Pastor Joel Weber and Jared Longshore dissect the theological friction between Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian traditions regarding postmillennial eschatology, theonomy, and covenant structures. They clarify that while Presbyterians accommodate credobaptists more easily, some Baptists view this as compromising purity, addressing controversial claims linking American Baptist individualism to transgenderism. The dialogue distinguishes theonomic enforcement of all Ten Commandments by civil magistrates against maintaining distinct church-state lanes, arguing that secularism's collapse into paganism necessitates divine revelation over human reason. Ultimately, they call for reformation against public idolatry, asserting that just nations require a public acknowledgement of the triune God to counter rising secular humanism. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
American Baptist Origins00:14:45
Hey guys, real quick before we get started, I have a small request.
If you've been blessed by our content and you like this show, would you take just a brief moment and leave us a five star review?
This is quite possibly the most effective thing that you can do to ensure that this content gets out to as many people as possible.
Thanks.
All right, welcome back to another episode of Theology Applied.
I'm your host, Pastor Joel Weber with Right Response Ministries.
In this episode, I was able to sit down and have a conversation with my friend Jared Longshore.
Jared Longshore has Been a part of Founders Ministries with Tom Askell in the past.
He has now made the switch officially.
He is Presbyterian, Westminster affirming.
He's in Moscow, Idaho, with Doug Wilson in Christ Church.
He's one of the pastors there.
And what we talk about in this episode is just all of the unity that we have and unfortunately some of the division that we continue to have as Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian brothers and sisters in the Lord.
So we talk about.
How we see an uprise on both sides of the aisle, Presbyterian or Baptist, in terms of eschatology, hopeful eschatology, post millennial eschatology, and the need for God's standard to be enforced by the civil magistrate in our civil affairs as a society.
So, talking about theonomy and different expressions of theonomy, but then also talking about the ways that we differ in our views of the covenants.
And of course, we also talk about that recent episode of Cross Politic where they said Baptists caused.
Transgenderism.
Baptist calls transgenderism.
So we get Jared's take on that and we laugh a little bit because we're friends and we're able to get over these kinds of things.
So tune in.
I think you'll enjoy.
Big news, really big news.
Our next Right Response Conference is in the works.
We've got a number of things already lined up and organized.
This is what we've got so far.
The whole conference, three days long on post millennialism and theonomy.
And the speakers, Dr. James White, Dr. Joseph Boot, Gary DeMar, and of course, yours truly, Pastor Joel Webbin.
We've got a great lineup.
We've got great topics.
If you want to find out dates and location and registration and anything else, go and visit our website, rightresponseconference.com.
Rightresponseconference.com.
Applying God's Word to every aspect of life.
This is Theology Applied.
I mean, obviously, we could talk about the trans thing.
That's, I mean, that's a super hot topic right now.
I feel like it's dying down a little bit, but did you guys have anybody?
It seemed like there were some Baptists who are like, hey, you know, don't appreciate it, but I get what they meant.
It's not a big deal.
Get over it.
But it seems like some guys are like, I'm done with cross-politic.
Did you guys get a lot of this?
If you think I'm trans, I'm out of here.
Yeah.
What, like, has there been fallout?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I mean, everybody's watching Twitter.
So you have Twitter people doing Twitter things.
But I don't think that there's any real issue here.
So I wrote one piece, I wrote my follow up, and I'm like, you guys will be all right.
Anybody that really knows cross politics, that has either watched it or ever been to a conference, knows.
Like, I can get on here and joke about you being trans because you know how ridiculous that is.
Statement is.
Nobody thinks that Baptists are trans.
Nobody thinks that Baptists are directly causing the trans chaos that we're seeing.
But there is an individual expression thing that's in American Baptist theology that maps right on to what Finney was doing.
And then you find people that got a little theology and a little church history, and they're going to argue for nuances, and they're going to argue that the 1689 confession came over to Philadelphia and went down to Charleston, and that there'd been particular Baptist reform, Baptist influence in America for a long time.
And all that's fine.
But at the end of the day, I mean, you've got Roger Olson.
Who is an American Baptist theologian saying of pathos that the majority of American Christians and American Baptists are semi Pelagian?
So you still have to deal with the fact that the Reformed Baptist, Calvinistic Baptist world, though it's big, very big in kind of social media world, it's still not the dominant American Baptist experience.
And when you say American Baptist and you're thinking rightly, you're including all like the Calvary chapels and all the non denoms that.
You're using all of the people that don't use the term.
Yeah, but they are Baptist.
So wedded to American evangelicalism.
So I think most of the real Reformed Baptist guys know that.
I was going to tweet at some point and say nobody beats up on American Baptists like Reformed Baptists.
I think that some of the guys, some of the 1689 leaning, Calvinistic leaning Baptist guys that are upset, I want to be like, hold up now.
Hold up now.
If this was any kind of Reformed Baptist that was like smoking some ridiculous Stephen verdict, ridiculous any, y'all would have been like, yeah, get them.
Don't let those Presbyterians say nothing.
And especially probably with me on the show, I get that that's a bit of a lightning rod at the moment.
Yeah.
Yeah, definitely.
And not because I'm some kind of crazy bad boy.
It's just because.
Yeah, well, because you were Baptist.
It's just, yeah, it's gonna.
