The salient point of our discussion revolves around the relevance of the Old Testament for the Church today. We delve into various perspectives on how the laws and teachings from the Old Testament still hold significance in contemporary Christian faith and practice. Throughout our dialogue, we examine the contrasting views of dispensationalism and covenant theology, considering how each framework interprets the continuity or discontinuity of the Old Testament laws in light of the New Covenant established by Christ. Furthermore, we explore the implications of these differing theological positions on the understanding of scripture, particularly regarding the moral law and its application to believers today. Ultimately, our conversation aims to highlight the enduring value of the Old Testament while navigating the complexities of its interpretation and application in the modern Church.

Takeaways:

• The Old Testament remains relevant for the church today, influencing our understanding of God's laws and character.
• The discussion highlights differing views on the application of Old Testament laws in contemporary Christian practice.
• Descriptive passages in the Old Testament should not be interpreted prescriptively without careful consideration of context.
• Interpreting scripture involves understanding both the original audience and the implications for modern believers.

Jeff Ro.

Bison.

I'm not sure where the spaces should be in there, but he says, I. I think a lot of reformed just.

Robinson.

Robinson.

There we go.

Yeah.

Hey, it matters.

Geo Frabinson.

It all matters where you put the space.

Wow, you got your syllables wrong.

I'm sorry about that.

Jeff.

Jeff Robinson.

Sorry.

All right.

That's why you got to have underscores so idiots like me know where to put the space.

Let's go.

Geo Fribitzing.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving For Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

We are Live Apologetics Live here to answer your most challenging questions of God and the Bible.

I gotta admit that that is.

That intro makes me crack up more than.

Than any since we had the, you know, do babies exist?

Even though I know it makes me look foolish, but it's just so funny that.

Oh, so.

So, yeah.

So welcome to Apologetics Live.

What we do here is answer your questions you have about God in the Bible.

We can answer any question.

So just come up with a good question.

Go to apologetics live.com.

i should actually have started that little streamer that goes.

So let's see where that is.

No, it's not that one.

All right, I'll find where we have that banner.

But the.

Just go to apologet live.com and that's where you could join the discussion.

Go scroll down to our new duck icon.

We've been saying the duck icon because we used to use Streamyard and we don't use Streamyard anymore, so we have a different duck icon.

So we could still tell you to go to the duck icon, but Dan Craft made that for us, of course, using AI, but very nicely done.

I liked it.

And so that is where you go to join the discussion.

And so if you want to join us, just go apologex live.com.

this is a Ministry of Striving fraternity.

What we're doing here is answering your questions.

And we usually have a topic to start us off until you come in with questions and comments, things like that.

Let me bring in my co host, Mr. Tom Shepard.

How are you, sir?

Good, how are you, Andrew?

You love that opening, don't you?

It's fantastic.

I think Jeff Robison liked it too.

Oh, I can't believe that.

So some.

Some housekeeping things I should mention.

The topic today is going to be the question of asking, is the Old Testament still relevant for the church today?

It's a topic of as we have a. I put out some time ago a List of apologetic questions, people one answered.

And we're just working our way through those as we, as we have time for them.

But folks, you can always come in, ask any question.

I do have to start off with some show notes.

Joe88 1 just became a member on YouTube, so thank you very much for that.

That's a way you can Support us on YouTube.

Another way if you're on YouTube is you can give us super chats.

Haven't had any in a while and we didn't know if that was working or not.

Supposedly it is, but we won't know.

And so Brother John is saying he's here to learn.

So if, if John is here to learn, we should talk about why the charismatic gifts ceased.

John, that's what we should do.

John's a good brother, good evangelist up there in Canada, eh?

And so, I mean, that's, you know, why they, they say A in Canada, right?

I don't.

Well, just look at the word C A N A D A actually Saitam Brung Gate's the one that told me that joke.

So.

So yeah, the other.

I do want to give a shout out to whoever is sharing these podcasts in, in Ireland.

Somehow we became the 9th most listened to or 9th in the charts of podcast in Ireland for Christianity.

And I was like, wow, okay, what, what is going on there?

So, hey, welcome to all of you in Ireland and we, we appreciate you listening, appreciate you sharing these episodes.

And brother, Brother John is commenting in the chat.

He says a. Yeah, so, so let's talk about.

Oh, did you just hit studio mode?

No, I didn't.

You know, trying to.

I hear some background noise, so I was just trying to adjust it, so.

Forgive me, folks.

Oh, well, it's sounding good now.

It was not sounding good before we went live, so.

Okay.

But it is sounding good now.

And you know, Tom is playing with the new.

So we switched from Streamyard because, well, they used to be 200 a year and then last year they doubled it to 400 and this year they doubled it to 800.

And so we went to EV Mux, which is still like 400 and much more reasonably priced.

So yeah, I've been happy with it so far.

It takes a little getting used to, a little different.

I wasn't setting up shows correctly, I guess.

But now I think I figured out what I have to do and so Tom's starting to use it and he may switch over as well to, to this.

We'll see.

To save $400 a year.

I. I think it's Definitely.

Great idea.

So.

So Streamyard sends a thing after I switch to evmux and pay for it.

They send a thing saying, hey, you give you 30% off for a year.

I ignored it, 40% off, 50% off.

And they, so they, they stuck at the 50.

They sent me two or three weeks in a row to 50%.

I responded back and said, too late.

I already went to your competition.

You know, you.

You doubled your price.

I, I went with the people that didn't.

Yeah.

So, yeah, that's interesting.

You know, for some reason I see.

I actually think the video looks better on this, on the emux.

It.

I don't know.

It might well have to.

I actually should do that.

I should go back onto YouTube and see how it.

I do agree with you here.

It looks better.

Right.

But I think Streamyard didn't do as good in what we would see, but it was better for what others saw, I believe.

Okay, so.

So Brother John puts this comment since we were joking with him about the, the gifts.

He says the greatest gift continues to the day of salvation.

And there's not one Bible verse that says the gifts have stopped.

Well, there is a Bible verse, the greatest gift is salvation.

But the, the Bible verse John is First Corinthians, chapter 13, verses 9 and 10.

Yes, absolutely.

Says three gifts have ceased.

So there you go.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, Fatima, welcome from the Philippines.

Fatima is saying, Andrew, your guest.

That's Tom Shepard, guest.

Audio is very soft.

I can hardly hear him.

Okay, I'm going to make one adjustment and you guys tell me how's.

How's that?

Is that better?

Testing, testing.

I'm not hearing any difference, but okay.

But it will wait to speak into the microphone.

How about that?

Yeah, that helps.

Yeah.

Okay, let's do that.

This is a microphone.

It's good to talk into it.

All right, all right, enough banter.

Let's get.

Let's get to some serious stuff.

This is something that I'm going to say up front, right, Tom, when we go through this, the idea of some of the topics that we have here, your wife Debbie is saying much better.

So.

Okay, good.

It.

You know, just for the record, your wife says you're much better.

I, I'm.

I'm.

We have that better, right?

Yeah.

I mean, maybe she was referring that you're much better than me.

You're much better.

I mean, we could just fill in the blank.

Yeah, Yeah, I think that's a good thing to do.

Matter of fact, I, I can use that for, for an abundance of things.

There you Go.

When I say that, kind of.

You said I was doing much better.

Yeah.

So it's.

Yeah.

I mean, okay, so this is my wife, probably.

