Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tony and Jesse answer listener questions.

Trevor
What does the Bible say about paedo-communion?

Luke 
John MacArthur sometimes references Jeremiah 19:4-5 to claim that God, speaking through Jeremiah, is referring to infants as innocent.  How do we evaluate MacArthur’s argument, does this promulgate an ‘age of innocence’, and does this affirm Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian theology?

Jesse Schwamb 0:02
Welcome to Episode 155 of the reformed brotherhood. I'm Jesse.

Tony Arsenal 0:16
And I'm Tony and we are proud members of the Society of reformed podcasts.

Hey, brother.

Jesse Schwamb 0:31
Hey, brother, you know what time it is?

Tony Arsenal 0:34
It is it's question cast time

Jesse Schwamb 0:37
question because

Tony Arsenal 0:38
I love it. That was a nice little song yellow thing you just did there.

Jesse Schwamb 0:43
Thank you. That's the traditional question question cast melody. But before we jump into some exciting questions, I'm excited because it sounds like you got some epic affirmations and denials or one of the other but I'll leave it up to you dealer's choice. What do you want to start with today? I'll

Tony Arsenal 1:00
start with the easy one. So I'm affirming a new book that just came out which is published by Baker academic, and it's called the story of Creed's and confessions. I haven't read it yet. So it might sound a little weird that I'm affirming a book I haven't read.

Jesse Schwamb 1:17
But dare you, sir.

Tony Arsenal 1:18
The book is by my my Patristics professor from seminary, Donald Fairburn and also by Ryan Reeves, who is another professor who taught at Gordon Conwell. He's taught at reformed Theological Seminary. And those two scholars put together tells me that this book is already going to be amazing. So check it out. It's really good. You know, I've read a tiny bit of it. But Dr. Fairbairn really is like the peak performance as far as like evangelicals who are studying Patristics. So it's, it's, it's going to be phenomenal. I'm sure that it's going to be awesome.

Jesse Schwamb 1:56
For those who are not as well versed in the words you were just using their define Patristics so people know what you're talking about.

Tony Arsenal 2:02
So Patristics is always really hard to define. But typically, it's going to be everybody from kind of the close of the New Testament. So So non apostolic writers from like, 7080 on to maybe like 450 or 500, depending on who you ask. Most people would say that a Gostin is kind of like the bridge character between the touristic era and the beginning of the medieval era. I would actually probably put it a little bit later, but like 400 500, somewhere in there is pretty good. I don't

Jesse Schwamb 2:33
know why. But when you were describing that definition, the only thing that came to my mind is Wouldn't it be sweet if like they sold like playing cards that were of the Patristics?

Tony Arsenal 2:42
Yeah, like trade like baseball card style?

Jesse Schwamb 2:45
Yeah, like they had special powers, but like, I don't know why I was going there. Somehow, Harry Potter also flashed in my mind, you know, like, with,

Tony Arsenal 2:56
like, the chocolate frog cards?

Jesse Schwamb 2:58
Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a great idea. Somebody should do it.

Tony Arsenal 3:04
They'd have like ratings that are like insults. It'd be like six. Cool nickname. Five is like ATHANASIOU, the black dwarf.

Jesse Schwamb 3:14
Yes, I'm like my face. Mission aware or professional, where I'm looking at you guys make it happen?

Tony Arsenal 3:19
Yeah, what about you? What do you got for an affirmation today?

Jesse Schwamb 3:22
I also got a really quick one, I'm doubling down on an affirmation that I made before. We're going to be jumping in the scriptures tonight as we look at a couple of questions. And for me, my go to and I really want to get a good sense for what the scripture says, in a really brief and concise way is NSP. NSP is beautiful. It's also for me like the go to version when I want to compare it against what I usually read or what is being preached from. So I'm going to affirm again, this app called the literal word, because there was just an update to the app, it's even more beautiful than ever, it's really sleek, it looks fantastic in dark mode. And it's a wonderful NSP app for whether you just want to get something that's simple and just want to read the scriptures without kind of all the attendant notation. Or if you are jumping to study has all these great modes, all these great word searches highlighting so many new things that just came out in this new version. So go check out literal word, it's a great way to engage with the NTSB on your mobile device of your choice.

Tony Arsenal 4:18
Nice. Nice.

Jesse Schwamb 4:21
So it's denial time, because it sounds like you got denial that's gonna rock our world,

Tony Arsenal 4:26
it is going to rock your world. So this is great. This, this denial requires a little bit of a story. So Ashley and I were watching some TV on amazon prime, right. So you know, like, so we watch amazon prime through our cable box. So when you like exit out of Amazon Prime, it jumps back to whatever channel you are on on cable. And so we were watching a show, and we finished and we exit out and Family Feud came up. Now Family Feud is one of those fun shows that like no matter when it comes on, you just sort of sit and watch it a little bit, mostly because you can kind of play along. But also, there's just enough stupidity and dumbness on that show that it's engaging and entertaining. So we're sitting there watching, and the first part was that there was a family that will just say, their last name was Flanagan, but it was very clear that they were not Irish. So I was a little bit confused about that. But the category was things that you might ask your friend to take a whiff of to see if there see if it's disgusting, which is hyper specific category. And so it's got like the things you'd expect, like rotten milk, or rotten food, your shoes, maybe like your room.

Unknown Speaker 5:43
But then,

Tony Arsenal 5:44
you know, like the one that nobody wants to say, but everybody is thinking, what would you say this is the the category that's left?

Jesse Schwamb 5:53
I don't know. Because there's too much at risk for me here because I want a couple of things. But I'm afraid to give me like now I'm wasn't asking you to think of that at all. All right, well,

Tony Arsenal 6:02
I'll spare you Epstein the potential awkwardness. So the answer that they were looking for, and this wasn't the number one answer, but the answer that was remaining on the board was was you know, they asked the survey, right? And people give their answers. And then they have to take similar categories of answers and like, aggregate them into a single thing. So the category was basically revolving around, like, when someone passes gas, you say, Hey, take a whiff of this, right. But it was like they tried to pick the worst possible way to describe like this category. So the process the name of the the name of the answer was my farting but so there's a number of things here that I think are probably all First of all, you know, like, every guy has been in a college dorm and pass gas and said catch up with for this right. But nobody I don't think has ever said, Can you smell my butt? Right? You ask them to smell the fart, not your butt. And then the second thing is the way they phrased it. It wasn't like my farted, but like it wasn't smell my but after I farted, it smell my farting, but so it was like smell my butt in the process of farting. And it was it was just like of all of the different ways you could have said this, this answer. This was the least realistic and least appealing one.

Jesse Schwamb 7:31
It's almost like you're parsing Greek when you're describing that

Unknown Speaker 7:34
I know.

