For James White, About Those Children in the New Covenant | Reformation And Revival
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 ноя 2023
- So last week, I made the mistake of getting James White’s attention. You have likely seen the man debate, and so you know his skills. The best thing to do is to make your points when he’s not looking so you don’t end up having him draw that dividing line of his and take you to task. It also works to have someone kneecap him while you state a few claims. The pain, you see, distracts him. But, alas, I spoke when he was both awake, in earshot, not cringing in pain, and now look at the trouble I’m in.
Reformation And Revival is presented by Canon Press.
Sorry, Jim Bob!
Great word, Jared.
I love that you mention Romans 11 and John 15 because these are the passages that finally broke through my baptistic understanding of the new covenant. When I understood that the vine in John 15 and the tree in Romans 11 were not comprised of only the elect, the paedobaptist understanding of the covenant came into clear view. I understood that my kids were covenantally clean / holy (1 Corinthians 7) as an extension of my faith and that they too were little branches of the new covenant tree. I teach them the truth and call them to repentance, looking for fruit of repentance rather than a conversion moment. They may have a moment when they internalize the truth, but I simply teach them and raise them as members of the covenant, calling them to repentance daily and reminding them of their place with God and the promise of salvation if we hold fast to Him till the end, the same as any other member of the body. This way of thinking comports with so much of the scriptures and joins the old and new testaments so beautifully I can’t possibly imagine going back to a credobaptist understanding.
This is so beautiful. I was introduced to Reformed theology when I was 24 (39 years ago), and couldn't buy infant baptism. That was just too strange. Then one morning not too long after my "conversion," I went to a Reformed baptist church. It so happens that morning they had an "infant dedication," and I thought, they are treating their children as strangers to the covenant! I was instantly converted to paedobaptism. Basically, their children were little heathens until they made a "confession of faith." Yet, they didn't treat them like heathens, but like little Christians. That made no sense. It wasn't until recently that I heard Doug Wilson's argument about the olive tree and the covenant, though, that I fully understand our children are not strangers to the covenant. The baptist position makes zero biblical sense to me.
This is exactly where I am now. Well said.
Is this what some call lordship salvation? I think I agree with what you say. I’m in that learning phase where I’m essentially convinced of the covenant theology position but I’m not well enough acquainted with the issue to fully articulate the position myself.
Praise God!
"They may have a conversion moment...I REMIND them of their place with God [??what place if they have never been converted??]...I REMIND them of the promise of salvation if we hold fast to the end..." Ouch, this is the kind of talk that makes us Baptists shudder. This is exactly why the seemingly innocuous error of paedobaptism absolutely terrifies us. It positively encourages children to glibly ASSUME that their spiritual state is good and that all is well with their souls, PRECISELY because they were born to Christians and are by baptism "children of the covenant." Isn't this exactly how churches fill up with members in good standing who have never been converted??? This comment pretty well encapsulates my concerns about those who practice paedobaptism.
13:13 - Helpful teaching on distinction of “covenant” and “effectual call”. They are distinct intimately related terms.
I am currently reading Calvin’s commentary of Hebrews and this is consistent with his commentary. I do believe you must’ve read it, brother. Good work and keep at it to the glory of God!
I grew up in the Nazarene church where I don’t remember this being taught, ever, not even when attending Point Loma Nazarene University. I wasn’t a philosophy theology major, maybe that’s why.
I could listen to this all day
I love the guy playing ping pong in the background! 😂
Thanks for doing this video, Jared! Jake's ping-pong game in the background was a wee bit distracting, though.
Three cheers for this glorious word may it grow till all the church is one day paedo baptistic and aligned with God's word. The key as it was with me being credo for 50 yrs was a continual searching n study of the word in all it's aspects on this subject till I saw the truth of paedo baptistim and love how our kids are included in the new as they were in the old. The best part of it is Christ is our priest forever, perfect n holy n undefiled, unlike the priests of the old. He will accomplish all his work in us the church and in this his creation, the whole world. He must reign till all his enemies r under his feet.
Yay I was waiting for a response 👏🏻
Let’s see a (live) round table , like Doug James , Jared ,.. 3 is enough 🔥❤️🔥
But what people really want to know... who won the ping-pong match 24:00?
I appreciate this clear explanation of where you & James White differ.
While I am unconvinced by your argument, I can confidently place this under the heading "Reasonable Error", for which I give grace toward all my Presbyterian brothers & sisters. It isn't Unintentional Error because baptizing infants is done quite intentionally, but it doesn't rise to the level of False Teaching because there isn't the level of knowingly false teaching - rather, pedobaptists reasonably draw on tradition & scripture to come to an incorrect (IMO) conclusion. Therefore, the response ought not be disfellowship, but grace.
