EP 13 Daniel Scheiderer: Progressive Covenantalism, Threefold Use of the Law and Confessional Baptist Theology

WEBVTT
00:00:00.660 --> 00:00:21.089
One of the things that distinguishes progressive covenantal wisdom from new covenant theology is that progressive covenantal is very comfortable talking about a covenant made with Adam, the coffee house sessions.
00:00:29.910 --> 00:00:33.299
John Mark, have you ever met a progressive Covenant Covenant analyst?
00:00:33.899 --> 00:00:45.840
I have never met a progressive covenant analyst in my life, although saying that, no, I, I think I've met one, but we didn't speak about the minutia of the.
00:00:46.530 --> 00:00:47.369
Issues.
00:00:47.520 --> 00:00:50.640
So, Daniel, you're our special guest today.
00:00:51.179 --> 00:00:59.549
How about you introduce our listeners to your great experience of progressive covenantal?
00:00:59.704 --> 00:01:03.420
I I think from our, our conversation before this episode, you have met more than one.
00:01:03.420 --> 00:01:04.170
Is that correct?
00:01:05.670 --> 00:01:06.150
Yes.
00:01:06.150 --> 00:01:10.260
Uh, I've, I've met plenty of progressive covenantal analyst.
00:01:10.739 --> 00:01:22.769
Um, uh, I went to seminary at Southern Seminary, which is considered in some ways to be the hub or the, the seedbed of progressive covenantal.
00:01:22.769 --> 00:01:28.200
Uh, the label itself was, was introduced in 20.
00:01:29.489 --> 00:01:34.709
12, I believe is, is when, uh, the volume came out, kingdom through Covenant.
00:01:34.769 --> 00:01:42.930
And, and that was the first time it was used in print, in print, um, really used in print.
00:01:42.930 --> 00:01:47.010
And, and uh, I got to Southern Seminary in 2014.
00:01:47.010 --> 00:01:56.579
So, um, kind of a seeded, and the, the two authors, principal authors are the, the two authors of that work are Peter Gentry and Steven Wellum.
00:01:56.579 --> 00:02:01.980
Steven Wellum is my, uh, was my doctor, honor my, my doctoral supervisor.
00:02:01.980 --> 00:02:07.769
So, um, so I have met, uh, several progressive covenant analysts.
00:02:07.769 --> 00:02:11.580
I have good friends that are progressive covenant analysts and, uh.
00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:17.175
I've, I've met more than both of you combined, I suppose.
00:02:17.175 --> 00:02:17.925
Yeah, I do.
00:02:17.925 --> 00:02:21.435
You know what I'm, I'm, I want to know, I've got a couple of things.
00:02:21.435 --> 00:02:27.314
One is I want to know how John Mark knew he met a progressive Covenant analyst without them talking about it.
00:02:27.319 --> 00:02:28.634
What, what are the signs?
00:02:29.324 --> 00:02:30.974
Um, was he wearing a t-shirt?
00:02:31.514 --> 00:02:37.724
Um, perhaps you can answer that in a minute, but I'm, and I'm, now, I'm, I just want to, just a little bit of background on, on you, Daniel.
00:02:37.724 --> 00:02:42.824
What was, what was your PhD, um, in, uh, sure.
00:02:42.824 --> 00:02:47.414
So background, well, background is, um, Southern Baptist.
00:02:47.414 --> 00:03:03.914
I grew up kind of, uh, not really going to church, but when we did, we went to a Southern Baptist church, uh, went to, um, uh, well, I, I had come to a confessional position early, it was before I went to seminary.
00:03:03.914 --> 00:03:08.449
And um, and I was wondering, do I need to leave the SBC or.
00:03:09.284 --> 00:03:11.115
You know, what have you.
00:03:11.534 --> 00:03:33.224
Uh, and I found out about the founder's movement and found out about the roots of, of the, uh, SBC being in a professional identity and figured, well, I, I think I'm, I can stay at home, I suppose, and ended up going off to Southern, um, did my really all of my education there.
00:03:33.224 --> 00:03:35.145
So, so my undergrad is from there.
00:03:35.145 --> 00:03:37.784
My, my master divinity is from there.
00:03:38.324 --> 00:03:47.324
And when I was looking at, at doing doctoral work, my primary interest was on, uh, the doctrine of the Trinity.
00:03:47.655 --> 00:03:51.104
And, and Dr.
00:03:51.104 --> 00:03:58.155
Wellum, who I did all of my systematics with, had critiqued eternal submission in class.
00:03:58.634 --> 00:04:01.694
And I was interested in, in.
00:04:02.324 --> 00:04:06.405
Maybe pursuing that as, as what I did for my doctoral work.
00:04:06.405 --> 00:04:07.574
So I sat down with him.
00:04:07.574 --> 00:04:10.694
I, I said, you know, I've got these two interests.
00:04:10.694 --> 00:04:13.544
My primary interest is on the doctrine of the Trinity.
00:04:14.085 --> 00:04:17.774
I have something of a hobby of reading covenant theology.
00:04:17.894 --> 00:04:31.154
Uh, a lot of the 1689 Federalist, uh, literature was coming out at the same time, which was very helpful to me while I was going through seminary because I was, you know, I was reading, uh, Well's Kingdom through Covenant.
00:04:31.154 --> 00:04:33.704
I was hearing his lectures.
00:04:33.855 --> 00:04:40.095
I was reading Pascal Dau and, and, uh, recovering a covenantal heritage and, and works like that.
00:04:40.485 --> 00:04:41.745
Read talks.
00:04:41.745 --> 00:04:51.524
And, um, and so, so I had this, you know, personal study and I, I thought, I'm not entirely sure what I'm gonna do.
00:04:51.975 --> 00:04:57.074
I think I want to do Trinitarian theology, um, but.
00:04:57.435 --> 00:05:05.444
Maybe what I'll do is offer a critique of progressive covenantal, uh, from a 1689 Federalist pos, uh, position.
00:05:05.564 --> 00:05:05.985
And Dr.
00:05:05.985 --> 00:05:09.675
Wallam said, why don't, why don't you study here, study under me.
00:05:09.764 --> 00:05:19.634
And, um, and if you do end up deciding to go that route, then it'll be helpful to you to have me as your, as your supervisor, and be able to offer critique.
00:05:19.634 --> 00:05:21.855
And, uh, I actually went the other route.
00:05:21.855 --> 00:05:38.175
I, um, so we had that conversation actually in the spring of 2016, and all of the debates over eternal submission came, came overflowing and in the summer, and I decided, well, I'm not gonna address that.
00:05:38.175 --> 00:05:40.035
Everybody's talking about it now.
00:05:40.035 --> 00:05:43.574
And, and it's a kind of convoluted conversation anyway.
00:05:43.574 --> 00:05:53.535
And, um, like others, I, I had become concerned with whether or not the covenant of redemption undermined, um.
00:05:54.389 --> 00:05:56.850
Uh, a classical trinitarianism.
00:05:57.540 --> 00:06:03.300
And so as I'm starting my PhD program, I've, I've got that question in my mind.
00:06:03.930 --> 00:06:16.470
And, um, and so I ended up writing my doctoral dissertation on as an argument that the, the, uh, covenant of redemption, it's consistent with, with Catholic Trinitarianism.
00:06:16.529 --> 00:06:32.490
Um, so, so I took, uh, Robert Ham's arguments against it, figuring I want, I want somebody that's the most charitable and, and, um, and the nearest two where I would be.
00:06:33.269 --> 00:06:36.689
Um, and I want to hear his critiques and, and interact with those.
00:06:36.689 --> 00:06:40.019
So, so I took ham's arguments from, um.
00:06:41.475 --> 00:06:49.214
Well, he has them earlier, but then they came out again in his revision of his, his work on the Holy Trinity and then his systematic theology.
00:06:49.214 --> 00:06:59.834
And so I took those and I and I, uh, responded to those showing that it, it is consistent with, with Catholic trinitarianism or a classical doctrine of God.
00:06:59.834 --> 00:07:02.324
So, wow.
00:07:02.595 --> 00:07:04.875
That, that, that's some fascinating thing.
00:07:04.879 --> 00:07:06.764
That's, that's, that's a fascinating background.
00:07:07.514 --> 00:07:10.154
Um, well on the pro.
00:07:10.214 --> 00:07:13.754
So I, I've got lots of questions about, about the Trinitarian stuff.
00:07:13.875 --> 00:07:18.074
Um, but, um, but I, but I, I want, well we're, we're dealing with Progressive Covenant.
00:07:18.079 --> 00:07:19.035
We're, we're dealing with progressive covenantal.
00:07:19.904 --> 00:07:29.685
Um, what, what, so what are, for those who don't know, what are some of the, what are some of the key, give us the progressive covenantal perspective on things?
00:07:31.095 --> 00:07:34.605
Uh, yeah, so I actually, I actually ended up writing down, I.
00:07:35.264 --> 00:07:44.595
A definition, uh, in view of the, this conversation definition drawn from Wellum from his work.
00:07:44.595 --> 00:07:53.175
He has, uh, there's a book that came out that's edited by, by two progressive covenantal analyst called Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies.
00:07:53.175 --> 00:08:11.954
It's a, uh, multiple views book, and he, in Well's chapter, he provides a definition, progressive covenantal wisdom argues that the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God's one redemptive plan for his one.
00:08:11.954 --> 00:08:17.985
People which reach their fulfillment, tell us and Terminus in Christ and the New Covenant.
00:08:18.644 --> 00:08:22.125
Um, so the, you know, the gist of it is.
00:08:23.459 --> 00:08:28.439
They, they're trying to, they're trying to say, they're trying to hold to both continuity and discontinuity.
00:08:28.500 --> 00:08:28.649
Mm-hmm.
00:08:28.889 --> 00:08:32.879
Um, I think everybody is, is wanting to, in some ways do that.
00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:39.090
Um, and so they're, they're wrestling with the tension between those two ideas.
00:08:39.090 --> 00:08:40.529
What is the continuity?
