great stuff, esp. on John 6 and Isaiah. "You and your children" then is prophetic idiom for the elect, right? How do you apply this to Acts 2:39? There Peter talks to real people and says: you and your children; but even more than that, he adds a third group (all who are far off, whom the Lord will call). If "you and your children" already means "the elect", why is there a third group? Adding a third group wouldn't make sense. On the other: because it is added, this means that "you and your children" does not mean the elect, at least not in this passage. What's your explanation?
Finally, someone who distinguishes between the two different Israel's. I'm more of a NCT guy, but man oh man is it good to hear someone get this right. The amount of conversations I have listened to, been involved in, and had to endure with Presbyterians and Dispensationalists who just get this all wrong has been seriously taxing on my soul. "Not all Israel is Israel." It always amazes me how alike the reformed Westminster types and the Dispensationalists are in their hermeneutical principles in how they pit Scripture against Scripture, emphasizing one passage over another in order to synthetically manufacture an interpretation that suits traditions.
I don’t think you understand how trees work. Believers offspring stems from believers, definitionally. They didn’t pop into existence as an untethered new line.
I really enjoyed this. Great example of Christian brothers having a respectful dialogue. Also, thanks Brandon... Your material is very thorough and helpful.
They were saved for the coming of the new, under the old. Christ preached victory to all who died in faith. To all in Abraham's care... Read Romans great video. Honest look.
Since there is no confession of faith that defines NCT, it's easy to say (in reaponse to comments), "There are certainly NC people who don't believe in the moral law." It would be more helpful to name a scholar who everyone considers representative of the movement and document him denying the moral law. I suspect the ensuing discussion would reveal that the most important NCT scholars believe in timeless moral standards, the transgressing of which renders one subject to the wrath of God. The biggest point of disagreement regarding the moral law would be the relationship of these timeless moral susndards to the Mosaic law.
So the people were not destroyed at Mt Sinai because of the promise that God had made to Abraham concerning the land. And in the previous video, on the covenant of circumcision, you mentioned that that promise was conditional. Therefore it was due to Abraham's obedience to God (namely in the sacrifice of Isaac) that God even made the promise concerning the land. Am I understanding this correctly? Just trying to connect some of the dots from the two different talks.
Why does this discussion even exist? What the Bible states is clear without all this unnecessary “explanation”. It appears as a desperate salesman with a useless product trying to make a quick sale. Why would anyone waste valuable time on this useless information unless they would rather construct a way of “not” spreading the good news of Christ directly from the Bible. Quit wasting time. -Admit to God you are a sinner. -Believe that Jesus is God’s Son. -Confess your faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. -Live forevermore.
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
Mr. Adams, I just wanted to tell you thank you. Not only for this fantastic series, but for your entire ministry. I’ve followed you for a few years now and have been greatly blessed by your work.
Brandon, i'm sure you're a lovely guy but you should have reached out to James personally. This is a poor example on how Christians are to seek forgiveness. It seems it's just a platform to push your specific view. I don't have a dog in the fight since i'm a Dispe.... Also make biblical arguments please. Don't much care about your inverted sources from Church History. Bible first then name dropping second, so long as they help in uncovering Scriptural texts....BTW all this is easily solved by understanding that Abraham, and all OT persons, were saved by grace through faith alone, although the administration they found themselves in varied; Post fall, before and after the Law and before and after the Cross!! To add insult to confusion: the New Covenant is found in the Old Testament ( - ; Rom 4:9,13,16; Heb 8:7-13.
► For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.” Your system seems to say this is only external in old order. Psalm 51 says same, truth in the innermost place of heart. It seems your trying to place a squared peg in a round hole. Your trying to fit things I understand but I think this mindset has holes of explaining how the OT to the New actually works.. These two passages push back it’s only external and nothing to do with a converted heart. I don’t think it works no matter how fancy the nomenclature! 😼
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
A. “Who can partake of the kingdom sacraments? The kingdom people” ok . I’m sure that most Presbyterians would point to the parables of Christ which indicate that non-believers are part of the Kingdom: see the wheat and chaff, the dragnet of fish, both good and bad people invited to the wedding feast etc. B. The non-regenerate federal union to Christ is answered by the Federal Vision movement. Passages indicating that the branches in Christ may be dead and fruitless but nonetheless still connected to Christ.
Great food for thought. I have struggled to make sense of the particular laws within scripture, especially the Old Testament. I started my Christian journey in a dispensational framework without knowing it. You make a fairly persuasive argument regarding the twofold nature of law….interesting. I’m wondering if you’ve interacted with any Christian ethicists on this framework, I’m thinking meta ethics and divine command theory. Are there any 1689 Federalists doing work in this particular field?
@@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 appreciate the discussion but I don’t think that Brandon actually made a clear point why the hermeneutical principal in Isaiah 54 can be lifted and applied to Jeremiah 31. Apart from the fact that Isaiah and Jeremiah are making similar points, I wish Brandon would have stuck the landing. It would have been better if Brandon simply stated his position outright. However, the point about Hosea’s prophecy applying to Israel but used differently by Paul to apply to Gentiles is quite a good insight. Will do more research on this point.
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/
That gentiles are engrafted to Israel is a consistent revelation in the NT. But where do you get the understanding that "all will know me..." means what you think it means, given the fact its used only once in this context in the NT, and it's meaning of such language has been established in Jeremiah? Why can I not interpret such language as it is used in Jeremiah, if there's nothing in the text that would make me do otherwise, given the fact actual people were crucifying Christ again by apostasy? Thank you.
Baptists, what should Christians parents do with their children? If they should take their children to the assembly of the saints, why? Where did you get the understanding that you should, regardless of the will of the "unrepentant unbeliever" (your children) take them to the Congregation of the Holy ones to worship/learn how to worship the living God?
First to the Jew then to the gentile!! I can’t tell if Brandon is being purposefully obtuse! Your attempt to lead him to a point was way more cumbersome than it needed to be! In the end “all” really matters.. it’s the one thing that refers to the elect! Name that song!
as someone who is trying to find their way through all the theological niches, I appreciate your Material very much so. I would have a hard time agreeing that God added conditions to his promises. maybe that’s not what you were saying 100% but that was how it came across to me personally. I think Paul is arguing against this in Galatians. Maybe you could elaborate more one day.
@@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.
Holy cow. Makes me glad to be a catholic. The Magesterium was established by the apostles & subsists to this day, like it or not, able to theologize it or not. I used to wish I had a broader perspective on religion, but I can see that this is a never-ending rabbit hole. It's made me realize that the One Objective Truth has one perpetual human authority. The popes have erred plenty, but they have never changed the official teaching of the Catholic Church (although Francis is trying his hardest at present).
This series has been very helpful and informative for understanding a 1689 view of the covenants. Thank you Brandon. Can you add this video to your RU-vid playlist for the Story of Redemption? It isn't currently there. ru-vid.com/group/PLD7MrXRhfvKBfeXI2-jOX5ytbcBM6UwOT
Super helpful! Advice is not often helpful when found on the internet but I’ll stick my foot in my mouth. It’s a little dry. Maybe adding some excitement or a little whimsy. Maybe some prayer when getting started. Overall really helpful but my wife asked how I could stay awake listening to this and I said well it’s interesting in content. Then I thought well maybe a little constructive criticism could help the channel. Thank you for your wisdom and taking the time to do this!