I pray that the promise of ever reforming may one day lead Presbyterians to reform this anomalous doctrine. Until then, grace & peace to my brethren in Christ.
Impossible... to be REFORMED, the practice of the baptists would have to have been once formed... nobody believes in that... the historical theology goes back to the 1500's...
We also grant grace, and extend our hand
My head hurts after this. I agree with Jared....I think 😐
Its alot of Truth all at once and floods the intellect, overtaking the couple of firing synopses left in the cranium of my cerebral coretex.
See. Even listening to him..I felt more intellectual in my verbage. 😅
Jimbaube the Christian requests an episode on the tauroboliuem. Great sermon!
Well done.
Being in the "New Covenant" as children does not mean you will automatically be regenerated...... but there could be a high probability that that actually could happen since you will be raising then in the fear and admonition of the LORD etc.... Plus, raising them in the biblical ways will also lead them back to the fold when they are older if they have strayed away some
Thanks for the well articulated argument Jared! BTW, I have been trying to figure out who wrote the book of Hebrews.
So children have salvation if they’re children of believers but they have to keep it by not falling away and being cut off? Or they don’t actually lose it bc they proved they never had it when they rebel in disobedience later in life? How does that work? We just treat them like believers until they prove otherwise? Seems mildly disingenuous and convenient.
Thank you! you certainly identified the precise points at which I find the Presbyterian position "incomprehensible." It seemingly boils down to "Treat your children as Christians because they were born to Christians, even though you know that they are not truly (or, wholly??) Christians"--sorry, I can't wrap my feeble mind around this version of the paedobaptist argument.
I could follow the infant baptism argument if one accepts the error of baptismal regeneration, but thankfully Presbyterians (officially) have the good sense not to go there. But that makes the baptizing of unregenerate and unrepentant children completely inexplicable. What does their baptism accomplish then?? How does John 15's description of Christ the Vine help the situation?? If you baptize your unregenerate children, aren't you (by your own admission) making them "branches in Me that bear no fruit"??? Baptists and Presbyterians agree that there are indeed fruitless branches (false professors) who are (outwardly, via the profession of baptism) "in" the Christ the Vine, but why on earth would we encourage our children to be such??
Agree. The distinction is credo baptists unintentionally and unknowingly (because of human fallibility) apply baptism to the unregenerate whereas paedobaptist intentionally include them (thus their search for scripture to support this assumption).
Acts 2:41 “*those who received* his word were baptized…” receiving the word implies a conscious assent to what was preached.
@@brettmagnuson8318any OIKOS baptisms in scripture ??
Mark 10:13-16
Let the Children Come to Me
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.
Does the new covenant invite even children that come to see and be blessed by Christ ? Who was hindering them ? Who elects and who rebukes and who is the author of this new covenant? Do we recognize that we are command not to hinder, it is the Spirit of Christ who applies the promises of the new covenant to the elect. The sign of baptism is a picture of this truth. Christ blessing little children is also a picture of how Christ invited us into the kingdom, with open arms. The sign does not save but points to the one who does, the true members are known by Christ alone and we with good intentions are hindering many in our attempts to guard Christ. What would Christ say if he saw us arguing about who received the sign of the promise. We give the sign of baptism in faith to those who come to Christ, some in the arms of their parents and others who come in a faith of their own but all looking to Christ arms for mercy and Grace.
With respect, that's terrible argument. Totally ripping Mark 10 out of context.
Everyone believes the NC is inviting children to "be blessed by Christ". The question is how is one blessed by Christ? Through faith. Through new birth, not natural birth.
The question is not "Does God exclude children from the NC?". That's particular framing that Paedobaptists like to use to give themselves a rhetorical advantage. It's like "black lives matter", well obviously no one will disagree with that statement.
No one is saying "God decided to exclude children from the NC". The OC didn't "include children" except by secondary cause. The OC included _Israelites_, those born as Jews. Since all Jews are born as babies, babies were in the covenant, not *because* they were babies, but *because they were Israelites*. So framing it as "You think God decided to exclude children" is dishonest, though I recognize perhaps not intentionally.