00:08:40.529 --> 00:08:46.230
The continuity is, is God's one redemptive plan is, uh, one people.
00:08:46.679 --> 00:08:57.000
And, um, and you can say the, the fact of progression is, is itself of a form of continuity.
00:08:57.360 --> 00:09:09.990
And then the discontinuity would be the fact that there are multiple covenants, um, covenant with, with Adam and with Noah, with Abraham, with, uh, Israel and David, and then the new Covenant.
00:09:10.169 --> 00:09:15.600
So, uh, so you've got discontinuity there in terms of, of the new covenant.
00:09:16.740 --> 00:09:17.070
Okay.
00:09:17.070 --> 00:09:18.029
In particular.
00:09:18.330 --> 00:09:18.570
Yeah.
00:09:18.570 --> 00:09:19.320
So, so.
00:09:20.820 --> 00:09:37.860
For those who are becoming familiar now, um, with, um, Baptist Covenantal Theology, particularly in the uk where I think it, I think I'm, I'm, I think I'm right in saying, John, my, my experience is I never actually encountered it.
00:09:37.860 --> 00:09:50.159
So when I, when I read Sam Renehan book, um, the Mystery of Christ, it was the first time I'd encountered, um, oh, and, and Pascal Dino's book.
00:09:50.220 --> 00:09:53.370
But there's some slight differences aren't there, between the two.
00:09:53.820 --> 00:09:58.649
Um, the first time I'd ever encountered anything, anything like that.
00:09:58.740 --> 00:10:01.259
Um, so, and, and I, and.
00:10:02.595 --> 00:10:21.750
The, the, the, the report of the covenants in those two books isn't widely known, I don't think in, in baptist circles who all, you know, there's large amounts of, I suppose same in the states, but large amounts of Baptist churches are not Baptist because they've got particular functioning covenantal theology.
00:10:22.500 --> 00:10:27.360
Um, and increasingly amongst a certain set of kind of conservative evangelicals.
00:10:27.570 --> 00:10:36.899
Baptism is a personal private thing anyway, so you can, there's dual policy stuff going on in churches, ba baby baptizing and, and, um, believer baptism.
00:10:37.559 --> 00:10:43.259
Um, because the functional covenantal theology, which it's all biblical theology, there's not a lot of covenantal theology.
00:10:43.620 --> 00:10:47.789
So I wonder if, here's when I'm getting around to my question.
00:10:47.970 --> 00:10:56.070
Something like Sam Han's book, um, probably is now the most, uh, comprehensive and accessible.
00:10:56.835 --> 00:11:09.075
Statement on Baptist covenantal theology and some, so, and, and one of the things he points out is there are, there's more than one covenant rather than the sort of the, just the two buckets, covenant of grace, covenant of works.
00:11:09.434 --> 00:11:16.154
Um, he picks up on the Presbyterian connection of, um, covenants in kingdom.
00:11:16.784 --> 00:11:21.044
Um, uh, and there's a progressive revelation.
00:11:21.375 --> 00:11:27.075
So given the, the, it doesn't sound a lot different to progressive covenantal.
00:11:27.075 --> 00:11:30.345
So what are, what are some of the, um, how, how do the two differ?
00:11:32.774 --> 00:11:41.835
Um, it, Hmm, I'm trying, I'm trying to think of where to, where to start the, uh, the story I guess.
00:11:41.865 --> 00:11:43.934
Uh, and of, of the difference.
00:11:44.325 --> 00:11:53.294
Um, so, so both really have at least reformed Baptist roots.
00:11:54.465 --> 00:12:05.894
Um, in, in the case of 1689 federalism, in the case of Sam Han's work, of course it's not just roots, but it's, it's identity even now, right.
00:12:06.254 --> 00:12:22.004
Um, that, that the covenant theology that's being put forward by Pascal Dano, by, uh, by Sam Renehan and others is within the, um, ecclesial community of those who hold to the second London confession.
00:12:22.004 --> 00:12:22.245
Right?
00:12:22.965 --> 00:12:22.995
Mm.
00:12:23.019 --> 00:12:35.654
And, um, and progressive covenantal is really, is in some ways a development out of new covenant theology or within new covenant theology, or however you want to end up saying that.
00:12:36.254 --> 00:12:48.825
And, um, and new covenant theology really has, its, its genus in the Reformed Baptist community here in, in Pennsylvania actually, where, where I'm presently living.
00:12:48.830 --> 00:12:51.315
So, um, the.
00:12:52.440 --> 00:13:03.450
One progressive covenantal analyst wrote a, an article, I, I think he, he calls it a Tale of Two Brothers or, or two.
00:13:03.720 --> 00:13:19.980
Uh, I, I forget exactly how he says it, but it's, it's almost like, uh, like you've got your Jacob and Esau idea, or, or Ishmael and Isaac, uh, idea that you have really two brothers, John Reisinger and, uh, and, and Ernie Reisinger.
00:13:20.730 --> 00:13:32.789
And these are two brothers who, uh, both came to more reformed convictions together in general and ended up arguing against each other.
00:13:32.789 --> 00:13:38.879
And John is, is really associated with new covenant theology, with its, with its, uh, beginning.
00:13:39.539 --> 00:13:47.879
And so, um, because of that, there are going to be several commonalities that distinguish them from.
00:13:48.585 --> 00:13:58.394
Other evangelicals from those outside of, of, um, you know, kind of a Baptist identity here in the States.
00:13:59.804 --> 00:14:07.784
So you, you mentioned baptism being a more, um, personal thing or, or what have you here in the states.
00:14:08.174 --> 00:14:21.254
Dispensationalism is just the dominant theology of Baptist churches because the SBC is so big and the SBC is, is largely populated by Dispensationalist.
00:14:21.764 --> 00:14:37.754
And so the idea of baptizing a baby is, is very foreign, very, um, there's a, like a gut reaction to the idea of, of baptizing a baby by most Baptists in the, in the states because they're dispensational.
00:14:37.904 --> 00:14:39.855
Um, and so.
00:14:40.529 --> 00:14:55.379
One of the reasons why you do tend to end up with differences in 1689 Federalists and, uh, amongst 16 9 9 Federalists and progressive covenant analysts is because 1689 Federalists are largely interacting with Presbyterians.
00:14:55.620 --> 00:14:55.710
Hmm.
00:14:56.070 --> 00:15:01.235
Um, and, and progressive covenant analysts are largely interacting with this sensationalists.
00:15:01.934 --> 00:15:08.654
Uh, because it, it largely exists within Southern Baptist churches or evangelical free churches.
00:15:09.644 --> 00:15:11.534
Um, progressive covenantal wisdom does.
00:15:11.534 --> 00:15:22.304
So, so I think I had heard the term very Bri like fi going through the filing cabinet of my mind, um, progressive covenantal.
00:15:22.365 --> 00:15:36.164
And I, I thought I, I probably pinned it as, oh, isn't that dispensationalist, who are now admitting some, that they're pressing harder on continuity than discontinuity.
00:15:36.164 --> 00:15:47.235
So I thought from a distance that it was a movement within pro, within dispensationalism that has started to notice some connecting doors, um, in a slightly different way.
00:15:47.235 --> 00:15:55.544
So I, I had had it, I, I didn't know the, uh, the, the Reformed Baptist roots of it then.
00:15:55.544 --> 00:15:56.445
That's quite interesting.
00:15:56.534 --> 00:16:00.674
Is so, is that, that is my pin in it.
00:16:01.080 --> 00:16:05.789
That I put somewhere in the back of my finding cabinet, um, a a bit of a poor caricature.
00:16:07.710 --> 00:16:27.360
It can be, um, the, the thing is so many have come out of dispensationalism because of their arguments that in reality, yes, they do tend to be people who were formerly dispensational and are now, um, wanting a more covenantal theology.
00:16:27.899 --> 00:16:38.100
Um, and, and even, even the label progressive covenantal has a, uh, a sister.
00:16:38.159 --> 00:16:42.539
I mean, there's a, another label like that, progressive dispensationalism.
00:16:42.600 --> 00:16:44.700
Oh, I think I probably got the two mixed up.
00:16:44.789 --> 00:16:45.179
Okay.
00:16:45.720 --> 00:16:51.840
And, and, and the reason for Progressive in both of those is, is similar.
00:16:52.289 --> 00:16:58.769
So in Progressive dispensationalism, the idea is that, uh, God's redemptive history is progressing.
00:16:59.264 --> 00:17:06.404
Uh, through these dispensations and, uh, and it's progressing through, through the types.
00:17:07.184 --> 00:17:11.954
So both progressive dispensationalism and progressive, uh, covenantal.
00:17:12.375 --> 00:17:31.095
And then we can say also 1689 federalism, um, are really wanting to, to push, put a lot of pressure on the reality of types and, um, and yeah, interpreting the types that are present in the old t in the Old Testament, uh, in relation to the new.
00:17:31.934 --> 00:17:33.075
So, yeah.
00:17:33.194 --> 00:17:33.494
Yeah.
00:17:33.494 --> 00:17:39.960
So there are commonalities there, there they would, they're not happy when they're associated with dispensationalist.
00:17:40.509 --> 00:17:40.799
Okay.
00:17:40.900 --> 00:17:44.954
I'm, I'm sorry, American brothers if, if I've done that, but I've had that.
00:17:45.315 --> 00:17:48.555
Um, Johnny, you, you're offending potential listeners.
00:17:50.684 --> 00:17:51.464
Sorry, everybody.
00:17:51.525 --> 00:18:06.404
Just, just I've, I've, I've got a, a question on that point because that's a really helpful clarification, uh, around the kind of the roots there of the different, uh, ideas, uh, and, and ways of framing redemptive history.
00:18:06.884 --> 00:18:10.785
Uh, just before I get to that, on the, uh.
00:18:11.640 --> 00:18:22.589
T-shirt point, Johnny, he, he, this one person that I think was a progressive covenant analyst that I met, was not wearing a yellow Hulk Hogan t-shirt, unfortunately.