She's heard this probably a million times, gets sick of it.

But, you know, when we're.

We go to, like, a store or something and someone goes, oh, you're perfect.

Or.

Or you're good, you know, you're fine.

I just go, can't.

Can you just tell her that I've been trying to convince her I'm perfect for 31 years, you know, oh, the volume is better.

Look.

Oh, look, she's.

Yeah, I didn't see that comment.

You see a comment that says delete part?

All right, so when it comes to the issue of Old Testament for the church today, there are differing views that people have.

So you're going to see differences that we're going to have, especially when we talk about the law.

What the law is, how we divide the law.

And in that sense, it's not going to be my dispensationalism that comes in there.

It's going to actually be my Judaism when we get to that.

I'm just saying.

But the.

The thing, though, is that there are some differences.

So you're going to go to extremes where people will say, within.

I'm going to say broad Christian circles, Tom.

You know, just kind of.

So we're not saying everyone in these camps are genuine believers.

Okay.

But you can go.

Hebrew roots go to one extreme.

And there's many Hebrew roots that deny the deity of Christ.

So I wouldn't say that they're saved.

But when you get to those that are in the Hebrew roots movement or what my friend R.L.

solberg says Torahism, that's his book on it.

And I think that's a great title because it is talking about the.

Not just Hebrew roots, but all the people that put themselves back under the Torah, under the law.

And so you see people like that that actually will be looking to say that the law from the Old Testament is something that you have that should be applied today.

So we should be under that same law.

So they keep kosher.

They will keep the festivals.

So that's one extreme.

Okay.

There's another extreme that would be what I refer to as hyper dispensational.

And I don't know how often any of you have run into this group.

I have.

But you have some people that believe that we shouldn't look at any of the Old Testament.

In fact, we shouldn't even look at the Gospels because that was for the Jewish people.

And they'll say we only look at the letters of Paul, Paul and following.

So they, they would toss out everything other that they would start at the book of Romans to revelation and that's all they would say that we need to, to have for today.

Okay, so those, those are the extremes and they're extremes we want to talk about the, the more rational in the middle.

Right.

Right.

And so we're going to have even within that.

Well, let's just start with this.

This will be a fun start.

And then we can get to where it's more, I think where we're going to have a lot more agreement with Christians, with genuine Christians.

But Andy Stanley made well known some comments where he talked about unhitching the Old Testament from the New Testament.

Yeah.

And I really should have grabbed that clip and played that.

But you remember that, Tom, when he did that?

I do.

Do you remember why he felt we needed to unhitch the Old Testament?

No, I just think he didn't think that it was relevant for today at all.

And now that Jesus has come, as if, as if the Old Testament wasn't anything about Christ in the first place.

Now that Christ has come, you know, why even go back there at all ignoring what God had said in the past.

So that was the old covenant and now we're under the new covenant.

And so none of the old covenant applies to us.

I believe that was the gist of it.

Unless you know of anything else.

Yeah, well, it's a little bit more.

But yeah, you're right.

You're right.

And because part of what his hang up is he doesn't like when people say thus says the Lord.

You know, like the Bible says.

Yeah.

We would say that we find our authority in scripture.

Scripture is what is.

You know, when we look at what we're going to use to defend Christianity, it's scripture.

He argues for the.

You know, Andy Stanley, by the way, is Charles Stanley's son.

So if folks don't know, but Charles Stanley, Andy Stanley said that, you know, we needed to unhitch it because he thinks that the, the authority is the resurrection, not the scripture.

So we just got to keep that in mind.

Welcome to the show.

Dan Kraft, the seven foot apologist, one of the speakers at Striving fraternity who just came in.

How you doing, Dan?

Sorry, I'M late.

I had to take my daughter to soccer practice.

Ah, hey, we got.

We got a. Greetings from Pakistan.

So welcome.

I like the fact that we got Canada represented.

Pakistan, Philippines.

So folks that are.

That are watching live, just shout out where you're from, if you're.

And we could, you know, we have.

Even the United States.

That's a strange place.

But one of the reasons that Andy Stanley wanted to unhitch the Old Testament from the New was not just what you had said, but it was also.

He didn't like, one thing that's kind of prevalent in the old.

It's also somewhat prevalent in the new, but not as much judgment.

No, no, it wasn't.

It was slavery.

Now, here's the irony, okay?

I. I did do a look through the New Testament, and I looked to see, hey, is there anywhere that we have books of the New Testament that refer back to the Old?

Right?

Yeah.

And do you know I discovered that 26 out of 27 New Testament books refer back to the Old Testament.

So they're not unhitched.

They actually hitched themselves to the Old Testament.

Now, would you like to know which one book is not.

Doesn't have any references or allusions or quotations to the Old Testament?

Maybe Philemon.

You're right.

It's Philemon.

And what's Philemon all about?

Slavery.

Slavery.

So the only book Andy Stanley is left with is the one that's all about slavery.

Slavery.

The thing he wants to avoid.

You know, it's like, yeah, these.

These speakers that they do this and they think they sound really smart, and then they do sound like this, and it's like, yeah, just a little bit of research.

Leads, you believe.

Oops.

Yeah, so we got.

We got some folks there saying.

So we got Brian in Colorado.

We got a number of people in Pennsylvania, because we got Jeanette is in Pennsylvania, and we have Kathy, who's in Pennsylvania.

So now you two have to figure out where in Pennsylvania, maybe neighbors.

We got Knoxville, Tennessee.

I will be flying into Knoxville, I think, twice.

Once in September, I think.

Is it Knoxville I fly into?

Yeah, I think.

I think.

Right.

Aren't you flying into Nashville?

Yeah, that one's Nashville.

That's right.

I'll fly to Nashville for the total HOMA Conference.

And then I have another conference in.

Let's see, where.

When is that coming up?

That's for Fight Left Feast, right?

That's.

Yeah, that's the one that's gonna be in.

That's in Nashville too, isn't it?

So you are flying into Knoxville at all.

Maybe not.

It's Tennessee.

Isn't that the same thing when you live in a state like New Jersey?

Everything's close.

So we got Illinois, we got Melissa, who is there in California.

A.

So.

All right.

So with that, I think that we can effectively say that there are some who say that we should unhitch the Old Testament, whether it is the hyper dispensationalists or Andy Stanleyites.

I think we're.

We would disagree.

I think all three of us would disagree with doing that.

Correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So.

Oh, here we go.

Kathy's answering the question.

She says, lol.

Andrew, Janet and I are friends and attend the same church.

I told her about sfe.

So there you go.

Kathy, you gotta tell the rest of your church because you're.

I mean, your pastor and I were roommates once, long ago at the First Ambassadors Academy that I went to.

He and I were roommates and so did some evangelism together.

So the thing, though, is that when we look at how should the Old Testament affect the church now, I said, you and I, Tom, are going to have some different views when it comes to law.

So let me give you a chance to explain your view of how you divide the law.

I don't know if Dan is going to have a different view.

So I will.

I'll let you go, then I'll go, and then we'll see if Dan disagrees or he just, you know, maybe he just says we're both wrong.

So.

Yeah, so maybe.

Yeah.

So that we would say that because God is holy, because the law describes who God is in his character, his.

His holiness, his righteousness, his.

His just anger against sin.

It's a summary of who God is.

And all the way through the law and the prophets, God has revealed himself as holy.

