Transcript
Speaker: All right, Dustin, how you doing? I'm doing well. How are you? I'm good man. Ready to go. Always. Hmm. Talking about Christianity in the public square today again.
Speaker: Something we touched on a couple of episodes ago. Right. We can put it that way. And it's just part of this larger conversation. One of the things that... Some of our brothers and and rightly so are pushing back on what they call a.
Speaker: a pietistic kind of approach to. Christian engagement. It's almost like, well, you know, we want to preach the gospel, which we obviously do. Absolutely. We want to see people saved, obviously.
Speaker: but yeah you know some some of our brothers and sisters don't necessarily See, the kingdom is something that's having impact now in the earth. It's more of a heavenly dynamic. And it's sort of a.
Speaker: Hands off. We'll just preach the gospel. and Christians or the church in general shouldn't have anything to do with. Public policy, you know, legislation or anything like that. We disagree with that, right? We've heard the phrase, don't polish the brass on a sinking ship. Yep, yep, that's right.
Speaker: That's right. so You know, we Christians should engage. Christians should engage. And Baptists have always been. And he goes, whoa, there I've tipped my hand. We're Baptists, but I guess everybody knows that. We've said it a couple of times already. so We, and I'm not just saying this, we really love our Presbyterian.
Speaker: Methodist brothers and sisters, et cetera, I could go on down the list. Sure. But obviously we have these distinctives. But a lot of a lot of folk don't. to Well, let me just put it this way. Baptists have have always...
Speaker: In general, I mean, there's there's like, I don't even know how many types of Baptists there are. Right. There's a bunch, but. Most of us, historically, we we engage. and um A lot of times.
Speaker: You know, some folk will ask because Baptists are big on religious freedom. And I think Baptists should be big on religious freedom. Yes. Because of our understanding of the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. However.
Speaker: We don't want folk to misunderstand, and I think some Baptists do misunderstand. Sometimes... We get accused of being kind of. with reference to religious freedom. We've sort of adopted a ah classic liberalism. not political liberalism as it's ah manifest today, progressivism, but classic liberalism, ah again, liberty.
Speaker: liberty -mindedness and certainly I think Christians have a liberty -mindedness, Christians in general. But. we're We're not classic liberals. Classic liberalism. posited a a neutrality.
Speaker: As it were, with reference to the civil government. a neutrality in the public square would you you know the government certainly puts laws in place, but it's... it's essentially to allow the free market to run. individual liberty.
Speaker: And again, those are those are good things, but the question is... is how far and can there be such a thing as neutrality? And I think that's where classic liberalism misses the mark. There's no such thing as neutrality. Right. Yeah. So they're basically saying that.
Speaker: that government can exist and laws can exist. that are. morally. neutral And then it's just how the people. carry out or follow or break.
Speaker: or execute those laws. is what makes something good or bad. but the the the government and the law itself is neutral. And what we're going to argue is that.
Speaker: We don't believe that can be the case. There you go. Yeah. It. i wouldn't interrupt you but yeah no that's exactly right i think that's one of the the the fatal flaws of just a pure classic liberalism. You know, you should have folk.
Speaker: ah we've but We've been talking about government for a long time, years and years, and a lot of times folks will say, well, are you are you conservative? Are you libertarian? Where do you... and often um ah Well, i'm I'm definitely conservative, but I'll often say, well,
Speaker: i' I'm liberty minded because I don't want the label secular libertarian because I'm not that. and Sometimes I'll say Christian libertarian. And then that raises eyebrows within our own circles. Sure. So. I'm Baptist. I believe the Bible. yeah so this is part of what we're going to talk about and and just to pick up on your point The...
Speaker: it It's impossible for there to be. ah neutrality because every every public policy issue comes from Somebody's moral vision. Yeah, and, you know... ah A lot of the the... forefathers if you will of the classic liberalism approach, somebody like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker: It. that it that itself is even born out of. essentially a rejection of the Christian God. And again, we know Thomas Jefferson was a deist and yeah lots of our four founders were.
Speaker: um And so there was a acknowledgement of a guide, but even the guide that they acknowledged was not the biblical guide. And so. They want to. ah divorce this concept of of the acknowledgement of God.
Speaker: the God of the Bible. From... public policy which Again, we're going to say you can't do that. Because we do believe. that that there are certain laws.
Speaker: that are based on a biblical worldview. and that should be applied. to all people yeah because it is the nature of God.
Speaker: yeah that we're upholding and backing up with these laws. And so... you know the the classical liberal. Um... It kind of reminds me of... ah The Jedi.
Speaker: from star wars you know i was i'm a bit of a star wars nerd sure and um i'm thinking about Episode three. Revenge of the Sith. Anakin is... Making his turn. To become Darth Vader. Okay. Spoiler alert if you haven't seen it.
Speaker: ah You had 30 years. but that's it But... um He's turning and Obi -Wan. you know, the Jedi, he's... he's there to try to stop him but he's still trying to you know bring him back into the order Yeah. and um Anakin. who's going down this dark path says if you're not with me then you're against me And then Obi -Wan says, well, only a Sith works in such absolutes. Ah. Which is a statement of absolute, right? And so yeah yeah they're wanting to use.
Speaker: A biblical notion of there being an absolute of something that is right or wrong yeah without acknowledging. the source of that right or wrong. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. That's good.
Speaker: And I think, too. one of the reasons that we Believe what we believe. Certainly we believe the Bible is is the authority for everything. There's only one true and living God, and it's the God of the Scriptures.
Speaker: But we understand what the Bible says about human nature. Human beings are sinful. and uh you know, to try to have this completely neutral. You can't do it because.
Speaker: ah not Not only is there no such thing as neutrality. But the nature of man, that's why we have laws. That's why we have government. to restrain evil. to make sure that society is civil and anytime you just say well neutrality Then when one group or another group or many groups, they're they're going to try to take advantage of the situation because that's human nature. and And then we see that from scripture. We see all the way back in the garden before Adam and Eve sinned.
Speaker: There was a law put in place. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't eat from that tree. That's right. And it's because in our human nature, you know, we are. going to ah to fall yeah and we do it daily and so we do have to have laws in place And. Not to bury the lead too much, but...
Speaker: um We're going to argue in one sense that. The reason that we think certain laws should be enacted and should be in place that are biblical and God -honoring laws.
