Podcasts about westminster confession

We welcome Darryl G. Hart back to Christ the Center to discuss Protestants and Patriots: Presbyterians in the Age of Revolution, published by the University of Notre Dame Press. Hart traces the transatlantic story of Presbyterianism from the Reformation through the age of revolutions, asking why Presbyterian polity so often became a political irritant in Britain, Ireland, North America, and beyond. The conversation ranges from Calvin's Geneva and the French Reformed connection to the Scottish Covenanters, the English civil wars, John Witherspoon, the American founding, the 1788 revision of the Westminster Confession, and contemporary debates over Christian nationalism. Along the way, Hart helps us see how questions of church government, civil authority, establishment, liberty, and public memory are bound up with the church's confession that Christ alone is head of his church. Watch on YouTube Chapters 0:00 Introduction and the road to episode 1,000 2:00 Protestants and Patriots and the Presbyterian question 3:10 The project's origins and teaching the big picture 5:12 Calvin's ecclesiastical ordinances and Presbyterian polity 7:26 Was the American Revolution a Presbyterian revolution? 10:12 Lumpers, splitters, and Presbyterian identity 11:09 Reformed and Presbyterian: why the names matter 15:01 Presbyterians, nationalism, and the godly society 16:12 Covenanters, national covenanting, and regicide 19:31 Geneva, exiles, and the French connection 22:26 The true Presbyterian revolutionary moment: the 1630s and 1640s 24:21 Why Scotland became a Presbyterian laboratory 28:29 Why England and Scotland became Reformed rather than Lutheran 30:52 What did Presbyterians want? Church independence and state support 34:43 The Glorious Revolution, moderation, and establishment compromises 39:15 Regium donum, Canada, Ireland, and voluntary giving 42:34 John Witherspoon and Presbyterian moderation in the American founding 48:16 Revising Westminster Confession chapter 23 55:30 American Heretics, Two Sons of Oil, and anti-liberal Presbyterianism 60:30 Further conversations and Protestants and Patriots 65:05 Independence Hall, historic preservation, and public memory 70:07 Conclusion Resources mentioned Protestants and Patriots: Presbyterians in the Age of Revolution by D. G. Hart University of Notre Dame Press interview with D. G. Hart American Heretics by Jerome Copulsky Two Sons of Oil by Samuel B. Wylie Independence National Historical Park Participants: Camden Bucey, Darryl G. Hart

The sermon centers on the theological significance of humanity's creation in God's image, emphasizing that men and women are uniquely made in God's likeness—equal in dignity yet distinct in gender, role, and function. Drawing from Genesis 1–2 and the Westminster Confession of Faith, it affirms that human identity is rooted in divine creation, not cultural or personal identity, and that biological, moral, and relational distinctions between male and female are foundational to God's design. The sermon upholds the biblical order of male headship and female submission not as oppression, but as a reflection of Christ's sacrificial leadership and the church's submission to Him, while affirming the equal worth and shared salvation of both genders. It also explores the moral capacity of humanity—created with the law written on their hearts, able to obey or disobey, and thus responsible for their actions—setting the stage for understanding sin, covenant, and redemption. Ultimately, the sermon presents creation as a divine, good, and purposeful act, establishing humanity's role as stewards of God's world, called to live in holy joy and faithful dominion under God's authority.

We welcome Matthew Vogan to discuss The Nature of the Church by John Brown of Wamphray, a concise seventeenth-century work on Presbyterian ecclesiology republished by Grange Press. Brown, a Scottish Covenanter exiled to the Netherlands, wrote with deep conviction about Christ's headship over the church, the visible and invisible church, church government, discipline, unity, and the distinction between church and state. This conversation explores why Brown's work remains timely for pastors, elders, seminarians, and church members today. Rather than treating church government as a secondary or merely practical matter, Brown presents the church as a visible spiritual society established by Christ, governed by his Word, and ordered for the edification of his people. Watch on YouTube Chapters 0:00 Introduction 1:15 The Nature of the Church by John Brown of Wamphray 4:30 John Brown's life, ministry, exile, and Covenanter context 8:40 Matthew Vogan's introduction to John Brown 9:36 Brown's 32 theses and the Westminster Confession 10:54 A majestic view of Christ's church 12:33 The scope of Brown's ecclesiology 15:12 The church as a visible spiritual society 21:43 Church and state under Christ's authority 27:08 Scripture and Presbyterian church government 30:53 Brown's polemics against Erastianism, prelacy, and independency 35:00 Ministerial authority and edification 39:17 The church's spiritual government 42:14 The spirituality of the church 44:59 Key insights from Brown's work 46:06 Communion within the visible catholic church 52:21 Further reading: Durham, Gillespie, Rutherford, and Bannerman 53:55 Final thoughts on The Nature of the Church 55:00 Scottish football and closing conversation 56:57 Reformed Forum resources and conclusion Participants Camden Bucey Matthew Vogan Resources mentioned Grange Press The Nature of the Church by John Brown of Wamphray Trinitarian Bible Society Christ the Center 682: David Dickson's Sermons on Lamentations

Icon Wars: Has the Church Been Bowing to Idols? How Rome and the East Smuggle Idolatry into Worship Through Sentiment and Bad Arguments “Stop kissing idols.” When God thundered from Sinai, He did not mumble. He did not leave room for clever loopholes. He said: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… thou shalt not bow down thyself to them.” Yet for centuries, Rome and the East have tried to explain away what God made plain. In this episode of The Patriarchy Podcast, Pastor Joseph Spurgeon and Zach Krugler step into the Icon Wars. Are icons, statues, relics, and painted images harmless aids to worship… or baptized idolatry dressed up in tradition? The guys break down the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic arguments for icon veneration, including appeals to the incarnation, church history, temple imagery, and “honor passing through the image.” They examine why modern Protestants, exhausted by shallow evangelicalism, are being lured toward ancient aesthetics and mystical sentimentality. They also ask the practical questions many Christians wrestle with: Is every image of Jesus sinful? What about children’s Bibles and movies like The Chosen or The Passion of the Christ? What do we do with relics like the Shroud of Turin? Does church history actually support icon veneration? Can Christians distinguish between honor and worship? This is not a debate about art alone. It is a battle over worship, authority, and whether God gets to decide how He is approached. Faithful men do not improve God’s worship. They obey it. Timestamps 00:00 – Cold Open: “Stop Kissing Idols”02:01 – Introduction to the Icon Wars03:12 – Has God Authorized Religious Images?04:39 – Why Eastern Orthodoxy Is Gaining Ground08:36 – Does Calling Icons Idolatry Mean the Church Fell Away?10:02 – What the Second Commandment Actually Says13:17 – The Bronze Serpent and Corrupted Worship17:24 – Is There a Difference Between Images and Veneration?19:56 – “Jesus Is the Image of God” Argument Examined23:39 – Did Christ Change the Second Commandment?27:33 – The Incarnation and the Logic of Iconography31:36 – Honor vs. Worship: Are They the Same?35:45 – The Regulative Principle of Worship38:20 – Westminster Larger Catechism on Images43:18 – Mental Images of Christ and the Human Imagination47:12 – The Dangers of Modern Depictions of Jesus50:17 – Applying This Debate in Real Life Key Topics Discussed The Second Commandment and worship Eastern Orthodox icon veneration Roman Catholic statues and relics The regulative principle of worship The Westminster Larger Catechism The incarnation and images of Christ Church history and iconoclasm The Shroud of Turin The Chosen and visual depictions of Jesus Idolatry disguised as tradition The King’s Council Men need more than shallow answers and soft leadership. The King’s Council is a gathering for men who want biblical truth, real brotherhood, and strength under the lordship of Christ. Join us June 20 from 5:00–8:00 PM at Sovereign King Church in Jeffersonville, IN. Pastor Michael Clary of Christ the King Church in Fort Thomas, KY will speak on Piety Without Pietism. Food, discussion, and fellowship included. Take your seat at the King’s Council: https://sovereignkingscouncil.com About the Show The Patriarchy Podcast features in-depth conversations on faith, culture, theology, and leadership. Each episode equips Christians to live boldly and biblically in an age of compromise—exploring the challenges and opportunities of standing firm for truth in the modern world. Support the Mission We’re still raising funds to expand Sovereign King Academy and keep tuition affordable for families. Want to invest in the future of Christ’s Kingdom?Give here: https://sovereignkingacademy.com Connect with The Patriarchy Podcast YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePatriarchyPodcastSpotify: https://tinyurl.com/58tm5zjzApple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/f3ruzrsaWebsite & All Links: https://linktr.ee/thepatriarchypodcast Follow Joseph Spurgeon:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ThePatriarchyPodcastX/Twitter: https://x.com/PatriarchyPodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepatriarchypodcastGab: https://gab.com/thepatriarchypodcast Sponsored By Steadfast Cigars – For men who reject passivity and take dominionOrder: https://steadfastcigars.com/ Fit Father Project – Dr. Balduzzi built the Fit Father Project to help men stop drifting, reclaim discipline, and get strong for life. If you're ready to take ownership of your health, don’t wait. This is the first real step toward lasting strength—for your body, your family, and your legacy. Start: https://secure.fitfatherproject.com/a/transformation/4539 Books by Joseph Spurgeon:It’s Good to Be a Boy – https://a.co/d/7zpEh5DIt’s Good to Be a Girl – https://a.co/d/6VlBTzS Final Call to Action Subscribe for more conversations that sharpen men for battle.Turn on notifications so you never miss an episode.Like and share to support biblical masculinity. icons, icon veneration, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, idolatry, second commandment, graven images, worship idols, Protestant theology, Reformed theology, Westminster Confession, icon worship, biblical worship, regulative principle, Joseph Spurgeon, Patriarchy Podcast, Christian nationalism, theology podcast, false worship, Exodus 20, images of Jesus, Shroud of Turin, The Chosen critique, church history, Protestant vs Orthodox, Christian apologetics, biblical masculinity