Tony Arsenal 7:37
participle. Yeah,

Jesse Schwamb 7:39
exactly. So I'm glad I didn't speak because I was that's basically where I was going with that. But I was trying to keep this from so you wouldn't have to put the little e mark next to this episode. But man, that is incredible. So what are you denying exactly the whole thing? Just the expression of it? Or the fact that like that was a legit category? Because it seems like a little bit too much crossover? Is that a bridge too far across? Like from going from the idea of writing a spoiled food? I know they're not exactly the same to this idea of like, yeah, smell my But

Tony Arsenal 8:11
yeah, I think I'm denying the, you know, the guy who made that answer had like one job Take, take all of these answers that have to do is smelling someone's flatulence, and distill it into like a single phrase that explains all of those answers. And he got it completely wrong. Because you don't smell people's butts. You smell their farts. So it was it was just one of those moments. I'm denying whoever that guy was, I don't know who that guy I'm denying that guy.

Jesse Schwamb 8:43
The only thing besides that makes this more funny. Besides like, the subject matter itself is I can tell you how serious you are in denying this. Yeah, you're you're way more mature than I am. Because you able to say so very straight face.

Tony Arsenal 8:57
I've been practicing for like three days now.

Jesse Schwamb 8:59
And actually breasts again, this is this is dire people, you need to smell the right thing. We need to get this under control. It's true.

Tony Arsenal 9:07
So now you can just know when you're mad at somebody, you'd be like, Yeah, well smell my farting but

Jesse Schwamb 9:12
does sound like an insult. It sounds like somebody from like Monty Python.

Unknown Speaker 9:15
Yeah.

Tony Arsenal 9:17
Yeah, it's true. Like that French guy. From

Jesse Schwamb 9:20
those thinking, yeah, you and I are of the same mind.

Tony Arsenal 9:24
We are. What about you? What are you denying? Mine also comes with the story.

Jesse Schwamb 9:27
There you go. I'm so glad that you had the same thing. So let me tell the this little account first, because it will culminate in crescendo in what I hope is a grand denial. The church that I attend is going through this process where they're redoing their pictorial directory. I'm pretty pro directory. But this time, what they decided to do was they want to hire an outside company. It's the same company actually, that does, the photo shoots for schools to come in, and to do all the pictures. So we scheduled a time we show up at the church. And my wife fills out like a little card as we're waiting. And it says you know, put the names of the people that are going to be in the picture and your contact information, all that good stuff, we finished that. And we are ushered into this second room where they have set up like this little studio for them to take pictures. And the the person the photographer is taking the pictures, this guy is overwhelmingly nice, then like the nicest photographer I've ever met, he's, he's making jokes. He's not corny. He's interested in who we are. But he's not creepy. He's doing a really good job of, in some ways, making it seem normal what we're about to do, even though he admits that taking pictures is really strange things going to pose us. So of course, we get posted like lots of strange ways like some of them make it look like we're trying to shoot like the cover of like a 1980s gospel album with Sandi Patty. There's like some really strange pictures that in of itself might be reason enough for the story being funny. But something happens at the beginning of this picture taking experience that I could not imagine what's going to take place, and then basically colors and clouds the entire process, such that I can't think of anything except this. Now when I think back on the whole thing that occurred. And that is, right, as we go to take the pictures, my wife, whose name is Jen goes to put her purse down, I go immediately to the stool, that's the center of where the photography is going to take place. And in that moment, my back is to the photographer. And so I hear him say, Jen, and he says something. And so I assume that he's talking to her. When I turned around, I realized after like a quick second that he's actually talking to me. And so for whatever reason, this guy gets the card of our names, he looks at the two names and says, there's a dude here, and a woman here. The woman is definitely named Jesse. So the thing about the experience from that on from that point on is that it happens so quickly, and so strangely that I couldn't even get my bearings before like, I kind of acknowledge what he was saying, but it was more like what are you talking to me or to my wife. And then we got into deep and I couldn't stop it. And you know how it is, if you're ever in a place where you're taking a picture, and there's a photographer actually directing you, this is a time where they're actually giving you specific instructions of more than one person, they have to say your name over and over and over again. So So you didn't know we got into deep. And then so we've got 20 minutes, 20 minutes of this, like so many pictures, man, so many pictures. And he's calling me for my wife's name, which is Jen. And she's called, he's calling Jen, Jesse. So we've got directions like this, like, Jen, can you put your head in closer to the left or Jesse put your chin in a little bit more just a little bit closer. This was like a giant screwed up game of Simon says because we had to pay such close attention because what happened is Jesse moving closer, or Jesse moved to the right, we both moved to the right. So this dude's like, wow, these guys cannot take instruction, like I'm talking to one of them. And they cannot just take simple instruction. So like there'll be times when he would say Jesse can put your chin in. And I would tell my wife be like he's talking to you. That's you. That's you go go. So like, this was like just incredibly awkward. And so what I'm denying is, for whatever reason, this mass confusion with the name Jessie J ESSE as often being a female name, even though I get that Jesse JSSIE. Or je SS Jess can be short for Jessica as like just a nickname. But come on people. Yeah, Jesse is a dude's name. It is biblical. So this was just like, it was epically it. I guess it's it's funny now, but, man, I can't tell you how hard we are concentrating. And how often like it was this weird game of like trying to make sure that you had to pay attention to what he was saying. Because you're using the opposite person it like this. That sounds really easy. Go grab a friend, switch your names up and have somebody gives you like explicit instructions. It's way more complicated than you think it is. So I'm denying that. And then I wanted to ask you because you have a name. And you know, it's all about that. And

at the same time, this happened about the same time. I don't know if you saw this thing on Twitter that kind of blew up, somebody posed the question, what pop culture reference has ruined your name. So in the context of denying this type of thing, let me say my and then I'm curious while I talk, if you can think of one for yours, I can kind of think of one for you. But I'm curious what comes to your mind first. So for me, it's undoubtedly the song Jessie's girl because within like two seconds of a stranger meeting me, they want to sing that song. Even people like I know that I'm really well connected with her have deep relationships with they love to bring up this song. And I encourage anybody want to go look at the song because it's awful. The song is about taking Jesse's girl so when people send that to me I want to be I always say like, yo, that's my wife you're talking about there. So that song is like kind of clouded my name. It's like that. I think people think about when they hear Jesse, is there something that's equivalent? Like you can go with Tony or internal Antonio, I don't know if you have a preference there for one or the other or both?

Tony Arsenal 15:06
you kind of put me on the spot. I don't know. Tony is one of those names. That's like generic enough that I don't know that there is one. I mean like the the there's like that old song like Tony Tony, Tony has done it again. And when I was in high school, everybody, Tony Tony, Tony's done it again. I'm like, shut up. But no. Yeah, I don't know anything else. What about

Jesse Schwamb 15:30
what about certain breakfast cereal? Did we get associated with that?

Unknown Speaker 15:34
I mean, I have

Tony Arsenal 15:36
but I think it's great. So

Unknown Speaker 15:39
it's no big deal.

Tony Arsenal 15:41
Well, actually, I have a pretty fond affection for Tony the Tiger. Because when I was young that was the nickname my mom had for me. And I remember I had adorable this little Tony the Tiger like radio that still sits in the exact same spot in my bedroom at my parents house. So I don't know that that would never bothered me because it's just it's kind of like I don't know it's like a like an affectionate diminutive.

Jesse Schwamb 16:10
Well, the great Your name is perfect and untarnished my culture. That's awesome.