Speaker: is because they're god honoring yeah it's not because we believe that enforcing these laws are going to... bring the loss to salvation. It's because.
Speaker: and enforcing these laws actually brings glory. to yeah the God that we worship. That's it. Yeah, the role of the government in civil society. ...is... preservative, and we'll come to that, and maybe expand on that just a little bit.
Speaker: Not necessarily redemptive, which is what you were just saying. the The role of the church is redemptive. You know, we're we're out here preaching the gospel. It's not the role of the state to preach the gospel. It's the role of the state to keep order. And we want to expand on that as well.
Speaker: But let's just... On our way to that, let me reaffirm. Some things that we've already implied based on what you just said. We reject. neutrality. essentially because Christ is Lord over all.
Speaker: Christ is is Lord, He's King, He's on the throne. His kingdom is advancing now. It is a spiritual kingdom. There's no doubt about that. Jesus himself said, my kingdom is not of this world.
Speaker: If my kingdom of this world. um My servants would fight, but my servants don't fight. My kingdom is not of this world. It's a spiritual kingdom, but it is a kingdom. that has influence in the world and that and that's what i think a lot of folk miss it it's almost like There's this false dichotomy. Oh, well, if you don't believe...
Speaker: The kingdom is earthly. Well, then, you know, you're just heavenly minded and and and and this is. This is another thing that keeps people from engaging in public policy. Yeah. I'm just passing through. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. yeah So...
Speaker: No, no, the kingdom of God is to be brought to bear on the earth. and We're going to elaborate on that in just a moment. But again, just... No area of life can be morally neutral. No area of life can be religiously neutral.
Speaker: ah We quote Kuyper all the time. What was his famous quote? There's not. Not one single inch of the universe where the Lord does not look and say, mine. Yeah, that's right. That's right. so He made it all. Yeah. um and Just by that very fact, it all belongs to him, right? If I create something. yeah You know, it's it's it's mine. Right. Yeah. it It belongs to me. It's my property.
Speaker: We believe that Jesus... that the Lord made. everything Yeah. And so everything is under his command. It all belongs to him. Yeah, exactly. And so we're kind of pushing back on these notions that. excuse me, that some folk have and some folk think that all Baptists have.
Speaker: And we're not here just to defend Baptists. We're here to just talk about. civil society and and that you know how we should think about it as Christians. What we can get done in this context, our current context, ah what what it's going to take to.
Speaker: to have a better context, but... you know we've already in a sense pushed back a little bit without naming you know, names ah um And by that, I mean ah particular theological positions within Christianity. We're pushing back a little bit on dispensationalism.
Speaker: And that pietism, we're pushing back. Push him back on R2K. You know, we're we're talking about the kingdom and advancing in the earth. and transforming culture and transforming government. We're quoting Kuyper. so Yeah, we're pushing back on R2K a little bit.
Speaker: but Again, not in an ugly way. We're just saying, this is, this is what, what the the scriptures teach. so and We said this a moment ago, and so we're going to use it to segue unless you... No, go ahead. All right, so...
Speaker: Every civil law comes from a particular worldview. Every civil law. Excuse me, comes. nothing Sorry. It comes from someone's moral vision. We will make a distinction. There there are moral laws that...
Speaker: are not necessarily under the purview of civil government. But every, every civil law. uh certainly a civil law but it's also a moral law that's where we're coming from as well so Again, Christians in general, we have to have a distinctly Christian And we have to bring that distinctly Christian worldview to bear in the public square. End.
Speaker: public policy. If we don't... then we're compromising. And we're we're saying there's a neutrality when there is no neutrality. And so to say that and operate that way, you're really giving.
Speaker: You're giving ground over to the evil one, to Satan. You really are. So. Alright. One of the things that we wanted to talk about today. was, okay, well...
Speaker: You know, because again, within Christian circles, we'll... You know, are we theonomist? Are we general equity theonomist? Are we something else? I mean. And by that, do we... Do we start in Jerusalem? Do we do we wholesale take the old covenant?
Speaker: judicial law. And. you know just import it into the governments of... civil societies today or nations today. And, you know, frankly. Pagan nations, war.
Speaker: More or less. Christianized nations, but there again, We're always going to make a ah distinction between. ah the larger nation. St - We're talking about modern nation states here. You can talk about... the rise of the modern nation state.
Speaker: Not many hundreds of years ago. Versus what? You know, we talk about. All the people groups, Penta. to ethnos in the New Testament. But the point I'm making is...
Speaker: Okay, well, is that what God wants to just take that judicial civil law? judicial law out of the old covenant. Transfer it. wholesale or That's the question. And we don't think so.
Speaker: But we we do want to bring a biblical worldview to bear. And the reason we don't think so. Is. Israel ain't... Old Covenant Israel. And America are not the same thing, right and know just to put it simply. And we'll use America because we live here, the United States of America. yes i Israel and Germany are not the same thing. Israel and Japan are not the same thing. That's right. Israel and modern day Israel yeah are not the same thing. That's a good point. Right.
Speaker: And we again, we would say. that the Old Covenant or Mosaic law is not something that needs to be brought to bear. in this day and age because we do believe that that mosaic covenant was It was a specific covenant for a specific people.
Speaker: at a specific time. and for a specific purpose. And that. those laws. We're not. to be binding on all people for all time it was it served a certain purpose yeah And we believe that Christ fulfilled the purpose.
Speaker: of that old covenant. And then instituted his new covenant. And that's what we live under now. That's right. And when you say we. You're talking about the the church. Yes. The people of God. Yes. They were the earthly people of God, Old Covenant Israel.
Speaker: But we're the we're the true people of God, and we're comprised of... ah Men and women, boys and girls from... Um, Every nation, but... You have to be in Christ. In Christ. yeah Yeah, I think folk understand that. so Hmm.
Speaker: But it's a huge issue when you're talking about these dynamics. so Even Dr. Moeller. And... Al Mohler, Albert Mohler. I was listening to a... um I guess it was a... pre book release debate. It really wasn't a debate. It was a discussion.
Speaker: But, you know, the book has come out, Five Views of Christian Nationalism. I think Albert Moeller, there's five different authors, too, or at least, you know. They all contributed to this book. Albert Moeller, Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney.
Speaker: Paul Miller. And, uh, uh, Reno, I forget his first. The name is his initial, so forgive me. But they were having this this discussion. And ah Dr. Moeller.