And he said he would be treated as holy.

And he summarized the law.

We would say that as a reformed Baptist, that.

That the law is eternal.

It doesn't go away, that it's his mortality, moral character.

So God's moral law, because he's an unchanging God, he doesn't, you know, say the law doesn't matter anymore.

We are still obligated not to lie.

We are still obligated not to commit adultery and covetousness.

We are still obligated to obey our parents.

And so all of those things are eternal.

Those are.

Those are eternal laws.

And it's based on his character.

And so when we would look at the Mosaic covenant, the Mosaic law, even as some.

The moral law summarized in the Old Testament being the Mosaic Law, we would say that all of those laws are still applicable for today, including the Sabbath.

And that's, that's probably the one area where we would disagree that yes, he's our Sabbath, Sabbath rest, but at the same time, we still have a time.

We're still in the flesh.

There's going to be.

Be.

We would still apply that for today because we would say that the Sabbath actually transcends the Mosaic law.

You see it given in Genesis 16, you see it given in the very, very first part of the Bible where there was a day devoted one day and seven devoted unto.

Unto the Lord.

And so we would say that the moral law is always eternal.

The reason why that's important is because that is the standard for anybody to come and have a relationship with the Father.

To have a relationship with the Creator is because God doesn't change and he's so holy.

He didn't give us the law so that we might be able to climb up and earn our way into heaven through the law.

He gave us the law so that we would recognize that we can't do it and that we need a Savior.

So it was always intended to point to Christ.

Would you call yourself a theonomist then?

So, no.

So theonomy.

So I wouldn't say, I wouldn't say that the positive laws.

I think that there would be a distinction between the positive laws that are attached to the Mosaic covenant.

So when we talk about the judicial laws and, and the consequences of breaking those and the ceremonial laws, those things have been done away with when Christ came and fulfilled all of those things.

But the eternal law, God's moral law, it goes on forever.

Okay, and now you would have a tripart division of the law, right?

Yes.

You mentioned moral.

So explain your view of that three part division.

So there were the God's moral laws, who he is, it's based on his character, and even positive laws that were given to God's people, Israel.

In the Old Testament, then there were positive laws that were good, that distinguished a way for the people Israel to be distinct.

A distinction people set apart unto God.

Being God's people, they were obliged to obey certain things in God in the Torah, you know, dietary laws, holidays, you know, things like that, sacrifices.

Those things were positive laws.

And they're good.

So what's a positive law?

A positive law would be, for example, you know, you wouldn't allow your children to put play with an outlet.

They would go.

And what would that be tied to?

It's still tied to God's moral law in the way that it's good for our children to know that that positive law is attached to the moral law.

You should love your neighbor.

It would harm them if they were to go play with an outlet.

And so but all of these other, the judicial laws and all those, those things that they were required to remain in the land.

So for example, circumcision that was given to Abraham was a positive law because he, he was told to be circumcised.

And if, and to remain in good standing in that covenant and that if you weren't circumcised, you would be put outside the camp.

And so there's conditions in that covenant.

That's why the new covenant, it is greater.

The new covenant is for God's elect.

And so those laws are still binding.

The moral law is still binding.

The positive laws that were attached to the old covenant are no longer binding.

Okay.

Right.

And so there's these divisions that you'd see within reformed circles of a moral law being the Ten Commandments.

As Tom said, the morality is rooted in the nature of God.

So that's coming from there.

Yeah.

Your ceremonial law, the way they would view it.

And I'm saying they because obviously I'm going to, I don't hold to the same division.

I do have a three part division.

It's just different.

What you end up seeing as a ceremonial would be the sacrificial system, keeping kosher, things like that.

And then there was civil laws for that for the nation of Israel.

Things like what to do on the Sabbath and things like that now and consequences of those.

If somebody was committed to commit adultery back in those days based on that covenant back then, you were to stone them.

Well, we don't stone people anymore.

So yes, we're still a block.

Obliged to obey, do not commit adultery.

But the laws that were attached, the judicial laws that were attached to those laws are no longer binding, you know.

But maybe, you know, someone should talk to Trump.

Maybe, maybe he should start a thing and make, make stoning great again, you know?

Well, the one, the one great thing about the New Covenant, the new Covenant that, that, that we are regenerate, we can no longer, ever, ever be put outside the camp.

Christ has come in.

All those laws did was point to the Savior, even The sacrificial.

You know, the sacrificial system.

It was pointing to the ultimate sacrifice where.

Where.

Where Christ would die on the cross and pay the penalty for our sin.

So Jesse is asking the question, why don't we stone them according to the scripture?

And this would be back to what Dan asked is, are you a theonomist?

Because a theonomist would say, yes, we are to keep that law today.

Right.

And we should be stoning.

Now you get some who will say, well, because it's not a Christian nation yet, we don't hold them under that same law, but we should evangelize so that there's enough Christians so that we could have the law in effect today.

The theonomist position seems on its face to be more consistent, at least in that regard.

So, so I would.

Yeah, so I think there's.

I think what they're doing is they're, they're applying positive laws that were for an old covenant.

We are no longer under that covenant.

Those are positive laws.

Yeah.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I was just gonna say.

So we, we are.

Everybody else that was outside the camp of Israel, they, they weren't obligated to be stoned.

If, if.

I mean, you know, they were never inside the camp.

They were in.

Never in the camp.

So, so if I am not a theonomist, if I'm, if I'm saying I'm going to go back to the Mosaic Law and that we should invite.

Enforce all those laws.

Yeah.

But, but in general equity, you know, there, There are, There are laws that we, we still have to face the consequences of the land.

The land laws.

Now, when you say general equity for folks who are not familiar with theonomy, that.

That.

Yeah.

So I have.

Let me, Let me, let me go back to that.

Let me look up to 16.

Okay.

Okay.

So the.

So let me.

What I'll do is I will give my view, which.

Which is a bit different, and it may be something that folks have.

Have not heard.

Okay.

So it is something where.

And I'm doing this based off of.

Remember, I'm coming from a Jewish background, so I wasn't influenced with the Westminster Confession.

1689 confession, I wasn't influenced with those.

I'm approaching it from a view that those what, in the Westminster Confession, they would refer to as civil laws or, sorry, ceremonial laws.

In Judaism, we call them holiness laws.

They were laws to keep the nation Israel separate from the other nations.

Okay.

And so, and then, Tom, I'm asking if you just mute when you're not talking, we're getting that hissing noise again.

I sure will.

Let's see if that ends up taking care of it.

Yep, that's it.

So just unmute when you want to talk.

Yeah, that'll be good.

So, okay, so what we have is the.

Those in the reform circles where you have ceremonial law being the, the sacrificial system, kosher laws, things like that, the civil laws being things like stoning, if your children are disobedient, if someone commits adultery, things like that.

And then moral laws, the Ten Commandments.

And within that, there's some people that differ on how the Sabbath is kept, because Sabbath is the only, the only one of the Ten Commandments that's not reiterated in the New Testament.

So I'm going to touch on my view of that.

I break it down differently.

I think there are.

Because I, when we talk moral, I always had trouble with that, because every law is moral, okay?

A law by definition is do or don't.

That's, that's morality.

So kind of by definition, every law is moral.

So I think calling it a moral law just kind of makes that confusing.

Can I push back on that just a little bit?

Because we would not say, because there are laws of our land even right now that are not moral, it is legal in some states to commit abortion, right?