You were Baptist not too long ago.
And that's one thing that I wanted to ask you.
I feel like time is passing.
You know, we've had some conversations since you made the switch, and you had to be really careful about what you said and when you said it.
But I feel like as more time goes by, and I feel like there's nothing that I could ask you that would, your answer would be any more offensive than calling Baptist trans.
You know what I mean?
So I feel like you already stepped as far into it as you possibly can.
So at this point, I feel like everything's free game.
You could be trans or you could just be a faithful Christian, which means you have to baptize your babies and be perfect.
Those are the only two choices.
That's it.
Those are two options.
You're a pedo Baptist or you are transgender.
Did I stutter?
That's what Jason Farley was like.
It's like, wait, but did you say, yes, I did?
Yeah, that, I mean, part of it's just the rowdy, people aren't used to the rowdy fight, laugh, feast kind of Christian culture.
So they're not like, it's like when a bunch of guys are in a room.
And they're sparring and wrestling.
Every now and then, somebody gets hit with an elbow and gets a black eye.
And then, what you do when you're men and Christian men is you say, Oh, man, you got me good, but that was a cheap shot.
Next time, please don't do that.
And then you move on.
You know what I mean?
It's just like that.
When I'm flying solo with preaching, of course, but then also podcasting, when you're sitting by yourself looking at a camera with notes in front of you and your thoughts organized, there's just not as many casualties.
But I think that's part of it is not just a doctrinal issue, but it's a philosophical issue in terms of just podcasting with a group of friends that fight and laugh and feast together.
Like it's just, you know what I mean?
Just certain things are going to, it's just different.
There are pros.
I think there are some strong pros to that style.
And I think there are cons.
And one of the cons is that every now and then somebody might say that Baptists cause transgenderism.
Every now and then.
What do you think?
I just think if people don't want to watch Cross Politic, don't watch Cross Politic.
I think all the guys like watching Cross Politic.
They have never made the claim that you're sitting down and opening up Herman Bobbink.
They've never made the claim that you're for my Reform Babs Brothers.
They've never made the claim that you're opening up Nehemiah Cox.
Those kind of great and glorious articulations are there.
But sure, I mean, I have no issue with guys getting on a podcast and.
You know, doing a dialogue kind of form that's not as crisp and clean as sometimes American evangelicals like it.
Right.
So I think that was, you know, yeah, there's a lot going on with what happened in that kind of deal.
You also have the covenant thing.
I find the, we've been, you know, I've been to Fight Laugh Feast before together and kind of had this conversation many times.
You, you, the camaraderie is very, very thick and strong there.
And people know it, like people feel it.
And that's going on here in Moscow, too.
There's an interesting unity among the Christians here.
And that's the covenantal kind of thing.
Like you start to say, well, this is my brother.
And it's pretty tangible that this is my brother.
And sometimes I think that's lost in translation when you're between people on the internet.
They don't, not only the dialogue that's going on, but they don't realize, like, You know how thick and strong the, not only the fellowship, yes, but like this is very strong.
I think this is what the guys try to communicate after in their follow up.
They're like, you understand, like, you can come to the Lord's table with us.
We all come to the Lord's table together, which is a kind of a different idea than what happens across that Westminster, Second London divine.
Right.
There's a thing there related to.
It's a one way stream and not a two way street.
Like the Presbyterian, just practically by nature of their position and their view of the covenant, can more practically and easily accommodate a Baptist believer at the Lord's table, in baptism, right?
If you have a credo Baptist family that's a member of Christ Church and say, we don't want to baptize our kid, we want to wait for a credible profession of faith, the Presbyterian can say, disagree, but okay.
You know what I mean?
It doesn't cause them to, you know, their conscience to be bound, the pastors to where they feel like they have to deny membership or anything like that.
It's just, and I, I, And I don't think, personally, I don't think it's because Presbyterians are more charitable in terms of their character.
I think it's just the nature of that, their theological position.
It is the more practically accommodating position because it's not a two way street between the 1689 and the Westminster.
It is a one way stream, and I am 1689, but it's a one way stream.
And the Presbyterians are upstream, so to speak, to where it's like, okay, we hold this position and we can accommodate that.
But it doesn't, which is why you have someone like Mark Dever that won't serve Ligan Duncan the Lord's Supper in his service.
You know, because of his Baptist, you know what I mean?
Like, that's a commonly known position.
Yeah, yeah, that is the deal.
Both people are being consistent in their outflows of the theological structures, you know?
So, man, this is like when it, this was a weird, it was a personal anecdote, but, you know, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, and I said in my follow up, you know, look, guys, not only was I Baptist like 10 minutes ago, but I was, I used to be an American, like the American Baptist variety, not the Second London.
Covenantal variety.
I still get a hankering to do an altar call sometime.
I think everyone loves this American Baptist culture.
Everybody's got an American Baptist grandmother.
And there's so many beautiful things about it, gospel straight up the middle things about it.
And when the shift happened and I, you know, covenant.
The covenantal catastrophe of things shifting around.
It was weird because it was more, it was this weird opening up of like, I love my Baptist brothers just as much as I did when I was a Baptist, if not more, and appreciate their consistency and appreciate the fight.
So that was a weird shift when it happens.
And some of it is.