You cannot be naturally born into the NC because the NC is not, unlike the OC, inherited by race, nation, or lineage, or any other natural identifier, which is explicitly clear in the NT, one that comes to mind is John 1:12-13. You can be born into the NC via rebirth, and so in that sense Baptists baptize all infants who enter the NC ;)
@@michaelmannucci8585I would like to hear from them how a 1month old infant is able to come to Christ and receive the kingdom of God.
@@BugattianVeyronian they point to John the Baptist leaping in the womb, sometimes.
I believe we see the new birth, regeneration as the required action by God, by grace through faith we are made members of the new covenant, do we agree at this point? Can we baptize a person with a confession that points to a hope that God will keep His covenant of Grace? Do we believe that baptism is a sign that of something that has already taken place, the Holy Spirit has seal an individual unto saving faith?
My question is, can I look in faith to the sign of God’s promise for my children, understanding that it is God who hears my prayers and in faith trust In Him to do His will. I see in Christian marriage and in the Christian family we look to God in faith to bless what God has established. The blessings being children, children who are members of the family and bear the name, a sign of who on earth they belong to. In the context of the Church family as well as my own I call my children by their fathers name, Christian! How can I call them Christians? By looking in faith to the promises of God, that in His time my children belong to Him, weather they live for a few days or to a ripe old age I trust they are in the hands of God by His Grace alone. To tell my children anything else is to hinder them. We look to the sign in hope of the realization that God is gracious to complete what He has started. I am waiting and trusting in God ,and I appreciate the sign of baptism to give us hope to a spiritual reality that will be as God wills. The context is the heart of God and the mercy and Grace we see in the life death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ for the children the father has given His son.
Sure, I trust that they're in God's hand. Of course, we raise them and discipline them in Christ but we don't know if they will believe or continue in their faith. We don't baptize them in hope they will be saved. If what's most important is the circumcision not by hand, I don't see why I have to baptize my children with water only to hope they will one day believe. I will baptize them when they confess Jesus is Lord. Of course, I cannot be perfectly certain that they will persevere in faith but at least I don't deliberately baptize someone who cannot confess their faith and have no understanding of faith. Also, I believe the new covenant in Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 and 10 is unbreakable and for the elect only. And since the new covenant is better than the old not only in the sense that it's slightly, 50%, 80% better but because it is perfect. We have the blood of Christ as the blood of the covenant, we have Christ as the mediator, we have Christ as the perfect sacrifice. All those in the new covenant are forgiven of their sins. That shapes how we see baptism.
waiting for another moderated debate, yay!
Here is a question, would you ascribe to these members of the covenant who are not regenerated the status of "called"? If you would then would their subsequent falling away (going out from us) constitute a breaking of the Golden chain. Those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. Or do you think you can be a covenant member and not "called" in that manner.
The fruit or outward appearance does not equal knowing the heart. If so, people are being inconsistent and playing God. Soteriology, is something that only God knows in space and time but He by his grace has told us how He works in the back end through Scripture. Baptist don’t know who the elect are, period. Romans 11 is warning Christians not to get cocky with their salvation because what happen to the Jews can happen to us and no I’m not denying perseverance of the saints. 1 Samuel 16:7
How are the Christian’s children in the New Covenant? Entrance into that covenant is by regeneration, which is something God does by His Spirit. Not sure how one could be in the New Covenant without being regenerated. And why would Christ’s blood sanctify those who ultimately will be in Hell?
You know who is regenerate ??
Two new works coming on covenant theology:
What Is Covenant Theology?: Tracing God’s Promises through the Son, the Seed, and the Sacraments, by Ryan McGraw (Crossway, 2024)
Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction, by Harrison Perkins (Lexham Press, 2024).
Serious question: what are the arguments for thinking that Paul wrote Hebrews?
Pauline language and argumentation. Dr. White says he thinks it is a sermon (or several sermons) that Luke wrote down, either that he heard Paul preach live or Paul dictated to him at another time. The argumentation and theology is all Paul but the Greek is all Luke (very similar to Luke and Acts).
@@elijahgrajkowski2505 thank you
The reason paedos don't win the argument more often is because their view has been limited to infants, i.e. their view is too small. The correct view is entire household baptism which would include members who were not related to the head of household. These would even be those who were practicing pagans. The head of household had the responsibility and authority to require that member, who could express agency (nlike the infant who could not), to profess Christ, live a Christian life, BE BAPTIZED, or else risk expulsion from the household. If this is true for the non-family household member, how much more is it true for the infant? Paedos need to stop hiding behind babies and take the truly patriarchal, entire household view.
What does he mean that “obedience is a condition of the covenant”?
This made me more credobaptist, thank you
Yeah, it's pretty incredible how much theological/exegetical gymnastics is required for their position.