00:18:22.589 --> 00:18:31.890
So, um, he doesn't have, that, wouldn't mark him as a progressive dispen, a progressive covenant analyst that would mark him out as a WWE fan.
00:18:32.190 --> 00:18:38.519
And, and there's a lot of them about, I'm sure he didn't have di Progressive dispensation.
00:18:38.849 --> 00:18:44.430
Progressive covenantal whatcha gonna do when progressive dispensationalism runs Wild on you brother.
00:18:45.509 --> 00:18:53.190
Anyway, so how did you know, did you just, were people just chatting and saying that chap's a progressive, um, covenantal list?
00:18:54.509 --> 00:19:00.569
I, I, I, I mean there's, maybe it was something to do with the hair or the, the stance.
00:19:00.625 --> 00:19:04.650
I, I don't know that, like I said at the beginning, I, I've only, I.
00:19:05.174 --> 00:19:10.095
Ever, uh, you know, met, uh, if one, one of these, uh, people.
00:19:10.095 --> 00:19:15.464
So you know, Dan Daniel is really the profiler, uh, for us in, in this episode.
00:19:15.464 --> 00:19:51.974
But, um, on, on a more, uh, serious matter, w would you say it, it's fair to categorize progressive covenantal in, in, in this way, Daniel, that there are some aspects to progressive covenantal, which particularly around the relationship between the mosaic covenant and the new covenant, where there is a, there are some, some quite strong differences from the historic reformed position on those matters.
00:19:51.974 --> 00:20:03.315
Like, uh, for example, the place of the moral law in the new Covenant, and although I, I think it would be.
00:20:03.734 --> 00:20:08.295
Unfair to say that, that there is a, an exact overlap with new covenant theology.
00:20:08.505 --> 00:20:13.125
That there is some there, there's some overlap there, isn't there?
00:20:13.154 --> 00:20:16.484
What could, could you help explain a few of those pointers a little more?
00:20:18.704 --> 00:20:35.474
Yeah, so the, um, the remembering that they're coming out of new covenant theology and, and one of the, the key, um, I say coming out of new covenant theology and, and that's probably too strong as well.
00:20:35.954 --> 00:20:46.154
Um, they originally identified themselves in, in that first edition of Kingdom Through Covenant, they identified themselves as a subset of new covenant theology.
00:20:46.845 --> 00:20:55.980
And then, and then they ended up wanting to say, well, we really are wanting to call ourselves something distinct, uh, because, because.
00:20:56.789 --> 00:20:59.880
New covenant theology has, has too much breadth to it.
00:21:00.359 --> 00:21:19.559
But if you remember that I, the, the debates really amongst new co, uh, where New Covenant theology was, was heavily identified was were debates over the, the reality of the Sabbath, uh, or the abiding validity of the Sabbath and the way that it abides.
00:21:19.559 --> 00:21:33.450
And so they would want to say, progressive covenant analysts would want to say that, um, while their conclusion ends up being the same regarding the Sabbath, that the reasoning isn't exactly the same.
00:21:34.680 --> 00:21:40.289
And they would say that the reasoning isn't the same because in New Covenant theology.
00:21:40.934 --> 00:21:46.214
The, um, there's a, some, sometimes it was stated crassly.
00:21:46.214 --> 00:21:55.244
I keep saying sometimes because new covenant theology was kind of a grassroots, lots of conversations, sometimes pastor's, conferences and, and that sort of thing.
00:21:55.244 --> 00:21:57.765
So there, it, it's kind of amorphous.
00:21:58.244 --> 00:22:17.565
Um, it, there are a lot of different ways of presenting it, but, um, often it was presented as if it's not repeated in the new, in the, if a command is not repeated in the New Testament, then it's not, it, it doesn't have bearing today or, or something like that.
00:22:18.164 --> 00:22:36.525
And progressive covenant analysts are wanting to say, well, the, we still want to treat the Old Testament as scripture and um, and so we want to be able to say that even the decalogue applies today, but it applies today like the rest of the Mosaic law.
00:22:36.525 --> 00:22:39.224
So we, uh, the Mosaic Covenant.
00:22:40.125 --> 00:22:41.355
The mosaic economy.
00:22:41.775 --> 00:22:56.444
And so as we would still treat the Old Testament as scripture, well the, the decalogue as a, as a, um, component, part of that is going to be treated that way.
00:22:56.444 --> 00:23:03.914
And so it ends up, um, they, they really do kind of end up in the same place saying, well, it doesn't just come over.
00:23:04.545 --> 00:23:08.384
Um, the 10 Commandments don't, but, and, and the Sabbath doesn't.
00:23:08.805 --> 00:23:30.224
But they're, they're trying to offer some kind of argument for how that doesn't just hack off the Old Testament, but that there is that, as far as I understand, that key point where progressive covenants would deny that the moral law is written on the heart.
00:23:30.224 --> 00:23:35.055
Is that correct or would there be some who would say it is written on the heart?
00:23:35.325 --> 00:23:35.595
Uh.
00:23:39.269 --> 00:23:48.480
Yeah, that's a, I think that's an internal debate for progressive cov uh, progressive covenant analysts.
00:23:49.049 --> 00:24:05.099
Where, where want some are wanting to say, like, for instance, uh, Romans two, um, there are some amongst progressive covenant analysts that say Romans two is specifically a reference to Gentile believers.
00:24:06.390 --> 00:24:14.579
Um, when, when they do, um, you know, what is written in the law, it shows that the law is written on the heart.
00:24:15.029 --> 00:24:34.079
Uh, the Gentiles, um, some have argued, some progressive covenant analysts have argued that that actually is a, is a reference to gentile believers and so, and so that does undermine, you know, some of the, some of our arguments for, for natural law and, and the, and the moral law being written on the heart.
00:24:35.115 --> 00:24:42.615
Um, not, I think it, I think it's an internal conversation for them, though.
00:24:43.454 --> 00:24:46.154
I don't, I don't know if they're all in agreement on that.
00:24:46.519 --> 00:25:07.005
So, so I, I'm quite new to this, but I'm, I'm having some, I have some familiarity with the new covenant theology, sort of, um, probably at that grassroots level, um, where it was kind of assumed, um, um, rather than fully art.
00:25:07.009 --> 00:25:13.244
Like, like you said, it's, it was kind of, it, it came out various places, whether or not it was sort of self-identifying as that.
00:25:13.515 --> 00:25:25.934
But, um, so I'm, I'm slightly going off off that and try and I'm, I'm trying to, trying to work my way towards how you might end up with a progressive covenantal coming from a new Covenant perspective.
00:25:25.964 --> 00:25:31.815
Is there something like, I know this isn't this, this isn't, I've, yeah.
00:25:32.025 --> 00:25:33.734
Uh, is it something like.
00:25:34.410 --> 00:25:42.990
The decalogue stands as some kind of type that is fulfilled in Christ.
00:25:43.589 --> 00:25:46.410
And so it, and that's how it carries over.
00:25:46.410 --> 00:25:52.650
So there's something like belief in Christ produces something that the decalogue always pointed towards.
00:25:52.950 --> 00:25:55.200
But you don't need the delo anymore though.
00:25:55.200 --> 00:26:03.390
It, it, it informs it, it gets its sense entirely through gospel fulfillment that route.
00:26:03.450 --> 00:26:31.589
And so that's how you, you don't have, you don't have, you don't have sort of natural law, moral law, those sorts of things, but, but it, it stands as, as type, and that's a slightly more nuanced way of handling the decalogue ally, um, from a progre from, with coming out of or within a new Covenant perspective without putting a kind of a firewall between the older new Covenant.
00:26:31.589 --> 00:26:32.339
Would it be something like that?
00:26:34.845 --> 00:26:39.434
Yes, ex, except they would not, so they don't deny.
00:26:39.974 --> 00:26:46.275
And, uh, and they will say this emphatically that they don't deny the moral law.
00:26:46.275 --> 00:26:48.705
They don't deny natural law that they, okay.
00:26:48.944 --> 00:26:58.244
Um, they just don't, they wouldn't say that the, the dec decalogue is a some, you know, in our catechism, where is the moral loss merely contained?
00:26:58.904 --> 00:27:00.045
Um, they wouldn't say that.
00:27:00.045 --> 00:27:13.184
It is the, the summary of the moral law that really you have to, you have to interpret all of scripture in order to, uh, to understand the, the moral law.
00:27:13.664 --> 00:27:18.525
Um, so they want us, they still wanna say there's an eternal law.
00:27:19.109 --> 00:27:24.960
Uh, that there's a moral law, but, but it really, you have to be able, you have to interpret all of scripture.
00:27:25.200 --> 00:27:26.940
You have to interpret it in light of Christ.
00:27:26.940 --> 00:27:31.230
You have to interpret it, interpret it, uh, contextually and canonically.
00:27:31.650 --> 00:27:39.539
And so, um, and so they, they wouldn't, they would emphatically say they don't deny the, the moral law.
00:27:40.109 --> 00:27:41.160
Um, okay.
00:27:41.160 --> 00:27:42.450
But it what we mean.
00:27:42.509 --> 00:27:42.930
Yeah.
00:27:42.960 --> 00:27:45.779
But it, but it is a kind of a, for want of a better phrase.
00:27:45.779 --> 00:27:50.730
A a, a gospel centered approach to the moral law.
00:27:50.880 --> 00:27:50.970
Yes.
00:27:51.180 --> 00:28:14.460
So, so it would be something like, um, in, there's moral law kind of out there and in us, but the lens, which brings it into focus, makes its, make sense, is the gospel in Christ, which would have implications for the unbelieving world.
00:28:15.150 --> 00:28:23.190
They couldn't do moral law successfully or properly or interpret morality without the new covenant.
00:28:23.759 --> 00:28:33.720
Would that be an implication that, that you, so you end up with that kind of, um, gospel centered epistemology which ends, ends up being applied to everybody?
00:28:36.329 --> 00:28:39.480
That I would say yes.