Just looking at Baptist identity, even as they're sons of the separatist Puritans.
That's what the real Reformed Baptists are.
And you know, you have this fight in the Baptist world between the Anabaptists of the Reformation and then the sons of the Puritans in England that were the particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists.
But that trajectory was Roman Catholic Church, Church of England, pollutions.
You had the Puritans.
You had Puritans that wanted to stay in the Church of England and purify it.
You had Puritans that wanted to separate from the Church of England.
And purify it.
And then of those separatist Puritans, you have the Reformed Baptists, who are the separatists of the separatist Puritans.
That's their position.
And they do this in order to keep a pure church, regenerate church membership.
And I think I read somewhere, this is early 1600s, when you have the first Reformed Baptist church, you might say, particular Baptist church there in England.
But I think I read somewhere that Jeremiah Burroughs, the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs, Baptist, blessed.
Those who went to do it.
I can't remember where, but I remember just coming across it at some point.
And I thought, well, that's an awesome moment of unity.
And there's still a ton of unity, but the impulse of the Reformed Baptist really is like, hey, we can't baptize these infants because we're bringing them into the church.
And if we bring unregenerate people into the church, we're going to pollute the church.
And the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth.
Corruption and Compromise00:04:26
And so this is a big deal.
And so to be in that camp and think that way.
I understand what Reformed Baptist brothers that know what they're thinking about, how they would think about what happened when I came, like, oh, you just stepped from the separatist Puritan position to more of a Puritan within the church tradition.
And that feels like a corruption of the church, which is eventually going to erode the gospel being preached on earth.
But it's weird because when you make that shift, you go from, like you said, like saying on principle and love, we won't have certain of these pedo Baptist people at the table because we don't think they're baptized, right?
And then you shift to this weird, it's like, oh boy, now, as a minister of the gospel here at Christ Church in Moscow, we have.
Pado Baptists and Credo Baptists, there and they come, and it's a weird shift where it's not as much of a thing once you make that shift over.
So, trying to find ways to communicate that is important.
Like, how do we, you know, how do you talk knowing how your brothers are thinking that are still in the Reformed Baptist world?
All of that.
But it's a little bit of the background of the shift.
Yeah.
And yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And I think there's even more to it than that.
I think, you know, so at some level, yeah, some particular Baptists are thinking we want to keep the church pure with a regenerate church membership and we don't want to compromise.
But it's in your case, I think, you know, Reformed Baptists who may be watching this would say, yeah, okay, Jared, but it's not just that you went from Reformed Baptist to Presbyterian, but you went from Reformed Baptist to a particular Presbyterian church within a particular Presbyterian denomination, CREC and Doug Wilson.
And I think they would say that, like, and I love Doug Wilson, so I'm not one of these guys who would say this.
But I know there are plenty of Reformed Baptists that say we've got our problems with the OPC.
And we have 10 more problems with Doug Wilson.
Like, I'm thinking of the James White, not the Pado Communionism, but when they talked about baptism in terms of is a Roman Catholic baptism valid, right?
And Doug was arguing in the affirmative.
Because they're baptized into the triune name, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
James White taking the position, yeah, but Rome has denied the gospel on paper in the Council of Trent, never recanted it.
They anathematized the gospel.
And so if you, you know, and so it's like, and part of that has to do with who do you think the baptizer is?
Who is baptizing?
You know, is the church baptizing or is this God's claim?
Is God baptizing?
Is the church representing?
Like all those things come into play.
But my point is, with Doug Wilson, particularly, and the Moscow crew, that you're now.
Part of, not just a part of, but a pastor in.
I think some guys would say, man, that thing, you know, some Reformed Baptists would point to Doug as a case study to prove their concern that, like, if you go Presbyterian, it's not just that you're more ecumenical in a charitable fashion, but you actually do open the door for corruption and compromising the purity of the gospel.
And yeah, Doug Wilson or Federal Vision or this and that, you know, it seems like they're getting a little bit Catholic every now and then.
What would you say to that?
Well, I would tell those guys that I disagree with them.
I think they're wrong.
But they're right to point out that there's a difference between the ministry out here in Moscow and what you're getting kind of by and large in American Presbyterianism.
So I've talked to one Scottish Presbyterian, which is always dangerous because the accent immediately convinces you that they're right.
Doesn't matter what they say, you know, just like you're just dead, you're just in trouble.
Covenant Grace Nuance00:08:27
Um, it was very interesting.
And this older brother, great Philo's and all that kind of stuff, actually said, he said, Oh, Jared, the American Presbyterians have lost their heritage.
And I was like, Oh, boy.
So it was interesting for him across the pond to say, You had a whole bunch of stuff with the FV, and everybody wants to talk about the FV stuff.
Sure, he had a whole bunch of stuff.
But it was interesting that he said, you know, there were certain people in that FV movement, he said, that were really pursuing something good and right.
So I thought that was fascinating.
It's still, you know, it's still the third rail right now, or at least was.
I don't know where really the conversation lies at the moment, but it was very clear to me.
What do you mean the third rail?
Oh, third rail means like a lightning rod.
It's like you touch that.
You're right, right, right.
It's the dirty word you can throw out there.
Right.
You know, it would be like saying, Hey, all Baptists are trans.
All you guys, if you go first, you're going to go FD, that kind of thing.