In this profound exploration of Matthew 22:1-14, we examine Jesus's parable of the wedding feast—one of the most theologically dense teachings in Scripture. This parable reveals the magnificent scope of God's gospel invitation extended to all humanity, the tragic reality of human rejection, and the sovereign grace that ensures God's purposes will not be thwarted. Through the imagery of a royal wedding banquet, Jesus addresses the religious leaders who challenged His authority while simultaneously unveiling timeless truths about salvation, election, and the nature of the Church. This episode unpacks the parable's layers of meaning, from the universal call of the gospel to the particular grace of election, equipping believers to understand both the urgency and the sovereignty of God's redemptive work. Key Takeaways The Universal Gospel Call Is Genuine and Urgent: God's invitation to salvation goes out indiscriminately to all people, regardless of ethnicity, social status, or moral condition. This external call is sincere, well-meant, and accompanied by genuine offers of grace. Human Rejection Is Willful and Culpable: The parable demonstrates that humanity's refusal of God's invitation is not due to insufficient information but to volitional rebellion. This rejection often progresses from indifference to active hostility against God and His messengers. God's Sovereign Purposes Cannot Be Frustrated: Despite widespread rejection, the wedding hall will be filled. God's redemptive plan includes the expansion of His covenant community beyond ethnic Israel to include Gentiles from every nation. The Wedding Garment Represents Imputed Righteousness: The garment required for the feast symbolizes the righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, not earned through human effort. This illustrates the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. The Visible Church Contains Both Genuine and False Believers: The parable warns that not all who hear the gospel and enter the visible church possess true saving faith, distinguishing between the external call and the internal, effectual work of the Spirit. Eternal Punishment Is Real and Conscious: The parable's conclusion soberly affirms the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment for those who reject Christ, depicted as "outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth." "Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen": This foundational statement maintains the biblical tension between the universal external call of the gospel and the particular, effectual call of God that sovereignly draws the elect to salvation. Key Concepts The Nature of the Gospel Call: External and Effectual Reformed theology has carefully distinguished between two aspects of God's call. The external or general call is the sincere proclamation of the gospel to all without distinction, inviting everyone to faith and repentance. This call is genuine on God's part—He truly offers salvation to all who hear. However, due to total depravity, the natural person will not respond to this call on their own. The internal or effectual call is the sovereign, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit by which the elect are regenerated, have their wills renewed, and are infallibly brought to saving faith. This distinction preserves both human responsibility (we are culpable for rejecting a genuine offer) and divine sovereignty (God alone saves by His grace). The parable beautifully illustrates both realities: servants genuinely invite all they find on the highways, yet the King ultimately determines who is properly clothed for the feast. The Wedding Garment and Justification by Faith Alone The wedding garment represents one of the parable's most critical theological elements. In ancient Near Eastern culture, hosts often provided garments for wedding guests, making the lack of proper attire inexcusable. Theologically, this garment symbolizes the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers—a righteousness not produced by human effort but received through faith alone. This directly confronts any notion of works-righteousness or the idea that we can stand before God based on our own moral achievements, religious observances, or church membership. The man without the garment represents those who presume to approach God on the basis of their own righteousness rather than Christ's alien righteousness. His speechlessness before judgment illustrates that on the last day, no one will successfully argue their case on grounds of personal merit. This underscores the Reformation principle of sola gratia and sola fide—salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, clothing us in a righteousness that is entirely Christ's. The Tension Between Universal Call and Particular Election The parable's conclusion—"many are called, but few are chosen"—encapsulates one of theology's profound mysteries. This statement places two realities side by side without resolving the tension philosophically. The invitation truly goes to all (universal call), yet only some respond savingly (particular election). Reformed theology maintains this biblical tension rather than collapsing it in either direction. We don't limit the external call only to the elect (hyper-Calvinism), nor do we make the internal call dependent solely on human decision (Arminianism). Instead, we affirm that the gospel invitation is genuinely universal while the effectual drawing is sovereignly particular. This means Christians can proclaim unreservedly, "Christ has died for you" to any person, knowing the offer is sincere, while simultaneously trusting that God will infallibly save all His elect through that proclamation. Memorable Quotes "The most scandalous and tragic thing that could happen at a wedding or a wedding banquet is that nobody shows up. The guests don't come. Or in fact, not only do they not come, they don't want to come—they burn the invitations." "You don't bring anything to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." "Many a man in this world will silence his own conscience with many a fair excuse. But in that day, there will be no excuse, no plea, no delay." - William Perkins Full Episode Transcript [00:00:58] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 493 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse, and this is the podcast where we will talk about every single parable. Hey, brothers and sisters. So when was the last time that you were at a wedding? I think weddings are one of the most glorious of all kinds of human events and celebrations, and I think the solemness of the vows and the promises that are exchanged between a man and a woman in marriage in that ceremony, or maybe only equaled by the joy of those same vows and promises. And of course, the whole point of coming together to celebrate a, a wedding. Is to make that joy consummate and complete by having others participate in it. The seeing the union of a man and a woman become one, the excitement of that love expressed in promise and commitment. It's an incredible thing. And I was thinking about this recently because our wedding invitation is actually framed in, in our living room because one of the guests that we invited gave that to us as a really thoughtful gift. And so our wedding ceremony and the party that followed, and it was a. Amazing and awesome party, especially thanks to my in-laws and my parents who generously made sure that that was possible was an exceptional event that we still talk about all the time. Actually, you know, in my wedding when we had this grand kind of wedding banquet afterwards, we had a friend of ours who actually performed the song that we danced to on grand piano and sang for us, which is amazing. We had a DJ in one room and we had a live jazz band in another, and I specifically recall. That when we left late in the evening, my new wife and I, that there were still people on the dance floor having a good time. And I thought, this is the way it's supposed to be. I mean, this is a wedding. This is a wedding banquet. [00:02:58] Why No One Comes [00:02:58] Jesse Schwamb: And so it also made me think recently, especially as we find ourselves in Matthew chapter 22, continuing to look at all these incredible parables that Jesus gives to us, that perhaps the most scandalous and tragic thing that could happen at a wedding or a wedding banquet is that nobody shows up. The guests don't come. Or in fact, like not only do they not come, they don't want to come, they burn the invitations. They wanna have nothing to do with the celebration or the ceremony itself. And so Jesus has been doing all of this teaching that we've been tracking, and he's been responding to these leaders in the Jewish community, the people we call the Pharisees and the scribes who have challenged his authority. And he's been progressing in the way that he's almost ratcheting up the language that he's using, the indictments that he's bringing to them. And now he's about to bring in weddings and specifically the wedding banquet. And that is where we're gonna find ourselves in a Matthew Chapter 22. Now, by the way, I should also mention that because my wife is super popular lady and super lovable. We had a pretty large wedding. I think we had over 200 guests, and so. Because my father-in-law is retired military, we were actually able to have our whole wedding banquet, our whole celebration and party on a local army base. But because of that, it meant that before you could actually get onto the base, all of our guests. Had to be searched. So it's nothing like, you know, basically just shaken down your wedding guests before they show up. So that also was super fun.  [00:04:32] Reading Matthew 22 [00:04:32] Jesse Schwamb: But let's go to the scriptures, everybody. So here's Matthew chapter 22. Uh, listen to this as we take a look at what Jesus has to say and why he brings in weddings. Actually, it might be helpful to say or to give you something, rather to listen to or listen for before you even hear me read the scriptures because. This parable of this wedding banquet, it is definitely one of the most theologically dense parables in the entire synaptic tradition. It is set like we've been saying within the final week of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, and it's embedded in the sequence of confrontational exchanges that he's having with the Jewish leadership because they have challenged his authority. And so as you listen to this being read, I want you to clue in, key in as they say to a couple of things. See if you can find the, like the Christological proclamation in this. There's a, a covenantal poll. I think there's some sociological instruction and there's an eschatological warning. All of this happens as is Jesus's jam in the short span of several verses where he illuminates all of these principles of the sovereign grace of God and the summons of the gospel. Total depravity and culpability of this, these rebellious people who refuse the call, the historical judgment of God upon the covenant breaking Israel. And then of course, the subsequent expansion of that covenant into the community include to include the Gentiles. All of this is happening. In this parable, and so I want you just to listen for that as we together read. Or in my case, I guess I just read, especially if you're driving, do not read the parable that begins in the first part of Matthew chapter 22. Here's the word of God. And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables saying The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and he sent out his slaves to call those who had been called to the wedding feast and they were unwilling to come again. He sent out other slaves saying, tell those who have been called. Behold. I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fon livestock are all butchered and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his farm, another to his business, and the rest seized the slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, the wedding is ready, but those who were called were not worthy. Go, therefore, to the main highways and as many as you find there, call to the wedding feast. And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found both evil and good, and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who is not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes? And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for many are called, but few are chosen.  [00:07:50] Parable Context [00:07:50] Jesse Schwamb: Wow. So what an incredible. Story, what an incredible foundation or rubric or context in which so many rich theological concepts and pastoral concepts, doctrinal concepts are given to us from Jesus. And you'll notice that of course, chronologically here, this parable is following the parable of the two sons and the parable of the wicked tenants. Those are the vine growers that we were talking about over the last several episodes. And this one rounds everything out. It forms like a triptych of rejection parables directed against these chief priests and the Pharisees who keep coming after Jesus and his authority. And Matthew signals this kind of escalating tension. The Jewish leaders are now explicitly seeking to arrest Jesus. And Jesus responds not by treating their, not by retreating, of course, but by intensifying his indictment in this parabolic form. And here's where we arrive in Matthew 22. It's interesting to me, of course, that this is the approach that Jesus takes. He has already conveyed these two great stories, and at the end of the last one, Tony and I spoke about how this was where at least Matthew explains to us very directly that the, the Pharisees and the scribes, they understood, they discerned that Jesus was speaking about them, and yet Jesus says, I'm not done yet. I've got one more. And this is the culmination of all the things that he's been saying. And it starts again in verse one with Jesus saying, and again, he spoke to them in a parable. You know, it signals that the parable itself is still a reply. Not to a verbal question at this immediate moment, but to this ongoing posture of rejection exhibited by the religious leaders. You notice that what Matthew says here is very, I think, theologically significant in light of where Jesus explains that the parables both reveal and they conceal their instruments of divine judgment upon heart and hearts, even as they illuminate those with ears to hear. This is why I think it's just so important that as Christians. Even as we study God's word, as we participate in it, so to speak, as we let it read us, that we come with this posture of prayer, that we desperately need God's Holy, holy, holy Spirit to illuminate for us what the scriptures say, to lead us into the paths of righteousness and judgment, which are present in the scriptures, so that we may understand them with these spirit-filled eyes, with a spirit enabled brain with ears that have been unstopped by the spirit. So these parables are the mode by which Christ simultaneously honors and judges his audience. He shows indirectly what it would've been of no use to state plainly. And so the parable form itself is really part of the message here. I think that's something hopefully you picked up as we've been processing them all together, that Jesus opponents cannot arrest what they cannot fully comprehend, yet their incomprehension is itself their condemnation, right? This is, this is the mystery. Of the gospel of what God does, where there is this outward and full unbiased external call, and yet there is something that is efficacious by the power of the Holy Spirit for those whom God has chosen and called to himself so reformed to eus. Are attentive to the authorial intent in historical situatedness of each thing that Jesus says. That's one of the things I think is great about the way in which we kind of have organized our theological perspective and these parables function as a prophetic oracle of judgment. And certainly that's like in an Old Testament accent. I mean, that's the Old Testament jam. It's an Old Testament lawsuit kind of John. It's like law and order. If law and order were Moses, were doing it right. So notice that again, as Tony and I've said so many times before, what I kind of always find so phenomenal about these parables is that often we think of parables as having the main object of being a noun of some kind. It's a person, it's a place. It's a thing that is sometimes the case, but more often than not, it's one of those nouns associated with a verb.  [00:11:59] Kingdom And The King [00:11:59] Jesse Schwamb: And so we get that in verse two. The kingdom of heaven may be compared to what? To a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. And so it implies that the kingdom is being revealed and likened in a definitive act. We got verbs, loved ones. This is the classic. The ultimate, God does all the verbs because you're gonna hear her over and over again. God is going out. God is giving. God is seeking. God is going after, and these verbs are really the center of the parable itself. It's not just that it's the wedding banquet as maybe the title in your scripture gives you, but it's more about this giving of this event and it's preparing of this grand feast. And so the recurrence of this allegory seemed, I think, pretty straightforward to us. The the king is God, the Father, the Son is Christ, and the wedding banquet, which by the way in the Greek here is plural, is really emphasizing that it's a totality of an occasion. This is the Messianic feast. This is the eschatological consummation of the Covenant of Grace. And that image imagery draws like so deep from this Old Testament well and background of God as the husband and the bridegroom of Israel. Again, how lovely and amazing for Jesus and his thorough knowledge of the scriptures to draw in something that the audience would've been like, yes, I know what you're talking about. I'm totally down with that. And so the son's wedding is therefore not some kind of like incidental entertainment. It is the central event of all history, the installation of the Messianic king and the gathering of his bride. And of course, the people hearing this would've immediately gravitated toward that. I think they would've leaned in maybe even like smiled or smirked at one another, knowing that this was now all that veiled. What Christ was drawing on here was the classic presentation. Of the family of God represented in the children of Israel itself, being drawn back into consummate harmony with God the Father, where there was peace and unitedness, and a celebration of this fact that all things were now made and brought together, that God was restoring and bringing all those back to himself in his true and true kingdom that could not be thwarted. So the fact that the king gives the banquet, prepares it, sends servants, selects the guests, underscores this incredible modernistic character of salvation. I think it's impossible to miss here that God is literally doing all the verbs. The initiative at every point is divine. There's no hint here of synergism. The guests do not arrange their own invitations, literally. And so that's why in verse three, we see God, he sending out his servants. And of course that's a familiar theme. It should be to us. If you've been tracking with us the last several parables we've been speaking of because the servants represent the prophets of the Old Testament and subsequently the apostles and the ministers of the word. The invitation had already gone out to quote those who were invited. So it's this perfect passive parable in the Greek, it's, it's indicating a prior and standing invitation. This is the external or general call of the gospel going out through the preaching of the word. And notice that there is always a response. Even here, Jesus moves directly and quickly to here's what the response was. In other words, as the scripture has told us that God's word never goes out in returns void, there's always, as it were, a response here, that's illustrated for us very directly because the response is not so good.  [00:15:32] Invitation Refused [00:15:32] Jesse Schwamb: I mean, this is what would, this is horrible like wedding etiquette. They were not willing to come. And this verb I think is critical because it's volitional refusal. It's not mere ignorance. And reformed theology is insistent here against any kind of constellation that makes man's rejection of the gospel. A matter of insufficient information or circumstances we know better, right? We as people should know that we as Christians who have been changed, know that the natural man here is not natural, merely because he lacks the certain kind of information as if he could be restored or regenerated or reformed if we just knew more things. The will is in bondage to sin. And so as the Westminster Confession, faith says, man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. This is classic Jonathan Edwards, like, you don't bring anything to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary. For some reason in my head, I said that with kind of a, a weird, almost like southern attitude, which I did not mean to convey. But the point is that this refusal is total, it's willing, it's culpable, it's damnable, it's precisely that, which makes it all the more grievous. The invitation is genuine, the refusal is genuine, and the guilt here is entirely real. So the invited in verse three, represent all of Israel. I, I would say like particularly the leaders here, Tony and I have been talking about the responsibility of these, these leaders in particular to, of course, lead Shepherd, grow these people in faith and a love toward God in a way that is toward freedom and now toward more conviction around extraneous rules or heavy burdens that they set up for them that they cannot perform. And so we have these leaders who had received the covenantal promises and the prophetic witness. I mean, that's like classic Romans nine. The rejection of the servants echoes the pattern of prophetic persecution throughout all of Israel's history. So this is sad stuff. It's a sad beginning to have this grand wedding feast prepared by this king for his son set in motion with the invitations already gone out. And essentially all of those who have been invited have Ally refused.  [00:17:49] Feast Is Ready [00:17:49] Jesse Schwamb: But what's so incredible about God and his loving kindness is still represented here in verse four. The king does not relent after the first refusal, which is remarkable. I mean, this is, again, going back to our proper understanding that we love because God first loved us. That love always leads to giving. And so therefore, God so loved the world that he gave his only son. And when did he give his son? At the fullness of time when we were still at enmity, when we were enemies with him still, he sent his son for us and he sends, therefore a second embassy with an even more urgent and elaborate message that he gives them. He puts into their mouth. And the feast, again, is not merely planned. It's prepared. It's ready. The oxen and fat and calves are images of this lavish like sacrificial celebration. Everything's all slaughtered. Everything is ready to go. Now, I don't know the last time you've been to like an epic feast. I do mean like epic over the top feast. I want you to look up something for me. When you have a chance, look up, just go to your browser of choice and type in shady maples smorgasbord. Now, I don't know if you know what a smorgasbord is, but it's like a, I guess it's like a buffet, but like if you took a buffet and multiply it by a million and then only serve like rich, decadent food and more food than you could possibly really imagine and close to where I live, there's a very famous Amish style. Buffet called Shady Maple Smoker Sport. Just go look it up. 'cause it's gonna be possible for you to describe, but all I can say to you is this isn't just like your standard buffet, it's not just like a potluck where it's like, Hey, we got ham. And, um, we've got some salads and, uh, we've got that, uh, what's that? That weird stuff. You can I, the ambrosia, like we, we've got your hydrox cookies for dessert. This is the last time I was there and uh, actually I was there with my parents and my wife and they treated us. And because this was at a part of my life where my gallbladder was trying to attack me and kill me, I remember just being so ill while I was there feeling so ill, and yet just being so disappointed and bummed out that I couldn't eat all this glorious food because there was filet mignon and lobsters. And shrimp and fish and ham like glazed ham and like carving stations. And then for desserts there was like custards and pies and ice cream and cookies and whoopee pies. And it was this over the top celebration of food. And you couldn't help but just feel like, wow, this thing that we're doing right now is like incredible. I've also, I don't think ever seen my father sample so many different desserts because it was special. This was a, a lavish and incredible celebration for us, and it was prepared, it was ready to go. And we find the same thing here. And so the second sending corresponds to this ministry of the Apostles and the early churches proclamation to Israel. The urgency of the messages come now. It reflects this eschatological pressure of the gospel. A good kind of pressure as if like there's a tea kettle on the stove and it's heating up, and now it's starting to whistle and then to boil over. The kingdom has arrived. Loved ones, the feast is set, delay is inexcusable, and, and so the language of readiness, I think is this glorious language of the gospel. The atonement has accomplished. Christ has been crucified, risen, and exalted, and the feast of salvation is prepared. And what I love is that the reformed tradition consistently insists on the sufficiency of Christ's work for all and the genuine freeness of that gospel offer. I like this is what I usually go back to, is that the cannons of dort affirm this in this way. This is the quote. The promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ, crucified shall not perish, but of everlasting life. This promise together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and proclaimed to all the nations. The invitation is genuine and urgent. The feast is truly ready. [00:22:01] Mission To All [00:22:01] Jesse Schwamb: The church that I attend is part of the Christian Missionary Alliance denomination, and one of the many things I love about my church is that outward and continual focus on this very thing. That the invitation is genuine. It is urgent, and the feast is truly ready, and it is for all peoples. This freeness to, as we talked about before, scatter the seed of the gospel message unreservedly and without bias to all, all in your sphere of influence. All nations, all people, all tongues, all tribe. And my church is very serious about this. In fact, one of the things our pastor loves to do is oftentimes when he's giving it this kind of proclamation, in fact, just this Lord's day, he was speaking from Matthew 28 and about the Great Commission and the essential nature of that great commission is every Christian's promise to participate in that. It is something you and I are commissioned for and we ought to regularly evaluate our, what our prayers look like. What our finances look like and what our time looks like with respect to whether we are taking seriously that commission, which God has given to us. And so in reminding us of that very fact, one of the things he'll often say from the pulpit is he'll ask out to the congregation, he'll say, what is our middle name? And everybody will respond, missionary. And, and while it's a little bit trite, it reminds us that as part of like the essential ethos in DNA of who we are as Christians, and in fact in this particular year. One of the themes that the whole Christian Missionary Alliance nomination has been focusing on is all of Jesus for All the World takes all of us. I love that all of Jesus for all the world takes all of us. And so we have embedded in this parable here, so much of this intentionality of the gospel, of going out for all people, making this, this message and this mission available. Going out and speaking and preaching and witnessing and testifying of how great God is and what he has done in setting and preparing this gospel message for all people. But in verse five, we find out that even still with all of this, they paid no attention. They went off one to his farm and another to his business. In other words, the word here suggests this kind of contemptuous indifference rather than this active hatred that that actually comes a little bit later. But worldly affairs, a farm, some converse. All this displaces the invitation. And these are not wicked activities, of course, in themselves. Their wickedness consists in their displacement of what is the ultimate. And that I think is actually like very penetrating diagnosis of the human condition. The great enemy of the gospel, at least it seems to me, is not always, as you talk to people, like some kind of dramatic philosophical rejection, some well articulated hatred toward God. It's instead like a quiet absorption in the ordinary pursuits of life. It's like what I think Augustine called being curved inward upon oneself. The world is a great enchant. It be witches our souls, it distracts us. There are so many things that can pull us away from not only meditating on this gospel message, but coming alongside and appreciating. In participating in that great commission. There's so many things to distract us. It's, it's not as if we need a list. I think if I asked each one of you or you asked me, what are some things that you find distracting that pull you away from time and prayer time, studying God's word, time spent with my wife, time spent serving in my local church. I'm not gonna be hard pressed to find those things to say to you. So this idea that we have, whether it's the farm or this business pursuit here, I suppose it could be representative to at least great earthly loves. You have the land, kind of a agrarian rooted life, and then there's trade mercantile and acquisitive life. I mean, maybe these just suggests that the rejection spans all of our social and economic classes, both within Israel at the time and for us today. And so we move both from like this kind of cold indifference, this we'll have other things to do. I'm, I'm just too busy. And, uh, how many times do we really convince ourselves that we can justify our busyness when we feel the pull of the spirit that there is a need? We feel the pull of the gospel message because there's the gospel pressure to ensure that we are speaking truth and love to those around us. That we ourselves are responding to this invitation with our wholeheartedness, our mind, soul, and spirit, everything that we are, and we convince ourselves. Well, I just, you know, I have a lot going on right now. God, there's just so much that I need to do.  [00:26:34] Indifference Turns Violent [00:26:34] Jesse Schwamb: Now we get to verse six and things shift a little bit. Verse six reads, while the rest sees the servants and treated them shamefully and killed them. Now, what's interesting to me is the indifference, kinda just that cold lackadaisical ness of verse five escalates somehow into violence. In verse six, some of them invited not only ignore the servants, but actively persecute them. And so here we have them, basically are being told they treated them outrageously, shamelessly, they killed them, and, and that's really the language of the entire prophetic tradition, the killing of the prophets. In fact, this Greek word here is ris. It's a word for arrogance. Honor, violating, assault, a sin against the honor of both the messenger and the one who sent him both. Like the one who is the emissary and the one who grants power or vouch saves authority to that emissary. And so to assault the king's servant is of course, to come against the king, and this is an act of high treason. It's against the sovereign God of the entire universe. I, I like here something that Calvin notes about this kind of inexcusable aggregation of aggravation of Israel's sin. He writes, they not only rejected the grace, which was offered to them, but added cruelty to their contempt. That's incredible. Right? That's exactly what we do. We reject God. It's, it's of course like not only just taking all the gifts he gives us and pretending as if they're under our own authority or. Have been the result of our own talents or abilities. But instead, when we do this, we add cruelty to all of our contempt. And the reformed doctrine, of course, of total depravity is not merely the claim that humans are bad. It's the claim that following humanity left to itself moves progressively from the indifference. That we saw in the previous verse, verse five, two, hostility toward the living God in his gospel messengers, which we see in verse six. In other words, unless God constrain us, loved ones, that is the natural end of man to move from this place where I do not care about God till I hate him, and then I hate all those who represent him, all those who speak on his behalf. [00:28:46] Judgment On The City [00:28:46] Jesse Schwamb: And so the king's response here, as you might imagine, is one of anger. He's angry. He sends his troops and he destroys the scriptures, say those are murderers, and he burns their city. I mean, the verse is almost certainly this kind of pro prophecy filled in its intent and its content. It's I think, probably a transparent reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies in 80, 70. And Matthew, even if we say he's writing after that event, or in like a conservative dating with prophetic anticipation, presents Christ as foreseeing and pronouncing the divine judgment upon the city. And this King's anger, of course, is not just, it's not anger that's looking for reciprocity. It's not just anger that's saying, this has made me upset and I'm responding viscerally and emotionally. It's not petulant rage. It is holy and righteous wrath of the sovereign whose grace has been despised and whose servants have been murdered. The destruction is complete. The murderers are destroyed, the city is burned to the ground, and there are foreign tradition kind of following. A covenantal hermeneutic, I think reads 80, 70 as this terminus of the old Covenant administration in many ways, and the judgment upon Nashville Israel for his rejection, for her rejection, rather of the Messiah, you know? While all of that is true, I think what this presents for us is a reminder of how serious our God's Holiness is. And that again, every time we sin, every time that we come against God and someone would challenge his authority as it were, either directly or indirectly, we put ourselves in the place of those who reject the gospel message. And in so doing, we ought to fall on our knees and ask for the kind of repentance that is necessary because we ourselves are putting our place, we're extending among. The murderers, and in this case, the, the message that Jesus has for those is only anger and again, is a righteous kind of anger. So one might imagine as we read in like the previous parables, that Jesus could have just entirely ended there. It almost sounds like we've drawn to a close.  [00:31:04] Invitation Rejected [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, there's a king. He has a wedding banquet for his son. He sent out last invitations. Nobody came. He goes to confronts the guests and not only do they say we're not interested, some of them are like, yeah, we burned all the invitations. And then the people that you sent to remind us, we killed those people. And it'll be right for the king to say. That's it. Everybody's done here. I'm shutting the whole thing down. And honestly, that could have happened in the garden. That could happen at the cross. Instead, we find something totally different. The parable goes on.  [00:31:33] Feast Still Happens [00:31:33] Jesse Schwamb: In fact, verse eight reads, then he said to his servants, the wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Notice loved ones that the feast does not get canceled. I mean, Christmas doesn't get canceled. It's just redirected. The king's purposes will not, cannot be frustrated, and this is a critical sociological and eschatological claim to me, at least. What we're seeing here is the refusal of the invited guests does not leave the wedding hall empty. Praise the Lord. It occasions the wider extension of the invitation.  [00:32:07] Gospel Offer Explained [00:32:07] Jesse Schwamb: And this idea of not worthy does not introduce a prior standard of merit by which the guests were found deficient. But instead, as you know, their unworthiness consists in their refusal To refuse the gospel is to demonstrate one's unworthiness of it. And so worthiness in this context is not some kinda like moral achievement, but it's a covenantal responsiveness. It's the openness of the creature to receive what the king graciously provides. It's why when we stand before God in the kind of judgment that we rightfully deserve, and he says something to the extent of, why should I let you into my heaven? Why should I let you enjoy eternal life with me? We should rightly say, because you promised. And because by the power of your Holy Spirit, through the faith you have given and instilled in me by this imputed righteousness, I can trust you at your promise. And so I think this verse is like so critical for understanding the well meant offer of the gospel. Again, we should together affirm that the gospel is offered to all without distinction, and that those who do not come are inexcusable. God does not will. The damnation of those who reject the gospel as a bare first intention, their damnation follows from their own culpable refusal.  [00:33:31] Mission To All Roads [00:33:31] Jesse Schwamb: And so the king says, listen guys, go out everywhere. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding piece. As many as you find. I don't know how you're envisioning. If you were listening to this story and you were like setting the actual scene, but I don't know, to me, I just find them, the, the servants or the slaves that they look at it one another and they're just like s go time and they just turn around and start going everywhere to all the places, uh, to anyone who will listen to all the like, stops that there were on the byways. All the highways, all the roads. They're just going through all the places. Wherever the road takes 'em, that's where they're going. And all along the way they're spreading this mission, this invitation, and the mission now. Is universal in scope. The main roads, literally the, the exits, the outlets of all these places. The thoroughfares, where the roads branch out of the city and the highways diverge in the countryside. This is representing, of course, like the ends of the earth, the places where any and all may be found. And the command here to as many as you find to go to those is of course, like a command of universal scope. It's for you and me, loved ones there. There's no prior qualification, rich or poor, Jewish, gentile, moral or immoral. This is the missio day, breaking through all ethnic and social boundaries, and in this loving way, in this pastoral way, it underpins the free and indiscriminate offer of the gospel. Again, like going back to the Westminster Confession and the shorter catechism, affirming this covenant of grace that is administered by the preaching of the word. And no matter where you work, like reform theology from like William Cur, David Bernard, like to the modern missionary movement, we're drawing from this mandate of precisely this kind of universal commission. You know, it's like Spurgeon, I think once said something effect of like, Christ has done more than give a general invitation. He has given an urgent, pressing, commanding invitation to all something like that. And I always remember that because when I think about what it means to step into this role of fulfilling the great commission of understanding what Jesus is saying here, it's not just as if we're saying, listen, the world is in a dire place. This is an emergency situation. And so for all of us in our sphere of influence. To bring forward this message of the indiscriminate offer of the gospel is to take God at his word and then to deliver that word to all of those, all the highways, all the byways, all the outplace, every tribe, Tong, nation. What a glorious thing that our God has given us and put us on mission in this way so that no matter who we meet, we know we might say Jesus loves you, that Jesus has died for you. This is, I think, one of the things that those who maybe are new to the reformed tradition and the theological perspective. Find a little bit interesting to parse out, or maybe sometimes if you've had conversations like I have people think that we're parsing the words too much, but there's something to be said for the death of Jesus being sufficient for all and efficacious for the elect, that we're not simply splitting words. There we're describing very discreetly, very cogently, very crisply. This indiscriminate gospel message while at the same time recognizing that it's God's sovereign choice and will to draw those whom he will to himself. And so in verse 10.  [00:36:54] Good And Bad Gathered [00:36:54] Jesse Schwamb: These servants go out to the roads and they gather all whom they found both good and bad. And so the wedding hall, guess what was filled with guests, because this is God's sovereign prerogative because he can do all these things because even those who have denied him does not remove him from power. That he does all the verbs and so the servants obey and the results are comprehensive. They gather in all of these, and Matthew's quick to say both the good and the bad, and I think like the good and the bad pairing is significant. I don't think this is necessarily meaning that there's the morally virtuous and the morally depraved, though that probably is included somewhere. But I think this, this more, this reflection that, once again, it's all kinds of people. For God's to love the world that whomsoever, all of those who believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life. The wedding hall is filled, it was filled, and it's filled by God's sovereign action through human instrumentality.  [00:37:53] Visible And Invisible Church [00:37:53] Jesse Schwamb: And there is, like I'd say, if you're tracking with this, you should notice that there is a, a kinda a tension here. It sits between verses 10 and 11, and it's going to resolve the banquet hall is full. But you'll notice that it's not all within, well, not everybody who's within it are truly saved. And we'll get to why that isn't just a second. But the filling of the hall through the universal gospel summons does produce a mixed company. We've already talked about the parable of the terrors in the wheat before, so this, this should be news if you've been listening to us for a little while, but it's precisely the condition of the visible church in this age. Again, I just think it's fantastic that when we go to the scriptures, one of the reasons we know it's true is because God tells us the truth about the way things are. And we know that this is the way that the church is today. We would call this the visible versus the invisible church. And of course there's a distinguishing between the visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion from the invisible church, which is the totality of the elect, those who God has actually called to himself. So the hole is full. But not all in the hall are clothed. And this is fascinating how Jesus brings in this idea of dressing of not, I mean, not what you put on your salad, a smorgasbord, but like what you're actually wearing.  [00:39:07] Wedding Garment Meaning [00:39:07] Jesse Schwamb: So in verse 11, but the king came in to look at the guests and he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. So notice that the parable scene here kind of shifts dramatically all of a sudden because the king arrives suddenly. He's present. He was speaking, he was giving instructions, he was preparing, he was a character, kind of chilling in the background. But now there's this eschatological moment the king's coming to inspect. The guests corresponds to this final judgment, and what he finds is there's a man without a wedding garment. He's at the center, I think of this parables, theological climax. So what, what is this wedding garment? I would put it to you like, as you're thinking through this and maybe interpreting listening for yourself, what do you think the wedding garment is? And I would say like what most reformed interpreters have been unified on is that this really represents that imputed righteousness, the the righteousness of Christ that's credited to the believer and received by faith alone. And so by a wedding garment, I would understand this to mean the purity and the holiness of that transforms and regenerated life, which is required of all those who are brought inside the true and invisible church. And though he immediately qualifies this as like righteousness, that is inseparable from justification. It is not earned, but it is received. In fact, I think, uh, I have my Logos Bible software up as I'm talking to you, and I see that Matthew Henry comments on this by saying, the righteousness of Christ is the robe of righteousness, the garment of salvation in which true believers are closed. I mean. That's a great turn of phrase, brothers and sisters. I love this idea of what the scriptures tell us elsewhere of putting on these garments of praise or worship, the garments of Christ, of being exchanged out as it were, for what is dirty and unsuitable for something that suits the occasion that is given to you to wear by faith alone. And of course, this wedding garment is not a work that the guest has produced, but it's a garment provided, uh, presumably like the king's servants actually supplied it. Uh, I, I think that's like a detail implied by the ancient custom and the severity of the guest condemnation for lacking it. It's almost as if the king is saying. Uh, like you were, should have been provided. Why did you not put this on? Why did by faith you not accept this? And this underscores the so gratia and so fide. The righteousness by which we stand before God on the last day is not our own, but Christ, it's received through faith. And the man without the garment represents those who presume to stand before God on the basis of their own righteousness. Whether that's religious profession. Moral achievement, charitable giving, mere church membership rather. And instead of. That alien and beautiful righteousness of Christ. So the fact that this man is inside the hall, you know, he's come in through the general call confirms that the parable addresses not only those outside the church, but those within it who lack genuine saving faith. It's almost, to me, kind of like an intra ecclesial warning. It's, it's not merely a missional observation. I think that is for all of us. It's why Paul elsewhere says. Check test, confirm to see whether you yourselves are in this faith because it is by faith that we put on these wedding garments which are appropriate and suitable for this great eschatological Messianic wedding feast with the lamb. [00:42:48] Speechless Before Judgment [00:42:48] Jesse Schwamb: So in verse 12, the king says to him, friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment? And notice the man's response. I, I almost find this kind of funny because he just says, and he was speechless. Like there was, there was nothing for him, uh, to, to say it all. And of course, like this question that's posed here, this, how did you get in here without the winning government? It's not a real question, right? It's not a question of genuine puzzlement. It's the same way in which when we find God walking in the cool of the day, in the garden after the sin of Adam and E, where he says, Adam, where are you? It's not a genuine question of a quizzical nature. It's instead, this rhetorical structure is God questions through judgments. And when he says to Cain, where is Abel your brother, where is Abel, your brother? He's exposing and he's condemning. He's not merely inquiring. And so this man in response, sensing this condemnation, discerning this condemnation, this judgment that's been brought against him, I think this is why the Greek says he was muzzled. He was silenced, his mouth was shut up. He had no answer. Uh, it's not because the question was unfair. But because there was just no legitimate words that he could bring there, there was no argumentation. In other words, there's no poll mic. There was no great debate that he could have. In this moment. Every mouth will be stopped before God. I mean, that's like Romans three. The silence of the ungodly before the Divine Tribunal is a consistent biblical theme, and we find it here. Again, this is the eschatological end to those who are condemned. No one loved ones is gonna stand before God on the last day and successfully argue their case on the ground of personal merit. I love William Perkins on this topic. He was apparently really moved. I learned by this verse and by what he saw in the silence as a profound warning against false assurance. So he actually wrote many a man in this world. Silence is his own conscience. With many fair excuse. Do you hear that? I, I love that turn of phrase. So we're talking about silence. It's about being silence, but I love how he says it's very easy to, to silence, not yourself, not like somebody coming against you with debate, but your own conscience. So he writes, again, many a man in this world will silence his own conscience with many a fair excuse. But in that day, there will be no excuse, no plea, no delay. So that time of plea is now, it's in this life. It's by faith and repentance, which is why there's an urgency to this gospel message. And so the king.  [00:45:17] Outer Darkness Warning [00:45:17] Jesse Schwamb: In hearing this and knowing that this man has no excuse for his outer attire, he says to him, listen to the servants. Bind him hand and foot, cast him into outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The sentence is severe. It's total. Of the command is given to the servants and attendance maybe in this parable and parabolic form, likely the angelic executors of divine judgment and it is binding. It renders the condemned utterly helpless. It's a picture of total divine control over the destiny of the ate. He has cast into this outer darkness, outside the light and warmth of the banquet hall entirely. And I think it's incumbent upon us to take a second and to grieve the repercussions of what is being said here. That the death and destruction of the ATE should make us grieve. It should compel us to go out into the highways, the byways, and to share this message. Unreservedly. One of the ways we know really the full anguish of what this entails is this phrase, weeping and gnashing of teeth, actually occurs seven times in Matthew, and it functions as this refrain, this chorus, this common language of this eschatological condemnation, it combines interestingly in this wordplay here, both the anguish of grief with the rage of frustrated pride. It's a portrait, not of this just like regret, but continuing imp penitent, hostility against God and eternal punishment. And I think if Tony were here, he would agree with me that we have consistently affirmed the doctrine of eternal conscience punishment. You know, the Westminster Confession says, the wicked who know not God and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be cast into eternal torments. In other words, this outer darkness is not annihilation. The weeping and the gnashing continues. It implies an ongoing conscious existence. It's the image of a binding stands against the notion of this kind of postmortem repentance or universalism. The severity of that verse, I think, really must be allowed to stand in its canonical context without mitigation. The, the severity of this judgment ought to fill us with fear, not theological domestication. We, we shouldn't set this aside and be saying, well, this implies that there is nothing after that time. No, there continues to be only time with God in his presence, in eternal, consummate joy and harmony and peacefulness and celebration. Or there is literally. A weeping and a gnashing of teeth, an unresolved rage and anger where that is punished by God because he's absent where there's unmitigated pain and suffering because it is absent the presence and the mediation of God himself, who even now in this world, holds us back so that while we are sinful and we are not as bad as we could or ought to be because of his great kindness, all of us, even those. Who are not believers.  [00:48:37] Called Yet Chosen [00:48:37] Jesse Schwamb: And so because of that, it ends with these very famous in stock words in in verse 14, for many are called, but few are chosen. And that concluding aphorism is, I think, the theological linchpin of this entire thing. The contrast between this idea of called and chosen, you know, this is the vocabulary that is deliberately covenantal and elective, and we shouldn't shy away from that. Of course, it's referring to this external call, the universal proclamation of the gospel to all the hearers. The call is genuine, it's earnest, it's gentile, it's sufficient as an offer. It is the call that goes to all the highways, all who hear the gospel are truly called to repentance and faith. And for me, in my own journey of understanding what this means as God has allowed me to, that has been critical. This idea that this universal call means that it is sufficient as a call to repentance and faith for all those who hear it. And then it does become the responsibility of all those who hear it to respond to it. And so this idea then of this pairing then with the chosen and the elect is referring of course to those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. The elect are those who not only receive the external call, but are effectually drawn by the eternal efficacious call of the Holy Spirit. We can look to Romans eight 30, those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called, he also justified. And I say, because this is a Reformed Theological podcast, and this is what you came here for, I presume, brothers and sisters. Then it behooves us to at least mention again that the reformed tradition has classically distinguished between that external or general call, the sincere well meant proclamation of the gospel to all without distinction, inviting everybody to faith and repentance. That call is genuine on God's part and God's doing the verbs in that as well. And then again, we, we set that over in next two, the internal, what we call like effectual efficacious call. It's sovereign. It's irresistible work of the Holy Spirit by which the elect regenerated, have their will renewed and are infallibly brought to saving faith. All those whom God has predestined unto life and those only he's pleased in his appointed and accepted time to affectionately call by His word and his spirit out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. I was thinking recently of this idea of the narrow path and somewhere between like the scriptures there and pilgrim's progress, and paths and journeys. I had this image in my mind of the road on which we walk. And in this life, the natural man on that road encounters all these like intractable boulders, these things that cannot be traversed. These just great mountainous pieces of rock, which block the path. And so prevent us from at least accomplishing the thing that we would like. Like to live forever, to have peace with God, to be at peace with ourselves, to love our brothers and our sisters as much as we love ourselves to honor something that is greater than us. And those boulders are things like sin, death in the devil, which constantly invade us, which constantly thwart us, which constantly block us. And in Christ, what he has accomplished in salvation is not just, I think to remove those boulders, though that would've been good enough of course to just get them outta the way. Instead, it's as if he's taken them and he's crushed them, and now to the softest sand between our toes and we walk over them in victory by the power of his name through the Holy Spirit into eternal life. Into that grand wedding feast spoil, which we have been invited because he has done this because he loves us. And so verse 14 places these two realities side by side without resolving the tension. Philosophically, this is one of the great mysteries of theology. Uh, reformed theology does not collapse the distinction by limiting the external call to the elect alone as like maybe kind of a hyper Calvinist model, but it doesn't make the internal call dependent on a human decision. As like Armenian theology would instead, you know, the tension is, is biblical. This is here for us. It's here for us, because I believe that God wishes for us to submit our knowledge and our reasoning to him knowing that he is far and above us. And because this tension is biblical, it has to be maintained. The invitation is genuinely universal. The effectual drawing is sovereignly particular. How great is our God loved ones? There is no one like him. And so there's so much in this that I think we could spend all of the rest of our life thinking about, and that would be a noble, I was just thinking today that, um, you know, unless the Lord Terrys like, maybe this will be the last series me and Tony ever do, because there's so much that's rich and deep in these parables and there's so many of them, and the teaching of Christ is, is so complete of course, for us because it gives us everything that we need for life and salvation and godliness that. We find that the more that we look into them, the more that we ask the Holy Spirit to bathe us in a realization that comes from the spirit of God, the more that we will find. They challenge us. They encourage us. They equip us. So I'm thinking and praying for you all as I hope that you are for Tony and I as we continue to wrestle with these things as we continue to talk them out, because I'm asking God that he would equip us as we look at the teaching of his son in these parables with a firm understanding of the truth and equip us with his promises and with his encouragement so that. As he grows us in our faith, our faith for us would be like a thousand eyes and a thousand wings that we would find ourselves moving from glory to glory. Because we see in these parables the great work of God for us. What he has accomplished through his son and how he continues to be for us and the son who is given for us is with us. That we have his Holy Spirit within us and who discerns the mind of God, accept the spirits of God. So love us. Let's continue to get after what's being said in these parables here because there's so much for us here.  [00:55:14] Living The Commission [00:55:14] Jesse Schwamb: And might I add, just to tack onto the end, there's also so much for the world. I know that we're quick to say, or like colloquially Christians have said in the past like, Jesus is the answer, but you I think cannot necessarily fault the world for sometimes asking, well, what is the question? And unless we go forward with this proper understanding that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That all are in need of this savior and that this gospel message is for, in fact, for all people without reservation. Full stop. I guess I ask for you and I and Tony who's editing this episode, are we going out into the highways and byways? What is the proof of the pudding in the eating look like when we examine our lives, but with specifically our finances and our time and our prayer closet and our service? Aren't we in fact concerned with the great commission that is reflected here? Are we concerned with the emergence and urgent need of this gospel message, which is for all people because God so loved the world that he gave his only forgotten son. That whosoever shall believe in him will not per but have everlasting life.  [00:56:27] Community And Support [00:56:27] Jesse Schwamb: So come hang out with us. Come talk about this parable. You know where to go. But I'm gonna tell you anyway because that's what we do. If you go to your browser, type in T Me Back slash Reform Brotherhood, t Me Back slash Reform Brotherhood, that link will take you to an app called Telegram. Telegram is just a messaging app. It's like, I dunno, iMessages for Apple or whatever you Android people are using these days. And there's just a little community that we've sectioned off there. And it's a community of listeners to the Reform Brotherhood who are talking about all kinds of things. You, you wanna be in that group? It is. It is a great group. Don't, don't reject the invitation. Don't reject it. Just, just come. I know you're thinking, listen, I got land. I got commerce I gotta deal with. That's fine. Come, come and join us. So go to t.me/reform brotherhood. One last thing. I would be remiss if I didn't thank all of those who make sure that this podcast still goes out to all the highways and the byways of the internet. That there is no Jericho paywall around it because it does cost money to put out there all the subscriptions, all the distribution. It's surprising, but there are. Intense fees with a lot of that stuff, and so I wanna say thank you, thank you, thank you to those who have listened and said, you know what? I would like to make sure. That this continues to go on. I've been blessed just by the conversation. God has done something here because again, he does all the verbs. Tony and I do zero verbs, and so because of that, they've gone to patreon.com Reform Brotherhood, and they've just decided to give a little bit of the kindness of their heart and generosity to the Lord. So if you're thinking, you know what? I've been listening for a while, and I do appreciate that this just magically, as it were, pops up in my feed and I continue to listen to it. Would you please consider helping us? Uh, Tony and I and so many other listeners who give a little bit just to make sure that together we can keep this thing going strong. And again, you can just go to patreon.com/reform brotherhood. There's also a website, uh, reform brother.com and all kinds of other fun stuff. But I will leave that to you. I, I didn't even bring it up. See, I'm just so glad that you mentioned it yourself 'cause it would've been awkward otherwise.  [00:58:31] Final Blessing [00:58:31] Jesse Schwamb: So loved ones. There are still so many more parables to go. They're all so good. So I hope that you all come back and join us next time as we continue to move through these parables. But until then, there's something that you should definitely do honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. 

