EP 13 Daniel Scheiderer: Progressive Covenantalism, Threefold Use of the Law and Confessional Baptist Theology

Episode Snapshot

John Mark and Johnny sit down with theologian Daniel Scheiderer for a deep dive into covenant theology. From his studies with Dr. Steven Wellum at Southern Seminary to real-world ministry conversations, Daniel helps us compare progressive covenantalism, new covenant theology, Presbyterian Federalism and 1689 federalism—and why these distinctions matter for Baptists today.

Key Sections

Progressive Covenantalism 101 – How it synthesizes biblical-theological themes without flattening covenants.

Law & Gospel Nuance – Why the moral law remains, even when covenantal administrations change.

1689 Federalism – Overlap and friction points with progressive frameworks.

Meet the Guest

Daniel Scheiderer is a pastor-theologian and PhD candidate who studied under Dr. Steven Wellum at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His research focuses on covenant development across redemptive history and its implications for Baptist ecclesiology.

 Resources & Links 

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ – Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen

Kingdom Through Covenant – Peter Gentry & Steven Wellum (Crossway)

Progressive Covenantalism – Eds. Stephen Wellum & Brent Parker

Second London Baptist Confession (1677/89)

Tags

#ProgressiveCovenantalism #CovenantTheology #1689Federalism #NewCovenantTheology #ReformedTheology #ConfessionalBaptist #TheologyPodcast #SouthernSeminary #StevenWellum #BiblicalTheology #ChristianPodcast #BibleStudy