Right.
But that was very interesting to me to go, okay, there was a, on the covenantal level, there was some, there were, there are some clear differences between kind of a robust historic position and the way a lot of people are thinking about it now.
It was interesting, like on this would be an interesting, Point, I was reading.
Um, uh, it's John Ball.
John, I found John Ball and John Owen both talk this way.
Um, and you know, I want to double check, but almost positive say I'm 90% that they talk this way about Cain being in the covenant of grace.
Hmm, and you're like, whoa, okay, right?
So, you come from a Reformed Baptist position, especially the 1689 Federalist position, it's going to talk about the covenant of grace revealed and inaugurated.
Right, not administered, not administered in the old and not administered in Abraham, but then you find these older Presbyterians.
And I side note, you find a lot of nuance in the covenantal conversation if you go back and look at the kind of original covenant theologians, and you find more nuance back than you do now.
And if you start to talk with nuance now, and like in our context, you can get in big trouble in a hurry, like it's a very tense kind of conversation.
People are quick to say, you know.
That you're going to be a heretic or you're moving toward heresy.
And I find when I read the older stuff, no, the guys are articulating it different ways.
Nevertheless, that idea that Cain himself was in the covenant of grace, signaling that not only was the covenant of grace revealed back there in Genesis 3 15, not only was it revealed to Adam, but it was actually made with Adam, such that you had the visible church.
I think I read Owen recently saying, like, before Cain's rebellion, Was the time when the church was truly Catholic or truly visible, and saying that every, like all of humanity was in it.
You're saying John Owen said that?
Yeah.
And that's a pretty fascinating idea.
Just finding a way to talk.
I think you're like, whoa.
So the whole, all humanity was in the church, you know, before Cain.
And then Cain's exile is a further exile.
So it's a proto excommunication kind of thing.
That's what's going on with him.
Like the line of, like Genesis chapter 10, the line of Seth and the line of Cain.
City of man going off and this separate shoot.
Yeah, yeah, you got an interesting connection there.
I'm just thinking about his further exile when he wanders the earth, would be an example of him being exiled from the covenant community.
So, at any rate, that's some of the interesting thinking that's going on.
Okay, there's historic ways of thinking about this that's not just saying that everything started with Abraham.
And so, you're going to find some differences going on there that are going to inform the way that people are thinking about culture, the way that people are thinking about.
Various things.
Right.
I remember having a conversation with Adi Robles about federal vision stuff and kind of going back a little bit, five minutes in our conversation.
Like, I think, you know, both of us were able to recognize he wouldn't adhere to federal vision.
As far as I can tell, I can't, you know, even if I wanted to, which I don't, but consistently as a Baptist.
But we both were able to recognize, I think that like what you said is true, the good intentions.
It seems like, and it kind of goes back to the whole Baptists are trans, but what we meant was American Baptists and individualism and those kinds of things.
It seems like, you know, what a lot of these guys were trying to do.
For one, there's a spectrum within the federal vision guys.
You know, Peter Lighthart and Doug wouldn't see eye to eye on exactly on some of those things.
But it seems like it was trying to set up a hedge of protection against a bunch of people who had no assurance of salvation.
That America had become, American Christianity had become so in your own internal identity and how much sincerity did I have and the size of our faith rather than the object of our faith.
Personal decision, decisionism, revivalism, these kinds of things, and atomistic, you know, and such a just no view of covenant that I was kind of like trying to set up some kind of metric for helping people to not spend their entire Christian life thinking that they were going to hell.
Like there's a standard, there's a metric for determining do I belong to Christ or do I not, you know?
And so I think a lot of it was, you know, and so I find myself.
Not using the same standards, but I find myself often as a Baptist, you know, 1689 pastor.
I mean, the bulk I feel like of pastoral counsel is in the realm of assurance of salvation.
Like, at some way, shape, or form, that's what it just about always comes to is, you know, wanting to assure a person rightly that they actually have union with Christ and that they're doubting that and assuring them up in the gospel to then motivate them in repentance and in obedience.
And so, So, to be able to say, like, here are some objective outward, not just inward subjective feelings, but outward signs and seals that a person actually belongs to Christ, I think that was a lot of the incentive that I've been able to do in the little brief study and that I've done with looking back on some of the federal vision stuff.
I think it's likened to that debate with, you know, Doug Wilson and James White, you know, over Roman Catholic baptism.
It's just trying to say, like, you know, Does the legitimacy, the validity of a baptism rest on that church's faithfulness to the gospel and its preaching of the gospel?
I mean, because there are, you know, and ironically, Catholics do this, but like there have been huge moments in church history where an entire sector of individuals all of a sudden lose every ounce of assurance because this priest baptized this.
Person and this person and this person, and then ordained this other priest, and he baptized this person.
But it turns out that this priest, when he was first ordained, you work up the chain.
And when this guy was first ordained, they didn't say the words right in his ordination.
And so his ordination is not valid, which means everyone that he ordained has a valid ordination, and everyone they baptized, therefore, does not have a.
And so trying to, like, how much of the legitimacy of our baptism and more importantly, our faith have to do with sincerity and some of these inward things versus these outward objective signs and seals?
Lack of Assurance00:03:35
And I feel like that's what they were trying to accomplish.
