That young man is very intelligent and I think he is connecting the biblical dots well . I pray that the Lord will increase his knowledge and humility at the same time.
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!
Woke up, saw a new post and thought “what a day”. Thank you for this. I’m trying to sort it all out and really identify with the gentleman asking the questions.
What an awesome awesome video! I have seen a few of the 1689 Federalism videos, but Brandon you have really helped me see some really cool connections between the Northern Tribes being shipped off and Judah falling after the seed has come. How cool! God's Word is an endless treasure trove! Thankful for you all.
30:10 While it's certainly the case that the promise passes through David I think it's also interesting that Judah and Benjamin are the 2 tribes spared. Recently did a talk on how I think that this relates to Judah in Genesis 44 putting himself in Benjamin's place as a foreshadowing of Christ taking our place on calvary.
This is super helpful. Regarding the end of the Abrahamic covenant, how do you understand Rom 9-11? Do you see a future ingathering of Jews? Is that a separate issue from promises made to Abraham?
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.
Question for Brandon: how do you interpret Proverbs 22:6? I think this text may be where Joel Webbon professes what he does in regards to children and putting the burden on the parent. This text has confused me in light of Baptist theology. I would appreciate a response. Thanks for all that you do!
Proverbs are not promises. They are generally true principles. And this particular principle refers to habits, not supernatural rebirth by the Spirit. It's talking about training a child to make his bed every morning, not saying your child will be saved if you catechize them.
I have been asked if the Noaic covenant meets the definition of a covenant with divine stipulations as in Sam Renihans book , could you speak to this some ? Fred Malone I think has asked this same question I think .
Genesis 9 is conditions added to the restated mandate of dominion in Genesis 8. Do not eat the blood. Require blood for blood shed. Be fruitful and multiply..subdue the Earth. All of these are conditions that establish how Noah, as an (not THE) antitype of Adam, is to establish dominion over Creation.
Hi Brandon, thank you for all your work on these videos. May I ask what are your thoughts on progressive covenantalism and its differences with the 1689? It is what makes most sense to me, but I would love your perspective.
That's a big question. I hope to do a series on it at some point. For now: There is a good amount of overlap. Both deal with the various covenants on their own terms, rather than combining them all into the same covenant. There is a little bit of difficulty insofar as not all who are being given the PC label agree on certain points. So we would agree with some (DeRouchie) much more than others (Caneday). Caneday's view of the conditionality of the covenants, including the Creation Covenant, is in disagreement with 1689 Fed, and it is a big point of difference. However, it is currently unclear how representative his rejection of the law/gospel distinction rooted in the CoW/CoG distinction is of PC as a whole. I do think his view has crept into the foundations of PC and presents problems (for example, their interpretation of Romans 2:13-15 - that regenerate Christians are the doers of the law who will be justified). Another point of difference is over how OT saints were saved. PC denies they were indwelt by the Spirit. Thus far they have been unwilling to explicitly affirm that they were saved by the NC, though there are some brief recent statements that seem to trend in that direction. I would like to see more explicit discussion.
@@brandonadams07 really appreciate it; I think I follow, and this gives me some material to look into. (Full disclosure, I studied at SBTS with Drs. Gentry, Wellum, and Schreiner, and love them all.) I hope you are able to eventually do a video series! It’s such a helpful medium. Blessings on all your endeavors.
1 Cor 7:18-19 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. ruclips.net/video/v154imjdPzs/видео.html
@brandonadams07 "...he is not to become uncircumcised." If circumcision had "ended" and "come to nothing." Why would Paul say this? Paul himself had Timothy circumcised. When did circumcision end? Was Paul being hypocritical?