I mean, so.

But that doesn't make it right.

But it is.

But so, so now you're getting into a different thing thing here.

What you're, what we're discussing now is it is a law.

It is saying this is right and this is wrong, right?

It's.

It.

So by the law, it's saying it's right where it makes it legal.

By God's law, it's still wrong.

So now it's.

By what standard?

Right?

Our standard is, well, God, because that's where all morals come from, right?

Is the nature of God.

And so I agree with you, but it's still, it is still the, the government saying this is good and this is bad.

It's just got a bad standard.

So, so now what I, I see is that there are what I refer to as universal laws, so believers, unbelievers, the Ten Commandments fit into that.

You, it's not.

Oh, you should, you shouldn't lie if you're of the nation of Israel, right?

No, it's.

No one should lie because God's not a liar, right?

No one should covet because God's not covetous.

No one should murder because God's not a murderer.

It's founded in the nature of God.

No one should steal because God's not a thief.

We're created in his image.

And so there are some laws that are universal to everyone, everywhere that ever lived.

Okay.

And I would argue that includes the Sabbath that we had on the seventh day, a day of rest.

But I'm going to come to the Sabbath because I think I'm going to come back to that because I think this is where it get the, is an interesting way of how I see and how I break down these, because I think that it shows a bit of a difference with the looking at this and, and breaking it down.

So universal laws for Jews, Gentiles, believers, unbelievers, everybody.

Okay.

I then think there are laws for the nation of Israel.

If you want to use the, you know, the reformed language, they would call it civil law.

But see, it had more than civil law because it would be the civil and ceremonial.

Right.

It's not just civil and it's not just ceremony because you have all those laws that were given to Israel.

So let's stick with the example of the Sabbath where there's a Sabbath for all mankind to have a day of rest, which is an interesting thing because even when Russia went communist, they wanted to get rid of God.

So they wanted to get rid of a seven day work week because that was grounded in God.

And so they decided to go to a 10 day work week.

And it didn't last.

Huh?

The metric system.

Yeah, well, it failed, it didn't work.

And, and people were not well rested, they weren't as efficient and they ended up going back, back to a seven day week with a day of rest.

Why?

Because that was what was most effective for people.

But I think it's because of the created order.

So when you get to the time of Moses, you have a lot more laws for the Sabbath.

You can't carry sticks.

You can only go so far.

You could do this, you could do that, you could be stoned if you break these things.

You didn't see stoning for the Sabbath on the seventh day that came with the law of Moses.

And so I think that you have laws for the nation of Israel.

So universal laws for everyone, whether believer, unbeliever, nation of Israel or gentile.

Okay, Everyone, you have nation.

Do you have laws that are just for the nation of Israel and then you have laws for the church.

Okay.

If you're a progressive Covenantalist or New Covenant theology, it goes by different Names, they would call this the law of Christ.

And I'm kind of okay with that name.

And so there you have laws that are given to the church.

Now, the nine Commandments, they're all repeated there.

Why?

Because they're universal.

I would say the church is not under the Sabbath the way Moses had laid it out for Israel, but under the Sabbath that was created on the seventh day.

That is universal to all people.

Okay.

So we should have a day of rest for the purpose of worshiping God, where that's always been the case for everyone.

But the nation of Israel had extra laws for it.

So that's how I break up the law.

I know it's different, but it's because of the fact that we talk about kosher laws.

Okay.

The holiness laws.

And the purpose of them is to keep Israel separate until the Messiah would come.

Well, now that he came, we don't need that.

So the question is, I guess I'm.

I'm.

So when the Sabbath was given in Genesis to take one day of rest to worship the Lord, you're saying that that was universal, given to everybody when the.

When the Sab.

In Genesis.

Yes, yes.

Okay, but.

But not when given to Moses.

I think there he gave extra.

That was just for the nation.

In Exodus 16, before the.

The.

The Ten Commandments were actually given, they were told to go out and gather all the mana and.

And everything off of the ground.

And they were told, but don't do that on Sunday on that one day, because that was the Sabbath day.

That was.

That obviously been given before the summary of the Ten Commandments, because that didn't come until Exodus 20.

Yes, but again, that was to the nation of Israel, which did exist, even if the law had not been given by Moses.

Doesn't negate that.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, through that line, became the nation of Israel.

And so even though Moses was giving more law.

Right.

Would you agree that it's principally in principle, the same setting apart one day as holy unto the Lord?

Well, I think, yeah, I think that there's one day that would be set apart for the Lord for all people.

I just think that under the time of.

For Israel, there was, you know, God gave to Moses extra laws for Israel.

And, and I would say they were limited to Israel.

Okay.

Okay.

I mean, you don't mind turning on a light switch in your house on.

On the Sabbath day, right?

Why?

Because you're not under the law to have that where you can't start a fire.

Right.

Now here's the thing.

You mentioned the new covenant and this is where we're in a battle.

Better covenant as the church.

Because with the new covenant, what Jewish people look forward to in the new covenant, this is Jeremiah, was it 29 and 31, 29 following.

And then, then you have Ezekiel.

I'm trying to remember if it's 25 or.

But in Ezekiel it's, it also refers new covenant and we.

And what was the new covenant?

That we would no longer need a priesthood because the Holy Spirit would indwell us and teach us his word.

He would illuminate his word to us.

Well, I think it's fulfilled in the ultimate priesthood.

The one who is prophet, priest and king.

Yes, we still need a priest, the one who sprinkled his blood in on the mercy seat, you know, in real time at the resurrection or when he died on the cross.

Well, we would be referred to as a priesthood of believers.

Right.

Because we, we have the Holy Spirit.

Indwelling us only because we are in Christ.

Yeah, but we don't, we don't need a.

So the difference being is we don't need a man to act as a mediator between us and God.

We have the one mediator in Christ who is God.

Yeah, right.

So.

So we no longer need a class of priests to act as a mediator between us.

Right, right.

That's what Jewish people would be looking forward to in the Old Testament is this new covenant where Spirit would indwell us.

So, so I, that's how I end up breaking up the law.

And I think that there's, I mean there's different uses of the law we can get into and things like that.

But I think that's beyond the old, how the Old Testament affects us today.

And so with, with the way you laid it out, I'm going to give Dan a chance to give what his thoughts are.

But the way you laid it out, it's like, okay, the moral part counts today, but maybe not so much the other two people might argue with the way I laid out.

People will go, oh, so you're saying the universal stuff is good, the New Testament's good.

But maybe they're going to try to argue, well, you're saying the Old Testament isn't like we don't need it because that's just for Israel.

Well, we're going to, we're going to get to that.

The answer is obviously going to be.

Yeah, I think that's where the general equity would, would come in that that many of those things were always pointing to Christ.

They were always pointing to the, the ultimate sacrifice.

All the Positive laws now are, are effective by, in principle, it was always types and shadows pointing to a greater to, to the greater, from the lesser to the greater.

Okay, okay.

Now so Dan, what, what is, what are your views?

If you've thought, you may not have thought this through as, as deep, but.

Yeah, it's, this is one of those things where, you know, I grew up in, in Presbyterian and then, sorry, Lutheran and then Presbyterian and then then Baptist and then most of my life spent in non denominational churches and I've always heard taught the threefold division of the law, the civil, ceremonial and moral law.

But then as I think it was, Kathy pointed out in the comments that Jesus and Paul never make such a three part division.