There's a lot of a lack of assurance going on in the evangelical church today.
You have some of that.
You have presumption, too.
So you have both of the things operating.
But the lack of assurance thing is a problem.
And it's interestingly connected to the individualism conversation because what is a person doing that's lacking assurance, say, without warrant?
It's not like this person is involved in grievous sin.
But say this person's just thinking, how can I know that I know that I know?
I remember hearing the likes of John Piper back in the day say, you know, don't look in.
Like, you can't, don't, there's no center to that onion.
Remember, you had this great line.
And that's true.
I think it's Rutherford for every one look to self, take 10 looks to Christ.
So you have some of that going on.
But with the lack of assurance, it's, well, it's just kind of me.
It's just, I need to look entirely to myself.
It's a selfie kind of thing.
Well, no, you need to look to God, and then you need to love the brothers.
Right.
It is by your fruit, you will know them.
So, but that's a corporate thing.
Like, who are my brothers?
Well, love them, care for them.
And there's going to be evidence in that.
And this is where the covenantal idea comes in again, where we know, all right, I know who my brothers are, and I'm going to love them, I'm going to serve them.
And as I do, that's going to bear fruit.
I mentioned this in my follow up to the cross-politic episode.
That the, I find this happening with all of the social justice stuff.
So you have these intersectional, you not only have intersectional victim identities, they're intersectional corporate victim identities, right?
So it's not just something that a person's claiming, like I am white or I'm black.
White's not one of the victim categories, of course.
I'm black, I'm whatever, lady, female, gay, all of that.
But when you buy into one of them, trans.
You're Baptist trans.
That's a victim category now.
The Presbyterians are the oppressors.
That's right.
Absolutely.
I remember suffering their oppression.
I remember, I still have that memory.
When somebody claims one of these, my point is they're actually buying into the corporate.
Deal.
And I think that this is because people are.
I wrote something like they're lonely, isolationist, individual expressionists, and they want a community.
They want like a visible community, a corporate identity.
And the beauty is, we have all of that.
Covenant Christians, Christians that are thinking covenantally have that.
You say, well, there's your brother.
There he is.
He's baptized in the triune name and he's at the Lord's table with you.
He's in your church.
Like, there he is.
And you have this.
You have this clear line drawn, and you are a part of these people now.
And that will help with the person.
Like they don't just have to, it's not just a matter of personal soul searching within one's own life.
Look at your fruit, you know, test yourself to see if you're in the faith.
Foundational Covenant Issues00:12:00
Amen.
Look at the work you're doing, but then look around at the brothers and sisters that you're with.
These are your covenant people.
Are you with the covenant people?
Yeah, you're with the covenant people.
And that corporate identity thing would leave no room for these ridiculous victim identity statuses.
We put all of the ones that are real in their appropriate place, like your ethnicity.
Is a real kind of thing.
The ones that don't even exist, like being trans, is not even a thing.
And it would eradicate those as well as we recover the covenantal idea.
Yeah.
Agreed.
Let's talk for a little bit about.
So, you know, this is my suspicion, and I'm sure I'm wrong at some level, but it just doesn't seem like you switched over solely because you wanted to baptize babies.
I think if I could.
If I had to guess, I think you would say, okay, but the covenantal issue is foundational.
It may not be the tip of the spear, but it is the bedrock.
It's the foundational thing that gave me the framework theologically for all these other things.
But what I'm saying is, it doesn't just seem like that's the difference between where you have been in the past in your ministry and where you are now.
It seems like it's not just baptism, it's theonomy.
It's post millennialism.
So it's eschatology.
It's all these different things.
For instance, like just looking at some of the problems in the church, I think you would, you know, I think you recently wrote a blog where you said, yeah, I don't think that the chief and only problem in the church is pragmatism.
I think it's a lot deeper that, like, your rhetoric has changed and it hasn't just changed on to baptize or to not baptize babies.
It's, you know, your view, it seems like you've always been a guy who believes in, you know, in.
The use of the law of God, not just as a mirror to reveal our need for Christ, but as a lamp unto our feet.
But even that has changed in terms of, okay, which laws and the civil magistrates' obligation to, what obligation do they have?
Is there this John Locke natural law or is it divine law?
So all those kinds of things have changed.
And I feel like there's a lot of Baptists, like myself, who are not persuaded of pedo baptism, we're not persuaded of the Westminster view of the covenants, but we are very much persuaded.
That when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Lord raises up a standard against him, like that we need God's law.
We need a better standard.
And there's a lot of guys, too, who are flooding in with post millennialism.
I talk to Baptists all the time.
So, which one says that we get to fight and says that we have a chance at winning the fight?
Yeah, I believe that one.
Right.
And they haven't sorted out their view of the covenants yet.
They haven't sorted out their view of baptism, but they're just like, yeah, I love some of these 1689 Baptist guys, but a lot of them are not with it.
And so it's like we've got all these, it's weird, because it's on the Presbyterian side too.
And I know you would say, well, the Presbyterians being inconsistent with their covenant theology, but we've got plenty of radical, we've got Westminster Escondido.
That's not Baptist, that's Presbyterian.
We have pietist Presbyterians.
On the Baptist side, we've got some rough and tumble fighting post millennial Baptists.