@@ArchDLuxe He is not to "become uncircumcised" because it doesn't matter if he is circumcised or not (thus no need to "undo" the circumcision - whatever that would look like). The NT was written during a transition period where the Old Covenant was "becoming obsolete and growing old [was] ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). During that transition period, there was to be grace towards other Christians as they worked out the end of Mosaic law with regards to dietary law, festivals, etc (Rom 14). During the transition period, Paul chose, as a matter of evangelistic wisdom, to "become all things to all people" by having Timothy circumcised - something that before God was indifferent. And that is the key point, circumcision ceased to have any bearing on one's standing before God. The Gen 17:14 threat of being killed/cursed/cut off for not being circumcised ended, because circumcision and the Covenant of Circumcision ended.
It seems to me that Brandon’s explanation of how we as believers are to treat our children is *essentially* the same for the “first group” of Presbyterians he described (presumptive election) and most Reformed Baptists. Both groups treat their children “as if” (presumptively) they are elect and will be genuine believers in Christ at some point in their lives (e.g., discipling them with proper Christian doctrine and participation within the church body) unless or until they demonstrate flagrant unbelief and unrepentance for their known sins. The only sticking point is whether they ought to receive the outward sign of the covenant today (i.e., baptism) as infants, as Abraham’s physical seed received the outward sign of the covenant in the past (i.e., circumcision) as infants. I’m still uncommitted on that question, as I see fairly good points being made on both sides. I'd be interested in reading how John Owen defended the baptizing of infants, since his take on the nature of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant being wholly unconditional (repentance and faith being free gifts of God’s grace) is correct. If anyone knows of a source where he covers that topic, please let me know. Thanks!
Thanks for the comment, but no, that is not a correct understanding of our position. We do not presume are children are elect. (A very small minority of baptists like Joel Webbon hold that view, but that is contrary to our covenant theology) For Owen, see here contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/
@@brandonadams07 Okay, I apologize then for misunderstanding your position. However, for my part, I don’t see how on a practical level any Christian parent cannot treat their children “as if” they are elect, especially when Jesus Himself said of the “infants” (βρέφη; Luke 18:15) of believers, “for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Luke 18:16). We, of course, don’t know for sure whether any of our children are elect or not (Rom. 9:6-13), even if they have reached the age of understanding the gospel and make a credible profession of faith. But it would seem strange indeed to presume the only alternative, that they are reprobate “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). For instance, if you and your wife had a child tragically die shortly after birth, would you not presume your child was one of God’s elect children to whom He graciously applied the merits of Christ’s redemption? I certainly would. Anyway, thank you for the info regarding Owen’s take on infant baptism. I agree with your assessment that he either wasn’t the author of that publication, or else it was written prior to his more mature position on the covenant of grace being developed.
@@rgmann Luke 18:15 is not commenting on children in the kingdom, but upon what is required for anyone to be in the kingdom (it's a simile). We would also interpret Rom 9:6-13 differently contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/ You've also presented a false dichotomy: we either assume our children are elect or we assume they are reprobate. Instead, we should recognize that all men are born in Adam and are in need of the new birth. We should not assume they are regenerate at birth but should wait for a profession of faith. The question of what happens to the infant of a believer that dies in infancy is 1) not something Scripture tells us, 2) not normative for how to understand children of believers that do not die in infancy.
Children are of Adam, born fallen. But not guilty until they sign which requires knowledge of the Law. So teach them to pray so that when convicted of sin they might turn to Christ. Keep Instructing them their whole lives even if they have been converted.@@brandonadams07
That young man is very intelligent and I think he is connecting the biblical dots well . I pray that the Lord will increase his knowledge and humility at the same time.
The conversation was helpful and edifying. Would love to see more!
Glad to hear! Will try to do some more like this
Helpful discussion. Thank you, brothers.
Thank you so much, brother, for both the conversation and the time stamps!
Great video. I’m glad to see you posting again. I hope to see you post more content if your time allows.
Thanks for the summary of your view on the Abrahamic covenant.
Tremendous. Thank you, Brandon.
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!
Thanks Levi. It's definitely geared towards a particular audience like yourself who finds this interesting :)
This. Was. Awesome. Really edifying. Subscribed.