And James even says if you break, if you're, if you do not commit adultery, but you do commit murder, then you're still a law breaker.

Right?

Because he seems to be saying that, you know, all the laws are joined together.

But in response to Kathy's comment, you'll note that both of those are moral laws.

They're not, there's, there's no crossing over that division.

But anyway, so then I, I listened to the entire seminary level course that the Greg Bonson taught on theonomy and listened to that over a course of many weeks and trying to wrap my head around it and I'm like, okay, I see where he's coming from.

But it just didn't really sit well with me probably because of, you know, the history that I have of, you know, decades and decades and decades of being taught the threefold division.

And I kind of swung over towards the, towards the James position, you know, that what Kathy was articulating that.

No, it's, it's all, it's all one ball of wax.

You can't, you can't parse it apart.

But then I don't know.

So I'm, I think I'm kind of in flux with regard to this.

I think the, the error that the theonomists fall into is they wind up, it feels to me like they wind up defining themselves by their relationship to the law.

And if I remember correctly, John MacArthur had a sermon wherein he said the legalism and antinomianism, which is, you know, a total rejection of the law, you know, do whatever you want.

They're basically same sides of the, they're two sides of the same coin.

In other words, what they're doing is they're defining their relationship to God through the law rather than through the, the finished work of Christ on the cross to, to fulfill the law on our behalf.

Right.

So we are to be defined by grace and, and, and, and, and Christ's commandments, not, not the, the written letter of the law.

So, yeah, my, my, my views on this are.

I think they're, they're still in flux.

They're not firmly.

I haven't, I, I like completely congress that I haven't, haven't spent a whole lot of time studying them because frankly, this is not something that I find myself talking about a whole heck of a lot.

Yeah.

When I get around you guys, I.

Think, I think that's a great.

I mean, I really like what you said there because I think theonomists can look and validate their salvation, but instead of looking to Christ, they're looking to their moral goods.

And how can we.

How can we if we're not saved by our works?

Why would we look to our works and our obedience to, to validate our faith?

It's always what Christ did.

He accomplished everything.

He accomplished exactly what we couldn't do, which was to live a perfect life.

So I think your argument carries much weight.

The only thing I don't get, when somebody says the law of Christ, and we would say, okay, well, Christ is God.

He is the King.

King.

How can we separate and make a distinction between Christ's law and the law of the Father?

I just don't.

Well, I think, yeah, I think that the reference to the law of Christ is the same way you make reference to the moral law when all law is moral, but you're giving it a title to be more specific.

So it's really the law of the New Testament.

Right.

So that's why I call it universal.

The laws for Israel, the laws.

Laws for the Church.

So that phrase actually comes from 1st Corinthians 9:21, and again in Galatians 6:2.

So I was actually inadvertently quoting Scripture.

That's good.

It's bleeding.

Adity, Let me see.

Let's back up to First Corinthians, chapter nine.

Let's start, I guess in verse 19, that's the beginning of the paragraph.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.

And to the Jews I became as a Jew so that I might win Jews.

To those who are under the law as under the law, though not my being myself under the law, so that I might win those who are under the law.

To those who are without the law, as.

Without the.

As without law, though not being without the law of God, but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

To the weak, weak I became weak that I might win the week.

And I have become all things to all men, so that I might, may by all means save some.

And then Galatians 6:2.

I'll start in verse one.

Brothers, if, even if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.

Each of you, looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted, bear one of his burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

And if I'm going to.

Again, I have not studied this deeply, so I'm kind of shooting from the hip a little bit here.

But I think when he's speaking of the law of Christ, I think what he's referring to are when Christ summed up the two greatest commandments.

Love God, love people.

And so by bearing one another's burdens, you are fulfilling the law of Christ, which is to love one another as you love yourself.

Right.

Which is also a definition of the two tables of the law.

Right.

Of God's more law.

So then the only other thing I would add to that is Matthew 5:18, where he says, for truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass away until the law is accomplished.

And in that passage, it just seems.

And then you read the Psalms, reciprocal.

Can we back up there for a second?

Yeah, sure.

So first of all, can you.

Is there any way you can turn up your microphone a little bit?

I know it was a little oversensitive before, but now it's like really hard to hear you.

Okay, let me.

How is that better?

That's a little better.

Yeah.

So in Matthew 5:18, when he says, until all the all is accomplished, was it not accomplished on the cross?

Or are we talking about the end of.

End of days?

Or, you know, what does he mean by until all is accomplished?

Well, I. I think until the consummate.

Until the consummation of things.

Right there.

Because he's talking until.

Until heaven and earth pass away.

Not an I.

So that's where I'm seeing the God's moral law as, as he's given it to us in the Old Old Testament as we read all about it.

And then all, all in the Psalms where he's talking about we love the law of the Lord.

Nothing, not.

Not a jot or a tittle will pass away until all is accomplished.

And so I think that's actually talking about the consummation of things where Everything is done.

So we.

I would agree with you, Andrew, that when Christ came and he died on, he accomplished everything that he was told to do because he was a Jew, because he was Hebrew.

He had to accomplish all the.

He had to live perfectly, which included all the positive laws that were attached to the moral laws.

And he did that on our behalf as well, on the Gentiles behalf.

He didn't just do that for the Jews.

He.

He did that for everybody.

Yeah, I think there are many.

There's.

I will say for folks to just see that when in that passage, Matthew, what is the law?

There is lots of dispute over that.

Okay.

Theologically.

So is that the law given to Moses?

Remember, Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience.

What would they think of the law?

They wouldn't have the division that we would see in the Westminster Confession.

Right.

Because that didn't exist that way.

So sometimes we have to be careful that we have over centuries of theology added precision.

And so one thing when it comes to studying the Bible is to always remember not all the same precision that we have today is in the Scripture.

Right.

So would you say that this is the same law that all that everybody was to live by in the old covenant?

That's what it's talking about.

It could be.

I think that.

Yeah, I think it, I think that.

So I'm not going to be as dogmatic to say this is what it is because I'm really not sure.

I, I don't think he's making a distinction between the moral civil ceremonial because, well, a Jewish people wouldn't have divided it that way.

Right.

So that's some.

That the vision came after Christ.

So if you'd have to understand what it meant at the time time to the people there and they would have been thinking the law of Moses.

So it seems to me that there's, there's a bit of a hint in Matthew 5, 17 what he's talking about here because he uses, he says, do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets.

Now, my understanding of the Jewish understanding of Scripture is when you talk about the law and the prophets, doesn't isn't that encapsulate the totality of the.

So, well, you use the word Tanakh.

What Tanakh actually is, is there's the ta is the first letters for Torah.

Okay.

Then you have the letters for the next letter vowel is going to be for the prophets and then the writings.

And so the complete.

The way that we'd say it is the law, the prophets and the Writings, or if you want to shorten it, the law and the prophets.

If you want to shorten it more, the law.

So this is why I'm saying it's not.

Is this referring to strictly the first five books of Moses, the law of Moses, or is it referring to the word of God?

I would say based upon the fact that he's using the law and the prophets in conjunction with one another in verse 17.

That seems to me to point to a.

He's like saying, don't think that I came to abolish the entirety of the Old Testament is what I read.

Yeah, right.

I would agree with that.

And not only that, we have to remember what was the purpose.

And we would say that there's several purposes, but one of the purposes was to point us to Christ.