How?? The baptists are the innovative ones
The new covenant is inaugurated at the return of Christ at the resurrection when the law is written on our hearts and we are sinless/perfected. See, Jeremiah 31.
Hi Jared, how do you understand Jeremiah 31:31-34 when it says that in the New Covenant, every member will know the Lord?
I believe he answered that in his first video, to which James responded.
It also says He will forgive their sins (contextually the "they" of "their" is the new covenant members), which in the paedo view is not true of all covenant members.
How do explain the belief that if an infant of believers dies, most would agree that the child would be saved. We look to the blood of Christ to cover the iniquity we are connived in. If God does this for infants born ,yet born again into the covenant of Grace, does time reveal a different way of salvation or just a greater revelation of how God saves over time as we grow in our sanctification? Things we can think and wonder about, is it possible to be saved if you are unable to make a credible confession, something like the thief on the cross. Would we baptize a thief that could only articulate a request to be remembered. Christ replied that today the thief would be with Him in paradise, amazing Grace on display at the words of Christ.
@@davidelgeti517 With respect, based on a lot of what you say, it doesn't seem like you've seriously studied this topic, particularly form the other side.
@@michaelmannucci8585 I do my best, depending on the scripture and with the Spirits help to guide me to truth. I have listened to many on both sides of the issue, debate baptism. I see good men on both sides and trust God will be patient as we struggle to full understand all that He would have for us. As long as we are both pursuing Gods will, I see we are on the same side of the issue, we both desire to do as God would have us do, be obedient to what the scripture have revealed, that we should do. We both understand this is not what saved us, but is important none the less. God bless you and your family.
Man i listened to this twice and i still don’t understand your position lol ill have to listen a few more times
Who won the table tennis match?
What is going in the background through that window? The first few seconds the guy in the window looked about to break into a dance!
Looks like a serious game of ping pong!
De-bate! De-bate! De-bate!
*Come on! Come on! Come on!*
You missed a chance to slip in “better ingredients, better pizza”, but this too can be forgiven.
Better Hair and the Better Covenant
Obviously you win because you have better hair. Next time Dr. White should enlist Jeff Durbin to engage the argument.
I'm a big fan of The Dividing Line
Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
The unregenerate can’t have faith - how can they be in covenant with a Holy God?
All men everywhere at all times are in covenant with God. Either as covenant breakers or covenant keepers
@@dylanbraddy8909 doesn’t answer my question
The problem is this, there is only one covenant about which the New Testament is concerned, advocates, and equates with Christian salvation and that is the New Covenant and only the New Covenant. And, the New Covenant is clearly and concisely attributed to the elect and only the elect. And, the elect are permanently the elect and cannot be taken from the hand of Christ by *any* man. And, as for the bride of Christ (i.e., the church triumphant), this too is composed of the elect. It is not a vague and abstract and uncertain multitude (i.e., the church militant, made up of all the earthly churches comprised of both believers and fakers) that is saved by the precious blood of Christ but those whom God selected even before time: individuals, the *elect.* It is mystifying to me how those who do not *like* these Biblical truths are compelled to appeal to extreme contortionistic gymnastics in vane attempts at escaping these God-given truths. And, frankly, only through such extreme contortionistic gymnastics can one not equate the *we* from Hebrews with the elect and only the elect.
What do you do with the warning passages? Genuinely curious, working through this whole thing myself
The “contortionistic hermeneutical gymnastics” largely comes from us reading the prequel (the OT) first, to make sense of the sequel (NT)… that’s all. Cheers!
Well first, they remind us of sin. In the same way as the blood of bulls and goats.
Secondly they remind us that while we now can truly love God he is to be feared.
Thirdly they tell us that while we are a new creation, we are being sanctified. Now run the race, fight the war, now is not the time for rest.
I have yet to see any compelling proof of this assertion. It is not a matter of liking. When I was Credo only I really did like that position. The problem I had was that like many things I was taught it didn't seem to fit well with arc of scripture.
@@sarahd5341 Assuming you're talking about a difficult passage like Hebrews 6:4-6, I think the key to those passages is understanding the audience. In my view, the error that is commonly made there is assuming that the audience is the ELECT. But the book is written to a VISIBLE church, group of churches, or localized community. So the author of Hebrews does what I think we all would do if we wrote a letter to what I would feel safe calling a congregation. He knows that all these people are IN that church or churches, and they have heard the Gospel. But this does not necessarily mean they are all regenerate. Jesus gives us an idea of this scenario in the parable of the sower:
Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. (Matthew 13:5)
So when you're addressing a congregation you lean toward ENCOURAGEMENT (which the NT is full of, especially from Paul), but it was (and still is) necessary to WARN against falling away. In cases like 1 Corinthians 5, Paul knows EXACTLY who is nearing apostasy and exactly what they are doing. So we don't find where the writers of the NT are afraid to call folks out basically by name when the situation warrants it.