And maybe we're being inconsistent, but we've got some Baptists who are willing to fight, and we've got some Presbyterians who are absolutely not willing to fight.
But then on the Baptist side, we also have like this growing, well, like this growing pietistic Reformed Baptist expression of, and it seems like if you could only ask one question and try to determine, is this Baptist a theonomic post millennial Baptist or are they more of a pietistic Baptist?
Like you can ask them what they think about Thomas Aquinas and get down.
Is the kingdom of God amazing?
Yes.
So wonderful.
I don't know.
It's all different.
Yeah.
In a different room.
Right.
You were plowing a very interesting path there, though, because you are right that covenant is the thing.
All right.
So, the difference between Baptist and Pado is covenant.
It really is like that's the thing.
And attendant to covenant are some of these other things.
Like, everyone in American evangelicalism now is working through issues of standard.
So, the Aquinas thing is interestingly a part of that conversation.
Yeah, it absolutely.
Because it comes down to sola scriptura.
Aquinas is saying, like, no, we need this extra thing.
We need Plato's metaphysics and these kinds of things.
And then you bring those things in, and it's like, it's this, and I'm not smart enough to get all of it, but you work down the line, and that's where you get kind of like your John Lockean natural law that's basically like the foolproof scotch of divine law, the Ten Commandments, moral law.
But watered down, and you get this.
Whereas I would see natural law and moral law as synonymous, all 10 commandments written on the heart of man.
But it's the Aquinas, it's not even my concern, it isn't doctrine of God.
And that sounds horrible.
I care about theology proper and doctrine of God.
But I don't, because I would agree with the doctrine of simplicity, and I would agree with the Thomist on some of these things in terms of ad intra, extra, in terms of how God knows himself.
And I think we don't know what was in the mind of God 15 minutes before.
Before he created the world.
So you can go too far with it.
But I would call myself loosely a classical theism, is what I would prescribe to my doctrine of God.
But these same guys, my concern is these same guys doing this with the doctrine of God also happen to be some of the same guys who, when I announced that I'm going to be doing a conference on postmillennialism and theonomy with James White and Dr. Boot and Gary DeMar, these guys were real upset with me about that.
The guys who were Thomas.
I don't want to chase the theonomy and the Aquinas train too hard, but I will touch on that.
But the point I was making is you're right.
You kind of pointed out that people are really working through the eschatology thing, the law thing, the church and the world thing, Christendom kind of thing.
And so you have, there's a lot of guys that are Baptists that are working through all that.
I would want to underscore that you have this historically.
You have Reedy and Murray's The Puritan Hope.
And, you know, praise God, there's a way, you know, you can be Baptist and.
Post millennial and not be convinced of pedo baptism and not be convinced of pedo covenant theology.
That's happened and happens now.
And so that's a thing people should.
I think there's great, there's a lot of unity that's happening around people.
This is where I want to go.
And I signaled this in my follow up to Cross Politic.
There are Baptists and pedo baptists that are thinking covenantally, which is good, different covenantally, but they're both thinking covenantally.
There are Baptists, pedo baptists that are thinking either post millennially or some kind of optimistic amillennialism.
And I think that's really good as well.
There are Baptists and Pado Baptists that are saying we're not talking about taking the Old Testament judicial law and dropping it in, whole Turkey, in a modern state.
It ended, that Old Testament judicial law was abrogated and ended with its own Israelite Old Covenant administration.
I've said that a bunch of times.
I think people know that, at least where I stand on that, I think on that.
Is actually to form and to shape how we do law now.
We're to pay attention to that.
And we would pay attention to that Old Testament judicial law and see the wisdom of God in it and then apply it.
I think there's a lot of, in that mix of the theonomic conversation, I'd say to my buddy, Timon Klein here, is doing all kinds of things.
I mean, just wrote a piece against public atheism.
Klein has written publicly against theonomy and then his.
Advocated very strongly for saying, like, essentially, the Christian faith, Christianity revealed, the faith once for all delivered to the saints must inform any civilization that's going to be just, right, good, true, and beautiful.
Like, this is plain and simple.
So, you have these, everyone's discovering these kinds of things right now.
And you referred to my, yes, those kinds of things were going on.
You know, and I didn't see the connections.
That I eventually saw.
But that was, it's a very fascinating time to be in kind of reformed evangelical Christendom right now, given the cultural changes that are happening and the way people are starting to think about these things.
And I think there's a great amount of unity, and I think that that will continue to be maintained and fostered.
But I do find that you're going to have different approaches to dealing with the issue, especially take the social justice stuff.
I do think there are, There are good and godly men that have checked the social justice stuff.
They're not woke at all.
But they're checking it mainly on individual rights and liberties principles.
It's like mainly the way that people are thinking about it.
And there are other people that are checking it and saying, well, yes and amen to the fact that we are still individuals.
We're not denying that.
But there's also, we're checking it more on the grounds of this is.
There are corporate identities.
There is principles of restitution, that kind of thing.
But we're checking this on the fact that you're either going to have divine justice, true justice, or you're going to have man's justice, social justice, really justice.
They're cutting it along those lines.
And I think we need to, we really need to move into that latter part, which is related to a number of the doctrines that you just mentioned.
Yep, I agree.
Yeah, just for our listeners, when I say that I am theonomic, it's just like with any doctrine, there's a wide spectrum of.