Transcript

0:00

One of the things that distinguishes progressive covenantal wisdom from new covenant theology is that progressive covenantal is very comfortable talking about a covenant made with Adam, the coffee house sessions. John Mark, have you ever met a progressive Covenant Covenant analyst? I have never met a progressive covenant analyst in my life, although saying that, no, I, I think I've met one, but we didn't speak about the minutia of the. Issues. So, Daniel, you're our special guest today. How about you introduce our listeners to your great experience of progressive covenantal? I I think from our, our conversation before this episode, you have met more than one. Is that correct? Yes. Uh, I've, I've met plenty of progressive covenantal analyst. Um, uh, I went to seminary at Southern Seminary, which is considered in some ways to be the hub or the, the seedbed of progressive covenantal. Uh, the label itself was, was introduced in 20. 12, I believe is, is when, uh, the volume came out, kingdom through Covenant. And, and that was the first time it was used in print, in print, um, really used in print. And, and uh, I got to Southern Seminary in 2014. So, um, kind of a seeded, and the, the two authors, principal authors are the, the two authors of that work are Peter Gentry and Steven Wellum. Steven Wellum is my, uh, was my doctor, honor my, my doctoral supervisor. So, um, so I have met, uh, several progressive covenant analysts. I have good friends that are progressive covenant analysts and, uh. I've, I've met more than both of you combined, I suppose. Yeah, I do. You know what I'm, I'm, I want to know, I've got a couple of things. One is I want to know how John Mark knew he met a progressive Covenant analyst without them talking about it. What, what are the signs? Um, was he wearing a t-shirt? Um, perhaps you can answer that in a minute, but I'm, and I'm, now, I'm, I just want to, just a little bit of background on, on you, Daniel. What was, what was your PhD, um, in, uh, sure. So background, well, background is, um, Southern Baptist. I grew up kind of, uh, not really going to church, but when we did, we went to a Southern Baptist church, uh, went to, um, uh, well, I, I had come to a confessional position early, it was before I went to seminary. And um, and I was wondering, do I need to leave the SBC or. You know, what have you. Uh, and I found out about the founder's movement and found out about the roots of, of the, uh, SBC being in a professional identity and figured, well, I, I think I'm, I can stay at home, I suppose, and ended up going off to Southern, um, did my really all of my education there. So, so my undergrad is from there. My, my master divinity is from there. And when I was looking at, at doing doctoral work, my primary interest was on, uh, the doctrine of the Trinity. And, and Dr. Wellum, who I did all of my systematics with, had critiqued eternal submission in class. And I was interested in, in. Maybe pursuing that as, as what I did for my doctoral work. So I sat down with him. I, I said, you know, I've got these two interests. My primary interest is on the doctrine of the Trinity. I have something of a hobby of reading covenant theology. Uh, a lot of the 1689 Federalist, uh, literature was coming out at the same time, which was very helpful to me while I was going through seminary because I was, you know, I was reading, uh, Well's Kingdom through Covenant. I was hearing his lectures. I was reading Pascal Dau and, and, uh, recovering a covenantal heritage and, and works like that. Read talks. And, um, and so, so I had this, you know, personal study and I, I thought, I'm not entirely sure what I'm gonna do. I think I want to do Trinitarian theology, um, but. Maybe what I'll do is offer a critique of progressive covenantal, uh, from a 1689 Federalist pos, uh, position. And Dr. Wallam said, why don't, why don't you study here, study under me. And, um, and if you do end up deciding to go that route, then it'll be helpful to you to have me as your, as your supervisor, and be able to offer critique. And, uh, I actually went the other route. I, um, so we had that conversation actually in the spring of 2016, and all of the debates over eternal submission came, came overflowing and in the summer, and I decided, well, I'm not gonna address that. Everybody's talking about it now. And, and it's a kind of convoluted conversation anyway. And, um, like others, I, I had become concerned with whether or not the covenant of redemption undermined, um. Uh, a classical trinitarianism. And so as I'm starting my PhD program, I've, I've got that question in my mind. And, um, and so I ended up writing my doctoral dissertation on as an argument that the, the, uh, covenant of redemption, it's consistent with, with Catholic Trinitarianism. Um, so, so I took, uh, Robert Ham's arguments against it, figuring I want, I want somebody that's the most charitable and, and, um, and the nearest two where I would be. Um, and I want to hear his critiques and, and interact with those. So, so I took ham's arguments from, um. Well, he has them earlier, but then they came out again in his revision of his, his work on the Holy Trinity and then his systematic theology. And so I took those and I and I, uh, responded to those showing that it, it is consistent with, with Catholic trinitarianism or a classical doctrine of God. So, wow. That, that, that's some fascinating thing. That's, that's, that's a fascinating background. Um, well on the pro. So I, I've got lots of questions about, about the Trinitarian stuff. Um, but, um, but I, but I, I want, well we're, we're dealing with Progressive Covenant. We're, we're dealing with progressive covenantal. Um, what, what, so what are, for those who don't know, what are some of the, what are some of the key, give us the progressive covenantal perspective on things? Uh, yeah, so I actually, I actually ended up writing down, I. A definition, uh, in view of the, this conversation definition drawn from Wellum from his work. He has, uh, there's a book that came out that's edited by, by two progressive covenantal analyst called Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies. It's a, uh, multiple views book, and he, in Well's chapter, he provides a definition, progressive covenantal wisdom argues that the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God's one redemptive plan for his one. People which reach their fulfillment, tell us and Terminus in Christ and the New Covenant. Um, so the, you know, the gist of it is. They, they're trying to, they're trying to say, they're trying to hold to both continuity and discontinuity. Mm-hmm. Um, I think everybody is, is wanting to, in some ways do that. Um, and so they're, they're wrestling with the tension between those two ideas. What is the continuity? The continuity is, is God's one redemptive plan is, uh, one people. And, um, and you can say the, the fact of progression is, is itself of a form of continuity. And then the discontinuity would be the fact that there are multiple covenants, um, covenant with, with Adam and with Noah, with Abraham, with, uh, Israel and David, and then the new Covenant. So, uh, so you've got discontinuity there in terms of, of the new covenant. Okay. In particular. Yeah. So, so. For those who are becoming familiar now, um, with, um, Baptist Covenantal Theology, particularly in the uk where I think it, I think I'm, I'm, I think I'm right in saying, John, my, my experience is I never actually encountered it. So when I, when I read Sam Renehan book, um, the Mystery of Christ, it was the first time I'd encountered, um, oh, and, and Pascal Dino's book. But there's some slight differences aren't there, between the two. Um, the first time I'd ever encountered anything, anything like that. Um, so, and, and I, and. The, the, the, the report of the covenants in those two books isn't widely known, I don't think in, in baptist circles who all, you know, there's large amounts of, I suppose same in the states, but large amounts of Baptist churches are not Baptist because they've got particular functioning covenantal theology. Um, and increasingly amongst a certain set of kind of conservative evangelicals. Baptism is a personal private thing anyway, so you can, there's dual policy stuff going on in churches, ba baby baptizing and, and, um, believer baptism. Um, because the functional covenantal theology, which it's all biblical theology, there's not a lot of