00:28:39.900 --> 00:28:40.230
Okay.
00:28:40.230 --> 00:28:42.569
But you are nervous because I can hear a nervousness.
00:28:42.599 --> 00:28:44.940
'cause you are worried about getting an email now, aren't you?
00:28:46.680 --> 00:28:48.180
Pretty much, yeah.
00:28:48.275 --> 00:28:50.759
I, I think, um, yeah.
00:28:51.930 --> 00:28:53.700
Yeah, I think, I think we do.
00:28:54.839 --> 00:29:06.509
Of course, not all, not all confessional, uh, brothers would, would necessarily have a, a strong, uh, view of natural law or something like that.
00:29:06.509 --> 00:29:07.980
But, but I do.
00:29:08.069 --> 00:29:10.769
And, um, and, um.
00:29:11.295 --> 00:29:22.515
You know, um, kind of following Turin and, and some of the reform scholastics and then, and then obviously connecting that to those that came before, before the reformation as well.
00:29:22.515 --> 00:29:35.319
So I, I have a strong view of, of, um, the nature grace distinction and, and what is actually written and on the heart and what can be determined from common notions and, and that sort of idea.
00:29:35.319 --> 00:29:36.765
So, and the light of nature and those things.
00:29:36.765 --> 00:29:36.944
Yeah.
00:29:37.515 --> 00:29:38.954
The light of nature and so forth.
00:29:38.984 --> 00:29:39.255
Yeah.
00:29:39.464 --> 00:29:58.275
So, um, where, yeah, the, the, um, way of doing ethics by progressive covenant analysts is, is wanting to do a biblical theologically, uh, which then does tie every, uh, tie a lot of it to, um, uh, yeah.
00:29:58.275 --> 00:30:10.154
A biblical epistemology is, is what would often be, it would often be called or something interesting going to your mind in, in terms of understanding.
00:30:10.890 --> 00:30:33.450
Progressive covenant in relation to our position as those confessing second London, there are some direct points like we've already noted around the law and the, uh, the Sabbath day that was mentioned in relation to progressive covenant realism and new covenant theology.
00:30:34.319 --> 00:30:39.059
We would confess that the law is written on the heart.
00:30:39.119 --> 00:30:46.200
We, we have a, a, you know, clear teaching on the Sabbath day in our confession of faith.
00:30:48.174 --> 00:30:59.759
But what, you know, one thing we argue at Broken Wharf, and it's represented in the views of Nehemiah Cox is.
00:31:00.555 --> 00:31:11.295
This view of covenants, which has come to be known as 1689 Federalism, I've always found it a, a funny name for a system of covenant theology.
00:31:11.295 --> 00:31:17.684
Sometimes we, we talk to people over here and we, we refer to 1689 federalism, and they, there's just a glaze.
00:31:18.105 --> 00:31:20.924
They don't have a clue what we're speaking about.
00:31:20.954 --> 00:31:26.115
'cause it, it kind of sounds funny to British people, but that, that's, that's the name it's been given.
00:31:26.775 --> 00:31:42.224
And although we understand that, that view isn't strictly taught, uh, as we were viewed today in second London, there's, there's actually a lot of brevity to, uh, the chapter on God's covenant.
00:31:43.365 --> 00:31:49.424
Yet, you know, we, we would largely hold that view, uh, in line with the.
00:31:50.085 --> 00:31:51.464
Worked by Nehemiah Cox.
00:31:51.525 --> 00:32:08.025
Discourse of the covenants we're, we're just at the moment, reprinting it as covenant theology from Adam to Christ, a 20th anniversary edition after it was first republished by Richard Baros and, and Jim Rehan in 2005.
00:32:08.025 --> 00:32:14.775
So in light of that, where, where does progressive covenantal line up?
00:32:14.775 --> 00:32:26.055
And this is really the, the heart of the question that I'm asking, how does progressive covenantal relate to traditional types of Presbyterian covenant theology?
00:32:26.535 --> 00:32:42.674
Because it seems like we have some significant overlap with progressive covenantal and emphasis as we find in Cox on biblical theology and the progressive revelation.
00:32:43.065 --> 00:32:44.894
Of those covenants.
00:32:44.924 --> 00:32:49.335
We, we see something of that in, in the language of father steps in our confession of faith.
00:32:49.335 --> 00:32:52.095
And, and, and we really, I think, have a strong overlap there.
00:32:52.305 --> 00:32:59.204
As Johnny mentioned, it's emphasized in Sam Renehan book, the Mystery of Christ Connecting Covenants in Kingdom.
00:32:59.474 --> 00:33:01.454
But there's also strong differences.
00:33:01.634 --> 00:33:10.605
And on some of those differences, we would align more with the Presbyterian position, for example, on the Mosaic Covenant.
00:33:11.204 --> 00:33:14.144
So what, how, how, how are we to think through these things?
00:33:14.144 --> 00:33:19.664
How are we to relate to progressive covenant theism, uh, as those confessing second London?
00:33:24.075 --> 00:33:34.394
So yeah, the, um, trying to, trying to think of where to, where to get in on, on, uh, what you were saying, what you were asking.
00:33:34.394 --> 00:33:34.634
So.
00:33:35.474 --> 00:33:42.914
First thing, maybe I could say a progressive covenant analyst could confess, um, chapter seven.
00:33:43.575 --> 00:33:49.424
They wouldn't be able to confess other parts of, of the, uh, confession, but they could confess chapter seven.
00:33:49.845 --> 00:33:51.974
Um, I asked Dr.
00:33:51.974 --> 00:34:03.434
Wellum, uh, at some point about farther steps, chapter seven, paragraph three, and he said, yeah, that, that looks basically like what we're trying to do.
00:34:03.914 --> 00:34:26.474
Um, and so, so in that sense, okay, um, if we think of, uh, the two primary covenants that we, that we talk about, the covenant of works and the covenant of Grace, that would be an easy way to really start to talk about differences as well as, as well as similar similarities.
00:34:26.474 --> 00:34:28.184
But so, um.
00:34:29.340 --> 00:34:39.119
One of the things that distinguishes progressive covenantal wisdom from new covenant theology is that progressive covenantal is very comfortable talking about a covenant made with Adam.
00:34:39.750 --> 00:34:51.210
Um, whereas New covenant theology was very hesitant and, and usually denied there being a covenant with Adam because something's not stated there and you don't, uh, yeah.
00:34:51.480 --> 00:34:54.510
So Progressive covenantal wisdom will say yes.
00:34:54.869 --> 00:35:08.610
They will say, uh, they will incorporate arguments for the covenant of works from covenant theologians into their arguments for the covenant, what they call the covenant of creation.
00:35:08.610 --> 00:35:11.460
And then they prefer the language of covenant of creation.
00:35:12.300 --> 00:35:24.360
Um, this is, this is actually kind of a moving part of progressive covenantal wisdom right now, but, um, in their revision, so I mentioned Kingdom Through Covenant came out in 20 I.
00:35:24.690 --> 00:35:29.670
12 a revision was made, uh, was published in 2018.
00:35:30.210 --> 00:35:57.300
And in 2018 there was a resistance to the idea of a distinction between creation and covenant, where we are wanting to make it, we're wanting to say there is a distinction that, uh, that there's Adam, uh, naturally considered and, and Adam with, uh, positive conditions, um, imposed, thus, thus forming the, the covenant of works.
00:35:57.690 --> 00:36:08.309
And, um, and in general, the argument and the, the emphasis in that 2018 edition was, was pushing against that pretty directly.
00:36:08.489 --> 00:36:09.059
Um.
00:36:10.710 --> 00:36:29.550
That said, progressive covenant analysts have started a website and, um, and they had a whole, uh, a website where they talk about all sorts of different things called Christ overall, and they devoted a month or two just to the idea of, of progressive covenantal.
00:36:29.969 --> 00:36:37.889
And in the context of that, they also had conversations about covenant theology and Covenant of Works and our covenant of creation and, and those things.
00:36:37.889 --> 00:36:52.260
And, and it sounded like at least some of them have shifted to talk about positive, um, the, the positive law there being, being what is, um, of yeah, forming the covenant of works there in the garden.
00:36:53.130 --> 00:37:05.280
Even still Mike Horton in, in the book I mentioned a moment ago in the, the Spectrum's view, uh, the Spectrum's book, the multiple views book, Mike Horton.
00:37:06.869 --> 00:37:18.119
Identifies so, so well will say that you've got Adam and then you have subsets of Adam and, and another Adam.
00:37:18.960 --> 00:37:23.400
Noah is another Adam, and Abraham is another Adam, and Israel is another Adam.
00:37:23.400 --> 00:37:34.170
And, um, and, and Horton says, see, when when you do that, you end up running into problems because Adam is particularly unique.
00:37:34.800 --> 00:37:39.539
And, and Willam would say that Willam will say Adam is a federal head.
00:37:39.539 --> 00:37:42.989
He says that in his, uh, systematic theology very explicitly.
00:37:43.050 --> 00:37:51.840
Adam is a federal head, and that's one of the commonalities that, that we have with 1689 Federalists because he does interact with us there.
00:37:52.199 --> 00:37:58.650
Um, but then you run into the issue of is Abraham.
00:37:59.940 --> 00:38:04.170
Is, is the Abrahamic covenant just another version of the covenant of works?
00:38:04.679 --> 00:38:27.750
If, if the covenant of creation just is the covenant of works, which seems to be their argument, and if the Abrahamic covenant just is the, uh, a, a subset of the covenant of creation, then does that, doesn't that make the Noa covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the mosaic covenant, the Davidic Covenant, just subsets of the covenant of works?
00:38:28.739 --> 00:38:33.750
And, um, and yeah, there, there's, I mean, there are questions there, I think.
00:38:34.199 --> 00:38:54.300
I think by drawing clear distinctions, uh, Horton makes another, just points out another, uh, concern, at least in that the covenant of creation is sometimes articulated as, as incorporating Genesis three 15 and the proto Gelian.
