Podcasts about israelites exod

Tabular Comparison of Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html===> Notice in chapter 7, the LBC deletes the definition of the covenant of works, point 2. The LBC uses the phrase "covenant of works" in several other places, but it is not defined anywhere. ===> Another anomaly in the LBC is its practical deletion of the entire chapter of the Westminster Confession on Sacraments. “Chapter XXVII: Of the Sacraments” is a robust chapter with vitally important biblical theology. The LBC changes this chapter to: “Chapter XXVIII: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.” It omits nearly everything and one is left wondering if there is any clearly defined sacramental theology in this confession. What about the efficacy of sacraments? What about the sign and the thing signified and the way Scripture speaks of them? How are we to understand this? Were there sacraments in the Old Testament? Did those sacraments point to entirely different spiritual realities? Did Old Testament believers have the gospel and signs which sealed it to them? Reformed Baptist, Brian Borgman's denial of a covenant of works anywhere in Scripture (go to 32:55-33:30) which is perfectly consistent with the LBC's deletion of WCF 7.2. He also asserts that all of God’s interactions with man before and after the fall are based upon a purely gracious principle: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=310102025563Here is a defense I preached of the covenant of works based upon the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this covenant’s absolute necessity to sound and biblical soteriology, and how a denial of it will inevitably lead to a false gospel: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=79171948349Here are my sermons on baptism: 1. Biblical Infant Baptism: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22161018333 ===> Here is the sermon manuscript: https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/22161018333.pdf2. Infant Baptism Defended: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2216102990 ===> Here is the sermon manuscript: https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/2216102990.pdf3. Questions Answered About Infant Baptism: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6141894812I checked YouTube and Brandon Adams's gross and repeated misrepresentations of my work are still there. There is no reason for him to have misunderstood what I worked hard and labored long to make clear in both sermons and the video linked above. I am convinced entirely that Brandon Adams has never read nor has he ever understood what Presbyterians believe about covenant theology and that he knows essentially nothing about it. Quoting men is far different from reading and understanding them. If he had done either he would have understood exactly what I was saying in my sermons and videos on this topic. He wrote, “He was articulating the Presbyterian position in what seemed like an odd way.” Anyone conversant with the relevant scholarship and literature on this subject would never write such a thing about my sermons and videos on these issues. There was nothing odd or unusual about my articulation of our position. The fact is, Brandon Adams neither knows nor understands what Presbyterians believe about covenant theology and baptism. At any rate, this video he put out is an example of how not to listen to sermons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HxcPyS1jzUHere is what I would recommend reading to see concise defenses of our views on covenant theology and baptism. While each of these works is lengthy, their respective sections on infant baptism are relatively short and to the point. I would recommend looking up every passage of Scripture cited in them. You will see if you read them that one’s particular take on the role of the Mosaic covenant is not part of the argument. If you own these works or purchase them, use the table of contents to take you to the sections on sacraments, baptism, and then the proper subjects of baptism. Fesko’s book is a historical and biblical survey of baptism. Toward the end, chapter 14 is an excellent summary (one of the best I have ever read). Chapter 14 it titled: “Baptism and Its Recipients”:Robert L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed.A. A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of FaithLouis Berkhof, Systematic TheologyRobert L. Dabney, Systematic TheologyJ. V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on BaptismThis list could be far longer, but if one reads their short sections on the proper subjects of baptism, that person will have a very good handle on why we believe what we do about these things. With all deference, affection, and respect to my brethren on the other side of this issue, I do not believe they could answer the arguments and exegetical analysis of these works. I believe they can’t answer my opening statement either. I also suspect that this is the reason they are fixated upon an issue that is irrelevant to this subject instead of dealing with force of the biblical text and the historic Reformed tradition on this very important topic. I also believe this is why my opening statement was and continues to be ignored outside of Brandon’s article responding to it which I have not and do not intend to read. That’s what the debate was for and this has already consumed far more of my time than it ever should have. Had he made an opening statement with substance and biblical argumentation, I would gladly have rebutted it. Had he attempted to respond to my opening statement during the debate, I would gladly have rebutted that response. He did neither. That was his choice. It saddens me that my friends, Tim and Carlos, have very clearly been led off the track of understanding covenant theology and baptism by Brandon Adams. Although it is not relevant to the proper subjects of Baptism, I’d like to post here Dr. Robert L. Reymond’s treatment of the Mosaic covenant and the Exodus event because it is outstanding:The exodus from Egypt—the Old Testament type par excellence of biblical redemption—by divine arrangement exhibited the same great salvific