covenantal theology. So I wonder if, here's when I'm getting around to my question. Something like Sam Han's book, um, probably is now the most, uh, comprehensive and accessible. Statement on Baptist covenantal theology and some, so, and, and one of the things he points out is there are, there's more than one covenant rather than the sort of the, just the two buckets, covenant of grace, covenant of works. Um, he picks up on the Presbyterian connection of, um, covenants in kingdom. Um, uh, and there's a progressive revelation. So given the, the, it doesn't sound a lot different to progressive covenantal. So what are, what are some of the, um, how, how do the two differ? Um, it, Hmm, I'm trying, I'm trying to think of where to, where to start the, uh, the story I guess. Uh, and of, of the difference. Um, so, so both really have at least reformed Baptist roots. Um, in, in the case of 1689 federalism, in the case of Sam Han's work, of course it's not just roots, but it's, it's identity even now, right. Um, that, that the covenant theology that's being put forward by Pascal Dano, by, uh, by Sam Renehan and others is within the, um, ecclesial community of those who hold to the second London confession. Right? Mm. And, um, and progressive covenantal is really, is in some ways a development out of new covenant theology or within new covenant theology, or however you want to end up saying that. And, um, and new covenant theology really has, its, its genus in the Reformed Baptist community here in, in Pennsylvania actually, where, where I'm presently living. So, um, the. One progressive covenantal analyst wrote a, an article, I, I think he, he calls it a Tale of Two Brothers or, or two. Uh, I, I forget exactly how he says it, but it's, it's almost like, uh, like you've got your Jacob and Esau idea, or, or Ishmael and Isaac, uh, idea that you have really two brothers, John Reisinger and, uh, and, and Ernie Reisinger. And these are two brothers who, uh, both came to more reformed convictions together in general and ended up arguing against each other. And John is, is really associated with new covenant theology, with its, with its, uh, beginning. And so, um, because of that, there are going to be several commonalities that distinguish them from. Other evangelicals from those outside of, of, um, you know, kind of a Baptist identity here in the States. So you, you mentioned baptism being a more, um, personal thing or, or what have you here in the states. Dispensationalism is just the dominant theology of Baptist churches because the SBC is so big and the SBC is, is largely populated by Dispensationalist. And so the idea of baptizing a baby is, is very foreign, very, um, there's a, like a gut reaction to the idea of, of baptizing a baby by most Baptists in the, in the states because they're dispensational. Um, and so. One of the reasons why you do tend to end up with differences in 1689 Federalists and, uh, amongst 16 9 9 Federalists and progressive covenant analysts is because 1689 Federalists are largely interacting with Presbyterians. Hmm. Um, and, and progressive covenant analysts are largely interacting with this sensationalists. Uh, because it, it largely exists within Southern Baptist churches or evangelical free churches. Um, progressive covenantal wisdom does. So, so I think I had heard the term very Bri like fi going through the filing cabinet of my mind, um, progressive covenantal. And I, I thought I, I probably pinned it as, oh, isn't that dispensationalist, who are now admitting some, that they're pressing harder on continuity than discontinuity. So I thought from a distance that it was a movement within pro, within dispensationalism that has started to notice some connecting doors, um, in a slightly different way. So I, I had had it, I, I didn't know the, uh, the, the Reformed Baptist roots of it then. That's quite interesting. Is so, is that, that is my pin in it. That I put somewhere in the back of my finding cabinet, um, a a bit of a poor caricature. It can be, um, the, the thing is so many have come out of dispensationalism because of their arguments that in reality, yes, they do tend to be people who were formerly dispensational and are now, um, wanting a more covenantal theology. Um, and, and even, even the label progressive covenantal has a, uh, a sister. I mean, there's a, another label like that, progressive dispensationalism. Oh, I think I probably got the two mixed up. Okay. And, and, and the reason for Progressive in both of those is, is similar. So in Progressive dispensationalism, the idea is that, uh, God's redemptive history is progressing. Uh, through these dispensations and, uh, and it's progressing through, through the types. So both progressive dispensationalism and progressive, uh, covenantal. And then we can say also 1689 federalism, um, are really wanting to, to push, put a lot of pressure on the reality of types and, um, and yeah, interpreting the types that are present in the old t in the Old Testament, uh, in relation to the new. So, yeah. Yeah. So there are commonalities there, there they would, they're not happy when they're associated with dispensationalist. Okay. I'm, I'm sorry, American brothers if, if I've done that, but I've had that. Um, Johnny, you, you're offending potential listeners. Sorry, everybody. Just, just I've, I've, I've got a, a question on that point because that's a really helpful clarification, uh, around the kind of the roots there of the different, uh, ideas, uh, and, and ways of framing redemptive history. Uh, just before I get to that, on the, uh. T-shirt point, Johnny, he, he, this one person that I think was a progressive covenant analyst that I met, was not wearing a yellow Hulk Hogan t-shirt, unfortunately. So, um, he doesn't have, that, wouldn't mark him as a progressive dispen, a progressive covenant analyst that would mark him out as a WWE fan. And, and there's a lot of them about, I'm sure he didn't have di Progressive dispensation. Progressive covenantal whatcha gonna do when progressive dispensationalism runs Wild on you brother. Anyway, so how did you know, did you just, were people just chatting and saying that chap's a progressive, um, covenantal list? I, I, I, I mean there's, maybe it was something to do with the hair or the, the stance. I, I don't know that, like I said at the beginning, I, I've only, I. Ever, uh, you know, met, uh, if one, one of these, uh, people. So you know, Dan Daniel is really the profiler, uh, for us in, in this episode. But, um, on, on a more, uh, serious matter, w would you say it, it's fair to categorize progressive covenantal in, in, in this way, Daniel, that there are some aspects to progressive covenantal, which particularly around the relationship between the mosaic covenant and the new covenant, where there is a, there are some, some quite strong differences from the historic reformed position on those matters. Like, uh, for example, the place of the moral law in the new Covenant, and although I, I think it would be. Unfair to say that, that there is a, an exact overlap with new covenant theology. That there is some there, there's some overlap there, isn't there? What could, could you help explain a few of those pointers a little more? Yeah, so the, um, the remembering that they're coming out of new covenant theology and, and one of the, the key, um, I say coming out of new covenant theology and, and that's probably too strong as well. Um, they originally identified themselves in, in that first edition of Kingdom Through Covenant, they identified themselves as a subset of new covenant theology. And then, and then they ended up wanting to say, well, we really are wanting to call ourselves something distinct, uh, because, because. New covenant theology has, has too much breadth to it. But if you remember that I, the, the debates really amongst new co, uh, where New Covenant theology was, was heavily identified was were debates over the, the reality of the Sabbath, uh, or the abiding validity of the Sabbath and the way that it abides. And so they would want to say, progressive covenant analysts would want to say that, um, while their conclusion ends up being the same regarding the Sabbath, that the reasoning isn't exactly the same. And they would say that the reasoning isn't the same because in New Covenant theology. The, um, there's a, some, sometimes it was stated crassly. I keep saying sometimes because new covenant theology was kind of a grassroots, lots