Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tony and Jesse discuss the Westminster Directory as they continue through Reformed Preaching by Joel Beeke.

Jesse Schwamb 0:09
Welcome to Episode 162 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.

Tony Arsenal 0:16
And I'm Tony and we are your podcasting brothers from another mother.

Hey, brother.

Jesse Schwamb 0:33
Hey, brother, can I just say how much I love that brand new open?

Tony Arsenal 0:38
You know, the struggle is real Jesse, because our listeners don't realize it. But we just spent about 25 minutes trying to figure out what to say instead of introducing ourselves as part of the Society of Reformed Podcasters, which is no longer a thing.

Jesse Schwamb 0:53
It's been the most preparation, the most meeting time we've spent for our podcast in a very long time.

Tony Arsenal 0:59
Yes. That's probably I think that's probably true. Maybe like cumulatively, in the course of our entire podcasting career, we spent less preparation time than just now.

Jesse Schwamb 1:10
And here's what makes that opening. So good and on point is that when I look through some of the comments, I love when people write comments good or bad about the podcast, some of them do presume, I think, because we're very much alike. Our voices are a little bit similar. Our mannerisms and speaking are somewhat in line that we're actually blood brothers. So there are a couple of us are like the Arsenal brothers are on this podcast.

Tony Arsenal 1:34
Yeah.

Jesse Schwamb 1:35
So just to reiterate, in case anybody's wondering, we're not actually we're brothers in Christ. Of course, we're not actual brothers, but we are brothers in law. So we're in terms of like, the only thing we're actually missing in this life would be the actual blood brother thing, but yeah, even that you're my brother in law that would make things like super creepy, so

Tony Arsenal 1:54
it would be really weird. It would be straight

Jesse Schwamb 1:56
that one on the out.

Tony Arsenal 1:57
Yeah, let's not let's just drop that. line of reasoning.

Jesse Schwamb 2:01
Yes. Good call.

Tony Arsenal 2:03
Jesse. Why don't we added some affirmations and denials? Oh, please, let's do it. What are you affirming today?

Jesse Schwamb 2:10
I feel like I've got a reputation on this podcast and some of that reputation revolves around music. So I'm going back to music because once again, so much good music coming out in 2019. And so this week, I am affirming a brand new album from a band called Norma Jean. They are a metal core band from Douglasville, Georgia. So be prepared for getting your face rocked off, but they have a new album called All hail and it is absolutely exceptional. That thing about this band to that I think it's just like really interesting is they started in 1997. So talking about something that's 23 years old, this metal core but also none of their original members are in it. So one of those experiences where the people kind of come and gone so where it was all those years ago is not anything like it is today and yet they produced amazing music. I think they're up to like seven or eight albums. They're actually nominated for Grammy Award in 2006. So that's like legit music legit Christian music. It's not no no like sub genre here. These are really, really amazing artists. And, incidentally, do you know where Norma Jean comes from that name? Do you know that name?

Tony Arsenal 3:20
I do not. I mean, it sounds familiar, but I couldn't place it.

Jesse Schwamb 3:23
It's the real name of the actress Marilyn Monroe.

Tony Arsenal 3:26
Oh, yeah, that's right. I did. Yeah. So

Jesse Schwamb 3:27
apparently, that's where they grabbed it from just because they thought that it sounded really interesting. But when they I guess it's like, in hindsight, when they actually looked up there is just like many bands like you come up with an awesome name. Like, all the time, I end up with random names in my head or somebody says something. I think band name stole that. Yeah, like, that's what I want. I think the same thing happened to them here. And then they looked up the actual meanings of the name and Norma does mean pattern. And Jean Jean can mean God's grace and mercy. So they ended up with a name that's like patterns of grace and mercy. Even though they were just like, what was Marilyn Monroe's real name normally done?

Unknown Speaker 4:05
Yeah.

Tony Arsenal 4:06
Yeah, you know, I think that if people saw you walking on the street, the last thing they would probably think was I bet that guy listen some like metal core.

Jesse Schwamb 4:17
It's just so good. It's just, it's just so good. I know that it's like, if you're not into it, if it's not your jam, it can sound harsh and something that's difficult that listen to my challenge would be this. Like, I really would love people, even if they're not into it to pull up some of this music and just really suffer through it if you can give it a listen because interesting, about like metal core music, is it's very symphonic in the way that it has multiple movements. And there's like a complexity to the composition. There's something very deliberate and methodical about these songs. And part of that comes from the fact that by nature, it's less melodic with the vocal line. So you're not going to hear as much quote unquote, singing although there is a lot of singing This album. And so because of that, to make it interesting and appealing to the ear, there's a lot of intense composition that goes on behind the scenes. So it's not just like banging, it sometimes gets a bum rap for like banging and yelling and screaming and just like just a wall of sound and noise. It's definitely not that but I can understand how on the face, if you just turn it on, it might sound like that. But if you get a little Listen, you'll I think you'll hear some interesting things you'll notice at least hopefully appreciate. It was a lot of complexity in this style of music.