This is God's standard living.

He is so holy, he is so righteous that if you want to have a relationship with.

He says, I am God in Exodus 19.

And then he lays out the table of the law.

And the silly Israelites back in the.

He goes, we'll do it.

You know, we'll do it.

And they.

And it wasn't.

They were looking at the law back then, I think, to try and keep it as if they were to earn their way into God's favor.

But the fact of the matter is, we learn in the New Testament that it was a tutor.

It was to point us, to show us that we couldn't keep the law, that.

That we don't live up to God's standard and that we need a substitute.

Right.

Yeah.

And so I mean, where I was saying, where I guess I wouldn't see is, you know, Tom, is that the law in verse 18 is a.

You know, just.

The Ten Commandments is moral law.

I know that some will use that and say, well, see, the moral law continued continues until the end.

I think that this is either saying, hey, the.

The law to Israel is going to always be.

Now, this.

This was.

Would work in a dispensational view, wouldn't work in.

In a covenantal view, but if you're viewing that God is going to bring Israel back into center stage, he's going to continue.

They're going to continue obeying the law, then that law would continue.

Yeah.

So I would.

I would definitely agree with you because.

And here's.

I mean, he.

He was.

He had to be circumcised.

He had to.

That was not.

That was not a pot.

That positive law was not given to anybody outside the camp of Israel.

But he had to come and he had to be circumcised on the eighth day.

So that, that was.

He had to fulfill the judicial law.

He had to fulfill all the law laws that were given to the people, Israel.

You know, Tom, we come into these things with saying that you're going to dis.

Disagree with me.

And then you, you seem to agree with me an awful lot.

You're going to be dispensational before, you know, it.

Just shows how leaky you are.

So, so the, the thing though, if it is, and, and I think a really good reading of it is, was not, as Dan had said, if, if it's referring the law to the word of God, that's not going to go away.

So it could be either two.

If I'm going to lean any which way, I'm going to lean to the last one that it's saying the word of God's not going to.

Which is something that, if you think about it, you're going from a very Jewish mindset of God's people being in a Jewish mindset, and all of a sudden it's having more of a gentle mindset.

What is it that people are going to be wondering, well, you have all these promises to Israel, did God break his word?

Did he break his promises?

Did he?

No.

I mean, that's what Romans 9, 10, 11 is all about, is that God's faithful to fulfill the promises he made to Israel.

So you have him saying, hey, God's word's not going to, it's not broken just because Christ came.

It's that now God's people are going to be gentiles.

Well, not only Gentiles, but mostly Gentiles or maybe not.

I mean, the reality is we don't know how many people got converted from Judaism to Christianity and, you know, have a Jewish line.

But so, but in the same, in that same way we would also say.

Well, I would, I would think that you would with.

Agree.

Agree that everybody who is ever saved is always saved by the blood of Christ.

Yes, by virtue.

And we would call those 20th century Covenantalists.

I think, matter of fact, I think James White, as John Gill was, he would hold the Presbyterian Covenant Theology.

Now, I forgot where I was going to go with this.

But, but in that, that all people, we would say that in the New Covenant, everybody is saved by virtue of the New Covenant.

Well, even in the old test, in the Old Covenant, they were still Saved by virtue of the new covenant.

They, they looked forward to what Christ would do.

So just because Christ hadn't come yet, people in the Old Testament were still saved the same way as, as those in the New Testament.

Right.

So but we wouldn't say that they were saved by the old covenant because we would say that the old covenant were a covenant of works.

You had to do things.

There were conditions to be to remain in the land.

There were conditions to remain God's people.

And the new covenant is the covenant of grace.

Yeah.

And so what we're seeing.

And so to get to the question, because some people may be going, you're focusing on the law.

What does that do?

Well, where's all this Old Testament law from?

The Old Testament.

Right.

And so how does this apply to us today?

Right.

This is the law hasn't been abolished.

Okay.

It's just now some of it doesn't apply to us as, as Christians.

And that's, that's the point that we're, we're trying to bring out.

Now I'll say to, to a point Dan made.

I remember, you know, when you said you're dividing the, the three part division.

I, I remember John Riesinger, who he's well known in the New Covenant theology camps.

John, John had told me, he said he one day decided to go through the following five books of the Pentateuch and he put a column one for civil, ceremonial, moral.

And he tried going through all 614 laws that are in the Pentateuch and figure out which one they would go in.

And he discovered that you really, there's no list anywhere where you can go, okay, this fits here, this fits here.

This.

And it's because it's a man made distinction.

That doesn't mean it's wrong.

By the way, if I say it's a man made distinction, it doesn't make it wrong.

It's man making that distinction.

So we can better understand, I'm going to be preaching this Sunday at my church on the Trinity.

And I argue the Trinity is a solution to a problem, not a problem.

And so that's a man made distinction.

The Bible doesn't mention Trinity.

We have defined that because we see this problem.

I'm using that loosely in the Bible that God the Father is referred to as God, the Son is referred to as God, the Spirit's referred to as God.

They have the title, they all three have titles of God.

They do the have the attributes of God, they do the works of God, and yet they're all distinct from one another.

How do you resolve that?

I would, I would, I would offer a gentle correction there.

I would say that the Bible makes the distinction, but what we did was we man applied a label to it to try to systematize it.

So.

Yeah, and that, that'd be good clarification.

I mean, yeah, I mean, because.

And you look at, you look at God's.

All laws are rooted in God's moral law.

They're for the beneficial of his people, they're benefit of his people.

So to love God and love neighbor, this is, this is a good thing, you know, but then the other, the other laws that are attached to it, you know, the dietary laws, that was good not only for a distinction to make the people of Israel separate, to show them separate from the other people, but also there were some good in the laws that were given to be able to rem.

To remain in that land.

It was good for the people.

It was good for the people.

But I wouldn't say that that law comes from the nature of God.

No, I was.

That was for the purpose of.

Yeah, the purpose of God to keep them separate.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Hey, Andrew, this is at least the second time I've seen Jesse Heller say huh or what.

I'd like to know what he's whating about.

About.

Yeah, I didn't know if he was referring to Fatima's comment or someone else's.

So, Jesse.

Yeah.

So is it possible to enable us to, to interact with people in the comments?

Because I can't.

I can't do anything but private chat.

Yeah, the.

I don't.

That's the one difference with this tool.

You, I think you have to log into to YouTube to do that.

Yeah.

Jesse, tell us what you're referring to, bro.

Yeah, so now let me get to the thing of.

So we talked about the law, which is important for this, but a big part of this is how now do we take this Old Testament and apply it to us as Christians?

We already said some will throw it out, some say doesn't apply.

We disagree with that.

Now, do we have to keep the kosher laws?

No.

Okay, well, now here becomes the question, what is the purpose of those laws?

See, I'm going to go the step saying I agree with you.

No, I don't think we have to keep kosher.

I think in Mark we see that before acts, by the way, is when the kosher, the cleanliness laws of what to eat, the Dietary laws were done.

Away with into a man that makes him unclean.

But what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.

Correct.

In so doing, Jesus declared all foods clean.

Correct.

So that's from Mark.

Peter had the revelation.

Well, that came.

But that came later.

It did.

And.

And I would argue that the revelation he had is that wasn't declaring it clean.

That was that Peter seeing the food come down only made sense if there was no more dietary restriction.

Okay, so the.