principles which governed Christ’s work of atonement, both in its accomplished and applied aspects, in the New Testament, thereby teaching the elect in Israel about salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Messiah’s mediation.As a major feature of the Old Testament ground for the truth that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us” (Rom. 15:4; see 1 Cor. 10:1–11, where Paul employs the exodus and certain subsequent wilderness events for this pastoral purpose), the great exodus redemption of the people of God from Egypt (and Moses’ inspired record of it) communicated God’s redemptive ways to his Old Testament people as it would do later to us, his New Testament people. That it is not reading too much into the event of the exodus to characterize it as a redemptive event is borne out by the fact that the biblical text represents it precisely that way: Exodus 6:6: “I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.” Exodus 15:13: “In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed.” Deuteronomy 7:8: “But it was because the Lord loved you … that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery.” Deuteronomy 9:26: “O Sovereign Lord, do not destroy your people, your own inheritance, that you redeemed by your great power and brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.” The exodus is also described as “Yahweh’s salvation” (Exod. 14:13), Moses also writing: “That day the Lord saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians.” (Exod. 14:30). Later Stephen applied the title “redeemer” to Moses, a type of Christ (Acts 7:35). Far from their becoming after Sinai a nation living under divinely imposed constraints of legalism, the people of the Mosaic theocracy, having been delivered from their slavery as the result of the great redemptive activity of God in the exodus event, became God’s “treasured possession,” “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6; Deut. 7:6) in order to “declare the praises of him who brought them out of darkness into his marvelous light” (see 1 Pet. 2:9). In the exodus God revealed the following four great salvific principles that regulate all true salvation, taught Israel about faith in Christ, and bind the “soteriologies” of the Old and New Testaments indissolubly together into one “great salvation.”1. The exodus redemption, in both purpose and execution, originated in the sovereign, loving, electing grace of God. This principle is expressly affirmed in Deuteronomy 7:6–8: You are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your fore-fathers [which oath itself was grounded in sovereign electing grace—Heb. 6:13–18] that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (emphases supplied) And it is implied in God’s description of the nation as his “firstborn son” in Exodus 4:22–23 (see Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2–3; 43:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Mal. 1:6; 2:10), sonship from the very nature of the case being nonmeritorious and all the more so since Israel’s sonship was not sonship by nature (only God the Son is a Son of God by nature) but by adoption (Rom. 9:4). In actual execution of the exodus it is highly significant that there was little religious or moral difference between the nation of Egypt and Jacob’s descendants in Egypt: both peoples being idolatrous (Exod. 12:12; Josh. 24:14; Ezek. 23:8, 19, 21; but see Deut. 26:7 for evidence that a “remnant” still worshiped Yahweh) and sinful (Deut. 9:6–7). Accordingly, it was God himself who had to “make a distinction” between the Egyptians and the Israelites (Exod. 8:22–23; 9:4, 25–26; 10:22–23; 11:7). 2. The exodus redemption was accomplished by God’s almighty power and not by the strength of man (Exod. 3:19–20). Every detail of the exodus event was divinely arranged to highlight the great salvific truth that it is God who must save his people because they are incapable of saving themselves. God permitted Moses to attempt Israel’s deliverance at first by his own strategy and in his own strength, and allowed him to fail (Exod. 2:11–15; Acts 7:23–29). Then he sent Moses back to Egypt with the staff of God in his hand to “perform miraculous signs with it” (Exod. 4:17). God himself promised, precisely in order to “multiply” his signs that he might place his power in the boldest possible relief and this in order that both Egypt and Israel would learn that he is God, that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart throughout the course of the plagues, and he did so (Exod. 7:3; 10:1–2; 11:9; see Rom. 9:17). And the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 has as its single theme the extolling of God for his mighty power to save. There should have been no doubt in anyone’s mind after the event whose power had effected Israel’s redemption. 3. The exodus redemption, notwithstanding the two previous facts that it sprang from God’s gracious elective purpose and was accomplished by the power of God, actually delivered only those who availed themselves of the expiation of sin afforded by the efficacious covering of the blood of the paschal lamb (Exod. 12:12–13, 21–23, 24–27). This truth underscores the fact that biblical redemption is not simply deliverance by power but deliverance by price as well.21 That the paschal lamb was a “sacrifice” is expressly declared in Exodus 12:27, 34:25, and 1 Corinthians 5:7. As a biblical principle, wherever the blood of a sacrifice is shed and applied as God has directed so that he stays his judgment, the expiation or “covering” of sin has been effected. Accordingly, the exodus redemption came to its climax precisely in terms of a divinely required substitutionary atonement in which the people had to place their confidence if they were to be redeemed. As we will suggest later, Moses could have informed them of the christological significance of the paschal lamb. 4. The exodus redemption resulted in the creation of a new community liberated from slavery in order to serve its gracious new Redeemer and Lord. Again and again God ordered Pharaoh:“Let my people go that they may serve me” (see Exod. 3:18; 4:23; 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3). The Bible