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones taught extensively on church history, specifically on the relationship between church and state. In this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (4),” Dr. Lloyd-Jones turns his attention to the underlying foundation of the view proposing an alliance between church and state. How do they biblically defend their position? What biblical evidence do they portray to say this alliance is biblically sound and wise? He enters this controversial topic by looking at two specific confessions of faith, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession. The bulk of these confessions' defense is taken from the Old Testament, with only one direct passage from the New Testament. Pointing to the position of Israel as a nation and Judaism as a religion, proponents of the alliance position maintain no distinction between Israel and the church in this way. Deviating from this position, Dr. Lloyd-Jones advocates for the separation of the church and state, based on the New Testament's teaching on the kingdom of God. As he handles this delicate discussion, he reminds his listeners of the importance of this new identity of believers: the reality that Christians are now citizens of the kingdom through rebirth and this kingdom consists of citizens from every nation and tongue. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

In this profound exploration of Matthew 21:40-46, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb unpack the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and its devastating indictment of Israel's religious leadership. The hosts navigate the complex theological terrain of kingdom transfer, covenant faithfulness, and the identity of God's people across redemptive history. With careful attention to the text's original context and its implications for the church today, they examine how Christ presents himself as the rejected cornerstone—the one upon whom people either fall in repentance or are crushed in judgment. This episode offers rich insights into supersessionism, the remnant theology of Romans 11, and the practical call for Christians to examine whether they're submitting to Christ as the true cornerstone or attempting to usurp his rightful place. Key Takeaways The Self-Condemning Verdict: The chief priests and Pharisees unknowingly pronounce judgment upon themselves when they declare the wicked tenants deserve destruction, demonstrating how the natural conscience can discern God's justice even when blind to personal complicity. Kingdom Transfer as Covenant Transition: The "taking away" of the kingdom represents not the abandonment of God's elect remnant but the historical-redemptive transition from the typological Old Covenant administration to the New Covenant church gathered from all nations. The Cornerstone's Double Judgment: Christ as the cornerstone presents two modes of encounter—those who fall upon him in repentance are broken but healed; those upon whom he falls in final judgment are ground to powder with no remedy. Visible vs. Invisible Church Distinction: The visible identification of God's people shifted from the geopolitical nation of Israel to the universal church, while the invisible elect have always been saved by grace through faith in the coming Messiah. Fear of Man vs. Fear of God: The Pharisees' restraint from seizing Jesus due to fear of the crowds (rather than fear of God) exemplifies how the wicked are dominated by human opinion rather than divine accountability. Infant Baptism and Covenant Community: The joyful inclusion of children in the visible covenant community through baptism reflects God's gracious promise sealed to those who contribute nothing to their own covenant status. Fruit-Bearing as Evidence: The "new tenants" are characterized not by works-righteousness but by evidential fruit—the genuine works that flow from "true and lively faith" worked by the Holy Spirit. Key Concepts The Irony of Self-Condemnation The theological and pastoral power of this parable reaches its climax when the religious leaders, failing to perceive themselves as the wicked tenants in Jesus's story, pronounce harsh judgment upon the hypothetical villains: "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end." This moment mirrors Nathan's confrontation of David after the Bathsheba affair, yet with a tragic difference—these leaders never experience David's repentance. Calvin observes that the natural conscience, even when blind to personal guilt, retains an "hidden impulse to identify with justice." The Pharisees demonstrate total depravity in high definition: they possess enough moral clarity to recognize egregious covenant-breaking in the abstract, yet remain entirely blind to their own embodiment of that very wickedness. This irony serves as both judgment and warning—we all possess an uncanny ability to see sin clearly everywhere except in the mirror. Kingdom Transfer: Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity The phrase "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit" requires careful theological handling to avoid both replacement theology (in its pejorative sense) and dispensational fragmentation. The Reformed understanding maintains covenant continuity: there has always been one people of God, defined not ethnically but by faith in the Messiah. What changes is the visible administration of the covenant. Under the Old Covenant, the visible church was largely coterminous with ethnic Israel—a geopolitical reality with boundaries, a zip code, and national identity. Under the New Covenant, the visible church explodes these ethnic and geographic boundaries, fulfilling God's promise to Abraham that "in your seed all nations will be blessed." This is not Plan B; it's the eschatological unveiling of what was always intended. The "breaking off of natural branches" (Romans 11) refers to covenant unfaithfulness resulting in exclusion from visible covenant privileges, while the faithful Jewish remnant—the apostles, early believers, and the ongoing elect from Israel—remain fully incorporated into the church. The vineyard hasn't been abandoned; it's been opened to "other tenants" who will render the proper fruit: Gentiles grafted in alongside believing Jews into the one olive tree of God's redemptive purposes. The Cornerstone: Salvation or Destruction Christ's invocation of Psalm 118:22—"the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone"—followed by his dual judgment ("whoever falls on this stone will be broken...on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust") presents two exhaustive options for relating to Jesus. The cornerstone in ancient construction was the foundational stone by which all other stones found their proper alignment and orientation. To fall upon this stone willingly—in repentance, faith, and self-abandonment—is painful. It shatters pride, self-righteousness, and autonomy. But this breaking leads to healing, to being properly "squared" and aligned with reality as God has constructed it. The alternative is catastrophic: to have the cornerstone fall upon you in final eschatological judgment is to experience irreversible, total destruction—being "ground to powder" with no possibility of remedy. The practical application is urgent: we must examine ourselves continually to ensure we're not attempting to be our own cornerstone, measuring righteousness by our own standards, aligning the universe to ourselves rather than submitting to Christ as the measure of all things. Memorable Quotes "There's never a time where that righteousness is removed or unapplied, but we are constantly faced with a choice as to whether we want to be the kind of people who render our fruit unto the Lord, as the faithful tenants when the unfaithful tenants are replaced. Or do we wanna be the people that reap wicked fruit and keep for ourselves?" — Tony Arsenal "The vineyard of God is still let out, the fruit is still demanded, the cornerstone is still laid. Blessed are they who receive him—and also get those babies into church." — Jesse Schwamb "This is not a wall you're gonna run through. Like you're gonna smash into this wall and it's gonna crush you. And if you are not properly assigning the cornerstone its place... the whole thing is gonna crush you." — Tony Arsenal Full Episode Transcript [00:01:05] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 492 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:14] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:19] Parable Recap [00:01:19] Jesse Schwamb: Well, the time has finally come for us to close out our discussion in Matthew 21. This is the Parable of the Vine growers, and everybody should just go back and list everything we said so far, but I think here's how we could sum it up. Jesus's authority gets challenged and he sets a trap so beautiful that we should put it into a museum. He tells basically the religious bigwigs, this whole story where tenants speed up servants, they kill the air. They generally behave like it's an HOA literally run by the devil. And then he asks them this question, so what should the owner of the vineyard do And the chief priest. Chest puffed up. Basically shout out the answers to their own indictment. Smoke 'em. Give the vineyard to somebody who isn't garbage. Listen fellas, you just preached your own funeral. So in this we get to see this total depravity in 4K. Sovereign grace skips the credential gatekeepers and it lands on the tax collectors and the gentiles. They elect the vineyard, the self-righteous, get the rock. And we're gonna close out what all of that means, including probably not a small amount of talk about the kingdom being transferred, whatever that means, and maybe a little engrafting. Aah, Romans 11 style. It's all there for us. And that is what is coming up. [00:02:34] Affirmations Setup [00:02:34] Jesse Schwamb: Of course before we can do any of that, we can't even get there. Tony, before we do affirmations, denials, you and I both know it's our contractual obligation. It's what the people want all over the world. If we skip this, there will be some kind of riot revolt. So we gotta start there. Let's not get too excited yet. So I'm curious as always, are you affirming with something or you not against something for this episode?  [00:02:58] Tony Arsenal: I am, I'm affirming, uh, this is gonna be like people are gonna grow and roll their eyes a little bit.  [00:03:04] Infant Baptism Joy [00:03:04] Tony Arsenal: I'm affirming infant baptism today. We had a lovely infant baptism at church, um, and a couple recently had a child. Um, there's been, this was a kind of a particularly, um, poignant baptism. Um, the, the mother was in the hospital for several weeks before the baby was born, um, with some medical challenges, so was in. In the hospital. In the hospital for like, I want to say probably four weeks, which is a long time. Um, they have several other children, which makes it even harder. Um, and then, uh, then the baby was in the hospital for quite some time. He came a little early and then had some other issues. Um, and so this family was out of church for quite some time dealing with these health issues, and we, we all miss them very much. So it was a very sweet moment. Um, and it's just a, a good reminder, right? And, and the way our church does it is, you know, the pastor, the family comes up, they do vows, they do the baptism, but he calls all the children forward and the children come and sit, uh, right in the front row and they watch this all happen. Um. Which is, is very sweet. And you know, I, I went up there with Augie, and Augie was sitting on my lap and he was very, he was like super locked into this, this whole thing, which is, uh, which was nice to see. So I'm affirming infant baptism. It's a beautiful, beautiful picture of the gospel. Um, it's, it's God's promise being sealed to someone who contributes nothing to, um, to that promise contributes nothing to, uh, their own, um, position in the church or status in the church. They contribute nothing. Um, in most cases they're not even aware of what's going on. So I know not all of our listeners are, uh, are covenant infant Baptists, uh, type people. Um, so yes, I get it. You disagree, but there is something just sweet and beautiful, uh, even I think even for people who aren't quite sold on infant baptism. Um, and I think even sometimes for people who are kind of opposed to infant baptism, I think we've commented in the PA past that there's kind of this impulse that I think all Christian parents have that their children should be. Treated in a certain way that's different than how a non-Christian family treats their children. Right. Um, so there is kind of this instinct that the, there's, whether it's a formal status or just sort of a, a way of thinking about things, there is this impulse that the children of believers are somehow set apart in different, and of course, the, the Presbyterian Covenant Baptist, um, position would, would formalize that through the rite of baptism, uh, at least in part. So I'm affirming infant baptism, both theologically, but also just experimentally today. Like it was just, it was just a balm to my soul to see this, um. And like I said, the congregation has been praying for a long time for the health, uh, and the, the welfare of this family, um, and been, you know, doing meal trains and all the stuff that churches do. But it was, it was a very sweet moment, um, to see the pastor scoop this little baby up in his arms and be able to sort of introduce him to the church as the newest covenant member of the congregation. Uh, it was just a very nice moment. [00:05:59] Baptism Dedication Common Ground [00:05:59] Jesse Schwamb: I think you're right. We can all agree that there's something really beautiful about God growing his church, at least the visible church, through just the multiplicative effect of. People having children, there's something beautiful about that, and then welcoming them in an official way into your congregation, into your midst. Interestingly, in my church, there was a baby dedication today and I was also equally moved though like I would say the promises that were invoked during that time, the equipment's made are very different than what you might hear during kind of pedo infant baptism. You're right in that the spirit of this that is like a representation kind of bringing forward of the child to say he or she is part of us and we're making a commitment to raise them in admonition of the Lord is a really lovely thing. It's like a public recognition that God is providing a manifest blessing in our midst, and that he is growing and working out his church and he's doing it by just bringing new people into it who are being, who are the subjects of procreation. Creation itself, but procreation and how can you not be like, just excited about that. And, and also a little bit like it's also, and I'm not trying to denigrate any practice here, but also just on the face also super adorable. Like when you, when you see a pastor scoop up, like you said, a little child, whether that's to pray with them and dedication or to baptize them. Either way, it's super just like lovely and just pulls in your heartstrings. Yeah. In like this very spiritual way, not just in kind of an emotional kind of way.  [00:07:26] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And I, you know, I don't, I think, um, when I think back, you know, Augie's, obviously you know this, but Augie was dedicated, um, Addie was not. Um, but when I think back to the vows we took, when we dedicated Augie, there are some differences, but there's also a lot that's not different like the sure close to like, raise up your child in the church and to like, pray for them and set a good example. And then, and then the sort of reciprocal vows that the congregation typically takes, that the congregation will do what they can to support the family as they, they raise this child and the Lord. Um, you know, even in, even in a lot of contexts, like in the Presbyterian church, I'm in like prayers that this, this child would come to know Jesus and would, would come to confess the faith for themselves and become a full, you know, full communicate member of the church. Like, those things are all present. So as much as I think, um. As much as I wanna acknowledge that infant baptism or, or covenant, I, I say covenant baptism versus, um, sort of like baptist theology writ, large credo Baptist theology, which is covenantal, but differently covenantal in most cases. Right. Um, even though that is a dividing line, and I think like it's a real dividing line. There's a real division that exists and that there's good theological historical reasons why those divisions exist. There still is so much that is the same. Um, in terms of how Baptists and, and Presbyterians or however formed, you know, PR Christians, um, re reflect on and think about their children. There's some differences, but in terms of like. We all want our children to come to know Jesus. We all want their first memory to be worshiping in the church and loving the Lord. We, we don't want them to ever remember a time where the name of Christ was not on their lips as their savior. Um, all those things are the same and even the, the way we promise before God and, and primarily before God, but before others, even the way we promise to nourish them in, in right doctrine and nourish them in good teaching and bring them into the church and, and set a faithful example. All of those things are the same. So I I I, I never want to diminish the fact that there are differences 'cause there are real differences and there are important differences. But I also think we often sort of like. I think because we've talked about this before, like Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are so close that we have to bicker over the things that are different. It's like you're, it's like when you fight with your brother on whose side of the room it's on. Like you're so close that you have to find the little things to really bicker about and then you really, really bicker about them. And I think that kind of like describes the, the Presbyterian Baptist divide in a lot of ways. I know there's a lot of people that would say like, Lutherans are closer to Presbyterians and those people are just, I dunno, they're just wrong. Um, on, on, maybe on baptism, they're, they're not wrong. But in terms of general theological principles, like, you know, Westminster Confession, London Baptists, confession, like, it, it's 95% the same content. Sure. Um, and 95% like the same confession, not just the same like words, but the same meaning of the words. And, um, so yeah. Anyway, that's my affirmation. Infant baptism. It was a joy. I was happy to see it. Um, uh, we have a ton of little, little babies in the, the church. It's funny 'cause another, another, um. A couple announced today that they were expecting, and we've, we've had basically pregnant women in the church for, you know, obviously like at least nine months if someone is still pregnant. But like we've had, we've had this like rotation of, of women delivering babies for like, at least, probably, at least 16, 18 months of, of constantly having people who are, are expecting, which is really a great joy to see. So I, I love it. I love the church. I love the Presbyterian church. Um, and this was just another great example of, of the beauty of, uh, a robust confessionalism and a robust presbyterianism. [00:11:08] Jesse Schwamb: The way in which you said that made it sound like you're about to make like a grand historical statement. Like, we've had pregnant people in the church since the first century.  [00:11:18] Tony Arsenal: Well, I mean that's probably true, but  [00:11:19] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it definitely  [00:11:20] Tony Arsenal: true. Not, not our church. Our church has only been around, our particular church has only been around for like 10 years, so I'm sure there have been times during that period where there were not pregnant people  [00:11:29] Jesse Schwamb: pregnant. It just sounded like we were going all the way back as if like to, again emphasize and maybe this isn't, this is as fair statement, like how faithful God has been like from the beginning. There's always been. Pregnant lady Church. Look, look at how faithful God is.  [00:11:42] Mic Grabbing Babies [00:11:42] Jesse Schwamb: And, and this is true, I like to play this game when there is a baby dedication. I'm not sure what the sound system is like in your church, but often our, our pastors wear like the tiny little like Backstreet Boys style. It's probably outdated reference, but microphone that comes over the ear and to the mouth and it's very discreet. But the game I like to play is like once, once he takes the child for a time of dedication or specifically prayer, the, the goal is to see like how long before that baby goes for the mic. Because as soon as like a baby sees a mic right there, it's like, oh yeah, this is the best thing that's happened to me in my tiny little life.  [00:12:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's like an angler fish is really what it is. Yes. It's like that glowing bulb that just sits in front of its face and it's, the baby's just gotta grab it. [00:12:27] Jesse Schwamb: It's just too tempting. It's just too tempting. And I, and I love, you can tell like our pastors are really adept at being able to keep the prayer going and like discreetly maneuver the child, keep the child happy. It's, it's really an amazing thing. So altogether, I'm totally with you on so many levels. It's so good to see that happen in the church. And I'm with you on that. We gotta take joy in that For sure.  [00:12:48] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse, what do you got for us tonight?  [00:12:50] Book Breath Pick [00:12:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, something that's entirely unlike everything you just said. Certainly. Well, maybe, I guess there is a large spiritual component to this, but it's, I would say, for me, totally unexpected book recommendation and I came across this 'cause it was recommended to me and a while back, the keen or the listener who's been with us for a really long time, or a member that we talked about the book or why we sleep, this book became for me, like the equivalent of that in a totally different kind of topic or genre. It's called breath. The New Signs of a Lost Art by James Nestor and it explores how the way that humans breathe profoundly affects our health, our performance, our longevity. It's a book that is filled with both science and pseudoscience, which the author is really good at distinguishing and calling you to think about those things. But it's really totally changed how I understand like this little pattern in Habits of breathing. And it's a really interesting book of course. Like he draws from a lot of like religious influences, including of course the Judeo-Christian one. And I think that it even drew me back to understanding how God created us. And he did in a very specific way that text's giving some great description to the breadth that he gives us and how he gives us that breath. So if you're looking, I guess, for a little bit of a read, so that might surprise you about something that you might thought was automatic and simple in life and also that might. Be able to bring you some recommendations on how to better your health. Again, we're not doctors, but we are routinely considered among the top 50 healthcare podcasts. Then I would say this would be an interesting book for you to check out.  [00:14:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I haven't read it, but it's been recommended to me and one of the, one of the takeaways, actually, I think it might have been my doctor, my my PCP who mentioned this to me is like, if you wanna improve your health drastically, like just make it a practice of breathing through your nose. Yes. Like something that simple and straightforward has pretty significant health impacts of like. Like the way that your brain processes breath when it comes through your nose, the way that like, there's more filtering that happens with breath, so the air that gets to your lungs is cleaner. There's just a lot of, um, I haven't read it. I've, I think I actually have it somewhere, but I have not read it yet. Um, I, I should, I should take a look at it. I, I've heard good things about it.  [00:15:01] Jesse Schwamb: At the very least, if you're a Christian, it'll cause you to marvel again. That's how beautifully complex God has made the human body and how it seems entirely impossible that anyone could even logically reasonably conclude that somehow we are just time plus matter, plus chance, and that all these things got worked out. I don't wanna spoil some of the punchline. A part of the book is about this. Breathe through your nose, which you might think was just kind of an innocuous decision. Breathe through your nose, breathe your mouth. How, how different could it be? They actually do an experiment where they plug their noses, the author and somebody else for, uh, several, like 10 days straight. And do all these these things under medical supervision to see what the impact is. And I'll leave you to read it so you can hear that. There's also something fascinating, absolutely fascinating about carbon dioxide and a study that's done where they actually have people inhale a little bit of carbon dioxide and what it does to the body. In other words, like the system that God has put into play to ensure that the body gets the kind of right amount of oxygen that it needs and how it functions when it's given the warning side of carbon dioxide, even when. Your lung capacity and your oxygen, your blood doesn't change. There's a fascinating section on that. So I didn't expect to be this interested in the book and generally I take a little time before I recommend a book. I finished this a couple weeks ago and I'm still thinking about it. So, and I'm trying to put some things into practice, including I try to do some running and for the longest time I just thought, well, when you run, like even at any like moderate speed, like you have to breathe through your mouth, this book challenges some of that. So lo and behold, I went out and started to try just a little bit to see if I could just breathe through my nose. It turns out it's totally possible, like all this time I just thought that was impossible, like God didn't make us that way, and it's actually improving how I feel when I run and the running that I'm able to do. So I am surprised, I, I'm shocked by all this, and it's just as simple as understanding breath. Who would've guessed.  [00:16:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. I mean, I've heard it's a great book. I, I, I. It never ceases to amaze that the, the more we look at the human body, the more we look at God's creation, the more we see the fingerprints of our creators. So not, not  [00:17:07] Jesse Schwamb: right.  [00:17:07] Tony Arsenal: Sounds like a great book. I can't recommend it from personal experience, uh, although I've heard very good things.  [00:17:12] Reading Matthew 21 [00:17:12] Tony Arsenal: So, Jesse, I think we should probably just get into it because this is now week three of, uh, one week episode and, uh, we want to wanna dig in and we wanna wrap it up so we can move on to the next best thing out there, which is of course, the parables of Christ. [00:17:26] Jesse Schwamb: Let's get some. So I'm gonna read for us starting in verse 40 because if you've been tracking then you've already been with us through the first part of this parable, and it's notoriously or variously called parable the vine growers, or I kinda like the husband men, just because that's fun to say, and you don't get to drop husband men like very often. But vine dressers, vine growers, vine workers, it's all the same. But here's starting in verse 40. This is after Jesus has already explained the parable. He set it up for them and he's gonna bring for the indictment. So Jesus says, and therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and he will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you never read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord in his, marvelous in our eyes. Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they were guarding him to be a prophet.  [00:18:48] Irony Blind Leaders [00:18:48] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, that, that last little section here is just such, it's like dripping with such irony,  [00:18:53] Jesse Schwamb: so good  [00:18:54] Tony Arsenal: that like they, they are so blinded by their own, um, I dunno, ambition isn't, maybe isn't even the right word, but something in that, that neighborhood, they're so blinded by their desire to. Maintain their own status quo, their own uh, their own status. That they fear the crowds because the crowds hold them to be a prophet,  [00:19:15] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:19:16] Tony Arsenal: When in reality, like there is a prophet in their midst and much more than a prophet, uh, and they can't see it because of their own blindness. So I'm stoked to get into it. This is such, like we said, this is such a, like on the nose, paril, it's crazy. This is so much like, you know, Nathan's, you are the man kind of parable. Like yes, that's right, except there never is a, you are the man moment for them. They never get it, which is. Stunning. Like I, I, it just sort of is like, I don't even know what to make of that. [00:19:41] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. There is like a wild blindness. I've been thinking about that a lot in our past conversations, but it culminates here. These chief priests and elders, I would say strangely, but I think that this is probably true of all of us, and maybe especially me, perhaps not yet, like perceiving themselves to be the vine growers here in view, they render this verdict of severe justice. It seems like you, you wanna say to them? Like, guys, guys, pull up, hold up a second. Yeah. Take a step back before you overreact here, because you're about to condemn yourselves and in the Greek here, this expression like, miserably destroy these wicked men. Or it gets like this double wretched in our translations. Mostly he will bring those wretches to a wretched end. It's this rhetorical intensification. It's incredible. And I, I think there's at least like two truths here. That come to my mind. One is, we've talked about before, but is in line with what you're saying, that the natural conscience, when not even aware of its own complicity, can still discern the justice of God's judgments. So here are these men who are so prone almost, I think what Calvin says elsewhere, like that we have this hidden impulse to identify with justice. Even when we can't see that we are the ones perpetrating something of injustice, still we can't help but cry out. We can't even help but identify it. And here they. Accurately identify it. And even though they're putting themselves exactly in the cross here, they cannot help but basically cry out that how egregious this behavior is of these vine growers that Jesus has basically, you know, created in this hypothetical environment, even still there, they're filled with rage and the rage gets turned on them. So the Pharisees here, of course, function as this unwitting witness to the righteousness of God's wrath against covenant breakers, even though they, they don't see it.  [00:21:29] Kingdom Transfer Talk [00:21:29] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, the second thing I think that comes to my mind, and maybe this is like more to the point, is that. The verse foreshadows this transfer of the kingdom from the Jewish nation to a new people that would bring forth its fruits, which I realize if I bring that up right now, that we've just committed to like six episodes just on that topic probably. But yeah, but like, we're gonna have to come to it because there's so much here. And the phrase of this, like, let out his vineyard unto other vine growers or husbandman, it does to me like anticipate this calling of the Gentiles and the formation of the Christian Church and in, in this way. It's not to me. The abandonment of the elect, remnant of Israel, but it is like the breaking off of the natural branches and then this engrafting of the wild olive shoots that come through like Allah, Romans 11. So it's, it's not like from one nation to another simply, but from like the carnal seed to a spiritual seed gathered out of all the nations, that that's wild. Right? I, I think that's all in view here. And it's like a kind of a crazy thing to say. It's certainly like a wild thing to say, no pun intended. And I imagine like, unexpected thing to say.  [00:22:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:22:40] Supersessionism Clarified [00:22:40] Tony Arsenal: Let's think about that a little bit because I think too, there's, there's almost an element of, um. Man, I'm gonna get a lot of flack for saying this. You're, there's almost like a legitimate replacement theology here, right? Like replacement theology. I got covenant theology, you know, reformed, um, reformed theology often gets slandered as, you know, supersessionism or replacement theology, uh, with this idea that like, it's, it's interest. Uh, you have to have dispensational presuppositions for that phrase to even make sense because like the reformed paradigm is that there is one people of God full stop. And yes, like the identity of the one people of God seems to sort of like morph from the Jewish national people to now like Jews and Gentiles and actually predominantly Gentiles in the scope of like the whole history of the church. But what I mean by this is like, there's a visible church in the Old Testament, in the old, under the old Covenant, and the visible church under the old covenant is the national people of, of Israel. Right. By and large. Right. Um, and there are, there are sort of like Gentile, um, Clingons, not like the Star Trek people, but like gentile, like attachments to that throughout the history of, of Old Testament, um, theology. Um. That visible, that visible identification of this is the people of God being the Jewish people. Uh, these are the people that are the vineyard, the, they're the, the owner or the tenants of the vineyard or the, the visible Jewish people of the geopolitical nation of Israel under the old covenant that does sort of like get superseded by the church in the church age, in the new covenant,  right?  [00:24:24] Tony Arsenal: But where, where Supersessionism or the accusation of Supersessionism goes wrong is that there is this distinction between the visible and invisible church. And that distinction is what prevents us from being like, sort of like true replacement theologians in the way that the, the dispensationalist wanna paint us. So I, I think you're right that there is a lot to say here about the fact that, um, and, and this is where it gets, um. We have to be careful systematically. Right. God, God doesn't have to pivot. He doesn't have like a plan B. It's not like the Gentiles are the plan B, but there is a sense in almost in which the way that this is presented, the way that it appears in the scriptures is actually, yeah, there is almost like this plan B, like there is the geopolitical ethnic people of, of Israel, the Jewish people under the old covenant. And, and they don't do what they're supposed to do. They don't follow the terms of their covenant. They don't accept the kingdom that is bequeathed to them under the terms of the old covenant. And they, they reject that kingdom because of a disobedience. And, and I think what Christ here is narrowing in on is it's not just disobedience, right? It's not sort of like, um, accidental ancillary disobedience. It's not generalized disobedience. It is this sort of like usurpation of God's rightful status as the ruler and king of the nation. That's right. The the people, the, the Pharisees. And the chief priests and the scribes and the Sadducees, they want to be the rulers of the nation. They want to, they, they seem to wanna take the place of God, at least as far as Christ is presenting it. In this, they wanna usurp the kingdom. They want to take the heirs, uh, rightful inheritance, and they want to claim it for themselves. That is not a generalized disobedience, it's a special t type of covenant unfaithfulness that causes God to causes and kind of air quotes that causes God to hand over the kingdom to another people. Right. Partially, I think, uh, we don't need to get into Romans, the Romans 11 stuff, but partially I think because that's actually the way that he's going to ultimately save the Jewish people, right, is by sort of making, making them jealous of the Gentiles. Like there's a, there's a real element of that, that the salvation of the Gentiles is actually for, in some sense is for or unto the salvation of the Jewish people or the, the faithful Jewish remnant that's all here. And, and you can't really get past that in this parable. Um, this is why I think a, a lot of dispensationalist, um, uh, some of the classic dispensational sources would actually see like this, this is not for the Jewish church. This, this is for the Gentiles. This is actually part of the parentheses, um. You know, and, and again, dispensationalist divide all that stuff up differently, but this is a really interesting section for us to talk about that we can't, we can't just gloss over that. [00:27:11] Jesse Schwamb: I certainly don't mean to imply that it's wild because it's unexpected. I think it's wild because interestingly, the Pharisees, the teachers here, they challenge Jesus authority and his response to that is to challenge their covenant faithfulness.  [00:27:24] Tony Arsenal: Right?  [00:27:25] Jesse Schwamb: So it's not just if he turns it around, he uses this opportunity to explain what's going to happen to them as those who are, like you said, were supposed to be representative. And I think critically like the qualifying phrase. That that's using the text here, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. That's like really important because these new vine growers are characterized by their fruitfulness. So this is not like a doctrine of works righteousness, but it's evidential fruit. And that's why, and I had to look this up and the Westminster Confession confession, chapter 16, good works are quote the fruits and evidences of true and lively faith, which I love. I was trying to find that language true and lively faith. So the visible church under that new administration is identified by the fruits of repentance, faith, and obedience worked out by the Holy Spirit. Again, I think that's all that is in view here, that that's a lot to say. But you know, famously, like you've kind of intimated, when we go back to the Old Testament, even we find when the Israelites leave triumphantly from Egypt, that they're accompanied by those outside of Israel. We find that other characters like Grh who continually want to identify with a Yahweh whom God is saving and drawing onto himself and here is kind. Him, Jesus, at least representing as the son of God. That kind of cli climactic view. Speaking from the prophet register again saying, this is what I was saying to Abraham. I said, like from your seed, all these nations in this spiritual sense will be gathered out. So there'll be a single nation as it were in Christ. And even now, I'm telling you, I'm breaking down those boundaries. But I think to your point, importantly Tony, in part because you have failed in the covenant promises and you who were to represent and to heed and to lead, have fallen down. And so now you're gonna trip over this stone and it's going to crush you. And as a result of that, the vine, the vine growers will be, or the vineyard itself will be turned over to those who bear this true and lively fruit.  [00:29:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:29:23] Israel Failure Remnant [00:29:23] Tony Arsenal: There's an interesting, um. There's an interesting dynamic here that actually strikes me as kind of similar. It's a little bit more opaque, but similar to, uh, like Joseph in, uh, in Egypt, right when his brothers come and he says, you meant this for evil, but God meant it for good. Mm-hmm. There's a, there's an element of here, we've talked about the parables. That's sort of like systematic theology in story form. Um, there's a reality here that it's both true, that God always intended for the kingdom to be expansive and, and to expand beyond the nation of Israel. To be this universal, global lowercase c Catholic, universal church universal in the sense that it's not bound by any particular nation, by any particular geopolitical reality. Um. That's true, but it's also true that the reason, uh, on a sort of like horizontal level that that's true is that Israel failed. Right? It so God always intended for Israel to fail, yet Israel is responsible for the fact that they failed. Yes, that's right. Um, and, and, and again, we, we, we sort of commented on this before, like there are some in our broader reformed circles that turn this into a sort of antisemitism, like a sort of hatred for the Jewish people. And I don't think, I don't think that there's any warrant in scripture for that. In fact, I think scripture speaks strongly against that. Is that, um. Not necessarily because there's any particular unique special affection that God has for Israel, like, like the modern Jewish people, but, but that, like racism in general is prohibited by the Bible. But I think where we do need to be clear though, is that there is a real failure. It's a true, genuine failure on the part of the first century Jewish. Leaders and people, um, with a faithful remnant. Right? There was, um, we're, we're getting, you know, we're in the springtime and we've already had, uh, we've already had discussions about this. We've already done Easter, but like there is always conversations around Palm Sunday of like, are the crowds that are following Jesus into, into town screaming, you know, yelling, Hosanna? Is that the same crowds that are yelling crucify him a couple days later? Um, I tend to think like, no, like actually, like the people who are saying crucified, crucify Christ are probably like the Jews who live in Jerusalem or like the, primarily the religious leaders. There's a whole host of Jewish believers and kind of the hoy pallo, the, the people out in the country that absolutely follow Jesus. Like they follow him as the Messiah. They, they confess him in many cases. They convince him to be, um, they confess him to be God, to to be the savior, to be the, the figure from Daniel seven, the son of man. Um. There's a reality in which the Jewish remnant absolutely recognize Christ and they persist in the church, right? The earliest Christians were all Jews, and you know, there was a few Gentiles along the way, you know, and maybe not even Gentiles like Samaritans. I don't even know if you would call them gentiles. They're kind of this midway point, but in Jewish gentil. But there are people throughout Christ's ministry, right? Cornelius or not Cornelius, the Centurion recognizes that this is the son of God. Like there are people, the s Phoenician woman, there are people who are not part of Israel proper, who even in the, in the midst of Christ's ministry are recognizing him as God and as Messiah and as the savior of the world. But, but by and large, the earliest Christian movement was Jewish people. It was the faithful remnant of, of Israel who recognized that their Messiah had come. That is true. And at the same time. The, probably the majority, and especially the rulers and the leaders of the Israel, you know, the Jewish faith in the first century absolutely rejected him. And this is what I, this is what I think is wild, is I think sometimes we think that, um, the prophecies and the understanding of Christ and what the messiah, who the Messiah was to be and what to expect, we think of those as like super obscured and super hidden until Christ comes and then all of a sudden they're really obvious. Christ doesn't seem to treat them that way. Right? Right. He tells this parable and they rightly identify that, and this is a, this is such a thinly veiled parable. Like this is like, you killed the prophets. You're going to kill me. And there's going to be consequences. Like he practically says that outright. Um. He treats that as like they should obviously know this, right? The, have you never read in the scriptures, the stone, the builder rejected has become the cornerstone, right? This was the lord's doing. It is, and it is marvelous in their eyes that have you never read?  [00:34:06] Decree in Rejection [00:34:06] Tony Arsenal: That is a, that's a rhetorical question with the implied answer of, of course, you've read exactly like he's not, he's not teaching them something that he anticipated is new to them. He maybe is teaching them something that he anticipated they maybe you didn't recognize. But actually I think probably like, uh, there probably were many among them that were like, oh yeah, we are doing this. But then almost like we're powerless to stop themselves from moving forward in that.  [00:34:32] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:34:32] Tony Arsenal: Sort of like wicked plan. [00:34:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Yeah. And I think we could extend that as well to say that this rejection of Christ by this Jewish leadership, which of course was a incredible failure, like you're saying, it wasn't an accident, it wasn't an unforeseen tragedy. So just like interestingly in Acts four in his sermon where Peter quotes from the same Old Testament passage about Christ being the cornerstone, you know, it was prophesied long before. And so the doctrine of God's eternal decree, I think finds v vivid illustration even here. This is all the Lord's doing. Yeah. And even the wicked rejection of the Messiah is serving this purpose, this sovereign purpose of God's great exaltation. And so it's fascinating, and we should marvel at the fact that, again, like God means what he says when he says like He uses what is weak to overcome that which is strong, or to embarrass the strong, he uses that which seems foolish. To make the wise themselves, the ones who are actually foolish in the same way.  [00:35:29] Cornerstone Unites Church [00:35:29] Jesse Schwamb: This very stone, which men in their malice cast aside on that day. God is in his wisdom setting as this chief cornerstone. And I love like that idea of this phrase, this head of the corner denoting that amazing preeminence of Christ, that Christ is not merely included in the building of the new Covenant church. He is its chief and constituent stone that joining together both like the Jew and the Gentile, finally into one structure. And that's really, I think to your point, that's the great mystery of the hidden ages from the past. That that's the thing which Christ is bringing to like this grand display, like out on the stage in the open, in front of everybody. He's drawing it up, he's calling it to account. And so in that way, the same Jesus that was rejected by men is in God's account of inestimable value. And that should be like, I think, familiar to most of us because like there a form tradition has always insisted that. The true theology always issues in doxology and the cross and exaltation of Christ are not merely these facts, which we give these intellectual ascent, but we, we confess them as mysteries which provoke us to adoration of who God is. It's the excellency of Christ expounding at length, like the wondrous conjunction of Christ's humiliation and his exaltation, which finds its pattern here, rejected by men, glorified by God.  [00:36:50] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:36:52] Works Covenant Failures [00:36:52] Tony Arsenal: And, and this is, um, we, we commented in our first, uh, episode on this par ball. This is not isolated to just the rulers of Israel at the time of Christ, right? This is in reality, kind of like a reflection of every failure of the covenant of works. In some sense, every failure to hold the covenant of works boils down to an attempt to make oneself, God. Right. This was Adam's failure in the garden. Um, Eve, Eve was the first person to eat the fruit, but Adam, Adam was responsible for that and he, he also ate the fruit and they, they did so in part because they thought it was useful to make them like God and, and in an illegitimate fashion. And they knew it was an illegitimate fashion. It's not as though Adam and Eve suddenly were like, maybe we can eat the fruit. Maybe like we actually are fine to do it. Like they knew it was still forbidden. Right. They did it anyways. And the Pharisees here, um, are in a real attempt. Um, they are trying to take the role of Messiah for the people. They're trying to be the savior of the people in sort of shepherding and guiding them into this like. Ultra legalistic Puritan, like puritanical in the worst sense, um, kind of approach to the law. Um, this is the, the story of Old Testament Israel, right? What is the first thing that the Israelites do? Um, at Mount Sinai? The first thing they do is try to fashion gods so that they have a tame God that they can control and that they can actually be God's over. So I think this is really key and, and this is where it becomes practical for us, is that. I think we always are faced with a choice, right? There's, there's obviously those who are Christ, who the son is set free. He's set free indeed, and they will never not be his people. Like you never become not justified. If you were justified, you always forever more are justified. Justified is a final. It's, it's the future judgment of God's people dragged and dropped into the present and applied. It's the righteousness of Christ applied. So there, there's never a time where that righteousness is like removed or unapplied, but we are constantly faced with a choice as to whether we want to be the kind of people who render our fruit unto the Lord, uh, as the faithful, the sort of the implied faithful tenants that are going to be brought forward when the, the unfaithful tenants are replaced. Or do we wanna be the people that reap wicked fruit and keep for ourselves? And I think that's, that's really the thing. Like we're either gonna rep. Fruit of wickedness, or we're gonna reap fruit of righteousness. And the only thing to do with fruit of righteousness is surrender it to the Lord. But we often are faced with that choice, like, are we gonna reap our own wicked fruit and keep it all to ourselves right, uh, to our own detriment? Or are we gonna go ahead and be the faithful tenants that give the Lord what he deserves?  [00:39:46] Kingdom Transfer Explained [00:39:46] Jesse Schwamb: We're seeing so much of the simplicity of God here that like you and I have said so many times before that his loving kindness, his long suffering ness is his righteousness, is his justice, is his wrath. And so I think it's helpful, again, to remind ourselves that we're, we are talking, or he specifically is speaking of the kingdom of God here. And again referring to this visible administration of the covenant of grace, not to the inward and invisible kingdom of saving grace, which as you just said, can never be lost from those who possess it, which by the way is a really important distinctive of reform theology. There are many that would disagree with that statement, and I think really much to their harm in, in disagreement with the scriptures themselves, this one in particular, but it is this external administration, the privileges, the ordinances, the oracles of God. That is being transferred from the Jewish nation as a corporate body to a new and broader people of God. And because I know that sounds very extreme, I did look up Calvin and his commentary on this and let me read what he says because this is interesting. I think even this could possibly mis be misunderstood. But here's Calvin who can say it better than I. He says, quote by these words, he means that God would deprive the Jews of the honor and the privilege of being his peculiar people and would call the Gentiles that out of them he might form a church end quote. And going back to what you said earlier, I'm with you. I, I. I mean, this is not, I think as some have wrongly concluded, like replacement theology in like a wooden sense. I, I see this still as like this historical redemptive transition from the typological administration of the old covenant to the eschatological fulfillment of the new. And the elect remnant of Israel is not cast off, but the national like typological privileges are being transferred to the Catholic church, gathered from all nations. And in that, I really do see this wonderful confluence of God's loving kindness, his, his fidelity to the promises that he's made and his wrath being manifested all at once. And somehow Jesus, of course, in complete perfection, can bring that all to bear in this tiny little story.  [00:41:51] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And and isn't it just like the master teacher to like, put all of this baked into this? I mean, that's right. We think of this as like a long parable, like I think,  [00:42:02] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:42:02] Tony Arsenal: I think like it's, it's amazing how we think of parables as, you know, like this is a short one. A short one is a couple sentences, a long one is like a half a dozen sentences. Like, and of course like Christ is teaching broader than this. He's teaching more than this. Just, this is what's recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is what Matthews preserved for us.  [00:42:22] Stone Breaks or Crushes [00:42:22] Tony Arsenal: But you're right, there's so much baked into this little parable and I think, um, there's something to be said about this idea of like. Not only do those who smash against the, the rock, the, the cornerstone, those who smash against the rock, like those who who fall on the rock are broken to pieces, but also the rock falls on others and smashes them to pieces. Right? And, and there's something to be said about the fact that, and I'm not exactly sure how I wanna articulate this, but it's only those who like recognize the proper place of the rock and don't either let it fall on them or don't smash themselves against it. You know, we always joke about like running through a wall. Like this is not a wall you're gonna run through. Like you're gonna smash into this wall and it's gonna crush you. And if you are, if you're not properly assigning the cornerstone it's placed, right? The cornerstone is, is the stone that's placed in the foundation of a building that all the other stones find their orientation and their proper alignment based on. [00:43:26] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:43:26] Tony Arsenal: You might think of this sometimes. I've heard this articulated as like the, the arch stone. I think it's a little bit different than that. Um, but it, the, the idea is the same, right? Like there's a stone in an arch. If you think of like a classic Roman arch, you have these piles of stones until you put the final arch stone in. That, in that stone is what makes the arch stable. Until that point, either side can fall, but if you don't properly set that arch stone where it's supposed to be, then the whole thing is gonna crush you. It's gonna fall down on top of you at some point. I think this is a little different. This is the cornerstone of a, this is more like the cornerstone of a building. This is the stone that the rest of the building, building is oriented against and is aligned with. If you get that wrong, then you have a, you have like a crooked wall, a wall that's not set, that's not straight. It's not stable. What this is saying and what this, this prophecy right from, from Psalm one 10, I think I should probably look it up, but I haven't yet. But this prophecy that Christ is referring to this, this prophetic statement in the Psalms that he's assuming the audience is familiar with, right? I think that's a really important point. Like he's not only assuming that they're familiar with it, there's rhetorical force of kind of like, of course you understand this principle that there is a cornerstone coming. There is something or someone who is coming that all other things will be measured against. And if you're either in alignment with this, with this person who is coming or you're out of alignment with reality, this thing is understood by them. It just is so critical and I think like the, the, a lot of the parables don't have explanations built into them. Some of them do. We've talked about some of them. A lot of them don't, this one does, but it's kind of like a really surprising way to explain it. And there's so much, um, the more that I look at this, the more we talk about it, this really is so similar to David and Nathan, right? Right. When with the, the affair with Bathsheba, he is saying to the Pharisees, look, you're the man. Like, you're the one here. You're the guy. You guys are the wicked tenants that are gonna, you've killed the prophets. Right? Um, I'm losing my, my timeline a little bit, but John the Baptist either had been executed or would be executed shortly at this point, right? So like the, the most recent prophet either was already killed or, or Christ knew of course he was going to be killed. Um, he's saying, look, you guys are the ones that are doing this and you're going to kill me. Right. And this is obviously what the prophecy is, that you think you're going to come against the cornerstone, but in reality you're going to shatter yourself upon me. You think you're gonna come against me, I'm going to crush you. And rather than say, you know, as ba, you know, as David does, where he repents, he, he fasts and he, he refuses to eat. He's, he's in mourning over both the loss of his infant, but, but more so over his own sin, I think is the picture the text gives us. Um, he's mourning trying to uh, sort of like reverse God's decision, but there's a genuine repentance to it, right? That's where we get Psalm 51, like creating, clean me a clean heart, oh God, renew a right spirit in me. There's none of that for the Pharisees, there's none of that for the sadist of the chief priests. They just continue to smash themselves against this rock, not recognizing that it's actually the rock that is crushing them. [00:47:05] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it's, it's a bit like, I'm gonna speak like a little maybe beyond my depth here, but there's a little bit of like that Nathan, like Strategem, and then this is where I'm outside my own experience. And then a little bit like maybe like WWE the rock in terms of like. If you want some come and get some, right? It's a little of both. And of course the passage ends very tragically, well ends humorously by them, you know, saying that at some point they were like, they understood in these parables, again, this is one of three of the same kind of topic of variety, but that Jesus was referring to them, which is funny. You wanna be like, yeah, it took a, took a long enough, I guess, guys, but you finally got it. But then that last sentence of like, they still sought to kill him. So to your point, even after all of this, there wasn't repentance. And we do get these, I think, two very distinct judgements that are depicted here, which you've already kinda led us into this first, like, whoever shall fall on the stone shall be broken. You know, to me, I think that's invoking this idea that in this life, there we are, we can be brought to brokenness through the gospel and to fall upon Christ. And repentance. And faith is to be broken in self, in pride and self-righteous. It's a breaking that does lead to healing. But this second judgment, you know the one, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder, grind him to dust, I mean. Man, think about what a vivid image that is. I mean, that's like the more terrible of the two. That that's like the, yeah. Final Es logical judgment of those who persist in unbelief and it, it admits there's like no remedy. So there are only two ways to relate to Christ. You either fall upon him willingly in faith and repentance, which is painful, but it is saving, you know, to have him fall upon us in judgment is final in damning, and so that's what Christ presents here. [00:48:48] Psalm 118 in Context [00:48:48] Jesse Schwamb: It's, it's both of these things and you're right, it is brilliant that he goes to Psalm one 18 even that as a setup, because as you've kind of already said, I love to think, of course that's, can you manner the tone in which this was said to these scribes and Pharisees? Because of course the, the secondary indictment here is like, listen, you guys who like your great pride is that, you know, the scriptures really well. Have you read this part is familiar to you. Yeah. Can you tell me where that is? So like, we, we should go there just, just quickly. This is Psalm one 18 because I think that here again is, as I'm hearing it in context. There are some verses surrounding this that I think we might be surprised that they come right on the heels of this idea of the stone. So just a couple verses. In Psalm one 18 being in verse 22, the stone, which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone. This is from Yahweh. It is marvelous in our eyes. Here's the verses that we might not recognize. Come right after it. This is the day which Yahweh has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Oh, Yahweh, save. Oh, Yahweh, succeed. Blessed is the one who comes in the name of Yahweh. We have blessed you from the house of Yahweh. Yahweh is God, and he has given us light by the festival sacrifice with corns to the horns of the altar. You are my God, and I give thanks to you. You are my God, and I exalt you. Give thanks to Yahweh for his good, for his loving kindness endures forever. And so this idea that there's rejoicing in which day, I mean, usually we kinda say that it's like, well, it's a beautiful day out. It's the Lord's day. This is the day that Yahweh is like that. That's true. But also here in particular, it is this blessed day of Yahweh giving the stone, which the builders reject and which has become the chief cornerstone. And that stone is some will run headlong into and shipwreck their lives and others will be crushed underneath it. And guess what? This is the day which Yahweh has made and we're gonna rejoice and be glad in that.  [00:50:41] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:50:43] Mark's Angle on Fear [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: The other thing I think, you know, we. Should, um, maybe not spend any time on, 'cause we're at like, out, like minute 50 of a 60 minute podcast. But just going to, to Mark's version of this parable real quick. Um, starting in verse, uh, this is chapter 12, verse 12. It says, and they were seeking to arrest him, but feared the people for, they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away. And the, the main difference here, the reason I'm reading this is Mark chooses a d. Concerning them. The verb is, or the preposition is Perry. So it's kind of like this idea that he was, he was sort of speaking around them. He was talking about them. Mark uses the, the preposition, proce, which is not, um, not against, in like the same, uh, direct sense. We might use the word against. That would be something like Kada. Um, but he's, he's speaking this parable towards them or to them, um, against them. He's, he's directing the parable at them. And this is, this is, we, we commented on this a little bit in the, the first episode here. Um, he is speaking to the crowds. But he's telling the parable about or against or concerning the Pharisees and the scribes, and they perceive this, right. The, the gospels here don't say that the crowds perceive this. Right. And I think that's key. Like the Pharisees basically look at this and say, uh, we better get this under control because he's talking about us. Right, right. Like, I'm just picturing Paul Washer's. I'm not trying to say Paul Washer is a Pharisee, although some people would probably make that connection. But like I'm, I'm just hearing Paul Washer's voice saying like, I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you. He's speaking to the Pharisees here. And it's interesting because Matthew associates the, the, uh, Pharisees. Cowardice in acting against Christ, uh, because they fear the crowds and because the crowds believe Christ is a parable or is a prophet Mark associates. And again, both of these things are true, right? This is holy scripture. This is inspired, these are not contradictory accounts. This is facets of the same diamond. Mark associates this with, they fear the crowds. Um, because they had taken him. They, they understood that the parable was being spoken against them, right? So there's this element that the Pharisees are not only understanding that the, the parable is about them, they feared them because the crowds believe that Christ is a prophet and that prophet is speaking this parable against them, right? So like they're, they're recognizing full on that it's only a matter of time before the, the general population, the general people that are listening to Christ recognize that he's overturning. Not only the Pharisees, the entire geopolitical nation of Israel, he's overturning the ethnic based reality, the geopolitical based reality, that God's people have a zip code and that zip code is Jerusalem. That zip code is this little si, this little tract of land the size of like Vermont and New Hampshire in the Mediterranean, like off the Mediterranean Sea. He's overturning that. And the, the Pharisees, the educated people, the, the Sadducees, the chief priests, the rulers, they recognize it's only a matter of time before the people understand what Christ is doing. They, they follow him as a prophet and this is what he's prophesying. And