Tony Arsenal 5:27
The other thing I was thinking is this band is like that philosophy exercise where it's like, the guy has a boat, and then he is like, replace parts. And over time he's replaced every part of the boat. And then you have to ask, Is it still the same boat or is it a different boat?

Jesse Schwamb 5:43
Yes.

Tony Arsenal 5:44
So is it still the same band or is that a different band?

Jesse Schwamb 5:47
I don't, I wouldn't call it the same band it just because of the evolution in their music and the change it's undergone but they also should say when they started out in 1997 and I listened to them then that makes me feel kind of old. The name of their band was ludicrous, like LUTI dash CRI. Totally different band. So it's it but same style of music, but like I actually like Norma Jean is a much better name. Yeah, definitely. That's improvement. So how about you? What do you have for me?

Tony Arsenal 6:17
I am affirming a new book that I just got called systematic theology. And it is written by Robert letham. So Robert letham is one of those reformed theologians that kind of isn't someone that most people know about or have heard of. He's a professor at Union seminary, and he tends to be a little more analytical than some of the people that we typically recommend. But he's really, really phenomenal. He does some really good work on the Trinity. And he's got kind of this sort of dry wit that comes through in his writing that usually you don't see in the systematic theology. So it's published by cross way. It's kind of a beast. It's probably like if you pick up an ESP Study Bible, that's about the size that you're, you're talking about, like a hardcover ESP Study Bible. And it's just really phenomenal. He's got, he's got endorsements from Joel Viki Sinclair Ferguson, karl truman, Cornelius venomous, Alan strange. There's a whole other lists on the front cover. I'm only through the introduction, which is kind of taking the place was probably gonna, but so far, it's really good. And I've talked to a few people who've made a little bit further into it that have affirmed with me that it is just an excellent piece of theological writing.

Jesse Schwamb 7:35
So we've recommended a couple of different tomes with respect to systematic theology, like one of the ones we often talk about, is the one by Michael Horton that told us theology. So put this one on the spectrum, like where does it sit in comparison to some of the other ones we've talked about?

Tony Arsenal 7:49
So it's a single volume, systematic theology. It's probably similar to Michael Hortons Christian faith, which is sort of the full version of pilgrim theology program theology isn't a bridge Of that, in terms of like technical difficulty, it's probably about the same level. So it'd be something I would expect to see used in like a first year systematic theology course at seminary, or pilgrim theology really is more like an undergraduate intro to seminary, or intro to theology kind of a book, but it's not quite as in depth as something like a like a multivolume, really any multivolume systematic theology is going to be more in depth than this, but it's a good addition to anyone's library in terms of sort of like your average adult reform Christian reader. So far, I haven't encountered anything that would be overly technical or overly difficult to approach, although he is a pretty technical theologian, so there I may run into that more as I get into it, but so far, it's been a very just kind of good, easy read that's been pretty good and technical, but not overly difficult.

Jesse Schwamb 8:53
I've heard about this, haven't read it yet, but looking forward to getting a look at it, maybe stealing your copy for a couple minutes, and just leaving through it because I think what people need to remember is even if you're thinking yourself, man, I would never like pick up a systematic text, and just crush that thing. That's not often the purpose it is written for it's written by us as well as a resource. So if you're any kind of church leader, or aspiring church leader, this is the kind of great thing to just kind of get on your shelf. So as you're going through stuff, as you're studying, as you're trying to teach, as you're really just trying to understand the scriptures better to lead and Shepherd people, or just to increase the depth of your faith. This is the kind of thing where if somebody asks a question or something comes up or you read something online or hear us talking about something, grab that bad boy and take a look at the section that's relevant. That has some really heavy hitters, basically firming it along with you. I mean, Sinclair Ferguson. That dude just wrote two books while you were giving that affirmation. No.