of conversations, sometimes pastor's, conferences and, and that sort of thing. So there, it, it's kind of amorphous. Um, it, there are a lot of different ways of presenting it, but, um, often it was presented as if it's not repeated in the new, in the, if a command is not repeated in the New Testament, then it's not, it, it doesn't have bearing today or, or something like that. And progressive covenant analysts are wanting to say, well, the, we still want to treat the Old Testament as scripture and um, and so we want to be able to say that even the decalogue applies today, but it applies today like the rest of the Mosaic law. So we, uh, the Mosaic Covenant. The mosaic economy. And so as we would still treat the Old Testament as scripture, well the, the decalogue as a, as a, um, component, part of that is going to be treated that way. And so it ends up, um, they, they really do kind of end up in the same place saying, well, it doesn't just come over. Um, the 10 Commandments don't, but, and, and the Sabbath doesn't. But they're, they're trying to offer some kind of argument for how that doesn't just hack off the Old Testament, but that there is that, as far as I understand, that key point where progressive covenants would deny that the moral law is written on the heart. Is that correct or would there be some who would say it is written on the heart? Uh. Yeah, that's a, I think that's an internal debate for progressive cov uh, progressive covenant analysts. Where, where want some are wanting to say, like, for instance, uh, Romans two, um, there are some amongst progressive covenant analysts that say Romans two is specifically a reference to Gentile believers. Um, when, when they do, um, you know, what is written in the law, it shows that the law is written on the heart. Uh, the Gentiles, um, some have argued, some progressive covenant analysts have argued that that actually is a, is a reference to gentile believers and so, and so that does undermine, you know, some of the, some of our arguments for, for natural law and, and the, and the moral law being written on the heart. Um, not, I think it, I think it's an internal conversation for them, though. I don't, I don't know if they're all in agreement on that. So, so I, I'm quite new to this, but I'm, I'm having some, I have some familiarity with the new covenant theology, sort of, um, probably at that grassroots level, um, where it was kind of assumed, um, um, rather than fully art. Like, like you said, it's, it was kind of, it, it came out various places, whether or not it was sort of self-identifying as that. But, um, so I'm, I'm slightly going off off that and try and I'm, I'm trying to, trying to work my way towards how you might end up with a progressive covenantal coming from a new Covenant perspective. Is there something like, I know this isn't this, this isn't, I've, yeah. Uh, is it something like. The decalogue stands as some kind of type that is fulfilled in Christ. And so it, and that's how it carries over. So there's something like belief in Christ produces something that the decalogue always pointed towards. But you don't need the delo anymore though. It, it, it informs it, it gets its sense entirely through gospel fulfillment that route. And so that's how you, you don't have, you don't have, you don't have sort of natural law, moral law, those sorts of things, but, but it, it stands as, as type, and that's a slightly more nuanced way of handling the decalogue ally, um, from a progre from, with coming out of or within a new Covenant perspective without putting a kind of a firewall between the older new Covenant. Would it be something like that? Yes, ex, except they would not, so they don't deny. And, uh, and they will say this emphatically that they don't deny the moral law. They don't deny natural law that they, okay. Um, they just don't, they wouldn't say that the, the dec decalogue is a some, you know, in our catechism, where is the moral loss merely contained? Um, they wouldn't say that. It is the, the summary of the moral law that really you have to, you have to interpret all of scripture in order to, uh, to understand the, the moral law. Um, so they want us, they still wanna say there's an eternal law. Uh, that there's a moral law, but, but it really, you have to be able, you have to interpret all of scripture. You have to interpret it in light of Christ. You have to interpret it, interpret it, uh, contextually and canonically. And so, um, and so they, they wouldn't, they would emphatically say they don't deny the, the moral law. Um, okay. But it what we mean. Yeah. But it, but it is a kind of a, for want of a better phrase. A a, a gospel centered approach to the moral law. Yes. So, so it would be something like, um, in, there's moral law kind of out there and in us, but the lens, which brings it into focus, makes its, make sense, is the gospel in Christ, which would have implications for the unbelieving world. They couldn't do moral law successfully or properly or interpret morality without the new covenant. Would that be an implication that, that you, so you end up with that kind of, um, gospel centered epistemology which ends, ends up being applied to everybody? That I would say yes. Okay. But you are nervous because I can hear a nervousness.'cause you are worried about getting an email now, aren't you? Pretty much, yeah. I, I think, um, yeah. Yeah, I think, I think we do. Of course, not all, not all confessional, uh, brothers would, would necessarily have a, a strong, uh, view of natural law or something like that. But, but I do. And, um, and, um. You know, um, kind of following Turin and, and some of the reform scholastics and then, and then obviously connecting that to those that came before, before the reformation as well. So I, I have a strong view of, of, um, the nature grace distinction and, and what is actually written and on the heart and what can be determined from common notions and, and that sort of idea. So, and the light of nature and those things. Yeah. The light of nature and so forth. Yeah. So, um, where, yeah, the, the, um, way of doing ethics by progressive covenant analysts is, is wanting to do a biblical theologically, uh, which then does tie every, uh, tie a lot of it to, um, uh, yeah. A biblical epistemology is, is what would often be, it would often be called or something interesting going to your mind in, in terms of understanding. Progressive covenant in relation to our position as those confessing second London, there are some direct points like we've already noted around the law and the, uh, the Sabbath day that was mentioned in relation to progressive covenant realism and new covenant theology. We would confess that the law is written on the heart. We, we have a, a, you know, clear teaching on the Sabbath day in our confession of faith. But what, you know, one thing we argue at Broken Wharf, and it's represented in the views of Nehemiah Cox is. This view of covenants, which has come to be known as 1689 Federalism, I've always found it a, a funny name for a system of covenant theology. Sometimes we, we talk to people over here and we, we refer to 1689 federalism, and they, there's just a glaze. They don't have a clue what we're speaking about.'cause it, it kind of sounds funny to British people, but that, that's, that's the name it's been given. And although we understand that, that view isn't strictly taught, uh, as we were viewed today in second London, there's, there's actually a lot of brevity to, uh, the chapter on God's covenant. Yet, you know, we, we would largely hold that view, uh, in line with the. Worked by Nehemiah Cox. Discourse of the covenants we're, we're just at the moment, reprinting it as covenant theology from Adam to Christ, a 20th anniversary edition after it was first republished by Richard Baros and, and Jim Rehan in 2005. So in light of that, where, where does progressive covenantal line up? And this is really the, the heart of the question that I'm asking, how does progressive covenantal relate to traditional types of Presbyterian covenant theology? Because it seems like we have some significant overlap with progressive covenantal and emphasis as we find in Cox on biblical theology and the progressive revelation. Of those covenants. We, we see something of that in, in the language of father steps in our confession of faith. And, and, and we really, I think, have a strong overlap there. As Johnny mentioned, it's emphasized in Sam