Tony Arsenal 16:14
You know, whenever I think of your name, I think of that commercial where the guy is riding off into the sunset and the it's like that Geico commercial, and it goes like Jesse don't go and he's riding off and then like the words the end and up and the dude like hits his head on the on the the words as they're flooding the sky gets knocked off his horse and she's like, Jesse, that's my favorite. My favorite commercial.

Jesse Schwamb 16:39
Yeah, I would gladly take that if people thought of that. When they thought of me I would be very happy instead of this whole song, which is again, not only do I get the song a lot, I get the song misquoted. A lot of people say I wish I was Jessie's girl. It's I wish I had Jesse's girl, which again, you're talking about my wife.

Unknown Speaker 16:56
So either one of those is just weird. uncomfortable.

Jesse Schwamb 16:59
Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's uncomfortable either way, but that's the thing. It's called. So yeah, names are important people. Yeah. And if you're if you're a photographer, please, please. Yeah, I use my name for me. I was gonna say they're like,

Tony Arsenal 17:15
I'm kind of at a loss for how that could even happen. And like, he probably realized halfway through what was happening like I have to imagine he's going what's going on with these Nate's they are like, responding the wrong names. And then there was a moment was like, but then it was like too late for everybody.

Jesse Schwamb 17:37
It was too late. We were in so deep. He was super nice. And we were at that point where it's like, let's just get out of here it was this was the strangest picture taking experience ever had. I don't get like professional pictures taken often or at all. But these were for directory and they knew that and there's some like, not this has already started sound like I'm saying risky. never escape pictures, but more like, one point he was he said to Jesse, who was my wife, said, Jesse, can you? Can you put your hand? Can you put your clothes? Like open hand fingers together? Jesse, can you put your hand on Jen's chest? Which again? Yeah, but she did that. Again. I want to be clear. I want to be clear in this picture that the rules, their names were swapped. So Jen was putting her hand on my chest. That's not that's not like when I saw it afterwards. I was like, do not put that. He's like you guys like this one. I was like, No, no, because I didn't want this one. I was like, I don't want the universe to have any recollection of that picture was ever taken. It's just really strange. It looked like some weird engagement photo that didn't quite happen properly. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, pictorial directories. I love the body of Christ.

Tony Arsenal 18:52
Yes, that's an interesting concept. I don't know. I remember when I was in Minneapolis, the church had one. And I refuse to be photographed for it. I was just being like a snot nosed teenage like, like 19 year old kid who wanted to buck the system, but I just didn't want to have my picture in the directory.

Jesse Schwamb 19:14
Yeah, this is gonna be I tell you what, what we should do. Sometimes when this comes out, we can react to it get together maybe on a podcast, because I'm a little bit concerned. Because I see I saw our picture. And the picture that we ended up with the one that like looked the most reasonable, was like, we're kind of a little bit back to back. I'm, we're leaning into each other and my arms are crossed. And again, it looks like there should be an album cover,

Tony Arsenal 19:41
or like a photo.

Jesse Schwamb 19:43
Yeah, yes. Something like, exactly. It's something like that. Like where there's like a super impose, like large version of my head in one corner. And our full bodies in the other. It's got that kind of vibe. So here's what I'm concerned about. We I go to like an amazingly loving God honoring Bible preaching church. And yet somebody said, some new person, some person that maybe is not even a believer is going to be handed or see a copy of this laying in the church and be like, like flipping the pages back. We got to get out of here. People. Yeah, look at these people we got to get out of here. So

Tony Arsenal 20:13
here's a little weird.

Jesse Schwamb 20:15
It's a strange thing. Love the body of Christ, which probably is like as best we're going to come up with tonight as a segue into question cast, because we've got a couple of great questions. And there's all the same theme. And they have a lot to do with the body of Christ, and with children in the body of Christ. So what do you say we drop this first question and like it's hot.

Tony Arsenal 20:36
Let's do it.

Jesse Schwamb 20:38
All right.

Unknown Speaker 20:39
Here we go. Hey, guys, this is Trevor from northwest Iowa. Longtime listener, longtime publisher, they can you guys and the work that you do, I do need your help though. The church domination I belong to CRC na, is in many ways it was a wonderful reformed body, especially here where I live vote, have more than a few concerns about the current state and future trajectory of the domination. But one particular infestation and I want you guys to talk about this growing in popularity is Pedro communion, which they've helpfully, you know, air quotes, renamed children at the table. So would you guys mind doing your thing and digging into this topic? I'd love to solidify a biblical stance on this issue. Thanks, guys.

Jesse Schwamb 21:29
I'm glad that Trevor posed this question. It's almost about time, isn't it? Have we had like any kind of real paedo communion discussion in all the time that we've been recording?

Tony Arsenal 21:37
You know, I don't think we actually have I think we may have mentioned it very, very briefly on the episode about federal vision, but almost in passing.

Jesse Schwamb 21:46
That's what I think too. So I'm glad that Trevor's brought this to the forefront by just saying basically, the question is, where's the Bible say about PO communion? And yeah, he references the church, where he's a part of which is part of the Christian Reformed Church of North America denomination, with this little area interest, I love that he's kind of said they've rebranded Pado communion, as children at the table. I mean, it just sounds like a little bit more welcoming, right. And so to begin with, we kind of approach this concept. Let's let me throw out like a definition of terms here because I wanted to find this purposely very narrow. So as the kind of head off maybe some other type of disagreement with what we're talking about. So to answer the first question, I'm going to find people communion as the participation in the Lord's Supper by baptized winged covenant children. And there is a distinction. So here's what's interesting, you and I, we have different convictions, of course, about paedo baptism. And maybe you run into this more than I do. I've had lots of great conversation with abundance. This is about Peter communion, both those kind of trying to understand it, those that come from a tradition that embraces it. And there is a distinction between Pado baptism and communion. And Christians sometimes, of course, they impose the same kind of reasoning and justifying Peter communion, as Peter Baptist us sometimes and justifying Peter baptism. This idea, and again, this is I'm going to say is somewhat pejorative, but I'm trying to really hone a funnel this down to specific argument that because the Passover has replaced the Lord's Supper, the children in the Old Testament, the children, the Old Testament, of the Passover, then it necessarily follows that children in the New Testament may take part in the Lord's Supper. So let's let's stop there for a second. And like just dialogue a bit before we get into like some of the Scripture, in terms of Do you often run into like wicked argumentation people using, generally speaking, yeah. To embrace pickle communion?

Tony Arsenal 23:32
Yeah, I mean, so I mentioned the association with federal vision. And the reason for that is, these these two theologies go hand in hand. So the federal vision, places in over emphasis on the efficacy of, of baptism, to bring someone into not only the administration of the covenant of grace, but also the substance of the covenant of grace. So I'm actually that book I referenced a couple of weeks ago, the Baptist federal theology went by, did not pass call, pass called Renault did not pass call, I don't know, just look it up, you think I would remember it,

Unknown Speaker 24:08
but that's great.