Tony Arsenal 9:46
I know. So here's a little sample from the table of contents. He he arranges it a little differently than most systematic theologies that you're going to read. Most reformed Protestant systematics are going to start with Scripture, which is a fine place to start, but if you go back to our systematic theology series we did kind of in the early days of the show, we started with theology proper. And I made the argument that, you know, you can start in either place. But if you're going to talk about what the Word of God is, you really need to start with who God is. And he kind of makes the same argument. So he starts out with the try and God, he moves on to divine attributes. He goes on to scripture after that, and then he moves on to the works of God, which kind of unfolds everything else. So it's really good. He arranges it in a slightly different way. He talks about instead of talking about auto salute this, he covers the same ground, but he talks about the beginning of Christian life and then the progress in Christian life. So he's framing it more in terms of the way that it's applied to us in more concrete terms and sometimes discussions with the artist superstar, and something that's really I think, I don't want to say unique because I actually think Calvin does this in the institute's but he talks about self In the context of Ecclesiastes, so that's common in reform or in Catholic Roman Catholic theology and Anglican theology. Although salvation tends to just sort of be a footnote to the church, he really seems to want to like wed those two together and what I think is a really thorough going reformed way rather than some of the other kinds of things that that sort of us salvation and includes the ology is really separate. He treats those things as sort of two sides of the same coin. At least that's what his introduction says he intends to do. I obviously haven't gotten that far. So I'm super excited about it systematic theology by Robert letham. It's available by cross way. It's not super cheap, but it's it's definitely worth the money to add to your library.

Unknown Speaker 11:42
That's great.

Tony Arsenal 11:44
Yeah, what are you denying Jesse?

Jesse Schwamb 11:49
I feel like your your response wasn't nearly as exciting. Like, yeah, it is just kind of like Yeah, I just told you that. Yeah, I

Tony Arsenal 11:55
was trying to take a drink of my beer and then you started talking to me again. Oh,

Unknown Speaker 11:58
sorry. So I bad It's all good.

Jesse Schwamb 12:01
Let me launch straight into my denial, which this denial is actually a denial wrapped in affirmation. So if you think of like this soft kind of affirmation outside in this hard, resistant denial inside, anybody who's listening to us talk for any length of time knows that often what comes out for me is these theological pet peeves that I have, for example, when administering the communion or the Lord's Supper, saying, This is my body broken for you, pet peeve, I just that gets under my skin and does we've talked about that before. So I won't go into it now because I was just about to launch into it. One of the things what I'm denying against right now is a verse that is always kind of somewhere lurking in the background of Armenian argumentation, but now I'm just seeing it everywhere in evangelicalism. And it's one of those places where it's just it's a verse taken out of context. And I'm denying writ large that we all do this and we all just need to get a little bit Better. And when we see a verse and our initial responses, that is beautiful. I love the words there that we need to say immediately. Let me go read that in the whole context of the passage. So I really understand what is being said. So the specific manifestation of this that I'm denying against is Second Peter three, nine, okay? You know, I'm I'm going on this, right?

Tony Arsenal 13:20
I don't. I mean, I'm sure that I could figure it out. But why don't you tell me?

Jesse Schwamb 13:25
So here's the thing. So Peter is writing to the church in his book. And in Second Peter three, nine is the verse that says, it is not God's will that any should be lost or that should be saved. And so this is one of those things where it's, it's just out of context, because we have in this passage at the beginning at the very top of the chapter, but then in verse eight itself as well, Peter's talking to this beloved, this group. So the pronoun here is this group of people, which is the church, the ones who we specifically addressing and of course, he's writing a letter, so hit somebody in mind here and so That's the pronoun that is the group that is the noun. And so when we get to verse nine, for some reason people want to flip that and say, well, the any he's talking about here is not just this little group of people or the beloved or those elector saved, but now we need to broaden out to the entire world. So like the oldest, always on the person, taking this out of context to prove to me that that's not what happens. So here's the affirmation, though, that's wrapped around this denial. And that is, I came across the other day, a mug online. That is, to me super hilarious. Now, if you don't actually understand the joke, there is I have to reference something that I also deny and that I definitely do not condone. But in terms of like this kind of cultural Zeitgeist of a particular logo. There was an album released by an American hip hop group in the late 80s, called Straight Outta Compton. And the logo for this was kind of like this alternating black text and white background and outer was white text black background. So there's a mug that I found online. This is Second Peter three, nine, straight out of context. And for some reason I just, I just love the mug and I want to get this and bring this to like every church gathering that I have everywhere I go. So people ask what is that about? And then I can be like, Listen, are you familiar with predestination? Are you familiar with God protecting and preserving his elect? So I just love I just love the idea of this mug. So it's something that if you look it up, I'm sure you can find online so it's like a denial and affirmation affirming the mugs. I think it's super clever. I love that reference and uses like the same logo as the Straight Outta Compton. Yes, think straight out of context is a hilarious application for Second Peter three, nine on your coffee mug.

