just being obedient. >> And and I'll say this too. Um there 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 >> right joy. Man, I wish I wish I didn't come. >> Yeah. Never happened. Never happened. You can be a bit sluggish in the morning and you get revitalized or 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, you know, 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 a when I was a child, Pentecostal, my mom would make us go to both services. >> And good for her. >> And you know what? I I wish I wish I could have a little bit of time with my mom. She's in glory now to say, "Mom, thank you. Thank you." [clears throat] Yeah. The only the only regret I have about the Sabbath, there's one 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 I would certainly keep Sabbath joyfully. It's not a burden. It really is a delight. It is. >> It's a delight. And and I don't think we're saying that just because we're pastors because in truth >> we're 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 would I get people to ask a question how do you do both and sometimes I look back and I wonder the same thing >> but you know I can honestly say it was because I kept Sabbath >> that 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 just trust God. Just do what he do what he says. Trust him. Obey him. >> Yeah. >> For there's no other way to be happy in Jesus. >> Which is true. [clears throat and cough] M >> I used to not like that but it's true. >> Yeah. >> Trust and obey. There's >> two more minutes. Any other thoughts on the second service or the two services or >> No. >> Okay. Well, good. I 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. >> Let's go eat. All right.