Tony Arsenal 24:10
So he makes a really good point in that book. And the whole book is designed around kind of drawing out this distinction, that the Presbyterians of the 16th and 17th century, they argued that there's this sort of double way of being invested or interested or involved in the covenant of grace, you can be involved in the covenant of grace externally. So anyone who has made a profession of faith who was born to Christian parents, who is somehow connected to the church, and part of that community, is outwardly a part of the covenant of grace. So they would view the visible church and covenant grace membership as what in the same thing in terms of the outward appearances, but then you can be involved in the covenant of grace are interested in the covenant of grace, internally as well, and the differences, the substance of the covenant of grace, is Jesus Christ Himself. And so when you're invested in the externals of the covenant of grace, you have an outward or a nominal attachment to Jesus Christ. So you, you consider yourself to be a Christian, you call yourself to be a Christian, you bear the name of Christian, you're part of the church. If you have an investment in the substance of the covenant of grace, then you're in an actual saving union with Jesus Christ. And so where the federal vision particularly goes wrong, is they they too closely associate those two things. So they would say that if you are part of the visible church, that you are, in some sense, partaking of the substance of the covenant of grace as well, right. And so the difference and we'll get into specifically why this is in Presbyterian theology. But in federal vision, theology, what they've done is they've taken baptism, and they say, our baptism has an effect. And that effect is to unite someone to the actual subsets of the covenant of grace, where the traditional Presbyterian perspective is that baptism unites someone to the external administration of the covenant of grace, but not necessarily to the substance of the covenant of grace. And so the logic in the federal vision, our articulation is that since a person has been connected to the substance of the covenant of grace, they should partake of the sacrament, which also is associated with the sub with the substance of the covenant of grace, where where the Presbyterian position pushes back, the Orthodox Presbyterian position, is that baptism only necessarily unites you to the external administration of the covenant of grace. And only those who we have a reason to believe a positive reason to believe are also united to Christ in the substance of the covenant of grace as well, not only the administration should partake of the sacrament of communion. So typically, you hear that the argument, either from federal revisionist who are making this argument like if they're a Christian, they should do everything a Christian does, which isn't exactly what the Presbyterian is trying to say. Or you hear it from Baptists, who I think most of the time misunderstand that distinction a little bit and say, well, you're treating them as a Christian, you're treating them as though they're part of the visible church. So you should, you should go all the way and treat them like they're part of the visible church and give them the sacrament as well. And so both both the federal vision and the Baptist interlocutor who's trying to save trying to make this argument, are actually making the same argument based more or less on the same misunderstanding of classical Presbyterian theology. Right?

Jesse Schwamb 27:43
Yeah, that's what I want to emphasize is that you can't use the same argument for both. So if you're having a discussion, some is trying to leverage the argument for baptism in the same way for pedal communion they can't And so again, even though my convictions are different, the Presbyterian logic like the opposite priori approach toward Pado baptism, I think is cogent and what's expressing, but you can't use that and apply it toward paedo communion. And to help Trevor out I think it's probably best for us to go to the scripture and see that there is some really straightforward, acknowledgment instruction on this particular issue when it works to the Lord's Supper. And the great thing about this is it's kind of First Corinthians Of course, and this is probably something that everybody's heard before and maybe not thought about exactly in these terms. But breaking down first Corinthians chapter 1127, to 30, I think would be profitable. And the reason is, because we need to remember first that Paul is writing to a very troubled church, he is correcting and actually providing very explicit and specific instruction when it comes to the administration of the Lord's Supper. And there's a lot I think we can glean with respect to answering this question that what then does the Bible say about Pado communion? So let me read just from First Corinthians 11, verses 27 through 30. And this is coming from the NTSB, which again, you can get from that word app, because I think this is, again, we're looking at instruction here. So I think if we can go to something that's the most literal translation in English, will get a better sense of what's happening here is what Paul writes, therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing his to eat of the bread, and drink of the cup, for he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly, for this reason, many among you are weak and sick, and number are asleep. So the standard interpretation of these verses I want to talk about is that Paul warns the Corinthians that they're to examine themselves, of course, when taking part of the Lord's Supper, basically, that they shouldn't do it in this kind of hastily irreverent way they've been doing before, don't treat it like this is just a common meal. And instead, you should make sure that your conscience is right with God, and with fellow believers. And that's clear what's being taught in verse 28. There. So in verse 29, the word body is assumed to refer to Christ bodies and the bread of communion. So the argument, Paul, is that since children are too young and immature to examine themselves, they ought to wait until they have made a profession of faith before taking part in the Lord's Supper.

Tony Arsenal 30:19
Yeah, and you know, this, this ties into usually a misunderstanding of how Presbyterian federal theology and this concept of type and shadow works. So the argument, you know, the argument well, baptism is the replacement, or the the fulfillment of circumcision. And the Lord's Supper is the fulfillment of Passover. Therefore, you know, we baptize children, and we should let them have communion. What the problem with that is, is that baptism does replace circumcision as the initiation into the covenant, the extra eternal, an initiation into the administration of the covenant. But the Lord's Supper does not directly replace or fulfill Passover in the same way or the same sense. So whereas in baptism and circumcision, they both accomplish the same thing. under different administrations, they both initiate the circumcised or baptized person into the covenant of grace in Presbyterian theology. The sacrament of Passover is a typical logical sign which points forward to the the coming of the Messiah and what he would accomplish on behalf of his people. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper points backwards to the same thing. But it's not as though the Passover is replaced by, by the Lord's Supper in a direct sense, the same way that circumcision and baptism is they're both pointing at the same reality. They're, they're pointing at them from different directions. And the main thing is exactly as you've said, right? We have different instructions, different kinds of instructions for the sacraments, right? baptism is from a Presbyterian perspective, is to be applied to all of those who are a part of the external covenant of grace. And it's what initiates them into that external administration of the covenant of grace. And so it's important to draw that distinction in terms of what is the covenant of grace and who is externally united to it. Baptists deny this concept of an external only administration of the covenant of grace, they deny that category entirely. So you have to understand the Presbyterian perspective of baptism. But then when you get to the Lord's Supper, we have this specific set of instructions that delineates who is to partake of the, of the Lord's Supper. And there's there's two distinct distinctions, there's those who are able to examine themselves, and there are those who are able to properly discern the body. So any person who is not able to examine themselves are not able to properly discern the body should be restrained from the table. Now, that is primarily in Presbyterian theology primarily is applied to children. And this is going to ruffle some feathers. And this is obviously up to the local session to make a determination. But there might be some adults who lacks sufficient capacity to properly discern the body of Christ, that should also be held back from the body, or from the table. And, you know, sometimes, we allow someone who's made a profession of faith that we believe to be a genuine profession of faith, we sort of discern the body for them. And when I say we, I mean, like the elders of the church, I'm not, I'm not an elder of the church, but this the local session, kind of discern the body for them and discern whether they're eating where the least for them based on their knowledge of that person's life and their, their profession of faith and their conduct and their capacities. So, right, we have to recognize the different sacraments have different instructions, and different different audiences more or less.