00:38:55.034 --> 00:38:58.335
Question is, is that part of the covenant of creation?
00:38:58.335 --> 00:39:01.784
And if so, then is that not Covenant of Works?
00:39:01.784 --> 00:39:03.105
Again, back to that issue.
00:39:03.105 --> 00:39:08.565
So, so there's not a, there aren't clear enough distinctions, it seems, uh, being made there.
00:39:09.074 --> 00:39:24.434
Um, in terms of the Covenant of Works cov, is it, are they really putting something new forward and then, and, and maybe we don't really immediately recognize it because, uh, because they've identified those things.
00:39:25.425 --> 00:39:43.155
Um, and then on term, in terms of the Covenant of Grace, where Presbyterians will say Genesis three 15, I say Presbyterians, there are confessional brothers that will wanna say that as well, but, uh, Presbyterians will say Covenant, uh.
00:39:43.530 --> 00:39:45.780
The Covenant of grace, Genesis three 15.
00:39:46.050 --> 00:39:49.079
And then every other is, is an administration.
00:39:49.500 --> 00:40:04.199
And we are wanting to say new covenant, covenant of grace and progressive covenant analysts, as they've come into contact with the literature, are wanting to say, if that's what's meant, then fine.
00:40:04.199 --> 00:40:06.210
We're okay with with that.
00:40:06.690 --> 00:40:22.230
Um, but they prefer to use the idea of covenant of grace being the plan, the one plan of God, which isn't really, um, that that's either providence or that's the decree.
00:40:22.980 --> 00:40:27.360
Um, so that, that's actually the introduction of a new term, a new definition.
00:40:28.050 --> 00:40:35.489
And um, and part of that is because they, they also wanna make a distinction between biblical covenants and theological covenants.
00:40:36.030 --> 00:41:01.559
Which I, I find to be an unhelpful distinction, um, as though we've got the biblical covenants and then, and then we step aside and we start to develop our theological covenants, uh, the covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace, um, by identifying, in Presbyterian's case, by identifying three, Genesis three 15 with the Covenant of Grace, they're actually saying the covenant of grace is a biblical covenant.
00:41:02.849 --> 00:41:09.960
And, um, and by us identifying it with the new covenant, we're actually saying we're identifying it with a biblical covenant.
00:41:09.960 --> 00:41:12.449
It just is a, a biblical covenant.
00:41:12.840 --> 00:41:20.550
And, um, and so in some ways they've, they've, um, they've invented a new definition.
00:41:21.150 --> 00:41:30.659
Um, and then, and then they don't like the term because they find that covenant of grace language tends to flatten the, the biblical storyline.
00:41:31.244 --> 00:41:39.255
And we are sympathetic to the flattening that happens with, uh, with a lot of conversations about the covenant of grace.
00:41:39.735 --> 00:41:43.155
Um, but, but we don't want to end up, yeah.
00:41:43.545 --> 00:41:48.614
Do, do you suspect there's anything dubious going on with the doctrine of God there, or, yeah.
00:41:48.974 --> 00:41:54.255
You know, we, we've seen it before with, uh, Scott's Han and others.
00:41:54.284 --> 00:42:04.934
When we start getting into a distinction in covenants in relation to the being of God, then my, my ears just prick up.
00:42:04.934 --> 00:42:06.375
But there, there may be nothing there.
00:42:06.375 --> 00:42:12.014
But Do you think there's a distinction in, in how they're understanding the doctrine of God or, or not so much?
00:42:14.175 --> 00:42:15.375
Uh, not so much.
00:42:15.494 --> 00:42:26.804
They, they would largely want to, uh, advocate against the modifications of, of the doctrine of God that have, that have come about.
00:42:28.005 --> 00:42:29.715
Um, yeah.
00:42:29.775 --> 00:42:30.045
Yeah.
00:42:30.045 --> 00:42:31.965
So, so not, not really.
00:42:32.414 --> 00:42:36.974
Um, they're mostly just modifying the language of, of the covenants directly.
00:42:37.724 --> 00:42:49.545
Um, and then in terms of the Mosaic Covenant, uh, in terms of, you know, we, we've got something like the idea that it is, it is a subservient covenant.
00:42:50.085 --> 00:42:56.144
And, um, and I think there are commonalities that, that are there, that are helpful.
00:42:56.715 --> 00:43:14.175
I find, I find Progressive Covenant Analyst to be particularly helpful in discussions in my discussions with Dispensationalist because that is, um, because they've done a lot more work, um, interacting with Dispensationalist, I think, than, than I have directly.
00:43:14.864 --> 00:43:15.405
Um.
00:43:16.275 --> 00:43:21.764
But, but in terms of the, the, uh, Presbyterian covenant theology, their concerns are the same.
00:43:22.275 --> 00:43:26.235
Um, that there's a flattening of the, of the biblical of redemptive history.
00:43:26.235 --> 00:43:31.184
There tends to be a flattening amongst Presbyterians of, of, uh, redemptive history.
00:43:31.605 --> 00:43:44.594
Um, but the way that they, they address that I think lacks the kind of precision that you find in any of my cox and, and, and in Sam Nan's work as well.
00:43:48.434 --> 00:43:56.175
Uh, I'm, can you just, just go back, I'm trying to get my head round the, what they do with the covenant of Grace.
00:43:57.014 --> 00:43:59.594
So it, it's, they, they make, they've got this new category.
00:43:59.594 --> 00:44:07.425
They've got this category of a theological covenant, which is not connected, which you said actually is in traditional theology.
00:44:07.724 --> 00:44:11.085
It sounds like the decree or, or, or providence.
00:44:12.074 --> 00:44:12.735
Um.
00:44:15.719 --> 00:44:18.300
Just, just, I just clarify that for me a little bit.
00:44:18.300 --> 00:44:23.730
I'm just, just struggling to get my head around what, what is the, what, what problem are they trying to solve there?
00:44:23.730 --> 00:44:28.380
And is it, is the counterpoint something in dispensationalism at that point?
00:44:28.440 --> 00:44:32.969
Is that, is that who you need to read it, uh, in connection with?
00:44:34.739 --> 00:44:36.030
Uh, yeah.
00:44:36.030 --> 00:44:52.380
So maybe to clarify then, um, in 2006, wellum wrote an article where he said, where he called for a chapter in a book where he called for a moratorium on the, on the language of Covenant of Grace.
00:44:53.340 --> 00:45:05.039
And he said that the reason why he, he doesn't like the term is because it, that that language is used to flatten the biblical storyline.
00:45:06.525 --> 00:45:19.905
And so, um, I don't know if he says it in that article or if he says it later, but he says, if all you mean is the one plan of God, then that's fine.
00:45:22.184 --> 00:45:28.574
Um, the problem is that, that that isn't what the covenant of grace means.
00:45:29.070 --> 00:45:32.324
It, it doesn't just mean the one plan of God.
00:45:32.775 --> 00:45:45.855
Um, that's where I wanna say that that definition actually applies to two different, one of two other things, either to the decree or to Providence, but the covenant, but covenant of grace.
00:45:46.485 --> 00:45:47.085
Um.
00:45:48.135 --> 00:45:53.954
Covenant of grace has to do with the, the ordered relation between sinners and, and God.
00:45:53.954 --> 00:45:54.375
Right?
00:45:54.675 --> 00:46:05.684
Um, and so as, and so it's not just the plan of God, it's particularly about an ordered relation, uh, an ordered relationship between sinners and, and God.
00:46:06.164 --> 00:46:14.235
And, um, and on top of that, because I think, um, and it's not, it's not Wellum.
00:46:14.235 --> 00:46:26.655
I think they're, they're developed this idea that there are the biblical covenants and the theological covenants, and I think Wellum, um, and, and not just Wellum others progressive Covenant analysts.
00:46:26.655 --> 00:46:31.635
You'll read it in, in Presbyterians, you'll read it in Reformed Baptists, you'll hear it from Reformed Baptists.
00:46:31.635 --> 00:46:35.864
They'll, they'll make this distinction between the biblical covenants and the theological covenants.
00:46:36.315 --> 00:46:39.644
And, um, and so Weam will want to say.
00:46:40.860 --> 00:46:42.570
Uh, the covenant of grace.
00:46:42.989 --> 00:46:43.650
Sure.
00:46:43.650 --> 00:46:48.599
As a theological covenant, uh, as a theological abstraction.
00:46:49.260 --> 00:46:50.010
Fine.
00:46:50.760 --> 00:47:04.110
And if all you mean is the one plan of God, and, and I think on both of those counts, we want to say that's not, um, I, I have quibbles with both of those counts.
00:47:04.949 --> 00:47:14.489
First, the distinction between theological and biblical covenants, and second, with the definition of, of covenant of grace in general.
00:47:14.760 --> 00:47:17.099
I think it, I think it covenant of grace.
00:47:17.309 --> 00:47:20.849
I think the covenant of grace, the covenant of works are biblical covenants.
00:47:21.179 --> 00:47:31.860
There are particular covenants in instantiated in the redemptive history, and our real debate is over which one of them is, or where is it?
00:47:32.039 --> 00:47:36.510
Um, is it Genesis three 15 or is it the new covenant?
00:47:37.635 --> 00:47:42.164
And, uh, and then the second thing is it's not just the plan of God.
00:47:42.735 --> 00:47:54.255
Uh, it's specifically the ordered relationship between sinners and God, um, you know, redeemed sinners and God, I should say, is that, is that clarifying?
00:47:54.255 --> 00:47:54.315
Yeah.
00:47:54.320 --> 00:47:54.360
Yeah.
00:47:54.360 --> 00:47:54.480
Yeah.
00:47:54.704 --> 00:47:55.184
That's helpful.
00:47:55.184 --> 00:47:55.574
Thank you.
00:47:55.574 --> 00:47:58.155
Probably jumped around a lot, uh, earlier.
00:47:58.155 --> 00:47:58.335
Yeah.
00:47:58.335 --> 00:47:58.965
No, no, no, no.