Really enjoyed this conversation
Woke up, saw a new post and thought “what a day”.
Thank you for this. I’m trying to sort it all out and really identify with the gentleman asking the questions.
Me too. New to covenant theology and this has been very helpful. Still have much to learn!
What an awesome awesome video! I have seen a few of the 1689 Federalism videos, but Brandon you have really helped me see some really cool connections between the Northern Tribes being shipped off and Judah falling after the seed has come. How cool! God's Word is an endless treasure trove! Thankful for you all.
30:10 While it's certainly the case that the promise passes through David I think it's also interesting that Judah and Benjamin are the 2 tribes spared. Recently did a talk on how I think that this relates to Judah in Genesis 44 putting himself in Benjamin's place as a foreshadowing of Christ taking our place on calvary.
Interesting. Thank you
This is super helpful. Regarding the end of the Abrahamic covenant, how do you understand Rom 9-11? Do you see a future ingathering of Jews? Is that a separate issue from promises made to Abraham?
Wow! When you said union with Christ, I came up with another example using type and anti type of the Jewish betrothal period in marriage.
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.
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.
Question for Brandon: how do you interpret Proverbs 22:6? I think this text may be where Joel Webbon professes what he does in regards to children and putting the burden on the parent. This text has confused me in light of Baptist theology. I would appreciate a response. Thanks for all that you do!
Proverbs are not promises. They are generally true principles. And this particular principle refers to habits, not supernatural rebirth by the Spirit. It's talking about training a child to make his bed every morning, not saying your child will be saved if you catechize them.
I have been asked if the Noaic covenant meets the definition of a covenant with divine stipulations as in Sam Renihans book , could you speak to this some ?
Fred Malone I think has asked this same question I think .
Genesis 9 is conditions added to the restated mandate of dominion in Genesis 8.
Do not eat the blood.
Require blood for blood shed.
Be fruitful and multiply..subdue the Earth.
All of these are conditions that establish how Noah, as an (not THE) antitype of Adam, is to establish dominion over Creation.
Hi Brandon, thank you for all your work on these videos.
May I ask what are your thoughts on progressive covenantalism and its differences with the 1689? It is what makes most sense to me, but I would love your perspective.
That's a big question. I hope to do a series on it at some point. For now: There is a good amount of overlap. Both deal with the various covenants on their own terms, rather than combining them all into the same covenant. There is a little bit of difficulty insofar as not all who are being given the PC label agree on certain points. So we would agree with some (DeRouchie) much more than others (Caneday). Caneday's view of the conditionality of the covenants, including the Creation Covenant, is in disagreement with 1689 Fed, and it is a big point of difference. However, it is currently unclear how representative his rejection of the law/gospel distinction rooted in the CoW/CoG distinction is of PC as a whole. I do think his view has crept into the foundations of PC and presents problems (for example, their interpretation of Romans 2:13-15 - that regenerate Christians are the doers of the law who will be justified).
Another point of difference is over how OT saints were saved. PC denies they were indwelt by the Spirit. Thus far they have been unwilling to explicitly affirm that they were saved by the NC, though there are some brief recent statements that seem to trend in that direction. I would like to see more explicit discussion.
@@brandonadams07 really appreciate it; I think I follow, and this gives me some material to look into. (Full disclosure, I studied at SBTS with Drs. Gentry, Wellum, and Schreiner, and love them all.)
I hope you are able to eventually do a video series! It’s such a helpful medium. Blessings on all your endeavors.
Key question: "*How* was Abraham saved in the death and resurrection of Christ?" (*emphasis added*)
23:20 "The New Testament makes clear circumcision is ended. It's come to nothing." Chapter and verse, please?
1 Cor 7:18-19 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
ruclips.net/video/v154imjdPzs/видео.html
@brandonadams07 "...he is not to become uncircumcised." If circumcision had "ended" and "come to nothing." Why would Paul say this? Paul himself had Timothy circumcised. When did circumcision end? Was Paul being hypocritical?