What Dan had quoted from Mark is what is because Jesus declared all food clean.

Why?

Because the purpose of those laws, the.

Their holiness laws, laws of separation, they were to keep Israel separate from the nation.

That's why they had to wear certain things.

They had to, you know, eat certain things.

But what we have to recognize is the principle of that still exists for the church.

We are to be separate from the world.

Now, that doesn't mean the way we eat and the way we dress, but it does mean the way we behave is still that.

The principle of the kosher laws still applies to the church, but it's applied differently.

So instead of being applied to what we eat and how we dress, it's applied to how we behave and how we think.

Right.

We are to be separate from the world.

And so the principle is still there.

So I could look at the Old Testament and still see.

And people love this verse.

Let me.

Let me just read it for those who may not have it on their refrigerator.

But it says, for I know the plans I have for you declares Yahweh, plans for peace and not for calamity, to give you a future, a future and a hope.

And people love that verse.

It sounds so good.

I can do all things through a verse taken out of context.

Yes, well, here's my question.

Why does nobody just go like seven verses, eight verses later, and have Jeremiah 29, 17 and 18 as their life verse which says, thus says Yahweh of hosts, behold, I am sending upon them the sword, famine, pestilence, and I will make them open, split open, fit like split open figs that cannot be eaten due to rottenness.

I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, with pestilence, and I will give them over to be a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, to be an object of hope, horror, and hissing, and a reproach among the nations where I have banished them.

I mean, that's.

It's gone that's in the same verse, right?

Same chapter, Right, Right.

Why is that?

Not like, why do we pick the.

One that doesn't sell, Andrew.

Exactly.

No, you don't get the warm and fuzzies from judgment.

Yeah.

So the question is, you need a marketing expert, man.

I mean, you can.

I do.

It's.

It's.

It's the Bible.

It's good enough for me.

Right.

But, you know, here's the thing.

Okay, well, actually, wouldn't, you know, what do you know?

For thus says Yahweh, when 70 years have been fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit you and establish my good word to you to return you to the place.

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord.

Now, I know Tom looks like he's old enough to have lived through that, but he didn't.

And so, so the reality is that that is specific to those people who lived through that 70 year Babylonian captivity.

Now, does that mean that it has no application for us?

No, it does.

What's the application?

What do you see in that?

This was 70 years.

They were going to go into captivity.

Some of them were not going to live through it.

Okay, but what did they see at the end of 70 years?

God fulfilled the promise he made 70 years before, just as he was faithful to Israel in a prophecy that he would bring them back in the land 70 years later.

So he will fulfill the promises that he makes to you and I, such as the fact that Jesus said he goes to his Father to prepare a place for us.

We can trust in that.

The same same way Israel could trust that 70 years after the captivity, they would return to the land.

So there's still a principle that we can see in the Old Testament that still carries through to the church today.

So, and what that is, is that Yahweh is faithful.

Yes, he's faithful.

You know, if we learn anything by looking back, I mean, even when Stephen preached, he went back, he goes, this, this is, this is Yahweh, even Yahweh, even God says, I, I brought you out of the land of Egypt.

You know, he's showing people who he is, his faithfulness.

You know, and this is basically the.

Principle, the Old Testament principle between behind Romans 8, 28.

Right.

I mean, you look at it and you think, oh, man, this is awful.

This is terrible.

It's you know, that God.

God has meant it for your good, for his glory and for your good.

That's right.

And even, even how many times you look at, read, read judges, how many times did the people, Israel, turn their back away, do what is right in their own eyes, you know, and then they.

And then God caused a calamity to bring them back and they repented.

And you see that cycle over and over and you see God acting.

You seem him intervening, you know, because he is faithful.

And that's, you know, so when.

How can we unhitch from the Old Testament when he shows himself, who he is to his people, that he is loving and that he has every right to throw everybody in hell, but continues to come back and to reveal himself as a loving Savior.

So Fatima says this Andrew's Biblical hermeneutics.

I think she's referring to the course we have at Striving Fraternity Academy on Biblical Hermeneutics, which says Andrew's Biblical Hermeneutics taught me to read two or three verses earlier whenever someone sends me a verse.

She said, so when Josh Gerber gave a chapter in Bible counseling class, I read two or three chapters earlier.

And that is a good principle to do.

It's not.

Look, I always find funny when I do street evangelism and I'm on the street somewhere, someone challenges me.

What about this verse?

And all I do is say, let's back up a few verses.

Yeah.

And there's the answer.

Right.

But hey, if you rip it out of context, you can try to make the Bible say anything you want it to.

It just doesn't say what it does say.

Right.

What is it?

A text without a, without a context is a proof text.

Pretext is a pretext.

Yeah.

Right.

So the thing that we're seeing though is that we hold to the fact that we do have the Old Testament does apply to the church, but not necessarily always in the same way.

There's some things that were specific to the nation, but there's principles that we can learn and those carry forward to us.

So we don't throw it out.

We don't unhitch from it.

We don't reject it.

We still read it.

We can agree that many of it.

And, and I, I think you would much of it is types and shadows of a better thing to come.

Yeah.

Now where we would disagree.

And so this, this, that's a great segue, Tom, into the next part of what I wanted to cover, which is.

And, and this is where we would have more disagreement.

You and I Don't know where Dan's gonna land.

He.

Maybe he's just going to be in the middle, you know, as I usually am.

I'm up here, down here, going.

That'S not a bad place to be in the middle.

Yeah, sometimes.

Yeah.

But no, the, the thing though is, is how do we interpret the Old Testament?

Right.

That's, that's really the key now is are we going to see the Old Testament as you.

You just mentioned, as types and shadows to the New?

I would say there's some of it you would see more than I would.

Right.

So.

So let me give my view and then I'll let you talk a little bit about types and shadows because I think you'll go on a little bit more.

So I, Anyone that's.

That's Presbyterian understands the regulatory principle of worship.

This is so that there's the normative and regulatory.

If you want, go to my Theology Throwdown podcast, which is a podcast.

All of the Christian podcast community podcasters join together and we do different topics.

We did the regulative principle recently.

So if you want more on that, you can go find Theology Throwdown podcast.

The regulatory principles.

The idea when it comes to worship is when we worship God, we only worship God the way that the Bible says to do it.

So in other words, if the Bible doesn't say do it this way, you can't.

So if the question is, can you use a guitar?

They would say, well, did the Bible say we could use a guitar?

If it didn't, then, no, you can't.

Now you might say, well, the law, the, you know, the harp is like a piano or is it like a guitar?

You know, you could do a stringed instrument, but, you know, use drums maybe, because I don't think those were around then.

Right.

But whatever it is, they would say, well, if it's.

If the Bible doesn't say you can, then you can't.

The normative principle says if the Bible doesn't say it's a sin, then you can.

So if the.

As long as the Bible doesn't say you can't do it, then everything goes.

I would hold to the regulatory principle when it comes to, to interpretation.

Okay.

In other words, unless God says that this is a type and a shadow, I don't believe it's a type and shadow.

So let's give a good example of it.

Jonah is a type of Christ.

Why?

Because Christ said, just as Jonah was in the belly of a.

Of a fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the, in the earth for three days and three nights, what you have there is a type because Jesus said it's a type.

Okay, is the offering of Isaac a type of Christ?

I say no, because there's nowhere in the Bible that it says that Isaac is a type of Christ.