Jesse Schwamb 34:18
That's right on that. That's a great summary, what you what has to happen here is, for Trevor, say, because he's having these discussions and kind of sorting this out in his own local congregation, in order to support Pedro communion, you have to interpret those set of verses those instructions as you just laid out differently. And to me, it comes down to one word, this is the word that often gets thrown up. So in regard to verse 28, that let a person examine himself then and so either the bread and drink of the cup, we're all going to agree on that, more or less with the standard interpretation of you. However, the advocate of Pedro communion must believe that in verse 29, the word body refers not to the body of Christ, but to the church body, right? The only way you can interpret these verses and support petal communion because they're going to point to passages in the same book like First Corinthians 1227, which is the one we're familiar with, when Paul's talking about the the church itself. Now you are the body of Christ, individually members of it, they're going to use verses like that, to demonstrate that Paul sometimes uses the word body to refer to the church members. And that's true, he sometimes does. And so on this basis, they're going to argue that Paul is simply telling the Corinthians to watch for one another and be considerate of one another's needs, before taking the Lord's Supper so that they don't all eat at the same time, lest one goes hungry and other gets drunk, or that you know, the end up just turning into strips, shenanigans and debauchery. That's also something Paul does address. But I think if I were to evaluate what we've just said, what you just said, the argument the scripture itself, the problem is the interpretation of this right, Peter community perspective is weak. And it just lacks contextual consistency with respect to First Corinthians 11, because if the only evil of the Christian Dean's was in failing to be considered for one another, it seems unreasonable and unmeasured consequence that many among them were weak and sick and dead. So it's more likely, of course, that just in context, body in verse 29, is for him to Christ spiritual body in the element of the bread. Now only because it is last repeat in verse 28. Like it's literally there in the verse preceding it, but because a disrespect of Christ substitution, airy sacrifice by reprobate would be indeed enough of a sacrilege deserve death. I mean, that's exactly what it was, for instance, for the two sons of Aaron. So I think the argument is very weak. And the onus is on those who subscribe to that view, to make a strong case from the scriptures, because unlike many other areas where there's room for a lot of debate here, I think Paul is being very, very clear about who should participate in the Lord's Supper.

Tony Arsenal 36:52
Yeah, yeah. I want to read this question from the Westminster larger catechism. Because I think this kind of sums up the main answer to this question. And it's question 177. And it says, wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper differ? And the answer is the sacraments of baptism. And the Lord's Supper differ in that baptism is to be administered, but once with water to be assigned and CEO of our regeneration, and in grafting into Christ, and that even to infants, whereas the Lord separate is to be administered often in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him. And that only two such as are of yours and ability to examine themselves. And here's where it's important is, the difference between the two sacraments, at least in part has to do with what they signify. So baptism signifies the initiation to the covenant, whereas the Lord's Supper here signifies, quote, Christ as spiritual meant to the soul. And so when we are, we are taking the Lord's Supper, where signifying that Christ is a spiritual nourishment to our soul. Now, the problem with that is that those who are not in union with Christ who have we have no reason to really think are in a vital, substantial union with Christ. He's not nourishing their souls, right? So So baptism is the sign that someone is outwardly, a part of the covenant, it signs and seals, regeneration, among other things, as a promise of those things, not necessarily as the accomplishment of those things. So baptism is a sign that points to a future reality or to a reality that is present, but it points to a regeneration. So it necessarily is applied to those who either are new in the faith or are not of the faith yet, at least from a Presbyterian model. But the fact that that the Lord's Supper signifies and is the means by which we actually feast on Christ and are nourished by him spiritually. Those who are not being nourished by him spiritually, are not the proper recipients of the sacrament. And and I think, like I said, this all this all comes down. And I don't know all of the ins and outs of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the reason they allow for Pado communion, I know that as a general assembly or as a sin, and they have allowed individual, individual churches to make a determination on this. I don't know all the reasoning behind that. But I know that there are certain influences that the CR EC has, which is Doug Wilson's denomination, it's very federal vision driven. They've made inroads into a lot of these other Presbyterian reformed nominations. And so this is kind of a hard story, a hard statement. But, you know, when we talk about the marks of the church, we talked about the the proper preaching of the word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the proper discipline of the church. And the proper discipline of the church is part of the proper administration of the sacraments. And the primary way that the church executes discipline is by properly fencing the Lord's table. And so I actually am of the opinion that if you are if you find yourself in a church that practices Pado communion, you're actually in a church that is on the cusp of being no church at all. Because it's no longer fencing that the the table properly, it's no longer properly administering and, and fencing and disciplining the table, it's actually gone into something else, where it's defined who and what the visible and invisible churches in a different way, and how you become a part of and stay a part of that visible or invisible church, it's totally redefined those realities. And so I would actually say that if you find yourself in a church that practices Pado communion, you probably should begin to look for a new church.

Jesse Schwamb 41:14
Outside of Christ Himself, there's almost no other thing which categorically divine defines the church and what you've just set forth there. So this is a very serious matter. And let me read something that kind of hopefully close this out with respect to this question, because we're looking for another good resource, maybe even using discussion with some of your elders, one of the best I can point to in terms of just summarizing what we've said, in language that's far better than the ones which we've actually used. And probably we should have just read this instead of talked is Calvin's Institute's because he speaks about this at length. And this is somewhat like the passage, but I think it's worth reading. And he's gonna start by referring to the distinction. He's talking about the distinction, Tony, that you just mentioned, between Pedro baptism and Pedro communion, but here's what he says. The distinction is very clearly shown in Scripture for the respective baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age, but he does not similarly hold forth the supper for all the partake of, but only for those who are capable of discerning the body in the blood of the Lord of examining their own conscience of proclaiming the Lord's death, and if considering its power. Do we wish anything plainer than the apostles teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself than to eat of this bread and drink of this cup? A self examination ought therefore to come first. And it is vain to expect this of infants. Again. He who eats unworldly, eats and drinks condemnation for himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness of Christ body were able to participate worldly. Why should we offer poison instead of life giving food to our tender children? What is it that command of the Lord, Do this in remembrance of me? What is that other command which the apostle derives from it? as often as you eat this bread? You will proclaim the Lord's death until he comes? What remembrance of this thing I asked, shall we require of infants when they have never grasped it? What preaching of the cross of Christ the force and benefit of which their minds have yet net comprehended? None of these things is prescribed in baptism according there's a very great difference between these two signs. As we have noted in like signs also under the Old Testament, circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism had been appointed for infants but the Passover, the place of which has been taken by the supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning. If these men had a particular of sound brain left or particle rather sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious? Wow,

Tony Arsenal 43:49
yeah. Nothing, nothing like Calvin and just put a question arrest.

Jesse Schwamb 43:54
Boom, definitive answer from Calvin, you got another one in you? Are you ready for one more?

Unknown Speaker 44:01
Let's do it. Hi, there. My name is Luke and I'm from Michigan. I was just listening to your podcasts on plagiarism. Really fantastic discussion going on? I didn't have a question though. You were talking about the Age of Innocence in children. And I know that I've heard john MacArthur on more than one occasion. point out the passage in Jeremiah 19, which is talking about the guilt of the people who have profaned the temple and profane the worship of God. And then he points out that these people have forsaken me have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods who they neither for their fathers and their kings of Judah have known. And because they have filled this place with the blood of innocence, and had built the high places and bail to turn their sons in fire as burnt offerings to bail. So it's a reference. He's saying to one child sacrifice to infant sacrifice. And his points, MacArthur's point is that God speaking to Jeremiah calls the innocence, innocence, the innocence, you have any comments on that as far as how it relates to pledging isms to my plagiarism? how it relates to this concept of an Age of Innocence? Is there more that he's reading into the passage than is really there? Or is there any validity or is there any anything to be said positively of MacArthur's interpretation of that. Thank you very much.