But in Hebrews, this is a generalized audience. The warning passages are not addressed to individuals, but rather the community (or church, or "group", etc).
Presbyterians such as Mr. Longshore would argue these passages address the non-regenerate IN the New Covenant. In my view, one of the benefits of Westminster covenant theology is that it does *a little bit better* with the warning passages in Hebrews, to most people's ears nowadays (where "easy-believism" is common). But it is essentially not that different from the view I propose.
One of the big places where Presbyterians miss the mark is here:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
There are no unregenerate folks in the New Covenant. Therefore, the warning passages in Hebrews are necessary because no one, not even apostles, have "election glasses" or the ability to see who is elect and who is not.
This hurts my head and surprisingly I’m not sure I agree with Jared. I want to hear James response to this.
I think you should continue quoting Owen, for example the rest of the page of the book you quoted.. let me help :)
"The principal notion of sanctification in the New Testament, is the effecting of real, internal holiness in the persons of them that do believe, by the change of their hearts and lives. But the word is not here so to be restrained, nor is it used in that sense by our apostle in this epistle, or very rarely. It is here plainly comprehensive of all that he hath denied unto the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of the old testament, with the whole church-state of the Hebrews under it, and the effects of their ordinances and services (…) Real, internal purification or sanctification of our natures and persons from all inward filth and defilement of them; which he proves at large that the carnal ordinances of the law could not effect of themselves, reaching no farther than the purification of the flesh. [5.] Hereunto also belong the privileges of the gospel, in liberty, boldness, immediate access unto God, the means of that access, by Christ our high priest, and confidence therein; in opposition unto that fear, bondage, distance, and exclusion from the holy place of the presence of God, which they of old were kept under. All these things are comprised in this expression of the apostle, “We are sanctified.”"
- Owen, J. (1854). An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (W. H. Goold, Ed.; Vol. 23, p. 478). Johnstone and Hunter.
it could seem you ended your quoting where you did because the very next sentence goes against your argument... If this is so, I would call it an unfair use of Owens words, he is clearly not on your "side" when reading hebrews.. nor are you "standing with" him on this matter..
That window in the back is very distracting
Never linked any of what you said to baptism
Sometimes Paedos sound like Arminians when they say "Christ died for everyone in the covenant not individuals" because the Arminian would say Christ die for the church and its but to your free will to repent THEN Jesus died for you. It is the same kind of argument Armenians use in Romans 9 "No God didnt hate individual people, but a nation/group of people" ....which are made up of...individual people. Where is the verse that says Jesus "died for the children of believers to be in the New Covenant but no for salvation till they repent"
But you have to identify who is in the covenant. This is nowhere close to an Armenian argument
You ask what are the natural branches being removed from in Romans 11? Funny thing is 2 chapters previous, they are not all Israel who are of Israel. The branches that aren’t a part of the Covenant are being removed from it because they don’t belong to it. So you are making baptists point that the ones in the Covenant are actually members of it. Not to mention your gymnastics on Jeremiah 31 they all shall know me. That means that once again that those in the Covenant know God. To argue the Covenants are synonymous is erroneous.
But... then why are these branches that aren't part of the covenant attached in the first place that they could be removed? If they aren't in the covenant in some meaningful sense, they wouldn't need to be removed from the covenant because they wouldn't be attached in the first place. But they are attached and then removed... The same goes in reverse, the wild branches that were grafted in can be removed.
The obvious solutions to this are specifically rejected by Particular Baptists (affirming the visible/invisible distinction and applying the visible to the covenant, or denying perseverance). Just ignoring the attaching and breaking off and treating it as unchanging eternally doesn't obviously solve the problem.
Jared Longshore just destroyed Jesus promise that whoever comes to truly believe in Him never is lost for the sake of keeping his traditions: John 6:39 39 Now this is the will of the one who sent me-that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day....
Watch doc baptism is not enough. First couple of minutes. And try to be consistent with that text and real life. You can’t! I’ll wait
@@MrElguero16 Can you give a link/website for this documentary pls? TY
You must be born again, unless your parents are Christians.