Renehan book, the Mystery of Christ Connecting Covenants in Kingdom. But there's also strong differences. And on some of those differences, we would align more with the Presbyterian position, for example, on the Mosaic Covenant. So what, how, how, how are we to think through these things? How are we to relate to progressive covenant theism, uh, as those confessing second London? So yeah, the, um, trying to, trying to think of where to, where to get in on, on, uh, what you were saying, what you were asking. So. First thing, maybe I could say a progressive covenant analyst could confess, um, chapter seven. They wouldn't be able to confess other parts of, of the, uh, confession, but they could confess chapter seven. Um, I asked Dr. Wellum, uh, at some point about farther steps, chapter seven, paragraph three, and he said, yeah, that, that looks basically like what we're trying to do. Um, and so, so in that sense, okay, um, if we think of, uh, the two primary covenants that we, that we talk about, the covenant of works and the covenant of Grace, that would be an easy way to really start to talk about differences as well as, as well as similar similarities. But so, um. One of the things that distinguishes progressive covenantal wisdom from new covenant theology is that progressive covenantal is very comfortable talking about a covenant made with Adam. Um, whereas New covenant theology was very hesitant and, and usually denied there being a covenant with Adam because something's not stated there and you don't, uh, yeah. So Progressive covenantal wisdom will say yes. They will say, uh, they will incorporate arguments for the covenant of works from covenant theologians into their arguments for the covenant, what they call the covenant of creation. And then they prefer the language of covenant of creation. Um, this is, this is actually kind of a moving part of progressive covenantal wisdom right now, but, um, in their revision, so I mentioned Kingdom Through Covenant came out in 20 I. 12 a revision was made, uh, was published in 2018. And in 2018 there was a resistance to the idea of a distinction between creation and covenant, where we are wanting to make it, we're wanting to say there is a distinction that, uh, that there's Adam, uh, naturally considered and, and Adam with, uh, positive conditions, um, imposed, thus, thus forming the, the covenant of works. And, um, and in general, the argument and the, the emphasis in that 2018 edition was, was pushing against that pretty directly. Um. That said, progressive covenant analysts have started a website and, um, and they had a whole, uh, a website where they talk about all sorts of different things called Christ overall, and they devoted a month or two just to the idea of, of progressive covenantal. And in the context of that, they also had conversations about covenant theology and Covenant of Works and our covenant of creation and, and those things. And, and it sounded like at least some of them have shifted to talk about positive, um, the, the positive law there being, being what is, um, of yeah, forming the covenant of works there in the garden. Even still Mike Horton in, in the book I mentioned a moment ago in the, the Spectrum's view, uh, the Spectrum's book, the multiple views book, Mike Horton. Identifies so, so well will say that you've got Adam and then you have subsets of Adam and, and another Adam. Noah is another Adam, and Abraham is another Adam, and Israel is another Adam. And, um, and, and Horton says, see, when when you do that, you end up running into problems because Adam is particularly unique. And, and Willam would say that Willam will say Adam is a federal head. He says that in his, uh, systematic theology very explicitly. Adam is a federal head, and that's one of the commonalities that, that we have with 1689 Federalists because he does interact with us there. Um, but then you run into the issue of is Abraham. Is, is the Abrahamic covenant just another version of the covenant of works? If, if the covenant of creation just is the covenant of works, which seems to be their argument, and if the Abrahamic covenant just is the, uh, a, a subset of the covenant of creation, then does that, doesn't that make the Noa covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the mosaic covenant, the Davidic Covenant, just subsets of the covenant of works? And, um, and yeah, there, there's, I mean, there are questions there, I think. I think by drawing clear distinctions, uh, Horton makes another, just points out another, uh, concern, at least in that the covenant of creation is sometimes articulated as, as incorporating Genesis three 15 and the proto Gelian. Question is, is that part of the covenant of creation? And if so, then is that not Covenant of Works? Again, back to that issue. So, so there's not a, there aren't clear enough distinctions, it seems, uh, being made there. Um, in terms of the Covenant of Works cov, is it, are they really putting something new forward and then, and, and maybe we don't really immediately recognize it because, uh, because they've identified those things. Um, and then on term, in terms of the Covenant of Grace, where Presbyterians will say Genesis three 15, I say Presbyterians, there are confessional brothers that will wanna say that as well, but, uh, Presbyterians will say Covenant, uh. The Covenant of grace, Genesis three 15. And then every other is, is an administration. And we are wanting to say new covenant, covenant of grace and progressive covenant analysts, as they've come into contact with the literature, are wanting to say, if that's what's meant, then fine. We're okay with with that. Um, but they prefer to use the idea of covenant of grace being the plan, the one plan of God, which isn't really, um, that that's either providence or that's the decree. Um, so that, that's actually the introduction of a new term, a new definition. And um, and part of that is because they, they also wanna make a distinction between biblical covenants and theological covenants. Which I, I find to be an unhelpful distinction, um, as though we've got the biblical covenants and then, and then we step aside and we start to develop our theological covenants, uh, the covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace, um, by identifying, in Presbyterian's case, by identifying three, Genesis three 15 with the Covenant of Grace, they're actually saying the covenant of grace is a biblical covenant. And, um, and by us identifying it with the new covenant, we're actually saying we're identifying it with a biblical covenant. It just is a, a biblical covenant. And, um, and so in some ways they've, they've, um, they've invented a new definition. Um, and then, and then they don't like the term because they find that covenant of grace language tends to flatten the, the biblical storyline. And we are sympathetic to the flattening that happens with, uh, with a lot of conversations about the covenant of grace. Um, but, but we don't want to end up, yeah. Do, do you suspect there's anything dubious going on with the doctrine of God there, or, yeah. You know, we, we've seen it before with, uh, Scott's Han and others. When we start getting into a distinction in covenants in relation to the being of God, then my, my ears just prick up. But there, there may be nothing there. But Do you think there's a distinction in, in how they're understanding the doctrine of God or, or not so much? Uh, not so much. They, they would largely want to, uh, advocate against the modifications of, of the doctrine of God that have, that have come about. Um, yeah. Yeah. So, so not, not really. Um, they're mostly just modifying the language of, of the covenants directly. Um, and then in terms of the Mosaic Covenant, uh, in terms of, you know, we, we've got something like the idea that it is, it is a subservient covenant. And, um, and I think there are commonalities that, that are there, that are helpful. I find, I find Progressive Covenant Analyst to be particularly helpful in discussions in my discussions with Dispensationalist because that is, um, because they've done a lot more work, um, interacting with Dispensationalist, I think, than, than I have directly. Um. But, but in terms of the, the, uh, Presbyterian covenant theology, their concerns are the same. Um, that there's a flattening of the, of the biblical of redemptive history. There tends to be a flattening amongst Presbyterians of, of, uh, redemptive history. Um, but