Does church history hold importance for believers today? Why should Christians look to the past for insight into doctrine instead of looking to Scripture alone? In the second part of his series on the church and the state, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones chastises the arrogance of believers who say church history is not important. In this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (2),” he argues for the wisdom of modern believers' consideration of men and women of history handling difficult questions of their faith. This is particularly enlightening as one considers the relations of church and state. Dr. Lloyd-Jones continues his historical look at these particular relations through consideration of the view that the church and the state are essentially different and distinct. He provides four distinctions to consider: their difference in origin, the object from which they were instituted, the power given to them by God, and the way their functions are carried out. The teachings of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin are given special attention by Dr. Lloyd-Jones as their beliefs are foundational to the development of the influential Belgic Confession and Westminster Confession. These confessions have direct implications for Presbyterian congregations today. Listen as Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the value of learning from church history as he continues discussing the relations of the church and the state. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

Dave Osborne teaches the Westminster Confession of Faith during Sunday School on May 17, 2026 at Christ Presbyterian Church.

Does church history hold importance for believers today? Why should Christians look to the past for insight into doctrine instead of looking to Scripture alone? In the second part of his series on the church and the state, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones chastises the arrogance of believers who say church history is not important. In this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (2),” he argues for the wisdom of modern believers' consideration of men and women of history handling difficult questions of their faith. This is particularly enlightening as one considers the relations of church and state. Dr. Lloyd-Jones continues his historical look at these particular relations through consideration of the view that the church and the state are essentially different and distinct. He provides four distinctions to consider: their difference in origin, the object from which they were instituted, the power given to them by God, and the way their functions are carried out. The teachings of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin are given special attention by Dr. Lloyd-Jones as their beliefs are foundational to the development of the influential Belgic Confession and Westminster Confession. These confessions have direct implications for Presbyterian congregations today. Listen as Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the value of learning from church history as he continues discussing the relations of the church and the state. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

The sermon centers on the sovereign decree of God as articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, emphasizing that from all eternity, God has unchangeably ordained all things according to His wise and holy will for the manifestation of His glory. It unpacks the doctrine of election, affirming that God's choice of individuals for everlasting life is not based on foreseen faith, good works, or human merit, but solely on His free grace and love, with the ultimate purpose of glorifying Himself. The passage from Ephesians 1 is used to illustrate the eternal, unchangeable nature of God's plan, where believers are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestined for adoption, sanctification, and glorification, forming an unbroken chain of salvation. The sermon addresses common objections, particularly the perceived tension between God's desire for all to be saved and the reality of election, arguing that such passages must be interpreted in light of the whole counsel of Scripture, which consistently affirms God's sovereignty and the necessity of divine grace. Ultimately, the doctrine is not a source of despair but of profound assurance and worship, as it reveals God's faithfulness in securing salvation for His elect through the Spirit's effectual calling and the certain promise of perseverance.

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

Rev. Patrick Hines, James Thornton, Henry Johnson, and Ruling Elder Ryan Kiser walk through the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 14 "Of Saving Faith"

The sermon centers on the sovereign decree of God, affirming that from all eternity, God, in His infinite wisdom and holiness, freely and unchangeably ordained all things that come to pass, not as a distant determinist but as a loving and just ruler whose purposes are for His own glory. Drawing from Joseph's story in Genesis 50, it illustrates how human evil—such as the brothers' betrayal—was used by God for good, demonstrating that God's purposes transcend human intentions without making Him the author of sin. The Westminster Confession's teaching on a single, unified decree is upheld, rejecting the idea of God changing His mind or being influenced by time, while affirming that human responsibility and divine sovereignty coexist through secondary causes. The sermon emphasizes that God's justice and mercy are both revealed in His eternal plan, with salvation rooted in His grace and condemnation resulting from human sin, not arbitrary divine choice, and concludes by grounding all of history in God's ultimate purpose to display His glory.

I greet you in Jesus' precious name! It is Saturday morning, the 2nd of May, 2026, and this is your friend, Angus Buchan, with a thought for today. We start in 2 Corinthians 3:6:”… for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” This is quite a serious and liberating scripture. We cannot live according to the Mosaic law. You can't - that is why they kept offering sacrifices continually when they were in the desert. When the Holy Spirit came to earth after Jesus went to Heaven, He is the one who convicts us of walking in truth and righteousness. Now, if we look at the Book of Acts 15:24, this is what the apostles sent to the Gentiles, the Greeks, the people that were not Jews, and said to them that you do not have to obey the law, you just have to obey the commandments of God. ”Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment” Acts 15:24”that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”Acts 15:29 The Lord says that the Holy Spirit will convict you and me to walk in righteousness. We cannot just walk by keeping the law. We can't do it. That's why Jesus came down from Heaven to Earth.Now the Westminster Confession says, I love this, this is what they say, "Man's chief end on this earth is number one, to glorify God and number two, to enjoy Him forever.” Isn't that so simple? You see, when you glorify God you keep the law by yourself. For example, when I got saved, the first thing I did was stop swearing. The day I gave my life to Christ, I've never sworn since then, the Holy Spirit convicted me. I stopped bending the rules. In other words, I stopped telling white lies. The truth is the truth, and I did it willingly. I did many things that did not glorify God, and when I met Him as Lord and Saviour, I automatically stopped doing those things.Now today don't put a heavy on people. Don't make them feel guilty. Tell them to love God, and the Holy Spirit will convict them of their sins, and they will start walking in righteousness and, most of all, enjoy the presence of God forever. Jesus bless you and have a wonderful day. Goodbye.

