Video

Actually a lot of people reject the moral law. Glad to hear you don't.

There aren't many. You could consider John Gill. He has a few quirks, but a lot of good stuff. archive.org/details/gillscompletebod00gill

Sorry for the confusion. It is an alternate translation of the Greek. One translation emphasizes circumcision as a seal of Abraham's justification, the other translation emphasizes circumcision as a seal of the future blessing (justification) of the nations (Gentiles) x.com/brandon_adams/status/1392291029122883584

Thank you brother for your kinds words. I'm very grateful it has been edifying. Praise God

John, thanks for the comment. 1) Look at how the Old Covenant sanctions interpret/measure following God with your heart: whether or not one follows the worship of Yahweh according to Mosaic law, or worships an idol (Deut 6:5; 29:18; 1 Sam 7:3-4; 12:20-21; 1 Kngs 2:3-4; 3:6; 8:23; 9:4-5; 11:1-11; 14:7-9; 15:2-4, 13-14; 2 Kings 23:2-4, 24-26; 2 Chr. 25:1-3, 14; 34:30-33; 36:12-14). The same is true in 2 Chronicles 16:9. It refers to God punishing Asa for making a treaty with a foreign king to save him, rather than trusting God to save him. This is contrary to Mosaic law. This verse is not contrary to anything we have said in the video. 2) re Psalm 51, it does not seem that you understand our position, as I don't see anything in that Psalm contrary to anything we said in the video. We explicitly state that God continues to relate to all image bearers at the level of their inward being. The issue is whether or not Mosaic blessing and curse is contingent upon inward thoughts or outward actions. Furthermore, Psalm 51 is a primary passage showing how OT saints looked beyond the Old Covenant for their hope. David could not be forgiven for his sin upon the terms of the Old Covenant (Acts 13:38-39, etc). He appealed beyond it to the New Covenant.

@@brandonadams07 Brandon, if I understand your position the Old Testament saint could receive justification but not full NC regeneration but Hebrews 11 shows justification by faith. Asa was a model because God was looking for another David, a man after Gods own heart, which as outlined in the discussion was impossible since it was only external in nature not internal this was language used so just using your coinage. As for the full dimensions of NC regeneration I would agree in principle but not sure 🤔 the external only grace is going on in Old Testament order. Many acts of King David would put many NT saints to shame as pertaining to internal righteousness. When David’s conscience pricked him for just cutting sauls garment, there is obviously more than just rituals and external righteousness going on. Psalm 15, is who can ascend the hill of the Lord, these are all internal righteousness. Or attributes of authentic holiness. We are dealing with levels of eschatological grace and level but a hard line approach Old/ New does not seem to work or fit. If you have a dissertation on Owen/ Vos could you send. Pneumajohn@aol.com I will listen but these were initially the holes I saw. If I misunderstood can you spell out in a succinct paragraph what is the position?

It seems you are using more a stark contrast between the Old/New like Luther versus a strong continuity like Calvin. How is this view set in light of this?

​@@johnholmes8760 John, you have misunderstood our position. We believe they were fully regenerate, just as we are. They received the benefits of the New Covenant in their own day. The point is that the Old Covenant itself did not promise regeneration. It had no power to regenerate anyone. contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/10/25/ot-saints-were-saved-by-the-new-covenant-quotes/ For Owen, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13. For a dissertation, see Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance" www.amazon.com/Shadow-Substance-Theology-Particular-1642-1704/dp/1907600310/ref=sr_1_1?crid=394WQDFTI3U41&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.6jAPiwj6Ne_kIo8sI3LlIN7jkeq1cTCajNAl5Fkekmv5YOnNVC7A1Ja09VpAZJjAqA9I1N_hE3p7T6MchIU0PDIaytu54TscCGu9QZ7QsYXQodxWHnO-qA24aAK1ScluRS-_HvSM8Wx30Ad30UCc9uWmmfAwL4HHMFz97P84Zo3XMvgElJKZMI06lWt0jiaAz_XTqCH7ffrxRPgZY0FKGw45abEJrLrubXy5_h1vkMc.wzpK-fioR7brkl3rLuy0Ou2gilqLMy2pSDfuJoUzfw8&dib_tag=se&keywords=from+shadow+to+substance&qid=1716871849&sprefix=from+shadow+to+substan%2Caps%2C178&sr=8-1

@@johnholmes8760 Re: Calvin, see here contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/

I haven't interacted at all. What would be some representative works of divine command theory?