Jesse Schwamb 45:41
Another great question, again, in the same vein of understanding children and the family of God, and this is on the heels, as Luke said, of our conversation about plagiarism and somebody's pledging ism, which I think has been a reoccurring theme. Who knows what episode that was, we talked about that all the time. So his question basically, is that john MacArthur sometimes references Jeremiah 19, specifically, verses four and five, to at least make the statement that speaking through Jeremiah, God is referring to infants as innocent. And what's interesting about Luke's question in particular is first I think it's a bit about how do we evaluate MacArthur's argument? And does it propagate some kind of Age of Innocence? Yeah. And then even beyond that, does this affirm collegian or semi collegiate theology? Not that MacArthur is affirming that, but could somebody perhaps, use that kind of argumentation? And you know, my initial thought when I heard this question is, Wow, this is great. It's something we definitely could talk about. It seemed complex, and at the same time, I know how you feel about it, it seems like the answer was right in front of us and very straightforward in the sense that when we hear something like this, when we see a particular verse taken out, for us to understand and try to comprehend, the first thing we really should do in a question with a question like this is understand, I think, what the scripture says this entirety about this particular subject. Yeah. And the first thing that comes to my mind, because I think the scripture makes it very plain is that the Bible conveys a super sinister reality when it comes to kids. And maybe we're not parents, either you or I, together, you and I, separately in our families, I want to make that clear. That the reality The Bible says that the children may be unknowing and naive, but they've never been innocent, right? So just like ourselves, they're guilty and depraved, I think of what Robert Murray Mick Shay once wrote about how the seed of every known sin is planted in our hearts. So the truth even at the outset, I think of this question, the truth for me is, is not really that if things work out badly for children, like they may drift spiritually, morally, the drive to do so is already embedded in all of our hearts. And all that's required for that tragic harvest is that we just allow ourselves to give expression to our hearts desires. So I love what Lewis Berkoff said about children and total depravity. He says, inherent corruption extends to every part of nature, to all the faculties and powers of both soul and body, and that there is no spiritual good in the center at all, but only perversion. So that I think we have to start from this perspective that we know clearly that the Bible says that total, the total depravity of children is a faith doctrine. It's a biblical insight. So for me, that starts us off on this path that what those verses could be saying, is not exactly what they're being taken to me, at least as MacArthur is expressing it through Luke's question.

Tony Arsenal 48:32
Yeah, I mean, on one level, how do I say this? There's not really a way to say this generally, this is just a really stupid argument, like, this is just a dumb like this is this is one of those arguments that is made. And I have a tremendous amount of respect for MacArthur as a biblical do. For the most part, everything he says is solid. He's a faithful sponsor. But honestly, like this argument, and I've never heard MacArthur make this argument himself directly. So I'm extrapolating a little bit. But this is an argument that just to me smacks of just reaching for something in the scripture that tangentially affirms what you've already said. So I'm just going to read the passage here. Have you heard MacArthur make this argument directly?

Jesse Schwamb 49:22
So I haven't either. And so I appreciate that Luke has brought this up. And he had mentioned that he's heard it a couple of different times. And maybe MacArthur is making more of a statement about Asia majority or just re emphasizing that what's happening here so grievous to God, because we're talking about children not that are innocent, but don't deserve the kind of punishment that might be befitting of a criminal who is getting executed. But either way, I think it's I haven't really heard it explicitly. I think it's best like you said, to read the passage of scripture there, somebody kind of hear the context and which is coming out. Yeah.

Tony Arsenal 49:54
So let me read it. And then I'll explain what I assumed to be MacArthur's argument. And if I'm wrong, and I'm misrepresenting it, or I can't be misrepresenting it, cuz I'm totally guessing. But we'll see how I do. It says here starting in verse four, because the people have forsaken Me and profane this place by making offerings in it to other gods who neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known. And because they have filled this place with the blood of innocence, and have built high places of bail, to burn their sons in the fire, as burnt offerings to bail, which I did not command or decree in order to come to my mind. So I'm assuming that the argument he's making is that those who are being sacrificed are infants, and God calls them innocent here. There's probably more to the argument, but I think that's probably the basic argument he makes. And the scripture all over the place uses this language of relative innocence or relative blameless, NIS all over the place and nowhere else Exactly. Right. MacArthur's not going to look at job, the beginning of job and say, Job was a sinless man. Right? He's not going to look at it and say, because the scripture says he was upright, the scripture says he was upright like no one else was, and blameless. He's not going to look at that and say, therefore, Job was innocent. Therefore, Job did not have personal sin and was not personally worthy of condemnation. He's just not going to say that. So this whole idea that like because the scripture calls an infant innocent in this passage, that that means that somehow they're innocent, in terms of personal sin. It just doesn't square up with the rest of the Scripture, you have to have a faulty hermeneutics, where you interpret the same kind of data in different ways. And, you know, in the semi Palladian ism, or the Palladian ism episode, which was in our heresy cast series, I did make some provocative statements that the way that particularly dispensation a list, dress, the idea of infants dying in infancy and justify the idea that they are not condemned. The way they do that typically is to say that they inherit the corporate guilt or the corporate corruption of Adam's sin, but they do not have any personal moral sin of their own. And so therefore, it would not be proper for God to punish them for moral sin. And so the problem is, and this makes sense from a dispensation lyst framework, right? If you deny the covenant of works, and you deny the federal headship of Adam over all humanity, in the covenant of works, then of course, a person who's not born under that same dispensation is that held to the same standard, and so that the guilt of Adam's sin is not transmitted from generation to generation the way that it is in covenant theology. Rather, his corruption is in a sort of biological hereditary sense. And so MacArthur or Todd Friel, I've heard it out of lots of other things, sensationalise will make the argument that the infants who died infancy have not committed any personal sin. Thus, God has nothing to punish them for, even though we might say in some alternative sense that they are indeed sinners who suffer from total depravity. They redefined total depravity to be simply a propensity for sin, rather than the actual guilt of Adams Original Sin, which is how both reformed Baptist and reformed Presbyterians have always understood total depravity and original sin to function.