The sermon centers on the doctrine of the Trinity as articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, emphasizing that God eternally exists as one essence in three distinct, coequal, and coeternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Drawing from Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17 and foundational Scripture, it affirms that each person is fully God—equal in power, glory, and eternity—without division or hierarchy, while maintaining their distinct personal properties. The message warns against heresies such as modalism, tritheism, and the eternal subordination of the Son, grounding truth in biblical revelation and historic creeds. It underscores that the Trinity is not merely an abstract theological concept but the very foundation of salvation, where the Son incarnates, the Spirit applies redemption, and believers are united to God in the same unity Christ prayed for. The sermon concludes by affirming that this profound mystery, though beyond full human comprehension, is revealed in Scripture and essential to the Christian faith.

The PCA's Report on Divorce and Remarriage (1992)The PCA's Report on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault (2019)The Westminster Confession of Faith in Everyday Language by C. D. "Jimmy" Agan IIIWestminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

The sermon unfolds a profound meditation on the incomprehensible greatness of God as revealed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, emphasizing His aseity, self-sufficiency, sovereignty, omniscience, and holiness. It establishes that God exists independently, possesses all life, glory, goodness, and blessedness in Himself, and requires nothing from creation, yet freely chooses to reveal Himself in grace and covenant. His sovereignty over all things—creation, providence, and history—demands worship, as every creature, from angels to humanity, is called to glorify Him. The sermon culminates in a call to worship, rooted in awe at God's unsearchable nature, urging believers to live in continual praise, recognizing that all glory belongs to Him alone, and that the ultimate purpose of life is to glorify and enjoy God forever.

This episode explores On the Emotional Life of Our Lord by B. B. Warfield, showing that Christ's compassion, love, anger, joy, and sorrow were true and sinless expressions of His full humanity. As confessed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, He is fully God and fully man, “yet without sin,” and His affections were perfectly ordered in accordance with His holy nature. In this way, the emotional life of Christ belongs to His perfect obedience and reveals the moral beauty of the Savior in the work of our redemption.Learn more at confessional.orgFriends in the PCA: please join us for our annual luncheon in Louisville this year! Seats are filling up quickly - register here.

The Westminster Confession of Faith in Everyday Language by C. D. "Jimmy" Agan IIIWestminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

From the Confessing the Faith Conference 2026, this pastoral sermon examines God's eternal purpose in bringing His elect to glory through the sufferings of Christ, with primary attention to Hebrews 2:10 and the Westminster Confession. The message explores how Christ's suffering was both necessary and fitting for God's justice and glory, connecting the believer's present trials to their future participation in divine glory. Main points: - four points on God's glory - the necessity of Christ's suffering - the reality of future glory - the light of creation and new creation - Christians enjoying creation without idolatry Scripture references: - Genesis 1 - Psalms 19; 22; 27:4; 36 - Song of Solomon - Isaiah 6:3 - Romans 1:20-25; 6; 11:36 - 2 Corinthians 3 - Philippians 3:20-21 - Colossians 3:4 - Hebrews 1:1-3; 2:6-10 - 1 Peter 5:1 - 1 John 3:2 - Revelation 7:16-17; 21:2; 21:11; 22:3-4

From the Confessing the Faith Conference 2026, this session surveys the doctrine of God's decree as it runs through the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Beginning with definitions and the family relationship among these confessions, the lecture traces the decree from Scripture's authority through creation, providence, the fall, the covenant of grace, the person of Christ, the ordo salutis, and the final judgment, demonstrating that the decree is not an isolated locus but the integrating backbone of classical Reformed theology. Main points: - the decree and Holy Scripture (Chapter 1) - the decree and the doctrine of God (Chapter 2) - Chapter 3 — God's decree itself - the decree and creation (Chapter 4) - the decree and divine providence (Chapter 5) - the decree and the fall of man (Chapter 6) - the decree and God's covenant (Chapter 7) - the decree and Christ the Mediator (Chapter 8) - the decree and the ordo salutis (Chapters 10–17) - the decree and the gospel's extent (Chapter 20) - the decree and the last judgment (Chapter 32) Scripture references: - Genesis 50:20 - Isaiah 10; 46:8-11 - Matthew 11 - Acts 16 - Romans 1 - Philippians 2:13 - Hebrews 1:1; 11:3

“Scripture will correct the councils.” It sounds simple, even reassuring. But once you slow down and ask how that correction actually happens, the clarity starts to unravel.This episode follows that question all the way down. The Bible does not speak out loud—it must be read. And reading always means interpretation. So when two sincere Christians, both appealing to Scripture, arrive at different conclusions… who decides what is true? What actually settles doctrine, worship, and practice?We move beyond slogans and into the real mechanics of biblical authority. What does it mean to “submit everything to the Word” if there is no agreed way to identify the right interpretation? Why do disagreements persist even among people who are equally committed to Scripture? And what happens when the principle meant to unify ends up multiplying divisions?Along the way, we explore the deeper philosophical and historical layers beneath the debate. We look at the burden of proof required to overturn long-standing Christian practice, and why Chesterton's fence reminds us that tearing down inherited structures without understanding their purpose can leave us with less clarity, not more. We also examine the authorities Protestants often rely on in practice—confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith, trusted pastors, and study Bible notes—and ask whether these function as a kind of tradition, even when they are not named as such.From there, we widen the lens. Why has sola scriptura, in practice, coincided with endless denominational fragmentation? And how does that compare with the Orthodox Christian claim that the faith has been preserved, lived, and handed down continuously from the apostles within the life of the Church?This isn't a surface-level debate. It's a direct confrontation with the question that sits underneath all theology and all disagreement:Who gets to decide?If you've wrestled with Scripture, authority, church history, or the tension between personal interpretation and historic Christianity, this conversation will challenge you to think more carefully—and more honestly—about where Christian authority ultimately rests.Subscribe for more thoughtful conversations, share this episode with someone who loves theology, and join the discussion: where do you believe the final authority in Christianity should be found?Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdhPlease prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesFind Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.Audio: https://cloudofwitnessesradio.buzzsprout.comPlease leave a comment with your thoughts!

Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

OPC minister Chris Drew helps us walk through the wonderful 21st chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day.  Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYz-EVdXG5g

The Westminster Confession teaches that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Is this your experience? On Truth For Life, Alistair Begg challenges us to stop and consider the immensity of what Jesus has done for all who trust in Him. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/163/29?v=20251111

The Westminster Confession teaches that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Is this your experience? On Truth For Life, Alistair Begg challenges us to stop and consider the immensity of what Jesus has done for all who trust in Him. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/163/29?v=20251111

Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

SUNDAY COURSES | Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 20: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

We're continuing season 8 of the podcast: sprinting through the Westminster Confession of Faith. This week, we're discussing chapter 2; Who is God? Want to continue this conversation in the classroom? Explore our degree programs and find one that's right for you: www.rts.edu/washington. Email admissions.washington@rts.edu to get started. Follow us on Instagram: www.instagram.com/rts.washington/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/RTSWashingtonDC X: x.com/rtswashington

The sermon presents a comprehensive defense of the Bible's divine authority, origin, and sufficiency, rooted in the Westminster Confession of Faith's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It affirms that Scripture is uniquely inspired by God, distinguishing it from human writings such as the Apocrypha, which are not divinely inspired and thus lack canonical authority. The central argument is that Scripture's truth and authority derive not from ecclesiastical endorsement or human reason, but from God Himself, who is the ultimate source of truth and cannot lie. The sermon emphasizes that while external evidences—such as the Bible's moral coherence, theological unity, transformative power, and historical consistency—support its divine origin, the final assurance of its authority comes through the inward work of the Holy Spirit, who bears witness with the Word in the hearts of believers. This divine authentication enables faith, conviction, and obedience, grounding Christian doctrine, worship, and assurance of salvation in Scripture alone, which is complete, infallible, and sufficient for all matters of faith and life.

Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch 19: Of the Law of God

Welcome back to the Faculty Podcast! We're starting a brand new series this week: Theology Sprints, where we'll dip into every chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith from a theological and pastoral perspective. This week is chapter one, which the Confession titles "Holy Scripture." Feel free to drop us an email if you have a question you'd like us to cover on the podcast. Our emails are available at rts.edu/washington through the Faculty page. Want to continue the conversation in the classroom? Explore our degree programs and find one that's right for you: www.rts.edu/washington. Email admissions.washington@rts.edu to get started. Follow us on Instagram: www.instagram.com/rts.washington/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/RTSWashingtonDC X: x.com/rtswashington

Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

Scripture Reading: Revelation 14:9-20 In the middle of a biblical text about the dreadful wrath of God is a passage designed to be a great encouragement to Christians.  Following a passage declaring the God's wrath "poured full strength into the cup of his anger" (Rev 14:10), we read about the "perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus" (Rev 14:12, LSB). The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the idea that, having been changed at the deepest level of one's being by the Spirit of God, Christians "can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved" (Westminster Confession of Faith, XVII:1). Perseverance in the Christian faith is both a wondrous encouragement and a sober test.  We are able to hold fast to our faith, and will hold it fast, because we have become reconciled to God … and because of this reconciliation Christ will one day present us before God the Father as holy.  This is ultimate security in Christ.  The sober test is this … perseverance in the faith is evidence that someone's faith is genuine.  Those who have true faith continue in the faith.  Those who do not continue in the faith only show they have never been reconciled to God in the first place.

Emily Van Dixhoorn (MAR Westminster Theological Seminary) loves Bible study and prayer, especially when shared with others. She regularly speaks at women's retreats and marriage conferences. She is the author of Confessing the Faith Study Guide, a companion to her husband Chad Van Dixhoorn's commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. She and her husband co-authored Gospel Shaped Marriage: Grace for Sinners to Love like Saints. They regularly welcome people into their home of happy chaos. Emily and Chad have five children from ages 14-25. For fun, Emily plays tennis, teaches math, and walks their dog. Friends, we invite you to the 2026 Confessional Conference with Greenville Seminary. This year, our topic is on The Church: The Bride of Christ. Our speakers this year include Scott Aniol, Rhett Dodson, David Irving, Ian Hamilton, Hensworth Jonas, Jonathan Master, Jim McCarthy, Michael Morales, and Mike Riccardi. This is a family conference, with a focus on prayer, fellowship, and the preaching of the Word — complete with a children's program for children 3-11. Please join us in Greenville, SC, on March 10-12.  Special thanks to Nathan Clark George for our opening and closing instrumental. Nathan serves as the Pastor of Worship alongside Kevin DeYoung at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, NC. You can access Nathan's fantastic catalog here.  

All the Episodes of the Heidelcast Subscribe to the Heidelcast! Browse the Heidelshop! On X @Heidelcast On Insta & Facebook @Heidelcast Subscribe in Apple Podcast Subscribe directly via RSS Call The Heidelphone via Voice Memo On Your Phone The Heidelcast is available wherever podcasts are found including Spotify. Call or text the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618-1563. Leave a message or email us a voice memo from your phone and we may use it in a future podcast. Record it and email it to heidelcast@heidelblog.net. If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts so that others can find it. Please do not forget to make the coffer clink (see the donate button below). SHOW NOTES How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia The Heidelblog Resource Page Heidelmedia Resources The Ecumenical Creeds The Reformed Confessions The Heidelberg Catechism The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Academic) Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R Publishing, 2008) Why I Am A Christian What Must A Christian Believe? Heidelblog Contributors Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to: Heidelberg Reformation Association 1637 E. Valley Parkway #391 Escondido CA 92027 USA The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Kicking off season 5 of Pillar & Ground, Brian and Wil begin a 3-episode look at oaths and vows, including their purposes and distinctions, as discussed in chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.Westminster Confession of FaithConfessing the Faith - A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith by Chad Van DixhoornHosts: Brian Salter & Wil NettletonProducer: Ben WingardMusic arranged by David Henry and performed by David Henry and Hannah Lutz.To contact Pillar & Ground or to submit a question that you would like to hear addressed on a future episode, please email podcast@lmpc.org.  

God is infinitely beyond our ability to know Him fully. Is it possible to say anything true about Him? Today, R.C. Sproul teaches from the Westminster Confession on how we can speak meaningfully about our transcendent Creator. Request Truths We Confess, R.C. Sproul's hardcover commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, with your donation of any amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4569/offer   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the ebook edition with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Nature clearly reveals that there is a God who holds us accountable. But it doesn't reveal how we can escape God's judgment against sin. For that, we need Scripture. Today, R.C. Sproul draws from the Westminster Confession of Faith to explain the necessity of special revelation. Request Truths We Confess, R.C. Sproul's hardcover commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, with your donation of any amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4569/offer   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the ebook edition with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

The question seems simple: did Protestants ever agree on the Lord's Supper? The answer, drawn from history and confessions, is messy. The early church spoke with one voice about a true, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a conviction shared across geography and centuries. Then the Reformation fractured that consensus. Luther defended real presence with fire, appealing to Christ's words as plain and binding; Calvin insisted on a true spiritual presence without a change of substance; Zwingli argued for a powerful memorial devoid of presence in the elements. These are not minor tweaks; they are different maps of reality, worship, and church. The implications ripple through how we pray, preach, and gather.  Special episode for our brother  @theprotestantgentleman Dillon Baker.Luther's stance, preserved in the Augsburg Confession, reads with startling clarity: the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who partake. For him, the promise of Christ anchored the sacrament; God acts, we receive. This wasn't speculative metaphysics; it was pastoral assurance built on Christ's words. Yet even within that stance, Luther rejected philosophical explanations he considered overly rationalistic, choosing instead to guard the mystery. For many today seeking historical Protestant roots, that text offers a bold continuity with the ancient church's devotion, placing emphasis on Christ's promise rather than human mood or memory.Calvin pushed in another direction. The Westminster Confession, reflecting Reformed insight, rejects any change in the substance of bread and wine. Christ is truly received, they say, but not by the mouth; He is given to faith by the Spirit. This attempt to safeguard both biblical language and philosophical coherence introduced a careful distinction: presence without material change. It aimed to avoid what they saw as superstition while retaining sacramental grace. Yet the same document criticizes views it considers contrary to Scripture and even to common sense, sharpening lines against both Roman Catholic teaching and Luther's insistence. The Reformed vision sought transcendence through the Word, Spirit, and faith rather than in the elements themselves.Zwingli's memorial view drew still sharper boundaries: the Supper is a sign and remembrance, a communal pledge of loyalty and gratitude. Here, the focus shifts from divine action in the elements to the church's act of obedience and memory. The table becomes a proclamation of the gospel rather than a locus of Christ's bodily presence. This view resonated with those wary of idolatry and eager to stress the sufficiency of faith. Yet critics asked whether such symbolism thins the mystery and reduces sacrament to lecture, exchanging presence for reminder and gift for gesture.Why the divergence? One claim in the conversation is that sola scriptura, untethered from a living interpretive authority, multiplies interpretations. The Reformers shared a high view of Scripture but not a shared hermeneutic about sacramental language. When “This is my body” meets different commitments about sign, substance, and promise, meanings diverge. The result is denominational lines drawn at the table itself. Confessions not only teach; they exclude. Augsburg rejects contrary teachings. Westminster calls other views repugnant. Such language reflects the stakes: worship sits at the center of identity, and the Supper is worship in its most intimate form.Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdhPlease prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesFind Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.Please leave a comment with your thoughts!