the way that they, they address that I think lacks the kind of precision that you find in any of my cox and, and, and in Sam Nan's work as well. Uh, I'm, can you just, just go back, I'm trying to get my head round the, what they do with the covenant of Grace. So it, it's, they, they make, they've got this new category. They've got this category of a theological covenant, which is not connected, which you said actually is in traditional theology. It sounds like the decree or, or, or providence. Um. Just, just, I just clarify that for me a little bit. I'm just, just struggling to get my head around what, what is the, what, what problem are they trying to solve there? And is it, is the counterpoint something in dispensationalism at that point? Is that, is that who you need to read it, uh, in connection with? Uh, yeah. So maybe to clarify then, um, in 2006, wellum wrote an article where he said, where he called for a chapter in a book where he called for a moratorium on the, on the language of Covenant of Grace. And he said that the reason why he, he doesn't like the term is because it, that that language is used to flatten the biblical storyline. And so, um, I don't know if he says it in that article or if he says it later, but he says, if all you mean is the one plan of God, then that's fine. Um, the problem is that, that that isn't what the covenant of grace means. It, it doesn't just mean the one plan of God. Um, that's where I wanna say that that definition actually applies to two different, one of two other things, either to the decree or to Providence, but the covenant, but covenant of grace. Um. Covenant of grace has to do with the, the ordered relation between sinners and, and God. Right? Um, and so as, and so it's not just the plan of God, it's particularly about an ordered relation, uh, an ordered relationship between sinners and, and God. And, um, and on top of that, because I think, um, and it's not, it's not Wellum. I think they're, they're developed this idea that there are the biblical covenants and the theological covenants, and I think Wellum, um, and, and not just Wellum others progressive Covenant analysts. You'll read it in, in Presbyterians, you'll read it in Reformed Baptists, you'll hear it from Reformed Baptists. They'll, they'll make this distinction between the biblical covenants and the theological covenants. And, um, and so Weam will want to say. Uh, the covenant of grace. Sure. As a theological covenant, uh, as a theological abstraction. Fine. And if all you mean is the one plan of God, and, and I think on both of those counts, we want to say that's not, um, I, I have quibbles with both of those counts. First, the distinction between theological and biblical covenants, and second, with the definition of, of covenant of grace in general. I think it, I think it covenant of grace. I think the covenant of grace, the covenant of works are biblical covenants. There are particular covenants in instantiated in the redemptive history, and our real debate is over which one of them is, or where is it? Um, is it Genesis three 15 or is it the new covenant? And, uh, and then the second thing is it's not just the plan of God. Uh, it's specifically the ordered relationship between sinners and God, um, you know, redeemed sinners and God, I should say, is that, is that clarifying? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you. Probably jumped around a lot, uh, earlier. Yeah. No, no, no, no. That's, that, that's, I, I, I think I just needed to, just to hear it again. Just um, um, just to get my, to get some, get my head around what's going on. Because I, like, like John Mark, I had a, oh, when somebody does something with the decree,'cause there is a trend within doctrine of God to somehow make, make, make, um, make the decree do something in the doctrine with the doctrine of God. Um, it's there with, um, with John Webster for instance, in his, um, including the economy somehow. Uh, in the being of God in some way. But anyway, uh, that's a whole other topic. So when somebody sort of squashes something, does, makes the decree do something else or fold something into the decree, you, you, you start looking at the doctrine of God and wondering if it's, it's starting to get a bit nervous. Um, but I can, but I can see, and I, and I appreciate the instinct to, to avoid the flattening because, um, but I, but the drive for biblical theology can, it's a fascinating discipline for me, biblical theology, because it can both flatten. Or, um, it can be conducted in a way that, that, that picks out the contours and the, the, the, the, the topology of, of scripture, which always suggests to me, again, this is a kind of a, I think Webster, John Webster wrote something on biblical theology just pointed out, actually, it's a form of systematics, isn't it really? Let's just be honest. Where you, you, you, you just decide your system and then you, and then you press it. Um, so, so rather than really it's running with the grain of scripture. Um, it is applying a few theories, um, to it. So, um, so biblical theology, this biblical theology, uh, ca it, it is the discipline. I mean, most of the disciplines can't exist, Elaine, but within, but this. Biblical theology does the most mischief when it, it seems to me, when it is a, when it is allowed to attempt to do all the others. Um, and actually something in there, there's something epistemological going on in there, so I'm sort of want, I I I just wondered if it'd be right. I is this there, there's, there's category distinctions and there's, there's where you put the, the what's theological, what's biblical in terms of the covenants. But the, but I'm picking up, there are some different assumptions going on in progressive covenantal to. 1689 federalism around questions of epistemology, around questions of what can be known about God. Um, and I'm just wondering how their and, and the, the place of the new covenant in knowing God and the world. Um, so I dunno where my question is there, but with, is that the main line of difference really when you dig it up underneath? Uh, or is that just a sort of, a bit of a side, a side show? I think it would be interesting to, to hear them discuss that. Okay. Yeah. I, I don't know. Yeah. Um, I guess, I guess I, like, I have this instinct for is somebody getting near fiddling with the doctrine of God. I also have this kind of alarm bell going when somebody wants the gospel to do more. Th than, um, than it is designed to do. I know it's, I know the gospel is gonna, is, is about the renew of all things. Right. But, but an approach to scripture that says, scripture is not the place you go to, to learn how to do biology or build a bridge or build a nation, and those sorts of things. They, you know, those sorts of things has a particular. Particular role in the Christian in, in the, in, in, in for salvation. So nervousness about the doctrine of God. And then, and then, and then the other alarm bell goes off when somebody's trying to make the gospel do things. And again, I, I learned this from I, again, I can Woodrow bingo Webster at least as much as I now have a critique of him. I have, I appreciate the getting doctrines in the right place, in the right order and not having one doctrine start to do the work of other doctrines and grow outta place. And when that happens, uh, a confession is, is the best practical tool for avoiding that. Um, but when it happens, usually something about. The doctrine of God, something about Christology and the gospel, something about the place of scripture and human life, and something about what humans can know. Those are, those are the source. Something goes wrong in one of those. And when something goes wrong in one of them, there's usually something going wrong in all the others as well. Do you see what I mean? Anyway. Yeah. I, I think, um, it is, it is interesting to ask the question of how the system influences those things because I think, um, I, I have my own ways of, of, uh, saying, well, this seems to imply, Hmm. Um, so, so as I, you know, even with the issue of the decree, uh, and defining the covenant, defining covenant of grace as. One plan of God. I say, well, but wait a minute. There's this other doctrine that we, that we use that Yes. Okay. Uh, that language for, right. And so, and so they, they might say, okay, well then maybe we don't wanna use that definition. Maybe we'll use this other definition. And, and, um, and