Tony Arsenal 15:49
Yeah, and just in case there's anyone listening that wants to understand exactly how to interpret this, contrary to the way that Armenians tend to distort it There's a couple things. So, verse nine, the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but his patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance. And the key to understanding this is that there's an implied pronoun or or maybe not an implied pronoun, but the the subject of the word any is the same as the subject as the word you should read it as not which is patient towards you, not wishing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should reach repentance. So So the point is, is that there's a single subject throughout the verse where the Armenian interpretation as you rightly pointed out, you have to switch the subject or switch using view with this. So it Peter would be saying, God is patient toward you. And then somehow the purpose of him being patient toward you, is that everyone else might be saved. Which I guess you could make that argument that you could have a theological point there, if that's what the text said, but there's no good reason to assume there's a different subject in view. The other thing is just in general, the whole book is written to the elect exiles. So it's already the elect are already in view throughout the whole letter. So you really do have to kind of understand and, and we've said this like a million times on this show, sometimes all you have to do is just read a little bit more of the chapter or the book in order to get the context and it makes it all really clear because if you read just not wishing that any is any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. And you read that like, Yeah, well, all should reach repentance. He's talking about all meaning all without exception, where what he's really saying isn't that at all he's saying it's the people he's speaking to the ones he's patient toward the purpose of his patients. And the reason he hasn't returned yet, is because He doesn't want any of his elect to perish prior to coming to repentance, which is a very strong affirmation of God's destination election, so much so that the very timing of his return is delayed because of the fact that he's chosen some for salvation, that have not yet come to salvation in terms of historic in history or temporal time. So it really is saying exactly the opposite of what the Armenians wanted to say.

Jesse Schwamb 18:29
And you can see how I know that sounds complicated, but really all you've done in many ways, is just gone in and read it thoroughly, all the way through that passage and kept in mind, what was the whole purpose and the audience that it was intended for? That's all it takes. Sometimes it doesn't take like advanced degree in linguistics, to be able to really appreciate to understand why versus being used and what it's saying. Sometimes it just takes a little bit more work and a little bit more thoughtfulness, I think, right for Christians that wants to be fair minded, or reasonable people that should be driven to their Bible Anytime we hear a verse that's being used regularly to support some kind of doctrine or argument, that shouldn't be the kind of verse in particular, that's a lightning rod for us that says, Let me go back into the scriptures, I want to read for myself, and see what this means in light of the passage in which it appears. And so I think that's just what's tremendously important. And in this case, I think all it takes is just a little bit of understanding like, okay, what's really going on here? What is pure trying to say, and the way you explained it, which is really beautiful. And I think actually very articulate. You can see that there's a beautiful continuity and consistency with the logic. And that what's being said there. When you approach this from the other way around. There's still this even cognitively like a dissonance because at one point we're saying, even if we can get past the language and say they're not flipping the pronouns, they're at one point we're saying what week so God doesn't want anybody who's wills for not one to perish, but clearly people do perish in their sins. Right? So then we have to do more linguistics trying to figure out what is Peter trying to say here? So that I can try to bring together this idea that somehow God is either you know, he's he doesn't he has a secret will he doesn't want this to happen, but he can't help it. This is where we get into trouble, like all because we didn't just read it and let the scripture plainly speak, as God has intended.

Tony Arsenal 20:15
Yeah, the other thing to keep in mind is there's actually a textual variant. If you read if you read Greek, the word for you, second person, plural, and the word for us second, first person plural, is just a difference of a letter. And there's actually some textual variants that have the Lord is patient toward us. So either way, it's either Peter is talking to a group of people whom he considers to be elect, that the Lord is patient toward, or Peter is actually including himself in that group, and say, Lord is patient toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance, but either either way you slowly sits, there's no justified reason to switch that. Switch that that subject. And then on top of what you just said, or with what you just said, that there are really, really bad theological implications about God not actually being sovereign and omnipotent. If you read this the way the Armenians do, and if there's anything in Scripture that is sure is that God is sovereign, omnipotent. And so to have have this verse here, you always want to interpret the unclear verses, which I don't think this is particularly unclear. But even if it was, you don't want to interpret the unclear verses. You don't want to use them to interpret the clear verses. So the fact that God is omnipotent, is a clear teaching throughout the whole corpus of Scripture. That should inform us in how we interpret this here.