Jesse Schwamb 53:33
That's a crazy amount of parsing, though, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, it's, it's an insane amount, because I just don't think that that's really supported biblically, I actually think that the the mere death of infants totally unwinds and destroys the play gene, and some people a gene argument. And the only reason I think they realize this too, which is why they have to go through these gymnastics to somehow emphasize that the sin that we're talking about here is some kind of like, semi corrupt, like it exists in merely like an intellectual realm, but not in like an actual reality. Right? And that's the problem. It's like they know better too, because we have to ask, How can it be, like you said that, if we're going to make the case that Adam is the federal head in cutud, some kind of sin, so to speak, or imparted some kind of sin to us, because we he was our representative, then we have to ask what how does it become embedded in human nature. And so Paul, of course, goes greatly to explain that the unity of the human race is reflected with Adam and in Adam. So sin into the world through him and then death followed, I think we often forget that like death followed sin, so all sinned and Adam, because he's the representative head, on the whole of humanity. And the proof of the pudding is seen in the way that does spread to all in reigned over all of them. That's why Paul adds, even those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, that is those who had not been recipients of the verbal revelation of God's will, we're still covered under the same trust passes and curse. So in other words, here's where I think it just destroys people. ageism, death is not the result of natural costs. So Paul may not be thinking here, like exclusively of infants, but no class a person more clearly illustrates, in my mind, the terrible consequence of the fall, then do infants who die before they even able, right capable of understanding God's command. This just shows the depth, the pervasiveness, the ubiquity of true sin, that is, like pervasive, total depravity, that children innocent children in the sense that relatively speaking, of course, that those who have not even had the chance to comprehend this could die, the reason they are dying is because they are sinners, right. So that's why I think like MacArthur is trying to parse out the details if this is a practice argument, because what he's recognizing is that there is a punishment for sin. But he only wants to take that so far. He recognizes you can't run from this biblical truth, which is chosen God because of sin.

Tony Arsenal 56:02
Right? Yeah. And, you know, just on another level, you know, sometimes people lose sight of the fact that those who are apart from Christ and and i would say even those who are united to Christ, never go a single moment without sinning, right? So sure, even if we say, even if in some hypothetical scenario, we were to say that infants were only born with their propensity to sin and the inability to, to merit positive righteousness, even if we were to take out the transmission of Adam's guilt, in addition to his corruption, that corruption results in in impotence, sending from the very moment of conception, in that even in that state of, of moral ignorance or moral unawareness, they still are failing to love the Lord their God, we their heart and soul it with all their heart and soul and mind. And so it's not as though you know, you only have to love the Lord with all your heart and soul in mind when you are old enough to articulate that. And so, you know, if, if we affirm what we do about the Constitution of humanity, whatever it means for a fertilized egg that is two cells, right that the the sperm and the egg unite, and then there's a division and there's two cells, and we have a full human being that is made in the image of God, whatever it would mean for that, two cells to not love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul and mind. Their do, they're failing to do that. And so even at that earliest possible stage of development, that baby is still not only guilty of Adam's sin, but now also has personal sin of their own. So the whole idea and this this is why I made the argument, that MacArthur's position is a species of semi Palladian ism. In that semi Palladian ism argues that human human nature is corrupted, that we need God's assistance in order to make a profession of faith, but that we're not incapable of doing spiritual good apart from God. Just we're incapable of making a saving decision or obtaining saving merit. But the element of it that is me palladium is that MacArthur and others who articulate this kind of Age of Innocence theology, although I don't think they would call it that, right. They articulate this idea that humans are born in a state where they have not inherited the actual guilt of Adam's sin, SAS, the first thing which which we deny both reformed Baptist and reformed Presbyterians would deny. But also, they deny that, that the human is actively sinning against God, at every stage of life. There's never a time in existence for a human where they do not do that. And that's where you know, this is where it comes into Christology. That's the miracle of the incarnation. That's the miracle of Christ, human nature, being sanctified initially, in its initial creation, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, the fact that the Holy Spirit immediately created the human nature of Christ, super intending it and protecting him from original sin. That's part of the miracle of the Incarnation is that even as two cells in Mary's womb, he was loving the Lord his God with all his heart and soul and mind, whereas we were never loving the Lord our God with all our heart, right? So Well, I can kind of understand the impulse for why MacArthur and others want to make this argument. It really does rest on some semi collegian models, and it rests on a dispensation of kind of theology that that covenant theology has always rejected, right? We've always said we inherit both the guilt and the corruption of Adam's first sin.

Jesse Schwamb 1:00:00
This is why I said at the top of this, that the question seems both complex and straightforward, because I think we both agree that there just is no Age of Innocence. Right? So the answer to that question, in some respects, at least from my perspective, is what just doesn't exist. So even outside of the way that this verse is being applied? There is just no such thing as a category that's nonsensical, like country music. It just doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't be together. Yeah. Apparently you like country music because you're just not. You're just nonplussed by that.

Tony Arsenal 1:00:31
No, I hate country music. Okay, great. I same page, there's no reason for you to push against your statement when it's true.

Jesse Schwamb 1:00:38
Cue the hate mail. But the other thing that's interesting about this, and this is I think, to your point, what we're trying to say here is, there's more than one on ramp to the highway of plagiarism, semi plagiarism. And I think a lot of people think the only on ramp is the order of salute is like you have x order salute us. That means your Palladian, or something Palladian, were kind of emphasizing here is the way you think about sin itself. And this idea of Age of Innocence may be putting you right on that highway without you even realizing it. There are other points of entry. And this one seems to be I think, one that often people fall into. And when we talked about plagiarism, and some people ageism, and infants at some other point, no, we said this before. My conviction is like you don't want to be here, you really don't want to be in here. And considering the Age of Innocence. I know that that's not where Luke is at. I think that this is just an unsatisfying argument, one because you're not going to find biblical parity with it. And the second is, because when you have that moment when you're suffering through a kind of a loss, that is the loss of a loved one, who is little and small, and again, relatively or comparatively innocent. The most discomforting thing which again, cannot be pulled from the Bible is for somebody to say, Well, I'm a semi believes in, and I have no category for what just happened here. Because the God that I understand in the way that I understand him, cannot save this child without the child's help or right at best, he can override it in certain circumstances. Whereas what we're saying, I think you are not our shared conviction is no God is sovereign over all things. He says, Those whom he will, and he has the power and he will execute that power for the good of his people for the glory of Christ. To save those, I think you and I both have a conviction that oftentimes, that is children. And what struck me about one of the things you said is that we're taking a very, I think, biblically extreme perspective on this and that we're not saying that babies are sinful, we're saying that from conception, we are sinful, right? From the very, very beginning, we're sinful, there is no other time. There is no Age of Innocence. There's no like, inter utero Age of Innocence, from the very start of life itself. Because we have inherited that from Adam, who was our federal head, we are always and nothing but sinful, until God who is rich in mercy comes and saves us. So it's not elevating ourselves to place deserving poor coming forward with empty hands, it's not bringing ourselves to the altar and saying, God, I accept you. That's never the case. And actually, in recognizing that that's not the case, I think we find great freedom and knowing that it is God who saves us, who holds us who takes our destiny, and is able to secure it for our good and for His glory.

Tony Arsenal 1:03:28
Yeah, yeah, the the reformed position. And I say that with every possible understanding of what it really means to be reformed. The reformed position, is that humans never exist in a state of senselessness. Period, full stop, right? Whatever it means for a human to exist in, in a post fall world, that is a sinful state. So the Age of Innocence is zero, right? So we just have to get that straight. And I know that that's a hard, a hard pill to swallow, right? It's not pleasant to think about the fact that babies in the womb are sinning against the Lord, right? That's not a pleasant thing. It's not pleasant to talk about the fact that a one year old and a 15 year old, both deserve to be punished by God for all eternity, right? That's not pleasant. But that's reality. That's what it is. And we as reform Christians believe that's what the Bible teaches. And so we have to follow the Bible where it goes, we don't have the liberty to just sort of say, Well, you know, total depravity and everything and original sin and everything. Except for babies, right, except for babies, babies who die in infancy, though they don't have Original Sin. We just don't have the liberty to say that. And like I said, I I haven't read MacArthur directly on this. But just glancing through what I can find on the internet, I'm seeing lots of people making similar arguments with this passage that, that God refers to the infant as innocent here, therefore, they must not have mortal sin on their hands. That's just a stretch argument. It's a reach trying to justify a position you already hold. Its its theology by lexicon. And that's just not how we do theology and just isn't.