knows nothing of a people of God springing into existence as the result of his redemptive activity who then continue to remain under the hostile power of their former master (see Rom. 6:6, 17–22; 7:4–6, 23–25; 8:2–4; 2 Cor. 5:15, 17). Though Pharaoh suggested compromises that would have resulted in something less than complete liberation for Israel (Exod. 8:25, 28; 10:11, 24), Moses would have none of it. Accordingly, Israel left Egypt completely (Exod. 12:37; 13:20), becoming a guided people (Exod. 13:21–22) and a singing people (Exod. 15), who had their sacraments (Exod. 14:21–23; 16:4, 13–15; 17:1–6; see 1 Cor. 10:2–4), and whose perseverance in their pilgrim struggles was dependent ultimately on the intercession of “the man on top of the hill” and not on their own strength and stratagems (Exod. 17:8–16). And far from Israel “rashly accepting the law” at Sinai and “falling from grace” when the nation promised its obedience to God’s law, the very preface of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–2) places these ten obligations within the context of and represents them as the anticipated outcome of the redemption which they had just experienced. So it was to be through Israel’s very obedience to God’s commandments that the nation was to evidence before the surrounding nations that it was God’s “treasured possession,” his “kingdom of priests,” and “a holy nation”—precisely the same way that the church today evidences before the watching world its relationship to God. Peter informs Christians that they, like Israel in Old Testament times, are a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, in order that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9). And Christians, just as Israel was to do through its obedience to God’s laws, are to show forth his praises as “aliens and strangers in the world” by “living such good lives among the pagans that … they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1 Pet. 2:11–12).This final quotation is from Joel Beeke’s very scholarly work “A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life” from chapter 45, “The Puritans and Paedobaptism.” I’d highly encourage the reading of the entire chapter, but the following final quotation is exactly what I asserted from Scripture in my opening statement, in my sermons, and in all that I’ve written and taught on this issue: Reformed theologians have always made it clear that the warrant for paedobaptism does not come from Moses. Nowhere do we read of anyone contrasting the new covenant with the promises made to Abraham. There was indeed disagreement concerning what is meant by the “old covenant,” and how it relates to the new covenant, but Reformed theologians all affirmed that the new covenant was the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. Indeed, there is nothing substantially different between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, except that the latter is the fulfilment of what was only a promise in the former, which is why Reformed theologians had no difficulty affirming a “covenant of grace” that included God’s gracious dealings with the church from the time of Adam to the time of Christ. One may argue that the new covenant is different in kind than the Sinaitic or old covenant, as did Owen and Goodwin, among others; but Owen and Goodwin could join with those who viewed old and new covenants as one in substance to affirm paedobaptism because all agreed that the command to baptize infants was based on the perpetual promises made to Abraham, the father of many nations, and not derived from any law or ordinance of Moses. Of course, the argument that Abraham, not Moses, provides the rationale for paedobaptism has been acknowledged by the more learned antipaedobaptists.These are my final comments.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground (Gen 1:26)." When you read the whole chapter of Genesis 1 from the beginning, you get a sense that the world was created for humans who were created at the last. In fact, God said, "… and let them ruler over the fish of the seas, … over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground," and it indicates that he had planed and prepared everything so that humans could rule over what he had created. And this leads us to the idea that we humans are the heirs of the world. This does not mean, however, that we can rule over the world selfishly, not according to God's will. Needless to say, such a self-seeking and dictatorial manner of ruling is a sin, and this ownership by humans assumes that the world is without sin. More importantly, the Bible also says that the world and everything in it were initially created by and for God the Son, the first image of the invisible God. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Col 1:15-17). Note the expression "the image of the invisible God," which the Son was at the beginning, before anything was created, and definitely before he was born as a human, a descendant of Adam in the New Testament time. He is the head of humans, and in him, we exist as sons of God. The expression, "the image of God," signifies sonship with God being the Father. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves (Eph 1:3-6). Note the expression, "he chose us." In the Bible, the one chosen belongs to the one who chooses. Then, note the expression, "he predestined us to be adopted as his sons." Because we were created, in order to be the sons of the Creator, we needed to be adopted. This adoption was planned and purposed before the creation of the world. In the same way, Israel was chosen, and adopted as God's own possession. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites (Exod 19:5-6). Note the expression, "my treasured possession" (lit. "(a) treasure belonging to me"). The noun in Hebrew is segullah, and it is always used referring to Israel except once. The idea is that Israel was chosen in God's love, and became "treasure" to him. See, for instance, the following passage: The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession (segullah). The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, … But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you … (Deut 7:6-8).