Jesse Schwamb 21:45
Straight at a context. Yeah, this wasn't this isn't even the subject of tonight's conversation that was free of charge. That's just do YO right there.

Tony Arsenal 21:55
Yeah, unless you're one of our Patreon supporters, then, I suppose you paid a nominal fee. for it, but,

Jesse Schwamb 22:01
and we thank you very much. And

Tony Arsenal 22:02
we do thank you for your donation almost said for your service.

Jesse Schwamb 22:05
So go ahead and hit me with your denial.

Tony Arsenal 22:08
My denial, right this is I might be calling down a little bit of fire on us from some online forces. I am denying no quarter November. Have you heard of this? No. So anyone who's listened to the show knows that I'm not a fan of Doug Wilson. I can safely say now as of recently that Doug Wilson is not a fan of me, which is fine. But no quarter November is this thing that Doug Wilson does in November. We're basically he's even more of a caustic figure who says inappropriate things or even says appropriate things in an in inappropriate ways than ordinary. So he calls it piratical theology. So basically, he conceives of November as a month where there's no No more restraints that he's not going to hold back. And then he's going to do theology like a pirate, which I don't really know exactly what he means by that what. But basically, apparently what we get from Doug Wilson for most of the year is some sort of form of restraint, which is terrifying. And no quarter November is when he no longer exercises the same restraint that he usually does. So I'm denying it primarily because one of the qualifications of elder is that they're not pugnacious, or they're not right, awesome. They're not seeking a fight. And it seems like Doug Wilson rebels in this month of November to even more than ordinary which is not particularly restraint, or narrowly but even more than ordinarily, he revels in picking fights and saying overly controversial things. One of his no quarter November quotes with something like where in the world did we get this idea that sexism was opposed to the Bible? Something a lot Those lines. And his basic point is basic point is that the Bible is a is a complementarity and document. And so we should be quote unquote sexist and that there should be distinctions and divisions and in some ways there should be what's the word I'm looking for? It doesn't matter that there should be this division in distinction between the genders between the sexes. And and he's using the word sexist to describe this. But here's here's what drives me nuts is the statement that he's making, or at least on a surface level, what he's trying to say is actually true, that there are distinctions and that the distinctions that the Bible teaches our culture considered sexist, right? The problem is that he's just straight up. This is like what we talked about before when you told that guy to like stop listening to his pastor. He says these things which may have a kernel of truth in them, but he says them in ways that are just reckless and Pastore Lee irresponsible So he's telling a bunch of guys, mostly guys who are already geared up for a fight, that they should act like pirates, that they should be even more aggressive and hostile than usual, and that they should embrace and engage in sexism that is just just vile and irresponsible. So I'm denying Doug Wilson, but I'm denying no quarter November, because it's it's an excuse for Doug Wilson and those who really follow after him to act even more ungodly than they usually do. And it just drives me nuts to see it online.

Jesse Schwamb 25:31
Yes, so it's crazy to think that the rest of the year we're getting like DW light. Yeah, I wouldn't have necessarily guessed that and it's funny. Here's a dude that is taking a decent point and obfuscating it by using purposely inflammatory language,

Tony Arsenal 25:47
right. Yeah, I know. It's terrible.

Jesse Schwamb 25:50
Yeah. So you want to say like, well, if you're really trying to be even just a good communicator in any realm of life or subject matter, like that's a horrible way to do it. That's just bad on any terms. So I'm with you. I want to deny you said it was no quarter November.

Tony Arsenal 26:04
No quarter November.

Jesse Schwamb 26:05
I wanted to know that just because the name is stupid, but

Tony Arsenal 26:10
but I've never loved you more than I do right now.

Jesse Schwamb 26:12
It's a pretty good band name. So I would take that as a band name. It's true. It's true.

Tony Arsenal 26:18
Yeah, I've had a lot of inappropriate restatements of no quarter November that I probably should not have said that. I will save for some time off the air. There's been a lot of mockery of the concepts that I've engaged in that. Yeah, I think it's a concept worth walking. I mean, if Eliza can if Elijah can be like maybe your Gods sitting on the toilet, maybe he fell asleep. Maybe he's relieving himself, that a little bit of like jabbing at someone who thinks it's okay to be a pirate in the month of November. I don't even know what piratical theology is. I will say this though. He's got pretty cool videos. The intro to this month was like him walking around in a Feel dumping out I'm sure it was water I'm sure they added the flames afterwards. But he was like walking around in a field smoking a cigar dumping out like a bucket of gasoline on the ground. And then at the end of it he sat down in this like he sat down in this Lazy Boy and like threw his cigar on the ground and it like burst into flames it like made this pattern that was like a Jolly Roger on the on the field. And they did like an overhead zoom and it was so clearly computer animated. And the flames were very clearly computer enemy. So it was a cool concept. But yeah, it sucks because he's got cool videos and you know, people will be surprised that me saying this. He does have very insightful things to say sometimes. I just don't think that the the fact that he once in a while or even frequently says insightful things justifies overlooking all the ungodly behavior that he demonstrates. So it's kind of like yeah, it's it would be great if we could get some of those insights from him without the rest of it, but I'm not willing to let I overlook the bad behavior because once in a while he says something in a particularly pithy or insightful way.