Speaker: you know, was talking about um his view. Every. And he's Baptist. I mean, everybody knows that. He's not a classic liberal. paul Paul Miller was. you know Kind of coming from that classical liberalism stance. Okay. And he had some good things to say.
Speaker: But again, I don't i don't think it it kind of takes into account the Bible as a whole. And Dr. Moeller. You know, he he essentially said. we With reference to our civil law, we don't want to start in Greece. We don't want to start in Rome. that's kind of you know, historically where a lot of folks start, where we think we started and and all the rest. We want to start in Jerusalem.
Speaker: And okay, I agree with that to a certain degree. I mean, who am I going to argue with Dr. Moeller? But this is what we're saying. We don't want to start in Jerusalem per se because he's referencing the old covenant. We want to go back even further. We want to start in creation. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker: and ah And it's not like... We're the only ones who ever said that. and We're... We come from a long line of of Baptists and a lot of folk in the Reformed world today.
Speaker: ah They haven't read the Older Baptist and because you know they're they're reading you know essentially Calvin forward. Of course, you've got a lot of folk going back to the church fathers and all that sort of a rediscovery of the church fathers is interesting to me.
Speaker: But. I'm just simply saying. We're not making this up. Own our own. That's all. This is not new. yeah Right. There you go.
Speaker: So... We've got like... And again, we're just trying to organize our thoughts for a discussion. So we've come up with. Five dynamics. That.
Speaker: you know, would help us to formulate our under so biblical understanding of public policy. so that that first is we're going back to creation the creation order and You know, it's interesting Paul. says,
Speaker: that um Where there is no law, and he's talking about the Mosaic Covenant. he said i think this is in romans 5. he's talking about federal headship Adam and then Christ. Adam, the head of, you know, humanity and Christ, the head of the new humanity. So he says, well, there is no law. There is no...
Speaker: How does he put it? Forgive me. Transgression. There's no transgression. There's no penalty. and all that. And he's making the point. That. But, well, let me just say this. He says, nevertheless.
Speaker: Death reigned. between Adam and Moses. So he's making the point the Mosaic covenant was not. a thing a thing yeah we'll put it that way yeah But death reigned, and then he makes this statement, which is interesting. interesting Death reigned even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam did. Now, how did Adam sin?
Speaker: I mean... Did the one thing that God told him not to do. That's right. He ate the fruit. He ate the fruit. And it really was. A statement of autonomy. yeah He rejected God's authority. Yeah. and believe the lie of the serpent that If he ate the fruit, he could become like God. And and that was the that was the temptation that Adam and Eve fell for. Yeah. And then therefore.
Speaker: ate the fruit. Yeah, that's right. So. A lot of folk ask, what's the big deal about eating the fruit? It wasn't about just the fruit. Yeah, it wasn't. We have the term. our language of forbidden fruit. yeah It wasn't that there was something about the fruit that was forbidden. It was the reasoning and the thinking behind the action that was the sin. Yeah, like you said, it could be his God.
Speaker: Idolatry, lack of trust, calling God a liar, right the whole bit. yep All right, so that's how Adam said. Okay, so... Death reigned even over those. Who?
Speaker: Mosaic Covenant didn't exist? They didn't sin the same way Adam did. death reign because the wages of sin is death so the bible says well what they sin against Well, they sinned against God. and And.
Speaker: Well, okay. Well, what law were they under? Well, and you alluded to it earlier. they They were the law that flows from God's character. For example, the second Recorded sin.
Speaker: in the Bible is Cain killing Abel, right? um Yeah. But there's not a recorded. ah Thou shalt not murder. In Genesis. Yeah. And so why was it wrong?
Speaker: for Cain to kill Abel. It was wrong because it was violating the nature of God. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. To take life. Yeah. That's right. And, of course, they're. so So what we're saying is.
Speaker: In the creation order. God has created a world. He's told Adam. Be fruitful. multiply, take dominion over the earth. Be my representative. um be my prophet You're a prophet, priest, and a king. We don't have time to get into all that stuff. We'll do that on a different broadcast.
Speaker: Adam failed. But God's character still stands. God's creation order still stands. Now we've got a fallen world. Then, of course, you so what we're so we're gonna we're gonna we'll just put it on the table because we're dancing all around natural law. natural What is natural law? Well, natural law...
Speaker: And listen, a lot of people conceive of it different ways. Some people call it God's moral law. That's fine. Natural oil, that's fine. God's ultimate law, whatever. But...
Speaker: Some want to say, well, natural law. That's the only law that we need in terms of civil government. We disagree with that, and there are a couple reasons. First off... ah Let me go back. Well, what is natural law? Some people say, well, it's that law written on the heart of every human being.
Speaker: Well that becomes problematic. when you come to the new covenant, because now the new covenant says. God's laws are going to be written on our heart. as opposed to tablets of stone. So there's a distinction between the covenants, but also a distinction between...
Speaker: An unbeliever. right And a believer, a member of the new covenant, ah I got God's law written on my heart now, which means I'm... um I understand more tra because um I got God's revelation and I'm.
Speaker: I got the presence of the indwelling presence of the Holy spirit. And I'm. You know, he's sanctifying me and all the rest. So. I think on the one hand, you could say. It's the law of God written on the heart of every human. As long as you add the caveat.
Speaker: But that law has been suppressed. Yeah, because the secular humanist would would use the term. natural law. And again, that's why we're trying to define what we mean. when we say natural law.
Speaker: because, again, the classic liberal are or secular humanist. worldview would say that natural law is just these things that are that are common in nature and that you know obviously Okay, they would say that's why.
Speaker: You can't murder people because everybody agrees you shouldn't murder. Well, again, we've we've just said before that. That's obviously not the case. and So when we say natural law, we mean the law of...
Speaker: The nature. that god has created um that that comes from the nature of himself yes and that Again. We're not saying that that just means that there should only be a couple of laws on the books. We we would probably advocate for less laws on the books than we have now um because we believe a lot of them are unnecessary. Right. you know.
Speaker: Again, that's a rabbit trail we don't want to go down. We believe that all of the laws that are enacted should be informed by This knowledge of God yeah and this acknowledgement of his nature. Yes. But again.
Speaker: Before the Christian... We believe that is who the law is written on our hearts. Um... and not written on stone.
Speaker: Because, as Romans 1 tells us, the the knowledge of God, that he exists, that he's a creator, that he's the designer of the universe.