@@brandonadams07 The Philosophers that come to my mind are David Baggett, Steve Evans (also a defender of natural law), and Robert Adams, his major work is titled Finite and Infinite Goods which is the major modern work in this field.

I hope my mumblings are helpful somehow

Sorry, I was very pressed for time (was already 2x as long as I had time for). Let me know what you feel was missing and I'd be happy to elaborate. See here as well contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/jesus-on-all-shall-know-me/

Did you listen to the discussion?

Eph 6:4

Worshipping God is a duty of all image bearers studio.czcams.com/users/videohSAGomnZx0w/edit

You call it cumbersome , yet it’s essential my friend for these types of discussions.

My pleasure. Thank you for the conversation

Was a pleasure listening to you both.

Hi Shawn, can you clarify which part of the video you're referring to?

Around 26:36 There being a conditionality to the promise of Abraham, in respect to Galatians 3:15 and 3:17.

​@@shawnmathis3843 Thanks for clarifying. We have to make sure we take into account all of Scripture. Scripture very clearly teaches that some Abrahamic promises were definitely conditional 1. There is one Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision, revealed cumulatively from Gen. 12 to Gen. 22. 2. It consists, fundamentally, of two promises. 3. The first promise was that Abraham would have numerous offspring that would become a great na-tion and possess the land of Canaan (Gen 12:2, 7; 13:15; 15:5, 7, 18-21; 17:2, 7-8; 22:17; 24:7; 26:3-4; 28:3-4, 13-14; 35:11-12; 46:3; 48:4). 4. The second promise was that Abraham would be the father of the promised seed of the woman who would bless all nations (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:17b-18; 26:4; 28:14; Gal 3:8, 16-17). 5. The first Abrahamic promise began to be fulfilled in Israel’s Exodus out of Egypt (Ex. 2:24; 6:2-8; 12:25; 13:5; 19:3-4; Deut 6:23; 7:8; Ps 105:42-43; Acts 7:17). 6. Its fulfillment was conditioned upon the people’s obedience to the law (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; Jer 11:5). When it comes to Galatians 3, I do not believe Paul is contrasting two different covenant types (promise covenant vs law covenant). Rather, he is contrasting the two different Abrahamic promises: one came through the law, the other came through Christ. See here contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/gal-318-generic-law-and-promise-or-sinai-and-messiah/ and longer here www.1689federalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/JIRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf (pages 81-89)

@@brandonadams07 thank you! I'm coming out of dispensationalism and although I agree with most of covenant theology I still find myself not able to agree with our paedo brothers on some things. I've only been studying for about 6 months now after work. I find a lot of agreement with Michael Beck and the Klinean guys but I feel like I'm a lifetime of study behind and still struggling through some of the nuances. Currently pursuing a BS in biblical and theological studies at liberty, but it's been hit or miss based on professor and everyone is dispensational as well. Lord willing I’d like to continue to seminary as soon as I finish there. I can't say how much I appreciate all the work you and some others are putting in to make material available and accessible.

@@shawnmathis3843 Thank you for the encouragement. I'm glad the material has been helpful. Just keep at it as you're able, and ask the Spirit to give you understanding.

Thanks for letting me know it's been helpful, and for the heads up on the playlist. I just added it.

Thanks Levi. It's definitely geared towards a particular audience like yourself who finds this interesting :)

Just so you’re tracking-and I did message you on FB about it (you haven’t read it yet)-I quoted you in my new commentary on Galatians :)

Thanks Michael. Which passage?

Hi Paul, they were these ones www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/ Plus this one www.monergism.com/high-king-heaven-ebook And "The Law is Not of Faith" And "Better than the Beginning" (Barcellos)

Awesome thank you!

John, yes, much of the material was actually taken from a short booklet I've been trying to get done for several years. It's written in the style of a confession for easy reference/digestion/discussion: numbered points with scripture references for each. I have a couple of concepts I still need to flesh out before I'd be happy releasing/publishing it. Please pray I can resolve those ideas and find time to finish it.