00:47:58.971 --> 00:48:03.315
That's, that, that's, I, I, I think I just needed to, just to hear it again.
00:48:03.315 --> 00:48:08.655
Just um, um, just to get my, to get some, get my head around what's going on.
00:48:08.835 --> 00:48:29.655
Because I, like, like John Mark, I had a, oh, when somebody does something with the decree,'cause there is a trend within doctrine of God to somehow make, make, make, um, make the decree do something in the doctrine with the doctrine of God.
00:48:29.684 --> 00:48:36.074
Um, it's there with, um, with John Webster for instance, in his, um, including the economy somehow.
00:48:36.824 --> 00:48:39.945
Uh, in the being of God in some way.
00:48:40.005 --> 00:48:41.925
But anyway, uh, that's a whole other topic.
00:48:42.045 --> 00:48:55.394
So when somebody sort of squashes something, does, makes the decree do something else or fold something into the decree, you, you, you start looking at the doctrine of God and wondering if it's, it's starting to get a bit nervous.
00:48:55.485 --> 00:49:12.494
Um, but I can, but I can see, and I, and I appreciate the instinct to, to avoid the flattening because, um, but I, but the drive for biblical theology can, it's a fascinating discipline for me, biblical theology, because it can both flatten.
00:49:13.269 --> 00:49:33.639
Or, um, it can be conducted in a way that, that, that picks out the contours and the, the, the, the, the topology of, of scripture, which always suggests to me, again, this is a kind of a, I think Webster, John Webster wrote something on biblical theology just pointed out, actually, it's a form of systematics, isn't it really?
00:49:33.699 --> 00:49:34.449
Let's just be honest.
00:49:34.869 --> 00:49:39.639
Where you, you, you, you just decide your system and then you, and then you press it.
00:49:39.849 --> 00:49:44.050
Um, so, so rather than really it's running with the grain of scripture.
00:49:44.409 --> 00:49:47.980
Um, it is applying a few theories, um, to it.
00:49:47.980 --> 00:49:54.789
So, um, so biblical theology, this biblical theology, uh, ca it, it is the discipline.
00:49:54.820 --> 00:49:58.119
I mean, most of the disciplines can't exist, Elaine, but within, but this.
00:49:58.494 --> 00:50:06.715
Biblical theology does the most mischief when it, it seems to me, when it is a, when it is allowed to attempt to do all the others.
00:50:07.375 --> 00:50:16.735
Um, and actually something in there, there's something epistemological going on in there, so I'm sort of want, I I I just wondered if it'd be right.
00:50:17.034 --> 00:50:27.114
I is this there, there's, there's category distinctions and there's, there's where you put the, the what's theological, what's biblical in terms of the covenants.
00:50:27.324 --> 00:50:36.085
But the, but I'm picking up, there are some different assumptions going on in progressive covenantal to.
00:50:36.795 --> 00:50:44.625
1689 federalism around questions of epistemology, around questions of what can be known about God.
00:50:45.315 --> 00:50:52.994
Um, and I'm just wondering how their and, and the, the place of the new covenant in knowing God and the world.
00:50:53.594 --> 00:51:02.264
Um, so I dunno where my question is there, but with, is that the main line of difference really when you dig it up underneath?
00:51:02.985 --> 00:51:06.375
Uh, or is that just a sort of, a bit of a side, a side show?
00:51:08.715 --> 00:51:14.655
I think it would be interesting to, to hear them discuss that.
00:51:14.659 --> 00:51:14.750
Okay.
00:51:14.750 --> 00:51:14.869
Yeah.
00:51:15.255 --> 00:51:16.545
I, I don't know.
00:51:16.635 --> 00:51:17.054
Yeah.
00:51:17.985 --> 00:51:26.954
Um, I guess, I guess I, like, I have this instinct for is somebody getting near fiddling with the doctrine of God.
00:51:27.224 --> 00:51:31.965
I also have this kind of alarm bell going when somebody wants the gospel to do more.
00:51:33.614 --> 00:51:38.114
Th than, um, than it is designed to do.
00:51:38.175 --> 00:51:43.034
I know it's, I know the gospel is gonna, is, is about the renew of all things.
00:51:43.844 --> 00:51:43.965
Right.
00:51:44.204 --> 00:51:54.255
But, but an approach to scripture that says, scripture is not the place you go to, to learn how to do biology or build a bridge or build a nation, and those sorts of things.
00:51:54.255 --> 00:51:56.460
They, you know, those sorts of things has a particular.
00:51:57.164 --> 00:52:00.795
Particular role in the Christian in, in the, in, in, in for salvation.
00:52:02.054 --> 00:52:04.094
So nervousness about the doctrine of God.
00:52:04.094 --> 00:52:11.235
And then, and then, and then the other alarm bell goes off when somebody's trying to make the gospel do things.
00:52:11.295 --> 00:52:18.644
And again, I, I learned this from I, again, I can Woodrow bingo Webster at least as much as I now have a critique of him.
00:52:18.914 --> 00:52:28.994
I have, I appreciate the getting doctrines in the right place, in the right order and not having one doctrine start to do the work of other doctrines and grow outta place.
00:52:29.474 --> 00:52:34.905
And when that happens, uh, a confession is, is the best practical tool for avoiding that.
00:52:35.505 --> 00:52:39.945
Um, but when it happens, usually something about.
00:52:41.114 --> 00:52:50.324
The doctrine of God, something about Christology and the gospel, something about the place of scripture and human life, and something about what humans can know.
00:52:50.594 --> 00:52:52.155
Those are, those are the source.
00:52:52.605 --> 00:52:54.585
Something goes wrong in one of those.
00:52:54.585 --> 00:52:58.574
And when something goes wrong in one of them, there's usually something going wrong in all the others as well.
00:52:58.574 --> 00:52:59.505
Do you see what I mean?
00:52:59.925 --> 00:53:00.284
Anyway.
00:53:01.965 --> 00:53:02.385
Yeah.
00:53:02.565 --> 00:53:22.394
I, I think, um, it is, it is interesting to ask the question of how the system influences those things because I think, um, I, I have my own ways of, of, uh, saying, well, this seems to imply, Hmm.
00:53:23.295 --> 00:53:31.005
Um, so, so as I, you know, even with the issue of the decree, uh, and defining the covenant, defining covenant of grace as.
00:53:31.679 --> 00:53:32.880
One plan of God.
00:53:32.880 --> 00:53:34.590
I say, well, but wait a minute.
00:53:34.590 --> 00:53:37.804
There's this other doctrine that we, that we use that Yes.
00:53:37.804 --> 00:53:38.085
Okay.
00:53:38.085 --> 00:53:39.570
Uh, that language for, right.
00:53:39.750 --> 00:53:45.210
And so, and so they, they might say, okay, well then maybe we don't wanna use that definition.
00:53:45.210 --> 00:53:46.889
Maybe we'll use this other definition.
00:53:46.889 --> 00:53:57.630
And, and, um, and again, uh, well, in his systematic theology does say that if covenant of grace means new covenant, then he's, he's happy with that.
00:53:57.630 --> 00:54:00.239
So he's happy to agree with us on that.
00:54:00.269 --> 00:54:07.500
But, um, but in general, he uses this other definition and then he just doesn't use the term, the phrase covenant of grace.
00:54:07.530 --> 00:54:10.469
Because, because it just, it creates confusion.
00:54:10.889 --> 00:54:14.039
Um, so it's, um, now, sorry.
00:54:14.039 --> 00:54:14.519
Go on Karen.
00:54:15.449 --> 00:54:29.130
Uh, yeah, I think, I think one of the questions that I do run into as well is, or, or one of the critiques maybe that I have, or one of the reasons I find 1689 Federalism so much more compelling is.
00:54:29.460 --> 00:54:42.269
That I think we have a, a clearer understanding or a clearer presentation anyway of, of the na natural and covenantal distinction.
00:54:42.300 --> 00:54:42.449
Mm-hmm.
00:54:42.449 --> 00:54:48.719
The fact that that covenant just, uh, nature just isn't just immediately covenantal.
00:54:49.380 --> 00:54:54.030
That covenant entails something additional to the natures of things.
00:54:54.510 --> 00:55:05.730
And, um, and so if everything is kind of baked into the nature, um, and now it's just all called covenantal, then, then you really do run into those issues.
00:55:05.730 --> 00:55:08.909
And I think the, that does lead to the questions that you're asking.
00:55:09.510 --> 00:55:10.980
Um, yeah.
00:55:10.980 --> 00:55:22.079
So, so how does this a affect if, if nature just is covenantal by nature in itself, uh, then yeah.
00:55:22.079 --> 00:55:24.449
How does that affect politics and how does that affect.
00:55:24.960 --> 00:55:26.099
Our epistemology.
00:55:26.099 --> 00:55:46.199
And how does that, uh, where we, we would wanna say there actually is a real, um, you can, you can actually distinguish between nature and, and covenant and, um, and if covenant is the ordering of nature, then that's not a separation of covenant in nature.
00:55:47.099 --> 00:55:52.079
Um, which, which I, I understand covenant to be an ordering of nature.
00:55:52.079 --> 00:55:55.440
It's, uh, two men, you know, or a, a man and a woman.
00:55:55.710 --> 00:56:02.610
Um, coming together in marriage is, in the covenant of marriage is the ordering of nature, right?
00:56:02.610 --> 00:56:07.409
That it presupposes to use the language of presupposition.
00:56:07.679 --> 00:56:14.070
Uh, it presupposes the reality of two natural beings, um, of a and, and of.
00:56:14.445 --> 00:56:22.545
One being a man and a and of the other, being a woman, and those being definable things with traits and all of that.
00:56:22.815 --> 00:56:31.155
And then covenant orders that, um, that, that, if every, that, that, that, that's actually really helpful.
00:56:31.275 --> 00:56:34.184
Um, um, way of putting it.
00:56:34.184 --> 00:56:44.835
I, I, um, the, the, there is a way of pressing covenant, which kind of assumes that, um, that nature is all chaos actually.