Speaker: um that there's order, all of these things. is revealed generally. through creation, so that all men can see this. And all men are without excuse because they can see this. But as you already said.
Speaker: they've suppressed that truth yes And so therefore. That is why we need. Laws? is because... This truth. that does exist and apply to all people has been suppressed.
Speaker: by men, yeah by all of us. as sinners and Unless we've been redeemed, we actually don't have the ability. to follow that law and to fulfill it.
Speaker: And so and to do those things. without there being laws in place. yeah And so we do believe that there should be good laws in place that are informed by. this natural law. that we Yeah, acknowledge absolutely. and um So I would say...
Speaker: It's written on the heart with the caveat that that we've just said. or I think it's just easier for me to say natural law. You know, it's... by virtue of human beings being created in the image of God. But there again,
Speaker: We're suppressing that general revelation, Romans 1, as you say. And I know some folk are going to come back at us and say, what about Romans 2 and the Gentiles and the law you know written on their hearts or at work in their hearts?
Speaker: We don't have time to do an exegesis of Romans 2. I think that's a reference to converted Gentiles. That's another dynamic. It's not necessarily completely relevant to our conversation either. What I would say, just... echoing and expanding what you just said.
Speaker: So we need special revelation. and special of it, again, a theological term. potentially saving revelation, but special revelation is the Bible, for example, the Word of God. the Lord Jesus Himself.
Speaker: But essentially, explaining to us what we're suppressing. just as a side issue and you said this not everybody believes that murder is wrong Right. The mafia doesn't believe murder is wrong. Just don't just don't come into my territory. You'll be fine. You encroach on my territory. wow We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse.
Speaker: But. um And i'm I'm just having a little fun with with the movies, okay? and and Nobody come after me here. Cannibals. Heh. Don't believe me. Listen.
Speaker: We live in a culture. we're All kind of people are disagreeing on all kinds of things. whoa Gender. Sexuality. yeah yeah What's the word? Promiscuity versus... ah Celibacy before marriage. yep Obviously. And people are saying.
Speaker: We had a large number of folk in our culture saying that Christians, weren't well, we're just wrong. Right? we're We're homophobic. We're misogynistic. We're all this stuff. And. Again, no, we're saying we have a standard. and You're operating on your own opinion. You're doing what Adam did. You're believing the lie. You're you're asserting your own autonomy.
Speaker: You have no idea that you are created by God and God is a holy God and he has a standard and you're suppressing that truth. And the only way you know that truth. is the word of god that's what we're saying and again so we in in this larger conversation we're drawing a distinction between What?
Speaker: that that truth that's revealed us in scripture that the holy spirit opens our eyes to see when we're saved. that we can know and he and dwells in us and all of these things. we're drawing a distinction between that as law for believers you know, for lack of a better way to say it.
Speaker: versus what... we believe should be enacted civilly. in the public square. yes And so, yeah, there's there' is a difference there. but that they're There is truth that is binding.
Speaker: on all people that's right Yeah. And, um, we're we're saying you know human beings don't just get together and decide what government they want right it's not a social contract we're not social contract theorists Uh, yeah. Our civil laws have to be informed by Scripture.
Speaker: Or it's just not going to work. Yeah, because like you just said, we don't all agree. on if this thing is right or this thing is wrong. Or even what the definition of it is. I mean, we... we Just last week had an episode. on the Lindsay Clancy. Case. Yeah. And that's that's.
Speaker: A perfect real world right now example. that there are are lots and lots of people. who don't consider what she did to be murder. Yeah. or wrong. yeah And again, we did that whole long episode.
Speaker: to To push back and say, no, it absolutely was murder and absolutely was wrong. Yeah. And the reason that we believe that is not because it's what we. personally believe or came up with on our own.
Speaker: but because It's informed by the truth of God's word. Yeah, that is exactly right. All right, so we're talking about creation order. We have these five dynamics. And we got more to say after that, so just hang on. Anyway, so creation order. Natural law as informed by special revelation. Otherwise, we're going to get out in the weeds. That's just a that's just a fact.
Speaker: I don't think we've cited the Noahic covenant specifically, but. That is in Genesis, and and you know you you were talking earlier, no, thou shalt not murder until... Exodus and the Mosaic, except...
Speaker: we We know it was wrong for Kane. to murder Abel. But then you do have that. codified in a different way in genesis yeah yeah yes yeah so i slightly misspoke there it is in genesis uh it didn't exist in the garden right um but yes and the reason we go back to the noaic Covenant. is obviously you know we've said everything is based in creation which it is But we know as the Bible tells us that. Creation was restarted.
Speaker: after the flood yep um yeah because... All of living life was wiped out in the flood. yeah And so the world was being started over again with this one family, Nella's family. yeah And so um from that point forward, then.
Speaker: ah were given these basic principles that... We're for all people for all time, because again, this is still predating. the Mosaic Covenant by centuries. um yeah And so we believe that everyone who lived between Noah and Moses.
Speaker: We're under a law sure of God. yeah It just wasn't the Mosaic Covenant, which again was specifically given at a specific time for a specific purpose. And we're going to come to the Mosaic Covenant in just a moment.
Speaker: Again, but yeah, so Noah. he's ah he's a He's a new Adam, a second Adam. Right. ahead of, as you said, a new creation, which of course points to... The last Adam, right Jesus, and the ultimate.
Speaker: new creation, which is... you know, in Christ and in the consummation of all things. We're in new creation now. It's inaugurated, not yet consummated. but tom All right, so you've got this Noahic covenant.
Speaker: ah which is you know the the one of the key verses there. If man sheds... ah if a man sheds blood yeah then by man shall his blood be shed that's a paraphrase yeah yeah for He's creating the image of God. so you know you and then we use this for the lindsey clancy thing the death penalty is on the table yeah I mean, that's what it what's what it should be. You strangle your three children. According to Genesis 9, 6, you've shed.
Speaker: Blood. then your blood shall be shed. That's it. That's something, again, that that applies to to nation. It should apply ah to civil societies today, public but policy today. Okay.
Speaker: And because... the and the The rationale is. When you shed man's blood. Man's creating the image of God. I mean, even an animal that kills a human being is put to death, right?
Speaker: it's written in the in god's creation order all right so Yeah, because a lot of people... that might not. Acknowledge. Christ or acknowledge a biblical worldview.