Jesse Schwamb 1:05:28
Right. There's just, I think, not any room with respect to what God's word says about sinfulness. And I think what happens with arguments like this is we tried to import some of what we believe is just tolerance, good hearted human nature with especially with respect to kids, because who doesn't look at a child and just being with it, like the excitement of a little one, or reflecting the fact that here's a young life that is yet in some ways like unsoiled by expectation, or by, you know, perversion of experience, or by the Commission of additionally, of bad behavior. And yet, what's funny is, again, though, I do not have kids, all my good friends who have young children are so quick to tell me that like from a very early age, like as soon as like even any personality is evident, they are clear that they are sinful beings, because they find a way to be manipulative. And of course, that doesn't deter them from loving them. Right? It's just a statement of fact of nature. Nobody needs to teach them from a young age, they can be manipulative, and how they cry, or wine, or the noises they make or all these things become very plain, I think to most parents in from a very early age. So when Paul says, All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that is without equivocation, because he was a smart dude, right? He was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If there were going to be caveats to that, shortly, that would have been the moment for God to say, let me give you the exclusion list real quick. So you don't get this twisted. Yeah. So it's just a really profound and deep truth. But I think that should leave us lead us and leave us in this space of profound duck psychology for praising a God who understands us. And from the beginning, when we were simple, while we were yet his enemies, he sent Christ to die for us. Yeah. And so in that death, we receive the kind of regeneration that we could never earn, never manufacture on ourselves, because we were lost to begin with. So I actually take a strange amount of wonderful comfort from questions like this. Because what Trevor and Luca post I think, are the things that the body of Christ should be wrestling with, I'm going to be talking about, because this makes the biggest difference. And because there's two things in life, in my opinion that people get fired up about and often have the least control of and that is money and their children. Yeah. So we really need to be practical about how theology instructs us through right thinking into right living, especially when it comes to kids.

Tony Arsenal 1:07:52
Yeah, one last thought. And then we can wrap up, you know, you quoted Romans five, eight there, that God demonstrates His love for us that while we were we're still sinners, Christ died for us, right? Right. Or the scripture says that we were enemies of God, and Christ died for us anyways. Yes. And the fact is that if you believe that your child is saved, that they're saved by Christ by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, then you believe that, well, they were still sinners, while they were enemies of God, Christ died for them. So you can't hold that they were not enemies of God, because they were innocent, but also Christ died for them at the same time. And, and that's just, that's what it is. And like I said, it's not pleasant. It's not a happy thought. But what is a happy thought is that we serve a good God who sent us a good Savior, who saved not only those who could make in our profession of faith, but also all those whom he would give a secret internal faith to, and regenerate them and save them even in their infancy. So we can trust and have confidence that God is good, and that he's done the right thing. And that even though we may not understand what it means for God to have regenerated a young child or an infant or a baby who has yet to leave his his or her mother's womb, we may not understand what it means for that person to have been regenerated and granted faith by the Holy Spirit, we still understand that it is so and that God saves those whom he chose and regenerates.

Jesse Schwamb 1:09:25
There's always going to be questions in theology, and that's part of the reason why you and I get together and have these wonderful conversations is there's always things to ask. And sometimes, you know, like, when you really dive into something in a theological frame of mind, you find that by answering one question, there's like five more behind it. Yeah. And this can be one of those places, with super comforting, though, is every theological perspective has its own questions that must grapple with, but in the reformed tradition, what you described, there's no question there. And that's a beautiful thing. I think we have questions that we need to answer the things that are mysterious, but in this idea of like, well, how can God save us, baby? We have a very clear answer. That is from the scriptures. Yeah. And I think that at the end of the day in the final analysis isn't absolutely glorious thing.

Tony Arsenal 1:10:09
Yeah. Praise God. Jessie, this has been another I think, successful question cast.

Jesse Schwamb 1:10:16
Would you go as far to use the word definitive with respect to this, at least

Tony Arsenal 1:10:21
until the next time we do question cast? Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:23
I think

Jesse Schwamb 1:10:25
I just like to throw that out there. Now. That's my tradition, because I sense that, like, you're a little uncomfortable with me calling everything we do definitive. Now, I just love to throw it out.

Tony Arsenal 1:10:33
Yeah, it makes me feel a little awkward.

Jesse Schwamb 1:10:36
So let's go with this before we close was remind people, how can they leave voicemails like Trevor and Luke Leyva left us? What can they do to make that happen,

Tony Arsenal 1:10:44
you can call six to 74442767. And leave us a voicemail. If you live somewhere where you cannot call that phone number, you can record an audio file and email it to info at reformed brotherhood. com. You can also send us an email at info at reformed brotherhood calm, although, disclaimer, or disclosure, rather, we do give privilege to those who have left us audio format questions of some sort.

Jesse Schwamb 1:11:13
So get your voice in there. Thanks to those Fine Brothers for leading those questions. I think they're very honest, very thoughtful, very helpful. And I really thought that when you said if you can't call the number, I thought you were going to invite people to come find us. I thought you're about to give out some addresses. And I was like, Oh,

Unknown Speaker 1:11:29
well, yeah, don't do that. No, no.

Tony Arsenal 1:11:33
There's a lot of Tony, I don't want my address float around the internet. Although it probably wouldn't be terribly difficult to find me now that I think about it.

Jesse Schwamb 1:11:42
You're famous.

Tony Arsenal 1:11:43
Yeah. I don't know if I'm famous. But there's a lot of info about me on the internet. So does that make me famous if there's a lot of it a lot of information out there about me?

Jesse Schwamb 1:11:53
Yeah, that's true. Okay. I'll take abided by information about you on the internet all the time.

Tony Arsenal 1:11:58
Yeah. You know, speaking of information on the internet, and that you have you been pound email. I got an email from Google the other day that said, somebody tried to log into my account from Nigeria, so I had to go check. passwords. Yeah. No, that wasn't me. So I've been Poland apparently.

Jesse Schwamb 1:12:18
Apparently, so Well, hopefully, it's just because they're listening to the podcast and had a question for

Unknown Speaker 1:12:22
you go.

Tony Arsenal 1:12:23
Alrighty, Jesse, why don't you take us home?

Jesse Schwamb 1:12:26
All right. This has been great. Thanks, Tony for tackling some questions with me. I always enjoy these casts. And next week, we'll be back at it with the book of Micah. Nice, I thought maybe you're gonna have some excitement there. It's gonna be great despite the lack of excitement we just showed right there. So until then, until next time, honor everyone.

Tony Arsenal 1:12:47
Love the Brotherhood.