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:6). We have seen so far that the stories of Gen 2-3 deal with the spiritual state of a human heart, not merely what happened to the first humans, Adam and Eve, but what happens to us in our hearts spiritually when we sin. Now, we want to know what the two trees planted in the middle of the Garden of Eden mean to us: what does it mean to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and how can we regain the access to the tree of life and eat from it? Unfortunately, believing in Jesus does not automatically make you eat from the tree of life. All believers in Christ are given the right to eat from it, but are not necessarily eating from it. According to Paul, to eat from the tree of life is to live according to the spirit, and to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to live according to the flesh. Those who live according to the spirit listen to the voice of God who speaks to them through the spirit, but those who live according to the flesh live according to their own decisions and ideas contained in the flesh (soul) about what is good or evil. The problem with the latter case is that the soul is not powerful enough to carry out what it thinks good due to the sin in it, and when they try to do it, they find themselves not doing it. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me (vv. 15-17). For Paul, “what I want to do” is the law in the Old Testament, but for the Gentiles, it is the conscience that every human has, and for Christians, it is all that the Bible says is good and is summed up as a single command—to love one another. We all desire to do what is good, but the moment we try to do it, we fall into Satan’s temptation, and find ourselves not doing it. Rather, the Bible teaches us to listen to the voice of God we hear in our hearts. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. … Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites (Exod 25:20-22). Note that the location of the ark in the tabernacle along with two cherubim on top of its cover is related to the description of cherubim and a flaming sword placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden: After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24). Here, the expression “to guard the way to the tree of life” should be understood in a positive sense: one day the access to this tree would be restored. The tree of life for Moses was the voice he heard between the two cherubim above the atonement cover of the ark. And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was obviously the Ten Commandments written on the stone tablets that were placed inside the ark, which was covered and sealed with “the atonement cover”: in a sense, the access to the stone tablets was prohibited. This pointed to the time when the access to the stone tablets would be no longer necessary: … for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Do everything without complaining or arguing, (Phil 2:13-14)… God’s voice you hear inside your heart is not actually a voice any more, but a “will” that he puts in you. Note that “it is God who works in you to will” directly—not through the process of teaching you so that you try to do it. You do what you want to do, and end up doing the will of God.

She (wisdom) is a tree of life to those who embrace her; Those who lay hold of her will be blessed (Prov 3:18). In the middle of the Garden of Eden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But when man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he was driven out of the garden and lost the access to the tree of life. What does this mean to us? Is there a way still for us to regain the access to the tree of life? In order to get answers to these questions, you will need to understand certain facts. First, it should be realized that the word “adam” in Hebrew means “man,” “human,” and is not used as a proper noun—a person called “Adam”—in the stories of creation, at least in the first three chapters of Genesis. It rather refers, as a type, to human beings in general—both the ones who lived in the past, and those living today. So, if a person sins, he/she sins as this “adam” sinned by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, you need to know that the Garden of Eden symbolically represents a place where God and man meet—the point that connects the heaven and the earth as the tent of meeting, the tabernacle or the temple functioned the same way for the people of Israel. Note, for instance, the way God’s appearance before the “adam” and his wife is described: Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking (would walk) in the garden in the cool of the day…(Gen 3:8). Therefore, it can be said that the “adam” in the Garden of Eden was a priest. The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it (2:15). The verb ‘to work (‘avad)’ also means “to serve, worship,” and is sometimes used together with shamar ‘to keep, observe’ (here translated as “to take care of”) for the services and duties that priests performed in the tabernacle (Num 3:7, 8, 8:26, 18:7). The “adam” did not need to work the ground for living that time (cf. 3:23). And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life (3:22-24). From this description of cherubim placed on the east side of the garden, we can easily draw the analogy between the garden and the tabernacle (or the temple). There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites (Exod 25:22). Note how the ark of the covenant was covered with a lid, and two cherubim were placed on it. In the ark were the two tablets of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written. Why was the ark sealed with such a cover so that the tablets could not be seen? Furthermore, why was the cover called “an atonement cover”? And why were the two cherubim placed on top of it so that it was even more difficult to open it and see inside? We have the following passage in the New Testament: … for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing (Phil 2:13-16).