Lol
Trying so hard to sound like Doug Wilson with your videos
I think he's in the running as the future Oracle of Moscow.
James White is a great debater.? Why won't he debate Don K. Preston on Covenant Eschatology?
Being a great debater doesn’t require you to debate everyone who challenges you
@@jeremymaendel5846 Agree, How many challenges does White turn down? Those he knows he can't win?
Sometimes even having the correct position doesn’t guarantee that you are prepared to make a compelling case in debate format. James is human and only has so much time to give towards certain subjects and debates. Nonetheless, I’d be curious to see that debate and many other potential debates too.
@hardboard82 Don K Preston would probably debate White at his convenience.
@@1Whipperin i couldn’t give you an accurate answer to that question.
You don't come off as genuine when you read from a script. You aren't C.S. Lewis, and James is actually concerned for the salvation of others. What is with this weird obsession with wordplay? You sound exactly like Doug Wilson reading his own writing, and you aren't him.
Well he did leave a ministry he was committed to for over a decade to join Doug Wilson so it makes sense.
This sounds like Doug Wilson actually wrote it…same inflections same nuances, same style…
Yes. Jared doesn't seem to have his own voice.
This really doesn't matter even a tiny bit when you put things into perspective. Dispensationalism and infighting about realitively small matters while giant wars are waging in the culture have been two massive destructive and paralyzing forces in Christianity, and in what was once Chrisendom. You've got one of those figured out, now do the latter.
Once the kids stop being trans-ed, child are not slaughtered in mass in the womb (and society realizes that's what abortion is) borders aren't being invaded by the millions, lgbtq isn't the golden calf that all institutions and companies bow to, and a few milestones we can think of, THEN and only then should you use your finite time, energy, attention and platform to address things like this. Until then it is incredibly unwise (massive understatement) and probably even sinful to do so.
In my opinion both you and James White are not even looking at the most mind-blowing passage on this issue. It’s this:
“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.”
Hebrews 9:15 ESV
Notice how the death of Jesus redeems the sins committed under the first covenant. What about the sins committed in the second (that is, new) covenant? Well as Paul says in another place:
“For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 18-19 ESV
What neither you nor James White sees is that under the New Covenant, sin is not being counted at all. Everyone past AD 70 is born into the New Covenant. The scriptures were written to people at the crossroads who still had sin committed under the first covenant, of which Christ’s death redeemed them.
In the new Covenant, Faith is what matters. God reconciled the world and is looking for people who will believe that and follow him. He nailed the law to the cross. As Paul says in Romans 5 “sin is not counted where there is no law.”
So why aren’t all saved then if no sin is being counted? It’s because faith is being counted instead. Not sin. Faith or lack thereof. This is why Paul says:
“in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 ESV
This who:
1.) Don’t Know Jesus
2.) Don’t obey the Gospel
It’s not about sin and you have confused this into some idea that is close to the truth (such as kids of Christians are born into the NC) but is missing the concept from the very first scripture I brought up. Read it a few times over and over and see that the death Jesus died was to cover the Old Covenant sin. Blessings in Christ!
This guy is such a puppet of Wilson. He leaves the Baptist position to join the cult in Moscow and now he tries to write and sound like Wilson. Isn’t it interesting that he didn’t speak like this when he was with Ascol. 🤦♂️
I can’t wait for my kids to find out how wretched they are. That will be the best day of my life. I will not give them this new covenant inclusion non-sense. I’m not buying it.
Perhaps you could "buy it" if you understood it.
Prior to regeneration children of believers in the church are every bit as wretched and sinful as anyone else, get the same gospel preached to them, and need the same regeneration and repentance.
The difference is, they, like the children of the Israelites have the blessings of living in community with the saints, hearing the preaching of the word, being raised in the fear admonition of the Lord, and receive the promises of God for the children of believing parents.
This is a huge blessing vs the child of parents who are not faithful believers and do not get the gospel communicated or modeled for them and live in greater darkness.
@@umaikakudo But why do the children need to be baptized to receive these blessings? They theoretically receive the same blessings in Baptist churches. Just can't get an answer (that I understand) from Presbyterians on this: since we agree that baptism does not bestow regeneration, what exactly is it doing for the children?
@@stephenwright4973 For the same reason adult converts receive the sacrament of baptism as a means of grace and Israelite boys had circumcision. No one ever was saved by baptism or circumcision, which are signs and seals of the promises of God, and a profession of faith from the recipients.
Quite inconceivable indeed. None of your points are clear and about believer's children.