Jesse Schwamb 28:06
I'll tell you why that video was so cool. It's because he wants to be in a band

Tony Arsenal 28:11
called no car, no

Jesse Schwamb 28:12
car November, and that would have been their music video.

Tony Arsenal 28:15
It's true, it would have been it is a cool video. I would say go look at it, but I don't really want to drive any more traffic to the site, but it was a cool video. It's a cool concept.

Jesse Schwamb 28:24
I'm telling you that is a metal core video right there. That's hardcore band video right there that Yeah, is it right on the theme? Also, just so you know, where my mind was at when you said if you ever heard of no quarter November, I'm lumping this up together with like, No Shave November stuff like right, so I'm thinking it's a movement of people to stop using quarters for a month because the use of change. That's what I really thought is like, because there's a group there's a large group of people and I might be among them in some degree, that like one just get rid of pennies because they're annoying and actually cost more to produce and they're worth and a lot of people just recycle them anyway. So I thought like Is this something we're just moving up to quarters now? Like it is quarters out of here. I don't worry about being bothered with change anymore and so antiquated. But this is actually worse.

Tony Arsenal 29:09
It's way worse. I do think I read about a study one time where they they did a modeling of what would happen if they got rid of pennies, and it looks like broke the entire economy.

Jesse Schwamb 29:19
Oh, it wasn't like that post mill.

Tony Arsenal 29:21
No, it wasn't like that post mill. It was like that pre mill. And then credit cards became the mark of the beast. And I do hear that all the time.

Jesse Schwamb 29:31
Yeah, it's true. I do hear the old time I actually Well, speaking of really, really bad preaching, how about we juxtaposed with some really, really good preaching and some talk about it. So we're still making our way through Dr. Joel Becky's book called reform preaching and I was realizing just the other day, Tony that we are fast approaching the one year anniversary, the book club with Joe Biggs. It's

Tony Arsenal 29:55
true. It's true. We did start this about a year ago. It's I remember Because I, I tried to buy this book for my pastor for pastor Appreciation Day, they had a special where it was like, buy one, get one free. So I bought one for myself and I bought one for dad. And then I wrapped it all nice. And I gave him the open. He's like, I already have this and he just handed it back to me. And I was like, What am I going to do with this second book? And then I was like, let's do a book club.

Jesse Schwamb 30:20
So he's basically like, I don't feel appreciated. Take this back.

Tony Arsenal 30:24
Yeah, exactly. He like smack me in the face with it.

Jesse Schwamb 30:28
took an ugly turn.

Unknown Speaker 30:29
Yeah,

Tony Arsenal 30:30
that's like the 100% opposite of anything that dad would do.

Jesse Schwamb 30:35
He's very gracious man. So we're in chapter 11. And this chapter is entitled, the Westminster directory and preaching and I think this is like the perfect chapter for you to talk about because in some ways, it's a culmination of a lot of things. We've talked about intermittently across 161 conversations relating to the Westminster confessions and the Catechism so I loved reading this and getting like a little bit A bit of a flavor for how this fits in with preaching, but also how historically it has shaped the church and the message and the doctrine that the church promulgates.

Tony Arsenal 31:11
Yeah, and, you know, I was thinking the other day, I don't know if this was done on purpose, I have to think it probably was. But this book forms this really nice chasm. So you have like the verses five or six chapters that are about kind of like the theology of preaching what experiential preaching is, and then you have this whole beautiful middle section that's sort of historical figures and how they embody or exemplify historical experience of preaching. And then when you get to the end, you you get back to kind of an application portion where he starts to talk again about like, I know that we've talked about all this stuff, we've got all these levels, what do we do, and this chapter here, really fits directly in the middle of that chasm. Not just you know, in terms of concept but like, it's actually like in the middle of the Look, and I think and maybe this wasn't on purpose, but I think it probably was. This is the most important chapter in the book, I think, because all of the preaching that was explained before this is driving forward and sort of developed into Westminster style preaching as exemplified in the Westminster directly of preaching, and then all of the preaching afterwards, even though maybe not directly, all the preaching afterwards really comes about as as a result of this directory of preaching and the influence that I had, especially in the in the English speaking world,