again, uh, well, in his systematic theology does say that if covenant of grace means new covenant, then he's, he's happy with that. So he's happy to agree with us on that. But, um, but in general, he uses this other definition and then he just doesn't use the term, the phrase covenant of grace. Because, because it just, it creates confusion. Um, so it's, um, now, sorry. Go on Karen. Uh, yeah, I think, I think one of the questions that I do run into as well is, or, or one of the critiques maybe that I have, or one of the reasons I find 1689 Federalism so much more compelling is. That I think we have a, a clearer understanding or a clearer presentation anyway of, of the na natural and covenantal distinction. Mm-hmm. The fact that that covenant just, uh, nature just isn't just immediately covenantal. That covenant entails something additional to the natures of things. And, um, and so if everything is kind of baked into the nature, um, and now it's just all called covenantal, then, then you really do run into those issues. And I think the, that does lead to the questions that you're asking. Um, yeah. So, so how does this a affect if, if nature just is covenantal by nature in itself, uh, then yeah. How does that affect politics and how does that affect. Our epistemology. And how does that, uh, where we, we would wanna say there actually is a real, um, you can, you can actually distinguish between nature and, and covenant and, um, and if covenant is the ordering of nature, then that's not a separation of covenant in nature. Um, which, which I, I understand covenant to be an ordering of nature. It's, uh, two men, you know, or a, a man and a woman. Um, coming together in marriage is, in the covenant of marriage is the ordering of nature, right? That it presupposes to use the language of presupposition. Uh, it presupposes the reality of two natural beings, um, of a and, and of. One being a man and a and of the other, being a woman, and those being definable things with traits and all of that. And then covenant orders that, um, that, that, if every, that, that, that, that's actually really helpful. Um, um, way of putting it. I, I, um, the, the, there is a way of pressing covenant, which kind of assumes that, um, that nature is all chaos actually. Uh, and, and covenant brings form, not just order, but form to nature in some kind of way that, that, but you, but you are the way you've related it. Um, ma makes sense because the, the, the, the, the, the Bible assumes Jesus assumes, you know. Agricultural metaphors because there's a reality and then uses them to, to explain something. So, and you don't need, uh, to have a, uh, knowledge of a covenantal relationship with God in order to understand agriculture. Um, but there are ways of pressing covenant that become radically epistemological. Like there is no sense in the world without, um, with, with, with, without co There's no meaning in creation without covenant, in some, some kind of way. Uh, just is, is this is the discussion we're having actually. Um, I remember Richard Parcels when he was dealing with, um, new covenant theology, um, and was careful to point out it's a thing in motion because it's early days. Uh, it's very difficult to sort of, it, it does happen in, on the internet and it happens, uh, passes conferences is, um. Uh, the, the new, um, progressive covenantal is happening in different spaces, more traditional spaces through publishing and, um, through academic papers and those sorts of things. But, but, but we're, what we're, you are being so very helpful and careful because terms of still being defined. So this is, this is one worth watching to see where it goes. That that would be the, the first point, I guess, uh, that I just wanted to get to respond on just methodologically and also to have a, um, uh, a gracious spirit toward brothers who are exploring this. But, but secondly, but given its origins, it really isn't a development of, and it, or how much is it? Oh, it doesn't sound like it is to me a development of a conversation within 1689 Federalism. So it, the, so one, one of the, one of the symptoms of new movements is they have to start nailing down their terms, but kind of without meaningful conversation with what's gone on before. Like there's a new conversation that's happened on another table over the side, at the other side of the canteen, and they didn't, they didn't come from the same table taking the categories with them and then wanting to modify them. And, and one of the symptoms of that is that, that, that you, you start to see on, to use Jim Han's, um, soundboard analogy, uh, for the balance of theology and the, the order of, um, of different doctrines and then their internet connections. You start to see in a new movement, a a kind of an amnesia about past terms and then a. We haven't got a knob for that. Oh yeah. No, we haven't thought about that distinction. Well, it's kind of there in the old stuff. Did you not know? Um, and, and that one's up too loud and that, that, that's what it feels to me. Like, would that be the state of the art? Sorry, Dr. Willem, I've never met you, and I don't mean to suggest you've run off with half a set of knobs off to set your own soundboard off, um, that kind of thing. But do something with that. Do something with it. Um, yeah, so I, I think on the first point that you made about, um, in new Covenant theology being, uh. Outside of traditional spaces and a developing moving target and all of that. And, and, um, whereas progressive covenantal Yes. Does, um, they, they've published books with major publishers and, and as you said, articles and, and academic conferences and, and all this. But you do also have, um, Christ, uh, yeah, Christ overall that the website, Christ overall, where they're able to, to keep teasing these, these things out. And it does seem to be a, a developing work. Um, so that first part, yes, it's, it does seem to be something where, where refinement is happening all along. I do think that one of the benefits of 1689 federalism has been that instinct to say, well, what, what terms have been used before? And is there a way to understand these that are these things, these concepts, um, that are biblically faithful, consistent with those who have gone before us And yet, and, and both of those at the same time. Yeah. Right. Um, and so where, where Progressive Covenantal is sort of wants to back away from older terms because they have widespread stable meanings. And so they don't prefer to use the term covenant of works because the widespread stable meaning of that is defined by Presbyterians. And, um, and, and the. Oh, I don't, I don't know why else the, they do prefer Covenant of Creation instead of Covenant of Works. But, um, and then, and then with Covenant of Grace, same thing. Widespread stable meaning is provided by Presbyterians and so they're not gonna use it. So that way you, the, I think the intention is so that you have to take them on their own terms. Um, so you have to engage them and interact with them on their own terms. Yes. Okay. So in that, and so in that sense, it, so I, I had, I was wondering how, how much is this of, of a moment where a. People do theology by podcast, but also there are various covenantal camps and there's movement in dispensationalism. There's debate within Presbyterian covenantal theology. There's 60 89 Federalism, which is now got its own brand name and those sorts of things. And there, there, there, there's, there's a kind of a, just an attempt to sort of come together a little bit within progressive covenantal wisdom. Um, but there's also a move to kind of set out their own stall in their own marketplace. Here are our wares, here are our terms. And just as you get, um, for want of a better phrase, your academic product going, um, and the kind of the marketplace for academic ideas, you tend to need those kind of bring an audience and then sell something unique. Um, and, and, and actually just being aware of that, that's tends to be how things go on. Um. Um, tr trying to state, bringing out old things that have always been there. Just, it doesn't get you published necessarily, does it? Does it, do you know what I mean? There's, there's a, there's a, there is a way of doing academic discourse, which is both helpful and has some problems with it. That's a statement. It's not really a question, is it? Yeah, it can, it can, that can definitely be part of it. Um, and there's, there's also a desire not to be misunderstood. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I, I think it, you know, uh, charitably at least there's, there's also that, um, a desire not to be misunderstood. And if we're using a phrase, if, if you and I were to speak with a Presbyterian and we were to use the term covenant of grace, oh, we, uh, isn't it such amazing, so amazing that we've, that we're, you know, in one covenant of grace with Abraham and David. Um, the Presbyterian understands how that's the case in a, in a particular way. Um, and, and we understand how that's the case in a particular way, even though we're using the, the, the same term. Um, both of us would say by virtue of Christ, right. Uh, communicated, uh, to the saints in the old covenant through the, the types and, and shadows and promises. But um, but they would also understand, they would have a certain understanding about, of the, um, the kind of immediacy of the, the administration of the covenant of grace there, um, in order to avoid. And, and in that way then you kind of run the risk of equivocation. Mm-hmm. Where, and, and so I. Again, charitably to say what progressive covenant analysts are wanting to do is avoid equivocation and, and try to be as clear as possible on that, but yeah. Okay. But, you know, my, my argument would just be, well, let's, let's go back and see the way there was another stream. And if you look at Renehan, uh, Sam Han's dissertation, you can say there, there was another stream within the context of, of, um, the development and, and establishment of covenant theology that understood the covenant of race and, and understood the old covenant and ways that are conducive to, uh, Baptist reading of the scriptures. Um, and so you don't have to say, well, you know, if, if the Presbyterian misunderstands you then clarify, but. You don't have to throw out the, the phrase. Yeah. Okay. And, um, that, that, that's, that's helpful. It's helpful just trying to bring some of these things together. It, it seems that one of the things you've been walking through is the fact that although we have strong differences with progressive covenant analysts, so much so that for example, they don't, it, it's, it's fair to say that those pushing this, for example, those who would be pushing Christ overall, they, uh, and that platform that you've mentioned, they, they are not claiming to confess second London. We may have lots of overlap with them, but they, they do not confess the same confession of faith with us because of some of those differences. But on the other hand, it seems from what you're saying, that our critique of Peter Baptist Covenant theologies probably looks very similar to theirs. Is that fair to say? Yeah. Um, some, some of them will, some of them will say, I can I hold to the confession, I just disagree on the Sabbath. Um, okay. I think you, I think it's fairer for the, I think those people should just say they don't, they don't hold to the confession at that point. Uh, because, because of just how integrated and how, how much that expresses a certain understanding of moral law and, and, you know, our reading of the Old Testament on, on those issues. But, um, but yeah, I think, I think our critiques of Pato Baptist will be very similar, um, on that issue of, of continuity and discontinuity and yeah, I, I do, as I was saying earlier, I, I find them to be. More helpful, more, um, you know, alongside me when we're talking about dispensationalism. Mm, interesting. It's, it's usually when we start to, to deal with Presbyterianism because, uh, the problem is that in Presbyterian presbyterianism you have, um, clear, clear distinctions in, in a theological reading of the scriptures, um, that we're, we are going to have commonalities with Presbyterians that pres, that progressive covenant analysts won't, and the progressive covenant analysts will have other commonalities with some Presbyterians that we won't. And, and so actually at that point, it, it becomes a little more, um, of, of distinct camps, a little clearer of a distinction of camps. We end up in the same place in terms of baptism, but, and, and sort of for the same reasons, or, or very much for the same reasons, even because of the fact that, that the new covenant is really new. There, there is something, um, substantial about that. Um, but, but then once we, we start talking about how then the, the old Covenant or the Old Testament relates to that, we have a, I think in some ways a distinct way of presenting that, um, from progressive covenant analysts. That's helpful. It's helpful. Johnny, you've got any final questions, thoughts? I, I feel like if I wasn't going to end this here, we could go forever. No. Yeah, I have a whole lot of other questions, but I do, I do have to, uh, get to an appointment. So I'm, I, maybe we can do part two at some point. I, I, I think I, if I don't, I would really like to do part two at some point, because covenantal theology is one of the big topics that's very hard to get your head round. And, but it, it is like train tracks and if you, you make a click in a different direction at a certain point, you can end up in very different places. And, um, and, and it, it really does, it really does rub in, um. Uh, in the local church, um, in handling of texts, um, uh, in, in application to family and LA and life in a particular place and, and how, and how church interacts with state as all these kinds of things are bound up in this sort of thing. So I'd be, I'd be quite interested to carry on the conversation, and again, with, with the spirit of this is a, this is a movement that's getting going. I, I know 2012 is a Publica. I mean that's, you know, 12, 13 years ago. But conversations are quite slow, aren't they? In, in theology. And it takes time for something to bed down. Define its categories and implications to start heading out. But given that it's not just in the academy, but is out on podcasts, it will be shaping, um, uh, particular views in the pews. And I'm always aware. Of how downstream of the American empire we are in Britain, um, and, and how there are Brits who like to hoover up anything that kind of comes out of big evangelicalism, um, coming over from the states and wanting to replicate its energy here in some kind of way. Um, and, um, so it does impact the local congregation. So I'd love to carry on the conversation another point if you'd be up for that. But, um, you, your people, talk to our people. Let's get this arranged. I've got a dash. Thank you Daniel. I really appreciate that. I've, I've learned a lot. Thank you. It, it's been a, a great conversation. Happy to do it. Thank you to all of you who've tuned in today. You can, uh, find, uh, Daniel on Twitter and, and you're also involved with something called Baptist Dogmatics. I dunno if you could mention, uh, a few words about that, Daniel. Sure. Uh, so that's a website my friend Drew Sparks and I have. Um, started several years ago, maybe four and a half years ago or so. Uh, we have another friend that's involved who's, um, a professor at, at Southern Seminary is, uh, favorable to 1689 federalism and is, uh, holds the confession. So, um, and the idea behind that is basically just for us to be able to put together something maybe at a Ligonier Ministries level, maybe a little bit, a little bit higher than that maybe. Um, and, and to keep the article short, we're not very consistent. Um, all three of us are, are pastors and have busy lives and everything, so, but when we can, we try to get all of those things out and, and, uh, actually Drew Sparks had had done, um, an article. For the Journal of in, uh, international Reform Baptist Seminary, and I think you guys allowed him to, to share that article in several, in several installations on our website. So yeah, just sort of a place for us to collect some, some thoughts. Excellent. That sounds exciting. Thank you. Yeah, it sounds very interesting. You can head over to, uh, the website, Baptist Dogmatics, if anyone wants to check that out. And do go over to broken wharf.com/bookshop because we have Nehemiah Cox and John Owen, covenant Theology from Adam to Christ 20th Anniversary edition, and I said it in the last episode. I'll say it again, printed in England. Lovely hardback cover, Swedish milled paper. Section sewn, glued bound. This is a, a really high quality book, so go and check it out for pre-order. 30% off. Uh, whilst you can. Thanks for all listening and bye for now.