I suspect that is referring to the remnant of Jews that recognise Jesus as Messiah who were his disciples and present at Pentecost. It wouldn't seem to support one side or the other here because it relates to the transition between both Covenants rather than an ongoing aspect of the New. Note how Paul starts Romans 5 with a question about the Jews being 'rejected'. His refutation depends on himself and others who follow Christ such that not all Jews are among those cut off. v7 seems to confirm this by referring to those hardened as 'the rest'.

@@zacdredge3859 so you would contend that Jews are no longer saved/savable as of 70 or 130 AD?

Thanks for the reminder. Here you go contrast2.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/ngc_classes_storyofredemption_09_return.pdf

Thanks for letting me know! I would love to, but it is very hard to find the time to

@@brandonadams07 I understand brother and I trust that the Lord will guide you in these matters for he supplies seed for the sower .

I'd like to at some point if I can find the time. It would have to be a series because there is a lot to address. In the meantime, you can find my written arguments against it here contrast2.wordpress.com

2 Kings 13:23 "But the LORD was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, nor has he cast them from his presence until now." Thanks for the reminder Chris. I had looked at briefly before but hadn't come to any conclusions. I forgot about it when prepping this class (I didn't have much time and was mostly pulling from old notes). It certainly seems to present a problem for my overall interpretation. A few thoughts: 1) The translations are a bit different with the final phrase "nor has he cast them from his presence until now." (ESV) Others have "neither cast he them from his presence as yet." I think the latter translation seems more accurate to the context: God did not yet cast them from his presence "as he afterwards did in the times of Hoshea." (Gill) 2) Therefore a question emerges: Why would the Abrahamic Covenant preserve Israel at this point, but not at a later point? 3) If you note this helpful chart of kings, Jehu is the only king of Israel whose reign was “mixed,” while all the others “did evil.” www.vtaide.com/gleanings/Kings-of-Israel/kings.html This refers to 2 Kings 9-10 where Jehu is anointed king and is commissioned to strike down the house of Ahab (2 Kings 9:7). He also “wiped out Baal from Israel” (10:28). As a result: "30 And the Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in my eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”” 4) Immediately after that we read "32 In those days the Lord began to cut off parts of Israel” (by the hand of Syria). Thus during the reign of Jehu’s sons, Israel was harassed by Syria and lost parts of their land. It is in this context that we read 2 Kings 13, where God prevents Syria from conquering Israel entirely. During the reign of Jehu’s sons, Israel takes back lost territory from Syria (13:25; 14:25). We read the interesting note in 14:27 "But the Lord had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.” 5) So we have Jehu > Jehoahaz > Joash > Jeroboam II > Zechariah. Then Zechariah is cut down by Shallum and we read 15:12 "(This was the promise of the Lord that he gave to Jehu, “Your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” And so it came to pass.)” Shallum only reigns one month and is replaced by Menaham. During Menaham’s reign Assyria begins their conquest of Israel (15:19). This continues for 41 years through several kings, ending with Hoshea and the defeat and exile of Israel (2 Kings 17). 6) In conclusion, it is during the reign of Jehu’s sons, whom God promised the throne to, that we see two comments about God preserving Israel (13:23, 14:27). Once that promise is fulfilled, Assyria begins its campaign and eventually conquers Israel for good, ending Israel. So it seems clear that because Jehu did “what was right” in God’s eyes, Israel was spared for a while longer. Nevertheless, the text says that this was because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Admittedly, this does not quite fit with my understanding, which I may need to revise a bit. Please pray for wisdom to make sense of all the biblical data.

@@brandonadams07 Those are some good insights. While they may not satisfactorily explain what's explicitly stated in 2 Kings 13:23, they could certainly help shed light on what the explanation is. For the record, I am rather quite inclined to your understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant and its relationship to the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. The best explanation I've come up with so far is that while God isn't bound by the covenant to intervene for Israel, He does so out of general care for them (Jer. 31:20, Rom. 11) recognizing them as Abraham's descendants. In other words the distinction is between acting out of covenantal obligations and acting by choice because of the covenant made. Or, perhaps you've put your finger on something. In 2 Kings 13:23, God spares them based on the Abrahamic Covenant, where blessings were tied to obedience, because of Jehu’s [at least partial] obedience... which would differ with the notion of sparing His people because of the Abrahamic Covenant despite their disobedience.