Jesse Schwamb 32:34
right? We tend to underweight this in our modern era in modern evangelicalism because if you didn't come from a tradition, you weren't raised in one or belong to one now that is, let's say, like confessional by definition or by expression, then oftentimes we just think this doesn't apply to us. It's sort of part of just some other theological stream or train of thought, but the reality is, so much of all of modern evangelicalism is basically just drawn from the pages that are represented in this chapter here, and a lot of people have heard us talk about how much we value the confessions and the Catechism. And I do experience from time to time when I'm having discussion with somebody with a brother or sister. And I bring up one of these documents. Sometimes the pushback is, well, I want to go to the Bible, like don't give me, you know, a confession or code, give me just the scriptures. And so what I think Becky does really well, that helps to kind of, for us to understand the color in the context of what was developed here is that this assembly, the Westminster assembly, this is the group of divides that we're putting together all these documents that we are speaking of the assembly end a meeting for six years, and their Express intent in the beginning wasn't to go as deep or as far as they intended. But what happened is, he writes that at the last session in February 1649, the assembly had held more than 1000 sessions. Yeah, and in that time, they produced entirely new confession of faith, as well as the larger catechism the shorter catechism, the form Presbyterian Church government and the director for the public directory for the public worship of God. And they've also given approval to this new metrical version of the Psalms. So when people say to me, like, even I weigh myself against the standard when I think, hey, maybe I have a novel idea or interpretation here, that's different, I think, hold up a second. Is there any chance that what I'm thinking is better than the thousand sessions, where this group of diverse gentlemen sat down and weighed out and debated and meticulously articulated the main doctrines of the Scriptures? I mean, there's almost aside from the scripture itself, and again, which these documents are meant to summarize, and help to codify, in a sense, what is already represented in description that draws back to it by way of reference. Is there anything better than this as as man produced anything? That's a better summary and at least if you ask me Have I produced a better summary the answers definitely unequivocably? No,

Tony Arsenal 34:57
yeah, yeah. And you know, the Westminster is Assembly. Apart from the sessions, these thousand sessions or thousand plus sessions they're having. They're also for the most part, they're all pastors or professors. So right there also actively engaged in teaching and ministry. And on top of that, the Westminster assembly itself was also a body that was examining ministerial candidates and ordaining them to office. So, so all of this theology that they're developing in terms of the belief system, but then also this sort of practical application of how do we ordained ministers, what's the mechanics of preaching? What's the training for preaching, that's all being flushed out and applied by the Westminster assembly in time and, and I wanted to read, there's the section here on the preparation for preaching. And when I first read the heading, I thought it was mostly going to be talking about like what the minister does as they're preparing each week, like, like preparing the sermon, but really it's more about the training and the process. Separation for ministry itself, which even some of our more rigorous denominations, you know, I think of like the PC or the RP CNA, even their their ministerial training is like nothing compared to this. So I just want to read this. This is on the bottom of page 194. He says in the form of Presbyterian Church government publishing the same year as the directory, we read that a candidate for ordination must be required by the presbytery to read from the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, translate a portion into Latin, and perhaps show his proficiency in logic and philosophy. He must demonstrated familiarity with the major writers in theology, be able to explain orthodox doctrine and refute contemporary errors XG text of Scripture, answer cases of conscience, which has questions about assurance and ethics, know the chronology of a bible history and the history of Christianity. In addition to preaching before the people he must give a discourse in Latin to the presentation On some doctrine assigned to him,

Unknown Speaker 37:02
so boom,

Tony Arsenal 37:04
I you did you study a language in high school Spanish or something like that I did. Like translating from from a foreign language into English is already difficult. Yeah, and sometimes when you're studying a language because it's helpful for your training, you try to translate English into a foreign language. But translating one language into another foreign language requires so much of an in depth mastery of both of those languages that it's kind of hard to express like, I couldn't translate a Greek text into a Hebrew text even if I wanted to. And I would never be required to in modern modern linguists language training for seminary or whatever the requirements that these men had placed upon them. were far and above beyond even what the most advanced PhD like candidates do in our current conduct context. So we should look at this and recognize not only were these men who spent thousands of hours in session developing this, this confession of faith and the associated documents, but these are men who had a grip on biblical languages biblical exit Jesus, and just in general, the discipline of education of being educated, there's so much more of a vast grip on that, then really anyone does nowadays, that to sort of look at them and be like, Yeah, but I'm going to just go ahead and fix this part. Like it's really quite arrogant. That's not to say like, we shouldn't be open to revising the confessions. We should and the reformed churches have done that and that's okay. But to look at that, and sort of casually dismiss the the fruit of that kind of intellectual labor is really kind of arrogant, and I think pretty foolish.