Speaker: Uh... might still would come down on the side of the death penalty. for murder. But... In a lot of cases, that ends up being out of vengeance, and we're saying it's not out of vengeance, it's out of justice.
Speaker: Because... Again, it's God's nature. um We would say the death penalty does apply. especially in cases of murder. Because God said so. Yeah. Because it's it's his nature.
Speaker: It's not. out of vengeance yeah even as emotional as we may get about a certain case for example And... the the human side of us might. say you know she deserves that she does deserve that But it's not out of vengeance. It's out of justice. Yeah, that's right. That's right. It's out of justice. Absolutely. so All right, so... Natural law is understood by special revelation. Creation order, Noahic covenant, all of that ties together.
Speaker: So now let's come quickly, just for a brief moment. because we have a whole Bible hermeneutic. Son. So yes, we come to the Mosaic covenant, come to Jerusalem.
Speaker: And we're going to glean some principles out of that judicial. You know, that the judicial laws there in Old Covenant Israel, it's not lock, stock, and barrel. It's not wholesale. um you know You do have the term, as we talked about two episodes ago.
Speaker: in the Westminster. And 1689, gosh, I don't know who's listening. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646. 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which is the second London Baptist Confession.
Speaker: You got a whole... historical context there. where the Baptists and the Presbyterians are trying to lock arms because they're breaking away from from the state church and all that.
Speaker: So anyway, The in the Westminster. It says, you know, these laws These judicial laws in ancient Israel, they passed away except for the general equity.
Speaker: Thereof. uh applied in certain situations i don't have the quote exactly in my head and of course that's where folk in our day get the term general equity theonomy. We might not understand exactly the same.
Speaker: And again, there are a lot of Baptists who wouldn't even. use the term, we don't glean principles from the Mosaic Law. Well, I think we do. I think we do. we don't We're not under that covenant, as you said earlier.
Speaker: we're under a new covenant and by the way that that mosaic covenant The whole covenant. It's it's one covenant. And so I know that a lot of folk break up the you know, the tripartite division of the law, civil.
Speaker: ceremonial and moral. it I don't mind those terms if we're just you know using that as labels to talk about different laws. But, you know, some of them will say. the ah The civil law. is um done away and the ceremonial is done away but the moral law is still binding on christians today that's how we're sanctified etc etc well i don't agree with that at all And we don't agree with that because Scripture doesn't tell us that. And again, as we've as we talked about before.
Speaker: your whole understanding of the covenants and how they are applied or were applied or should be applied now. is what informs all of this. And yes again, we're.
Speaker: Again, not to throw off on 1689 or the Westminster Confession. Boop. We are saying we don't want to go to a man -made document. to get our understanding.
Speaker: of these covenants we want to go to scripture itself yes and if scripture itself doesn't tell us that this that the law of moses was broken into three parts and that two of them ah get to pass away, but one of them yeah is supposed to last forever. If the Bible doesn't teach us that, right right right then... then We're going to say you can't.
Speaker: You can't say that that's true. And some would say the the judicial and the civil, too, have passed away in just a moment. All right, well. So let me clarify my statement, too, because what you just said is absolutely right.
Speaker: I do believe I'm bound by God's. moral law yes but the old testament and this is where you were going It doesn't break up the law the way that that the Westminster Confession does. right It's the law. And the law includes everything. And the law and the Old Covenant are synonymous. And it's ah it's a particular law.
Speaker: covenant for a particular people, as you said earlier. ah for a particular reason. Because the Bible does tell us that if you're guilty of... of breaking one part of the law. then you've broke.
Speaker: The whole lot. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Again. That doesn't to me say that. There's three different parts. yeah And they can be compartmentalized. Yeah, that's right. And we can we can have a larger discussion about that sometime. That'd be awesome.
Speaker: But so, as you said earlier, too, the telos of the old covenant, the telos of the old law. And by the way, Some of the church fathers used to use that terminology, old law versus new law. It'd be interesting to see what... Anyway, that's a whole, some people know where I'm going with that. Some people don't. I'll leave that.
Speaker: But the old law. The telos of the old law. It's Christ. He's the end of the law. He's the goal of the law, the telos of the law, the purpose of the law. And Christ comes, and just as he is the new...
Speaker: Adam, the last Adam, and he's the... The true king, the true prophet, you know, noses mentioned Moses mentioned him, Exodus 18, I think it is. the Davidic king. He's the true temple. He's the true. Everything. Well, he's he's the new lawgiver. And anyway.
Speaker: god's absolute moral standard doesn't change it's a whole other discussion i think we We're going to talk about that a little bit more in a future broadcast. We've alluded to it already. Don't want to get too bogged down. All we're saying is.
Speaker: That this last component of of how we. Implement civil law because we've talked about Creation. Natural laws informed by special revelation. That's a key caveat.
Speaker: No way. at Covenant. Well, yes, we do gleam. Principles. Right, principles. From the Mosaic Covenant principles, yes. And I know some pushback on that, but listen.
Speaker: There they are. They're good. This is what God's saying. And so that last little dynamic we'll put on the table, then we've we've been knocking around at all. also Discussion? it's informed by the new covenant. It's informed by the new Testament because we have a whole Bible hermeneutic. So the old Testament is the word of God. The old Testament is profitable for us. Paul says in Romans 15.
Speaker: These things were written for our benefit. we i preach We preach the Old Testament in our church. it It's God's word. But... We understand the Old Testament through the lens of the new.
Speaker: progressive revelation and Apostolic interpretation. Listen, and I know our Presbyterian brothers actually believe this, but they push back on it. because of these discussions, but... When they're talking to dispensationalists, they believe it. Because they do not interpret the Old Testament.
Speaker: the way dispensationalists do, nor do we. Dispensationalists hyper -literalize. the fulfillment of the things in the Old Testament by way of example. That's why they're looking. That's why they think.
Speaker: The Israel, a lot of them, some of them, most of them, I would say theologians don't necessarily think modern Israel is. the israel of the bible average person of the pew does but they're still looking forward to somehow a re -institution of the Roman Empire and a re -constitution, I guess I should say. and A future Israel in...
Speaker: Yeah, a thousand -year temple. Yeah, the rebuilt temple. and in thousand year reign over in the Middle East from Jerusalem. No, we're saying.
Speaker: All of those are types and shadows, and they are fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And. um The true temple is here. The the kingdom is here.