And I think people were bothered by the theonomy word because they immediately equate a theonomist with somebody who is lockstep with Rushduni, which, by the way, I've been reading a lot of Rushduni lately and I think he's fantastic.
I don't know if I'm lockstep with him, but I think people would do well to read some Rushduni.
I think that he was brilliant.
But all that being said, when I say theonomy, I'm not saying that I like the way that you said, I'm not saying that we take the civil law, the judicial law given to Israel under the Old Covenant and drop it.
Right now into America in 2022.
But I do think it's beyond, because some guys, you know, the general equity, you know, like so, Doug Wilson, general equity, theonomy, I would adhere to that, you know.
So it's, but I think the question is not just what do we do with the judicial law?
That's been kind of classically, I'm discovering that's been the dividing line for are you a theonomist or not?
What do you do with the judicial law?
And so a lot of guys would say, we don't like theonomy.
Theonomic Dividing Lines00:08:15
And so we don't like Jared and Joel, what they're doing.
And then when we clarify, like you just did, they say, Okay, then we're okay with that.
And we're okay with that precisely because you're not theonomous.
So stop using the word.
And I would say, no, I think we still are in the theonomic realm in that orbit because it's not just what do you do with the judicial law, but it's also what do you do with the first table of the moral law?
What do you do with the first four?
Right?
Because everybody, I think, would say, yeah, the civil magistrate, in terms of love for neighbor, commandments five through 10.
You know, like this should be.
And even that, you still have to distinguish between crimes and sins, right?
Because we don't want the coveting police.
Doug has said that, and he's absolutely right.
But I guess what I'm leading up to is I would say I'm theonomic because I think all 10 of the commandments that the civil magistrate has a vested interest, and not just an interest, but a duty, with all 10, including the first table of the law idolatry, no other gods before me, blasphemy, taking the Lord's name in vain, the Sabbath, right?
That's what he gets at.
Should we have Sabbath laws?
Right, we've done that before.
It's not crazy, we've done it before, maybe taking it too far.
I'm in Texas, right?
I mean, still in Texas, uh, on Sunday, there's a ton of places that don't open till noon.
Why?
Because uh, Sunday mornings for church, you know what I mean?
Even in 2022 or liquor stores, you can't buy liquor on Sunday.
Go ahead, sorry, God bless Texas, God bless Texas, right?
So, Texas needs some help though.
Texas is getting mighty purple.
Um, so but but with that, California are moving there.
No, it's because Texas kids are growing up.
What say that again.
California for moving.
No, that's not me.
I think the Californians who are moving to Texas left California for a reason.
I think it's all these Texas kids who grew up in public schools, sadly.
So let me read this to you.
This is the Westminster Confession of Faith.
So I'm just going to assume that you believe it.
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 23, section 3.
Because this is what you won't get from.
So, like our G3 brothers, love the G3 guys.
Even founders.
Obviously, you love founders and those guys.
But this is the question that I don't know if some of these guys would answer it.
I'm not saying they're on the wrong side.
I don't even know what side they take.
You would know more than me in this matter.
But the general equity for the judicial law, yes and amen.
I'm right there.
But in terms of the Ten Commandments and the civil magistrate's obligation to enforce, especially the first four of the Ten Commandments, this is what the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, Section 3 says The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacrament.
Amen.
Or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, excommunication, binding, loosing.
Amen.
Yet he has authority and it is his duty.
He's responsible to take order, and I take that to mean in society, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire.
The civil magistrate, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.
And I would just, it goes on and talks about them being present at synods.
They wouldn't be able to cast a vote, but if there was a council or synod, members of the civil magistrate could be present with that, although it would be a church affair.
And in that regard, it's thoroughly Presbyterian.
You know, for me, 1689, it's like councils and synods, we've got nothing.
C.A. local church.
But my point is the civil magistrate has not only the right, but the responsibility according to, and I would agree with that portion of the Westminster wholeheartedly, that it's, and that's not talking about they have a duty to punish theft, a breach of the Eighth Commandment, or perjury, a breach of the Ninth Commandment, or murder, a breach of the Sixth Commandment.
But Blasphemies and heresies.
And I personally do think, so I'm a general equity guy.
I don't think it should be a one to one ratio with the judicial law.
I think we need to get to the general equity there and apply that with wisdom.
But I do think that in a perfect post millennial theonomic newly constructed Christendom, which I'm working for, you're working for, we're on different sides of the aisle, but we're on the same team.
I think that with that, if by God's grace we could accomplish that, or our grandkids could accomplish that.
I think it would look like you can't have a mosque.
So you don't go into someone's house privately that's a Muslim worshiping in their home, right?
I think that sin, crime, just the same way somebody's publicly intoxicated is different than if they get drunk in their home.
Drunk in the home is still sin.
They're going to be judged before God, but the civil magistrate does not have the duty to go in there.
But what about public blasphemy?
Which I don't know what a mosque is other than public blasphemy.
What do you think about that public idolatry?
Everybody's committing idolatry in their hearts.
The heart is an idol making factory.
John Calvin, like even the Christian, is committing the sin of idolatry on a regular basis.
But having other gods before me publicly and the civil magistrate having a vested interest and responsibility to suppress blasphemies and heresies.