00:56:44.985 --> 00:56:57.135
Uh, and, and covenant brings form, not just order, but form to nature in some kind of way that, that, but you, but you are the way you've related it.
00:56:57.195 --> 00:57:06.135
Um, ma makes sense because the, the, the, the, the, the Bible assumes Jesus assumes, you know.
00:57:06.510 --> 00:57:13.289
Agricultural metaphors because there's a reality and then uses them to, to explain something.
00:57:13.289 --> 00:57:23.369
So, and you don't need, uh, to have a, uh, knowledge of a covenantal relationship with God in order to understand agriculture.
00:57:23.909 --> 00:57:30.150
Um, but there are ways of pressing covenant that become radically epistemological.
00:57:30.150 --> 00:57:41.219
Like there is no sense in the world without, um, with, with, with, without co There's no meaning in creation without covenant, in some, some kind of way.
00:57:41.550 --> 00:57:45.269
Uh, just is, is this is the discussion we're having actually.
00:57:45.329 --> 00:57:54.690
Um, I remember Richard Parcels when he was dealing with, um, new covenant theology, um, and was careful to point out it's a thing in motion because it's early days.
00:57:54.750 --> 00:58:01.829
Uh, it's very difficult to sort of, it, it does happen in, on the internet and it happens, uh, passes conferences is, um.
00:58:02.474 --> 00:58:13.875
Uh, the, the new, um, progressive covenantal is happening in different spaces, more traditional spaces through publishing and, um, through academic papers and those sorts of things.
00:58:14.114 --> 00:58:22.394
But, but, but we're, what we're, you are being so very helpful and careful because terms of still being defined.
00:58:22.394 --> 00:58:26.565
So this is, this is one worth watching to see where it goes.
00:58:27.824 --> 00:58:41.715
That that would be the, the first point, I guess, uh, that I just wanted to get to respond on just methodologically and also to have a, um, uh, a gracious spirit toward brothers who are exploring this.
00:58:42.224 --> 00:58:50.085
But, but secondly, but given its origins, it really isn't a development of, and it, or how much is it?
00:58:51.074 --> 00:58:58.215
Oh, it doesn't sound like it is to me a development of a conversation within 1689 Federalism.
00:58:58.695 --> 00:59:09.135
So it, the, so one, one of the, one of the symptoms of new movements is they have to start nailing down their terms, but kind of without meaningful conversation with what's gone on before.
00:59:09.315 --> 00:59:22.574
Like there's a new conversation that's happened on another table over the side, at the other side of the canteen, and they didn't, they didn't come from the same table taking the categories with them and then wanting to modify them.
00:59:22.755 --> 00:59:37.005
And, and one of the symptoms of that is that, that, that you, you start to see on, to use Jim Han's, um, soundboard analogy, uh, for the balance of theology and the, the order of, um, of different doctrines and then their internet connections.
00:59:37.184 --> 00:59:46.034
You start to see in a new movement, a a kind of an amnesia about past terms and then a.
00:59:46.695 --> 00:59:48.074
We haven't got a knob for that.
00:59:48.135 --> 00:59:48.614
Oh yeah.
00:59:48.614 --> 00:59:50.744
No, we haven't thought about that distinction.
00:59:50.775 --> 00:59:52.664
Well, it's kind of there in the old stuff.
00:59:52.695 --> 00:59:53.534
Did you not know?
00:59:54.045 --> 00:59:58.545
Um, and, and that one's up too loud and that, that, that's what it feels to me.
00:59:58.934 --> 01:00:01.454
Like, would that be the state of the art?
01:00:01.454 --> 01:00:02.445
Sorry, Dr.
01:00:02.445 --> 01:00:09.735
Willem, I've never met you, and I don't mean to suggest you've run off with half a set of knobs off to set your own soundboard off, um, that kind of thing.
01:00:09.735 --> 01:00:12.764
But do something with that.
01:00:14.625 --> 01:00:15.525
Do something with it.
01:00:16.005 --> 01:00:24.885
Um, yeah, so I, I think on the first point that you made about, um, in new Covenant theology being, uh.
01:00:26.190 --> 01:00:30.090
Outside of traditional spaces and a developing moving target and all of that.
01:00:30.090 --> 01:00:34.440
And, and, um, whereas progressive covenantal Yes.
01:00:34.440 --> 01:00:45.449
Does, um, they, they've published books with major publishers and, and as you said, articles and, and academic conferences and, and all this.
01:00:45.449 --> 01:00:56.550
But you do also have, um, Christ, uh, yeah, Christ overall that the website, Christ overall, where they're able to, to keep teasing these, these things out.
01:00:57.780 --> 01:01:01.650
And it does seem to be a, a developing work.
01:01:02.699 --> 01:01:12.449
Um, so that first part, yes, it's, it does seem to be something where, where refinement is happening all along.
01:01:13.364 --> 01:01:24.824
I do think that one of the benefits of 1689 federalism has been that instinct to say, well, what, what terms have been used before?
01:01:24.824 --> 01:01:40.875
And is there a way to understand these that are these things, these concepts, um, that are biblically faithful, consistent with those who have gone before us And yet, and, and both of those at the same time.
01:01:40.934 --> 01:01:41.175
Yeah.
01:01:41.204 --> 01:01:41.534
Right.
01:01:41.894 --> 01:01:56.985
Um, and so where, where Progressive Covenantal is sort of wants to back away from older terms because they have widespread stable meanings.
01:01:58.364 --> 01:02:08.385
And so they don't prefer to use the term covenant of works because the widespread stable meaning of that is defined by Presbyterians.
01:02:08.985 --> 01:02:11.835
And, um, and, and the.
01:02:12.885 --> 01:02:19.724
Oh, I don't, I don't know why else the, they do prefer Covenant of Creation instead of Covenant of Works.
01:02:19.724 --> 01:02:24.375
But, um, and then, and then with Covenant of Grace, same thing.
01:02:24.375 --> 01:02:29.954
Widespread stable meaning is provided by Presbyterians and so they're not gonna use it.
01:02:29.954 --> 01:02:36.045
So that way you, the, I think the intention is so that you have to take them on their own terms.
01:02:36.704 --> 01:02:40.304
Um, so you have to engage them and interact with them on their own terms.
01:02:40.304 --> 01:02:40.635
Yes.
01:02:40.664 --> 01:02:41.144
Okay.
01:02:41.894 --> 01:02:52.994
So in that, and so in that sense, it, so I, I had, I was wondering how, how much is this of, of a moment where a.
01:02:53.565 --> 01:03:02.355
People do theology by podcast, but also there are various covenantal camps and there's movement in dispensationalism.
01:03:02.594 --> 01:03:06.554
There's debate within Presbyterian covenantal theology.
01:03:06.554 --> 01:03:10.485
There's 60 89 Federalism, which is now got its own brand name and those sorts of things.
01:03:10.695 --> 01:03:18.164
And there, there, there, there's, there's a kind of a, just an attempt to sort of come together a little bit within progressive covenantal wisdom.
01:03:18.525 --> 01:03:23.534
Um, but there's also a move to kind of set out their own stall in their own marketplace.
01:03:23.594 --> 01:03:25.934
Here are our wares, here are our terms.
01:03:26.085 --> 01:03:40.304
And just as you get, um, for want of a better phrase, your academic product going, um, and the kind of the marketplace for academic ideas, you tend to need those kind of bring an audience and then sell something unique.
01:03:40.605 --> 01:03:46.724
Um, and, and, and actually just being aware of that, that's tends to be how things go on.
01:03:47.085 --> 01:03:47.445
Um.
01:03:49.364 --> 01:03:54.735
Um, tr trying to state, bringing out old things that have always been there.
01:03:55.755 --> 01:03:58.605
Just, it doesn't get you published necessarily, does it?
01:03:58.605 --> 01:03:59.655
Does it, do you know what I mean?
01:03:59.840 --> 01:04:07.215
There's, there's a, there's a, there is a way of doing academic discourse, which is both helpful and has some problems with it.
01:04:08.780 --> 01:04:09.704
That's a statement.
01:04:09.704 --> 01:04:10.815
It's not really a question, is it?
01:04:13.269 --> 01:04:17.715
Yeah, it can, it can, that can definitely be part of it.
01:04:18.375 --> 01:04:22.364
Um, and there's, there's also a desire not to be misunderstood.
01:04:22.369 --> 01:04:22.639
Yeah, yeah.
01:04:22.639 --> 01:04:22.800
Yeah.
01:04:22.804 --> 01:04:30.135
I, I think it, you know, uh, charitably at least there's, there's also that, um, a desire not to be misunderstood.
01:04:30.644 --> 01:04:48.855
And if we're using a phrase, if, if you and I were to speak with a Presbyterian and we were to use the term covenant of grace, oh, we, uh, isn't it such amazing, so amazing that we've, that we're, you know, in one covenant of grace with Abraham and David.
01:04:49.500 --> 01:04:57.030
Um, the Presbyterian understands how that's the case in a, in a particular way.
01:04:58.050 --> 01:05:06.539
Um, and, and we understand how that's the case in a particular way, even though we're using the, the, the same term.
01:05:07.019 --> 01:05:11.789
Um, both of us would say by virtue of Christ, right.
01:05:11.880 --> 01:05:19.110
Uh, communicated, uh, to the saints in the old covenant through the, the types and, and shadows and promises.
01:05:20.280 --> 01:05:34.349
But um, but they would also understand, they would have a certain understanding about, of the, um, the kind of immediacy of the, the administration of the covenant of grace there, um, in order to avoid.
01:05:34.380 --> 01:05:38.190
And, and in that way then you kind of run the risk of equivocation.
01:05:38.235 --> 01:05:38.655
Mm-hmm.
01:05:39.105 --> 01:05:41.280
Where, and, and so I.
01:05:41.985 --> 01:05:54.375
Again, charitably to say what progressive covenant analysts are wanting to do is avoid equivocation and, and try to be as clear as possible on that, but yeah.