Are there a lot of similarities though?

Yeah, they were both went up to the same mountain.

They both, you know, there's, there's.

So there's a lot of similarities between those.

And where I think, and this is where Matt Slick and I, when we did a debate on this, we got to the point of the, the Isaac as an example, Isaac as a type of Christ.

I say there's a lot of similarities.

And Matt would say he's a type of Christ.

Now why do I stop where I stop?

Because unless the Bible says it's a type, I don't take it as a type.

And that's where I think you and I would.

You probably look at the covenants the same way, right?

Because the covenant theology tends to see what is it?

The covenant of works in the garden.

And then you got the different covenants that follow that, which I always found a little bit mind bending.

So I tend to look at it the same way.

They say there's a covenant of works, but I'm like, well, God didn't say he was establishing a covenant with Adam.

They would say, well, there's covenant language being used.

But I'm like, I don't feel comfortable with that.

See, and this is one of the things, as a dispensationalist, I would see each of those covenants as a new dispensation because that's actually the agreement to that dispensation.

God's saying to his people, this is how I'm going to deal with you.

Here's the new instruction, here's the new rules, here's new blessings and cursings from following or disobeying the law.

And that's what define.

So, so we, we as dispensationals, we hold the covenants because the covenant is what defines the, the new dispensation, the new way God's going to work with his people.

Right?

And so, so there's, we wouldn't hold to just three of them though, right?

Right.

The covenant of grace, the covenant of works, the covenant of, Of.

Wait, grace works.

Which one am I missing?

I just went blank.

The one in the middle?

No, it's the first one.

So we would say that the covenant of the garden is the same as the covenant of works.

We would also say the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of work.

And the one covenant of the grace is the new covenant covenant.

But to answer your question, what we would see as similarities, what you would see as similarities or parallels, we would look at the scripture in a different way in that we would also incorporate the overall redemptive story that God, that the divine author is communicating to his people, which is to make himself known, to make Christ known, and that we could have redemption in him.

And so, and so when we see stories like for example, Jacob sending Joseph a special son that, whom he loved, had a special way, you know, that love for him, and he sent him out to go rescue his brothers.

So we have a father who had a special love for this son Joseph, who is going out to rescue and look for his people, his, his brothers, the same way the Father in heaven sent his only begotten son to go send his after his brothers.

And then his brothers rejected him the same way the people Israel rejected him in the same way that he used Joseph in the time.

And to, you see, you see the gospel there in it.

And so what you see is similarities and I'm seeing parallels and it's, I don't think that anybody can ignore that, that, that is there purposefully.

And we would see a type of a gospel being presented in that story.

And then he saves his brothers.

He saves his brothers.

And you know, through, through Egypt.

And there was a whole purpose, there was a redemptive plan.

And you see those redemptive plans all the way through the Old Testament that are types and shadows of Christ.

So I just don't see how we could.

So maybe it's semantics even.

I mean we could even call it that.

Well, I think there's, there is some difference.

So first off, let me just say that.

So Troy said, correct.

This is the, the covenant of redemption.

That's the first one that, that you're not going to see in, in, in the scripture.

It is, it's a, it's understood as being so.

And Tom, for the Trinity.

Yeah, Tom.

Yeah, correct.

Just like we have to just, you know, someone is saying your sound is still low.

So I don't.

So maybe try tuning up a bit.

Okay, now, now the African sheep says that Isaac's story should point you to Christ.

Well, in, in one sense we would.

Some say that the, everything in the Old Testament should point you to Christ.

This, this again becomes the difference as a, as a dispensationalist.

I don't think every verse of the Bible has to be about Christ or point you to Christ.

I, as a dispensational, say that every verse of the Bible is doxological.

It's about God's glory, but not so basic.

Basically a difference in being theocentric and Christocentric.

Correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

And so, yeah, now everything that's Christocentric is going to be theocentric.

He's God.

Right.

So it is.

But if, if, if God is revealing himself, if it, what is the purpose of this book?

Yeah, so that, so that we would have salvation in him.

Well, see, and okay, one mediator between.

It's about.

So, so here's the thing, and I know Tom isn't going to take this the wrong way, but I, I don't want the audience to take what I'm going to say negatively toward Tom.

But you know the thing though, Tom is I think the reason we as people do think that it's Christocentric is because we think it's all about us, about what God did for us.

I think it's doxological because quite frankly, it's not about us.

It's about God and we're the benefactors.

Like, why did God save us?

He didn't save us because we needed it so badly.

He saved us because he, he wanted to put his attributes on display of his long suffering, his grace, his mercy.

We are the benefactors of it.

But it's, we're not the center of it.

It's.

It's God that's the center.

I think that's important because when we say, when we believe in the solas, when we believe in the five SOLAs, we wouldn't, we wouldn't take one of those out.

We wouldn't just say, you know, just.

It's only for the.

God's glory.

I mean, we would say that we are saved by, you know, Christ alone through faith alone, in Christ alone, for God's glory alone.

We, we would, we would include all of it.

But when we say so, when we look at the central theme of the scripture, the theme and the subject isn't only about God's glory.

It is Christ centered.

I think the whole book is about Him.

Yeah, well, and I'm going to, they push back a little.

And I know you and I aren't going to come to agreement this side of heaven probably, but the thing that I have is, and maybe it's because I dealt so much with the cult and I'm not saying that covenantalism is a cult.

But dealing with the cults and seeing how they would spiritualize the Bible to make their points, when we allow for the spiritualization, how can we say that these different groups are wrong when they're doing the same thing?

They're just spiritualizing it to a different conclusion.

Because the way that I view hermeneutics, that's how we interpret.

Because I'm following the laws or the rules for grammar, for language.

It's.

I'm not.

I will grant the Bible is a different book than any other book.

Right.

It's the only book written by God.

It is a spiritual book.

I agree with all that.

But I don't believe that just because it's a spiritual book that we have to have some spiritual harmeneutic.

So at the same time, at the same time, I think that you're putting covenant theology people in a category where we're dismissing the grammatical, radical, historical.

No, I don't think we're doing that at all.

No, I think just going beyond.

I think what we're doing is including, including the historical redemptive.

So you would say what the scripture, what the, what the human author meant at the time it was written to his audience is what it means today?

Well, and I would say nine times out of 10.

Yes, absolutely.

I would go beyond that and say, what is the divine, Divine author communicating?

You know, and, and, and I think, I think that's where.

I think that.

Where, where.

And but how, how is, how is he communicating it to us?

What's he using through, through the instruments.

That he's planned to use?

Well, language.

Absolutely.

And, and so I wouldn't divorce that.

I, I agree with you.

That I wouldn't, I wouldn't divorce those things.

I would just add, yes, that we needed sometimes.

We could be so, so tied, Andrew, with the text that we're missing the force for the trees.

Well, but it could be the reverse.

We could like.

So, so here's the thing.

And I've used this illustration before on this show, right?

I had a girl in girlfriend in college who was really into the horoscopes.

And she'd be like, it always comes true.

And she was into it until I made her read all 12 of them every day.

And she realized they're always true because she was looking to make them true, right?

Every day she's like going, oh, yeah, that fulfilled this.

That, you know, when, when we look at it and we go, oh, look, this is, there's so much similarity here.

This must be this.

What the, the thing, the thing I don't want to be accused of is saying thus says Lord to something the Lord didn't say.