@@ArchDLuxe He is not to "become uncircumcised" because it doesn't matter if he is circumcised or not (thus no need to "undo" the circumcision - whatever that would look like).
The NT was written during a transition period where the Old Covenant was "becoming obsolete and growing old [was] ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). During that transition period, there was to be grace towards other Christians as they worked out the end of Mosaic law with regards to dietary law, festivals, etc (Rom 14).
During the transition period, Paul chose, as a matter of evangelistic wisdom, to "become all things to all people" by having Timothy circumcised - something that before God was indifferent. And that is the key point, circumcision ceased to have any bearing on one's standing before God. The Gen 17:14 threat of being killed/cursed/cut off for not being circumcised ended, because circumcision and the Covenant of Circumcision ended.
@brandonadams07 by your reasoning, doesn't this passage also prove that uncircumcision "has ended. It has come to nothing"?
@@ArchDLuxe No. You're being strange.
It seems to me that Brandon’s explanation of how we as believers are to treat our children is *essentially* the same for the “first group” of Presbyterians he described (presumptive election) and most Reformed Baptists. Both groups treat their children “as if” (presumptively) they are elect and will be genuine believers in Christ at some point in their lives (e.g., discipling them with proper Christian doctrine and participation within the church body) unless or until they demonstrate flagrant unbelief and unrepentance for their known sins. The only sticking point is whether they ought to receive the outward sign of the covenant today (i.e., baptism) as infants, as Abraham’s physical seed received the outward sign of the covenant in the past (i.e., circumcision) as infants. I’m still uncommitted on that question, as I see fairly good points being made on both sides.
I'd be interested in reading how John Owen defended the baptizing of infants, since his take on the nature of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant being wholly unconditional (repentance and faith being free gifts of God’s grace) is correct. If anyone knows of a source where he covers that topic, please let me know. Thanks!
Thanks for the comment, but no, that is not a correct understanding of our position. We do not presume are children are elect. (A very small minority of baptists like Joel Webbon hold that view, but that is contrary to our covenant theology)
For Owen, see here contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/
@@brandonadams07 Okay, I apologize then for misunderstanding your position. However, for my part, I don’t see how on a practical level any Christian parent cannot treat their children “as if” they are elect, especially when Jesus Himself said of the “infants” (βρέφη; Luke 18:15) of believers, “for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Luke 18:16). We, of course, don’t know for sure whether any of our children are elect or not (Rom. 9:6-13), even if they have reached the age of understanding the gospel and make a credible profession of faith. But it would seem strange indeed to presume the only alternative, that they are reprobate “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). For instance, if you and your wife had a child tragically die shortly after birth, would you not presume your child was one of God’s elect children to whom He graciously applied the merits of Christ’s redemption? I certainly would.
Anyway, thank you for the info regarding Owen’s take on infant baptism. I agree with your assessment that he either wasn’t the author of that publication, or else it was written prior to his more mature position on the covenant of grace being developed.
@@rgmann Luke 18:15 is not commenting on children in the kingdom, but upon what is required for anyone to be in the kingdom (it's a simile).
We would also interpret Rom 9:6-13 differently contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/
You've also presented a false dichotomy: we either assume our children are elect or we assume they are reprobate. Instead, we should recognize that all men are born in Adam and are in need of the new birth. We should not assume they are regenerate at birth but should wait for a profession of faith. The question of what happens to the infant of a believer that dies in infancy is 1) not something Scripture tells us, 2) not normative for how to understand children of believers that do not die in infancy.
Children are of Adam, born fallen. But not guilty until they sign which requires knowledge of the Law. So teach them to pray so that when convicted of sin they might turn to Christ. Keep Instructing them their whole lives even if they have been converted.@@brandonadams07
😀 P R O M O S M