01:05:54.375 --> 01:05:54.585
Okay.
01:05:54.659 --> 01:06:02.264
But, you know, my, my argument would just be, well, let's, let's go back and see the way there was another stream.
01:06:02.264 --> 01:06:24.405
And if you look at Renehan, uh, Sam Han's dissertation, you can say there, there was another stream within the context of, of, um, the development and, and establishment of covenant theology that understood the covenant of race and, and understood the old covenant and ways that are conducive to, uh, Baptist reading of the scriptures.
01:06:24.855 --> 01:06:33.164
Um, and so you don't have to say, well, you know, if, if the Presbyterian misunderstands you then clarify, but.
01:06:33.539 --> 01:06:35.610
You don't have to throw out the, the phrase.
01:06:35.610 --> 01:06:35.670
Yeah.
01:06:35.820 --> 01:06:36.000
Okay.
01:06:37.110 --> 01:06:39.000
And, um, that, that, that's, that's helpful.
01:06:39.389 --> 01:06:43.800
It's helpful just trying to bring some of these things together.
01:06:46.074 --> 01:07:12.360
It, it seems that one of the things you've been walking through is the fact that although we have strong differences with progressive covenant analysts, so much so that for example, they don't, it, it's, it's fair to say that those pushing this, for example, those who would be pushing Christ overall, they, uh, and that platform that you've mentioned, they, they are not claiming to confess second London.
01:07:12.360 --> 01:07:19.260
We may have lots of overlap with them, but they, they do not confess the same confession of faith with us because of some of those differences.
01:07:20.010 --> 01:07:31.469
But on the other hand, it seems from what you're saying, that our critique of Peter Baptist Covenant theologies probably looks very similar to theirs.
01:07:31.559 --> 01:07:32.400
Is that fair to say?
01:07:34.574 --> 01:07:35.025
Yeah.
01:07:35.474 --> 01:07:43.244
Um, some, some of them will, some of them will say, I can I hold to the confession, I just disagree on the Sabbath.
01:07:44.414 --> 01:07:45.764
Um, okay.
01:07:45.945 --> 01:07:53.235
I think you, I think it's fairer for the, I think those people should just say they don't, they don't hold to the confession at that point.
01:07:53.775 --> 01:08:06.255
Uh, because, because of just how integrated and how, how much that expresses a certain understanding of moral law and, and, you know, our reading of the Old Testament on, on those issues.
01:08:06.255 --> 01:08:23.774
But, um, but yeah, I think, I think our critiques of Pato Baptist will be very similar, um, on that issue of, of continuity and discontinuity and yeah, I, I do, as I was saying earlier, I, I find them to be.
01:08:24.345 --> 01:08:33.045
More helpful, more, um, you know, alongside me when we're talking about dispensationalism.
01:08:33.074 --> 01:08:34.034
Mm, interesting.
01:08:34.034 --> 01:09:05.055
It's, it's usually when we start to, to deal with Presbyterianism because, uh, the problem is that in Presbyterian presbyterianism you have, um, clear, clear distinctions in, in a theological reading of the scriptures, um, that we're, we are going to have commonalities with Presbyterians that pres, that progressive covenant analysts won't, and the progressive covenant analysts will have other commonalities with some Presbyterians that we won't.
01:09:05.114 --> 01:09:16.875
And, and so actually at that point, it, it becomes a little more, um, of, of distinct camps, a little clearer of a distinction of camps.
01:09:17.444 --> 01:09:29.925
We end up in the same place in terms of baptism, but, and, and sort of for the same reasons, or, or very much for the same reasons, even because of the fact that, that the new covenant is really new.
01:09:30.225 --> 01:09:33.465
There, there is something, um, substantial about that.
01:09:33.975 --> 01:09:52.755
Um, but, but then once we, we start talking about how then the, the old Covenant or the Old Testament relates to that, we have a, I think in some ways a distinct way of presenting that, um, from progressive covenant analysts.
01:09:53.295 --> 01:09:54.015
That's helpful.
01:09:54.795 --> 01:09:55.274
It's helpful.
01:09:55.274 --> 01:09:58.454
Johnny, you've got any final questions, thoughts?
01:09:58.539 --> 01:10:03.135
I, I feel like if I wasn't going to end this here, we could go forever.
01:10:03.585 --> 01:10:03.854
No.
01:10:03.854 --> 01:10:09.135
Yeah, I have a whole lot of other questions, but I do, I do have to, uh, get to an appointment.
01:10:09.135 --> 01:10:12.404
So I'm, I, maybe we can do part two at some point.
01:10:12.404 --> 01:10:25.215
I, I, I think I, if I don't, I would really like to do part two at some point, because covenantal theology is one of the big topics that's very hard to get your head round.
01:10:25.845 --> 01:10:34.125
And, but it, it is like train tracks and if you, you make a click in a different direction at a certain point, you can end up in very different places.
01:10:34.125 --> 01:10:41.265
And, um, and, and it, it really does, it really does rub in, um.
01:10:42.164 --> 01:11:01.095
Uh, in the local church, um, in handling of texts, um, uh, in, in application to family and LA and life in a particular place and, and how, and how church interacts with state as all these kinds of things are bound up in this sort of thing.
01:11:01.395 --> 01:11:10.125
So I'd be, I'd be quite interested to carry on the conversation, and again, with, with the spirit of this is a, this is a movement that's getting going.
01:11:10.140 --> 01:11:11.835
I, I know 2012 is a Publica.
01:11:11.835 --> 01:11:13.635
I mean that's, you know, 12, 13 years ago.
01:11:13.664 --> 01:11:15.824
But conversations are quite slow, aren't they?
01:11:15.824 --> 01:11:17.024
In, in theology.
01:11:17.085 --> 01:11:19.935
And it takes time for something to bed down.
01:11:19.965 --> 01:11:23.324
Define its categories and implications to start heading out.
01:11:23.324 --> 01:11:33.345
But given that it's not just in the academy, but is out on podcasts, it will be shaping, um, uh, particular views in the pews.
01:11:33.345 --> 01:11:35.145
And I'm always aware.
01:11:35.625 --> 01:11:51.375
Of how downstream of the American empire we are in Britain, um, and, and how there are Brits who like to hoover up anything that kind of comes out of big evangelicalism, um, coming over from the states and wanting to replicate its energy here in some kind of way.
01:11:51.704 --> 01:11:55.364
Um, and, um, so it does impact the local congregation.
01:11:55.694 --> 01:11:59.564
So I'd love to carry on the conversation another point if you'd be up for that.
01:11:59.564 --> 01:12:02.505
But, um, you, your people, talk to our people.
01:12:02.505 --> 01:12:03.645
Let's get this arranged.
01:12:04.364 --> 01:12:05.114
I've got a dash.
01:12:06.585 --> 01:12:07.305
Thank you Daniel.
01:12:07.305 --> 01:12:08.175
I really appreciate that.
01:12:08.385 --> 01:12:09.524
I've, I've learned a lot.
01:12:09.704 --> 01:12:10.095
Thank you.
01:12:10.965 --> 01:12:13.125
It, it's been a, a great conversation.
01:12:13.125 --> 01:12:13.784
Happy to do it.
01:12:15.494 --> 01:12:17.595
Thank you to all of you who've tuned in today.
01:12:17.595 --> 01:12:25.454
You can, uh, find, uh, Daniel on Twitter and, and you're also involved with something called Baptist Dogmatics.
01:12:25.454 --> 01:12:28.244
I dunno if you could mention, uh, a few words about that, Daniel.
01:12:30.170 --> 01:12:30.460
Sure.
01:12:30.704 --> 01:12:34.965
Uh, so that's a website my friend Drew Sparks and I have.
01:12:35.550 --> 01:12:41.010
Um, started several years ago, maybe four and a half years ago or so.
01:12:41.430 --> 01:12:54.180
Uh, we have another friend that's involved who's, um, a professor at, at Southern Seminary is, uh, favorable to 1689 federalism and is, uh, holds the confession.
01:12:54.359 --> 01:13:08.550
So, um, and the idea behind that is basically just for us to be able to put together something maybe at a Ligonier Ministries level, maybe a little bit, a little bit higher than that maybe.
01:13:08.970 --> 01:13:13.859
Um, and, and to keep the article short, we're not very consistent.
01:13:14.279 --> 01:13:28.949
Um, all three of us are, are pastors and have busy lives and everything, so, but when we can, we try to get all of those things out and, and, uh, actually Drew Sparks had had done, um, an article.
01:13:29.039 --> 01:13:41.489
For the Journal of in, uh, international Reform Baptist Seminary, and I think you guys allowed him to, to share that article in several, in several installations on our website.
01:13:41.489 --> 01:13:46.800
So yeah, just sort of a place for us to collect some, some thoughts.
01:13:47.399 --> 01:13:48.000
Excellent.
01:13:48.029 --> 01:13:48.720
That sounds exciting.
01:13:50.579 --> 01:13:51.090
Thank you.
01:13:51.239 --> 01:13:52.680
Yeah, it sounds very interesting.
01:13:52.680 --> 01:13:58.140
You can head over to, uh, the website, Baptist Dogmatics, if anyone wants to check that out.
01:13:58.140 --> 01:14:12.930
And do go over to broken wharf.com/bookshop because we have Nehemiah Cox and John Owen, covenant Theology from Adam to Christ 20th Anniversary edition, and I said it in the last episode.
01:14:12.930 --> 01:14:15.659
I'll say it again, printed in England.
01:14:15.720 --> 01:14:19.500
Lovely hardback cover, Swedish milled paper.
01:14:19.920 --> 01:14:23.699
Section sewn, glued bound.
01:14:24.180 --> 01:14:27.090
This is a, a really high quality book, so go and check it out for pre-order.
01:14:27.090 --> 01:14:28.109
30% off.
01:14:28.529 --> 01:14:29.460
Uh, whilst you can.
01:14:29.850 --> 01:14:31.710
Thanks for all listening and bye for now.