Speaker: it's it's It's not a Jewish kingdom. It's his. worldwide kingdom comprised of Jew and Gentile in Christ, and it's brought to bear back to Kuyperianism. We're not total Kuyperians, but nevertheless. but is brought to bear. We're transformationalists. We're not R2K.
Speaker: We're, anyway. I get excited about this. My point is You know, if you don't have Paul and John and Peter. yeah Yeah. You're going to be dispensational to a certain degree. Sure. I'm just using that loosely. But we got Paul and John and Peter. Right. We do.
Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. And. and ah Again I think we may have defined this in a previous broadcast but just in case. ah that progressive revelation that you mentioned, which is...
Speaker: What? What drives our hermeneutic yeah is that we believe that the Lord progressively... revealed more of himself and of his kingdom and of his truth. throughout history, yes and i don't think it's I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that hall understood more about the kingdom of god than adam did right um and so we do believe that throughout history.
Speaker: God has revealed himself more and more given... his people. At the time that it was revealed, more and more understanding. uh than previous that's right and that's why when we read the scriptures.
Speaker: We want to read that Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament because we want to take... are greater understanding that's been revealed to us. in the New Testament to interpret.
Speaker: what was revealed. back in the old testament yes instead of and a lot of times doing that in reverse just take this what was revealed in the Old Testament. And try to.
Speaker: force the New Testament into an interpretation. of the Old Testament instead of using the New Testament to interpret there you go the Old. Yeah, that's right. one One quick thing and then we'll move on.
Speaker: Paul uses the term mystery over and over again in the New Testament. And that's a technical term in the New Testament. And it's used in a specific way. That's what we mean by technical term. is isn't it Oh, this is mysterious. What's going on here? none or No, no, no.
Speaker: It means something that was given in seminal form, seed form in the Old Testament. but has now been fully revealed in the new, which is what you're talking about. Yeah. And one of the reasons that we have to keep having these debates.
Speaker: is the fact that we also are acknowledging that Everything has not been fully revealed yet. We we have everything we need for... salvation and for life and godliness revealed in scripture.
Speaker: um But I mean, that's even. the book of Revelation. is explaining through the first, you know, we would say 19, 20 chapters. is explaining what has been revealed right um but that then there's still the future to be revealed. And and we know that one day...
Speaker: All will be revealed and all of it will make sense and we won't be having these debates anymore. because we'll all see where we were wrong. yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. And we'll all understand it fully. But that's why we're here now having these debates, because.
Speaker: There is still, there is still. where our human understanding falls short of understanding these things perfectly. And that's why we have. all these different denominations and all these different branches is because We'll come up with our own.
Speaker: understanding of that in our own minds. sometimes and Our desire and our hope is that all the truth that we need is found in Scripture, so we want to keep going back to that. to inform yes where we fall on these issues. That's right. That's right.
Speaker: And again, when you come to the New Testament and the New Covenant, That's why we make a distinction between the church and the state, the church and the nation, the church and America. Again, that old covenant, it's it's a national. National Covenant.
Speaker: It's not a national covenant. America is not in covenant relationship with God. The church is in covenant relationship with God. And so we make a distinction between the two, but that does not mean. that the church does not that the church is not obligated to.
Speaker: Um, Influence. yeah Civil society at large, public policy, which is where we're where we're coming from. and The question is how? Because the the church, again... we're preaching The primary role of the church, we're preaching the gospel.
Speaker: You know, we're gathering for worship and all that. And now we want to influence the the larger culture. in all kinds of ways, business and... science and economics and... Art and even even leisure, we want to talk about that. um What does the Bible say about the role ah or the nature of men and women and the corollary roles that flow from the design of God himself? Again, we don't want to...
Speaker: Again, we can do separate. conversations on all of that. So... Let's then... Again. Because we're talking about...
Speaker: Okay, well, we're famous for religious liberty. yes All right, what does that mean? and we've said a lot about being biblically informed and civil society and So what does that look like in a sense? And and again, we can't be exhaustive. We're not going to cover every detail.
Speaker: But one of the questions that comes up. Is, um... Well, do we believe that all religions are equally valid? no Well, of course we don't. There's only one valid religion, if you want to use that term, and that's Christianity, right? Because Jesus is Lord. Overall,
Speaker: All right. Well, what does that look like in civil society? well I think we need to make a distinction. between theological truth,
Speaker: Which informs everything, including public policy. Yes. but theological truth in general versus, say, political jurisdiction. because Again, because we're saying, and and listen, ah all our Christian brothers, no matter the denomination, they believe the same thing here. At least the church and the state are are two different things.
Speaker: All right. Now, some would say. And never the twain shall meet. And that's where the rub comes in. um So... Yeah. Anyway. So again, Under the Noahic covenant.
Speaker: We're going to come back to that. the The government. has a limited... preservative mandate And the way that I think you and I discuss this. Most often, and we've done this you know over the years.
Speaker: ah we' so We've said it different ways, but just so that folk will understand. Number one, what is the role? of the civil government. I do not believe the role of the civil government is to make everybody Christians. And you said that earlier. That's the role of the church.
Speaker: That's the role of the gospel and yeah the sovereign God. The role of the government. is to... Protect us from predators. Whoa! What do you mean protect us from predators? Well, how about murderers? Okay. Oh, yeah. Thieves.
Speaker: That's the role of the civil government. How about... invading armies. the The role of the civil government is to protect the citizens. So we don't have this global. government, we have Different nations, even with the rise of the modern nation state, different nations. And so each government should protect its own citizens. Yes. And.
Speaker: to the degree that Christians are allowed or enabled, let let's put it this way, by God. are able by God to influence that civil government. They need to influence it. Christians in Germany, Christians in Japan, Christians in China. Christians in America, we need influence. Civil government. Some are going to.
Speaker: Be able to have more influence than others, obviously. So, yeah, so we believe that there should be laws against murder. We should believe there should be. Laws against stealing. um against theft laws against fraud you know all of those things that you mentioned just a minute ago We do believe, again,
Speaker: Not that there should just be a thou shalt not murder on the books and everything else is free reign. But we do believe that. Any law that gets passed should fall under that. that. umbrella of it. being something that protects its citizens that's right that's right Now, let me put one more phrase on the table that we've used over the years.
Speaker: And I'm not just trying to give alternate phrases. it's It's essentially saying the same thing, but it's saying something a little different. We're going to put it on the table because we're going to come back to it. in just a moment Alright.