I look at that and I would say, wherever I am on this theonomic issue, I think that's what makes me theonomic.
I think that's where some of my G3 brothers who I love.
Would say, yeah, okay, yeah, you're a theonomist and we disagree with you.
Because none of them would have any beef over the general equity, they don't have a problem with that.
The general equity thing is not the sticking point.
I think the sticking point is does a civil magistrate have a responsibility to enforce all 10 of the moral law?
Yeah, there's a lot going on with that in those dynamics and that what do you do with the first table and how's it actually going to play itself out.
And I do think that's going to be a big, we just have to do a lot of work on it because people, Aren't thinking in those categories.
And I do think there are qualifications that need to be made when we have the conversation.
I think it is exactly right and necessary that there be a public acknowledgement of the triune God for any just, good, true, beautiful nation.
And I love the fact that we already do that.
So I've said, hey, he's on our money.
He's carved into our buildings and all of those kinds of things.
Briefly on the Westminster, I would want to.
I would want to qualify their language.
So I'm not quite as hard in the paint as you are on that.
So I want, there's a, and this could be my own country, American ways, but I do want them to stay in their lane.
I don't want them.
Yes.
There are these fears.
And I think that some of that Westminster language there blurs that lane.
I want to say, hold on now, in a mere Christendom, we're going to have the home as the place of, with the ministry of education, welfare, health.
And we're going to have the church at the center of the town, there's the cathedral.
And their ministry is ministry of grace and peace, right?
This is what they're preaching good news.
And the state's job is to execute justice.
That's their job.
And will that, if they do it right and they do it under the Lordship of Christ, they do it under God, all of that, well, yes, then that's going to result in welfare for the church, inevitably.
It's going to happen.
But I want to make sure that they stay in that lane.
They are not the ministry of the church, they don't have the ministry of the church.
So, those are at least the clear lines.
But there's a lot being written on this point right now, and it's very much related to what's going on.
Secularism vs Divine Law00:03:13
Secularism is collapsing, it's evident.
And the rise of paganism and creature worship is what's informing our society.
I'm convinced of that.
That's why we're coming up with man made laws that we're claiming a justice when they're not.
And the idea that you would go back to, well, just human reason, like as if things are.
Self evident.
Well, you can't do that once God.
What do you do when God gives over a nation to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done?
All your appeals to human reason and rationalism, well, they don't do any good.
This is a matter of divine revelation.
And this is a matter of all persons in whatever station they find themselves bowing to that God, that creator, and saying, this is what we have to do.
I agree.
John Locke's idea of natural law and everything you're talking about, like human reason.
All that makes perfect sense if God didn't write a book, but He wrote a book and He gave us that book.
You know, like we have divine revelation.
I have like two minutes left.
I got one to it.
Go ahead.
You were going to say something.
No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I just have two minutes left for the podcast.
No, I hear you.
But it sounded like you were going to.
Oh, is that the thing you were going to say?
I have two minutes.
Yeah, that's all you're going to say.
Okay.
So I'll wrap it up.
Yep.
Let's wrap it up.
But so my point is just I agree with you 100%.
You know, it's secular humanism.
And that's some of the stuff that, like, you know, Gary North, And Rush Dooney and Bonson, that's what they were talking about.
You know, man is the measure of all things.
That's what they saw even in their day, you know, 30 years ago creeping up and they were sounding the alarm and Presbyterians, not Baptists, but Presbyterians silenced them.
The Reconstructionists.
I still feel their oppression.
I was oppressed by them my whole life.
Very, very recently.
Yeah, until very recently.
But, you know, but they got silenced.
And I mean, still, like, you talk to a lot of Presbyterian groups.
And it's like, if you even mention Christendom or theonomy or these kinds of things, it's just, yeah, it's just like it's poison.
And there's this powerful clip I saw with Greg Bonson from back in the day where he's like, we've got the LGBT agenda and you're worried about theonomy.
We've got this and that.
And he just lists all the, you know, combating against inerrancy and he lists all these very serious issues.
And he said, but Presbyterians are worried about theonomy.
And it's just this profound, you know, clip to just say, like, what is it?
In the heart of, and it's not just Presbyterians, but in the heart of people and sadly even Christians on both sides of the aisle, Presbyterians and Baptists, that like you even mentioned that the possibility of maybe God's law being the standard for the state.
And it's just like you're going to start rounding up Muslims and putting them in jail.
But we murder a million babies each year right now.
That's already like, I just feel like I'll land the plane with this.
I feel like Christendom on its worst day, and it's had problems, but on its worst day, Christendom.
Can't even get close to putting up the numbers of casualties that secularism has put up.
Christendom's Worst Day00:00:44
All day.
And look, it's not weather but which.
So, secularism, to the degree we talk about it, and people think of it as a neutral position, it's not.
All those babies are blood sacraments.
You're going to have it.
And so, we're living in a time of paganism and pagan sacrifice and all of that informing our public life.
And you're dead right.
It is time for a reformation.
Amen.
Thanks for coming on the show, Jared.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for having me, Joel.
Thanks so much for listening.
But, real quick, before you go, do us a small favor take a moment and leave us a five star review if you enjoyed the show.
This is undoubtedly the best way that you can help us get this biblically faithful content to as many people as possible.