Speaker: So the role of civil government is to protect us from predators, from totally depraved people, sinners. It's also... or we could put it another way, to... Preserve. Our God -given rights. okay Now, again, I know some immediately are going to push back, oh, well that's that's just American jurisprudence. That's Constitution or Declaration of Independence, God -given rights. And a lot of folks say, we don't need God -given rights.
Speaker: I think we do. you know I have a a good Presbyterian brother. We used to do a radio broadcast together, and he would say, The only right you have is the right to go to hell. and Well, I agree with that.
Speaker: Yeah. I agree with that because I can't make any demands on God. However. And that's the vertical plane, vertical. So the then in the horizontal plane between me and you.
Speaker: If God says thou shalt not murder. That means I have an. applied right to life. Correct. And we... Listen, if you're involved in the abortion... The fight to... ah end abortion and equal protection under the law and all that.
Speaker: You believe in God -given rights. You believe in a right to life. Right. So the life and liberty and the pursuit of property was the original way Jefferson put it. And that's why there's some that push back. Listen, I love Jefferson. I'm not a deist.
Speaker: I'm not just a Lockean natural law guy or Jeffersonian natural law guy. But... A lot of what... A lot of it overlaps. That's why there's confusion. But there can all there can be overlap.
Speaker: Sure. Okay. So... God -given rights. If I have the right to life and liberty. and liberty See, that's a big one. You, you don't have the right to tell me.
Speaker: yeah you know, what I can do and can't do unless I'm infringing on your liberty. And that's why people always say, well, are you a libertarian? i'm No, I'm i'm a Bible -believing Christian. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You know, the golden rule is is massive if you start.
Speaker: teasing out the implications of it. So the the Bible would be very clear. i don't I don't have the right to rule your life. If you want to. I don't know. Put a... Well, i don't I don't have any examples off the top of my head. So.
Speaker: We'll leave it there. We can talk about what that might look like in principle because we really want to get to something else. this is This is easy to can it kind of get bogged down. All right, civil government has this limited...
Speaker: preservative mandate It's not given the redemptive mandate. We mentioned that a little bit earlier, which means it's. On the one hand, and I want people to be patient with me. Which means it's not to...
Speaker: impose spiritual orthodoxy or enforce worship. Now this is again where a lot of our historical Presbyterians Maybe Presbyterians today. I don't know. or a Christian nationalist.
Speaker: They would say, no, no, no. Well, and again, I'm not... i'm Psalm. Ah. There's differences within all these. yeah as Yeah, and this is one of the reasons that we...
Speaker: that we believe in religious liberty yeah is... uh from the fact that ah Not all Christians agree about everything. Right. And so when we're talking about we don't believe that civil government is supposed to enforce.
Speaker: orthodoxy of worship or or those types of things. I don't believe there should be Baptist laws on the book or right or Presbyterian laws on the book. right because we may not agree.
Speaker: on every aspect of Christianity. And so then who would get to determine? what would be a law yeah that should be enforced or not. Because again, then you're still, that's still.
Speaker: coming from a human interpretation. right of God's truth, yeah not not something that is concretely rooted in solely God's truth. yeah It's still a human interpretation. That's right. Yeah, Stephen Wolfe came out the other day with ah with a tweet, and maybe he's expanded on it somewhere, but he was...
Speaker: sort of, what's the word, rewriting the history of Roger Williams, in my estimation. And, of course, he would say, well, you you just believe about what the Baptist history books tell you about Roger Williams. Well, no, I've read a lot more.
Speaker: about Roger Williams and just what I got in seminary in the Baptist history books. I've read. ah large excerpts of the Bloody Covenant. I haven't read the whole thing. But I could refer you to John Barry, who's not a Christian at all. He's a well -known.
Speaker: renowned historian. His book on the birth of America, for example. the birth of religious freedom in america something like that he chronicles what was going on in England.
Speaker: I mean, he it seems like half the book is what's going on in England before it ever gets to Roger Williams. And i'm I'm just pushing back a little bit on what Stephen Wolf said. But there's no doubt that the Puritans in... Massachusetts in the United States in the 1600s.
Speaker: persecuted Roger Williams and other people. They did um because they were trying to. impose a particular brand of Christianity. We don't agree with that. And again, it's not, oh, we're Roger Williams guys. Roger Williams wasn't perfect either. We know that.
Speaker: That's not the point. But the point is the role of civil government. Now, again, Public policy got to be rooted in. uh the god the god of the universe the god that okay and so we've talked about those points in a creation order. Noit Covenant.
Speaker: informed by the New Testament, etc. But what we are saying is. we're not The government is not forcing spiritual orthodoxy. or one particular brand of christianity the the nuances you know is it's not enforcing baptism of infants.
Speaker: Some Presbyterians would say they should, and they have historically. I don't think many press appearances today would say that. Some, perhaps. That was where I was going a minute ago. And I keep saying Presbyterians because they're the Westminster. And again, I love Westminster, but there again.
Speaker: We don't baptize infants because infants aren't part of the new covenant, but that's a whole different dynamic. Alright. What was I going to say? I am so sorry. Okay. So... But then some will push back and say, okay, well, you're just devolving back into.
Speaker: Classic liberal neutrality. Right. No. Not doing that at all. And we'll explain why and how. What we're saying is. that The government has a particular role.
Speaker: And it's not to enforce. religion per se. or a particular brand, as we've said. but And we want to make sure that it doesn't intrude. See, it's about sph - You want to go back to Kuiper, sphere sovereignty.
Speaker: And again. I don't buy everything Kuyper said, lock, stock, and barrel. But the role of the state. The role of the church. the role of the family. And then there are other spheres.
Speaker: Okay? So... the The church preaches to the state. But the church... does not enforce the the civil laws. and the The state.
Speaker: It doesn't. For a... mandate infant baptism. I'm going to use that as an example. but it protects all those folk who engage in infant baptism, it protects them from U .S. Baptists who want to say, you can't baptize that baby. right And if we're in power, you know. Because we're sinners. Yeah. That's where I'm i'm coming from. So I just turn the.
Speaker: turn the tide a little bit yeah like i said earlier you know i don't I don't want a law that exists that says you must Baptize infants. I also don't want a law. that says that it's forbidden.
Speaker: To baptize them. Right, yeah. There you go. You you you said it well. Okay. So let's move along real quick. so it's just the The state should protect the church's freedom to preach the gospel. Yes. Okay.
Speaker: All right, so now... Let's go back then. to this whole issue of the role of our government to protect us from predators. Hmm. One of the the the issues in in our day is mass migration.
Speaker: intentional Our own government. Doing... Enacting policies. to incentivize mass migration. opening the borders.
Speaker: And with this mass migration over time and their folk have been warning us for. 40 years about this. Now, all of a sudden. You have an America.
Speaker: that all All what we're talking about is. what we hope for, what it should be, what we want it to be based on the reality of God. But right now, we're we're far from it. And more and more, we're being influenced by other religions, other worldviews, why Islam is taking over in many parts of Europe.
Speaker: um Islam has taken over American cities. It's not just a mayor here and a governor there or whoever it might be. or a congress. man I should say a congresswoman.
Speaker: There are enclaves. where you've got Sharia law in certainly European cities. But it's actually. Again, I... I haven't studied what's going on everywhere in the United States, but there are. enclaves.
Speaker: where Sharia law is being practiced here and there. You got these. massive mosque now being built. and shrines to like Hindu gods. So it's not just Muslims, it's it's Hinduism and all the rest. and you know We've talked in the past about...
Speaker: The H -1B visa thing which is killing uh the citizens of the united states in terms of jobs in that sector, in the the the tech sector, particularly in other sectors. What I'm saying...
Speaker: And again, this is something that we can talk about. Yes, this on the one hand, I don't want to say, let let me put it this way, if there are Muslims here, I want to give them I'm not going to say you you can't in in your own home or whatever. I don't want to say you can't worship your false god. You can. I will protect your.
Speaker: Your freedom to do it because God has not given. This is where it comes back to America and Israel are not the same thing. I mean, Old Covenant Israel. yes They were given a mandate. To smash all the idols.
Speaker: not only in their own land, but in other lands and and go to war with the Canaanites and, you know, all of the other folk. But the United States is not in covenant relationship with God. And so the United States and the purpose or any ah any nation state is not to go and...
Speaker: you know, start a crusade or start wars with other, with other countries for any reason, we can defend ourselves. And this is where I'm going. Yeah. So... It is true.
Speaker: And again, you may disagree with me and you may not. okay So I'm just going to say it. It is true on the one hand that... um We'll all come back. Because that's a separate issue. Okay. But what I'm going to say is.
Speaker: i We got to stop the mass migration. We all agree. With that. And again, I think. We got to deport. illegals. Got to do that. And again, it's because of the motivations and the...
Speaker: Oh, yeah. Inner workings behind that. Yeah. um It's not just because we don't want people from other countries correct coming in, but that there's actually there's and it's been shown to be true. There is a purpose behind. This mass migration that's yeah taking place, and it is in an attempt to basically remake our country into something different. That's it, which is what? To remake us into something different, whether it's a socialist order or an Islamic order or whatever.
Speaker: And it's not because of the color of their skin. No. Some folk are talking about that. well I don't care. yeah what color your skin is. you know with the The church is an international community, but... The United States is not the church, and so that cuts two ways. you know The U .S. government can't enforce religion.
Speaker: But at the same time, it it should protect. the the citizens of of the United States. And so when you have mass migration... and the purpose. is to create an America that's completely different than what America has been.
Speaker: You've got an invading army. it yeah People just don't realize it because they they don't carry guns. Right, yeah. that's Some of them got guns, but, you know, like. Yeah, but than three but they're they're not marching in in military uniforms. and Right, right. Our government.
Speaker: should should protect us from that. That's right. That's right. So more dialogue on these things, yeah more thinking through, remember, and you you would agree with this wholeheartedly.
Speaker: um And you've already alluded to it. The, our authority is not how we feel about. even our current situation. It's not how I feel about stuff. Our authority is Scripture, so we have to go back. Okay, well, what are the principles?
Speaker: in Scripture that would apply to this situation, and I'm not the one to figure that out by myself. I think you'd say the same thing. but Let's figure it out together. but let's figure it out together so that we put them yeah and let me wrap it with this Real quick, sure if it's okay with you, unless you've got something to say, brother.
Speaker: So... Just talking about theonomy. And um um this is for the in -house debate. You know, some would say. Unless you embrace... Unless you embrace theonomy or...
Speaker: Even General e Equity Theonomy, you're... you're Now, your classic liberal neutrality, no. Not the case. Anakin, if you're not with me, you're against me. Yeah. That's right. I think I'm going to be Baptist here and lovingly say I think and think there's an error in theonomy.
Speaker: It expects Gentile nations. to operate under the judicial laws of that To go back to what you said, that unique. typological Old Testament theocracy that was brought to fulfillment in Christ.
Speaker: That's the air of theonomy. But... There's the air of liberal neutrality. What? What? classic liberalism tries to do is remove God and objective moral truth from public policy. we do not want to do that you can't have laws without a moral standard that's right And you can't just borrow a moral standard from God without acknowledging him. That's right. That's right.
Speaker: And so what we would say, by way of summary, is that civil governments are accountable to God through those those creation and Noahic standards that we talked about. as informed by the new testament and so Christians should boldly advocate for those standards. we're We're certain about those. in public policy. So I'll just leave it there.
Speaker: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Again, a lot of this boils down to your understanding of the covenants. yep And how they apply, because we would say that the old covenant, even for Christians. It's not binding.
Speaker: on christians right right and so then as the old covenant as the old covenant yeah and so then if it's definitely Not binding on. the church. then we wouldn't say that. It should be binding.
Speaker: in civil society yeah but that we do believe that as the New Testament informs us of... the nature of God. and what God does expect of people.
Speaker: That there are. laws that are binding on not only the church, but all of humanity. and And that we do believe that Christians...
Speaker: here and now should be involved in enacting. those truths in our civil society as much as we can. We do believe that Christians should stand against abortion. yeah We don't believe in neutrality. We believe.
Speaker: in advancing the truth of God. in the world amen Well said. Alright. Is that it? I think so. All right. So we'll see you next time. On Answering Pilot. The Answering Pilot Podcast is a ministry of Randall House Church in Greer, South Carolina.
Speaker: You can learn more at www .randallhousebeer .com. slash church You can also find us on Facebook and Instagram at at Randall House Church. Don't forget to like and subscribe.
Speaker: and we'll see you next time.