Jesse Schwamb 38:51
And this is actually so far, the opposite of where we're at today, in there by way of standards because if you think about This way, and I it's funny because I have that exact whole section highlighted in my book because I was blown away by that and who we are just reading that and seeing those standards. And what really struck me right away is, we live in a day and age, where I'm not gonna say like anybody could be a pastor, my pastor, I mean, some kind of proclamation or proclaiming on the Lord's day from the pulpit, because there's certainly many denominations, many churches, which employ some kind of modern equivalent of a rigorous undertaking involving pastoral candidates. But generally, the joke even in our modern culture, is that you can just go online and become ordained really quick and five minutes, right. Or if you tend to speak really well, you have a really good turn of voice or turn of phrase you can, you should be our pastor because you're eloquent and well spoken. And that's all beside the point. So all these major, major requirements that these men had to undergo was because there was a practical outworking that was intended and that was a real focus on worship, and even like worship itself preceded all the writing of the confessions and account isms and the standards themselves. The reason why the standards were in place, were essentially to create these guideposts these fencing around the idea that when you come to the Lord's house on the Lord's Day, and we just we're going to worship Him. This needs to be done in a precise in a right way. And so we need to have the proper leaders in place who can administer that, so that we all do not fall under condemnation. There was a real fear that struck these men. And so they said, what we need to do is make sure that we have the right leaders in place. And I was really moved by the way in which Dr. Becky writes about this, and again, how he sees this zeal for Biblical and spiritual worship, manifested both in those standards. And then in these really practical ways, when it comes to the Lord's day. So for instance, he's talking about in the scope of like you're saying, preparation for preaching. One of things I found really interesting is, he was saying that the divine is essentially emphasized a very long prayer before the sermon. You know, there's there's this quote in the book of Or from the directory. It says, thus our worship is always a response to God's word we must bring to the Holy God only those things that he is commanded, or we presume, and trespass against his holiness. And so it's interesting. He talks about this idea of the pastor himself, the Minister, the preacher, having this prayer in which confession, his own confession in front of the people is a major part of the process. This idea that like preaching does not take place until the minister has publicly confessed sins against God in the sufficiency of Christ as sacrifice and intercession and ask God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so what this immediately brought to my mind was a contrast and I'm going to pick up some low hanging fruit but I think this example serves to make my point. Have you ever heard the opening to every and any Joel Osteen sermon? Are you familiar with this,

Tony Arsenal 41:53
that little chant they do?

Jesse Schwamb 41:54
Yeah. So let me read the chance. So this is compare this now to what what a beekeeper said about what would be the proper approach to before sermon takes place? What should really take place in the service? contrast that with what is what Joel Osteen has, he says, and has his congregation say before every sermon quote, this is my Bible. I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do. Today I'll be taught the Word of God, I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive. I'll never be the same in Jesus name and quote, you see, like the amazing difference in that like your zone without me, like, God, I'm here just to leverage your power, like, slap Jesus name on at the end of this. So that has some kind of sense of authenticity, and legitimacy and authority, but it's all about what I am, what I have, what I can do, and so big it goes against that. I mean, this is just the exact reversal. So he's talking about in perform preaching.

Tony Arsenal 42:51
Yeah. And you know, what it made me think of when I was reading that is the Day of Atonement, because, you know, it's not as though preaching is so How redemptive in and of itself, right? It's redemptive because it's the application of God's Word by God's Spirit to us right through the pastor. But in the Day of Atonement, right, the priests doesn't just the high priest doesn't just go wandering into the Holy of holiness with a sacrifice. There's this elaborate sacrifice and confession of his own personal sin that he has to he has to do before he can enter into the Holy of holiness, to make atonement for the sins of the people. And I don't I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't comparisons to that in the original documents and the writings of the the Westminster assembly and the divine. I don't I don't know that for a fact because I haven't read them, you know, extensively, but I would be surprised if it wasn't there. But that that kind of perspective that the pastor has to go, before he can even approach the congregation and address the congregation as as the prophet of God. He has to go and he asked to, in a sense, make atonement for his own sin through confession of faith. He's up making it to him himself. But a sins have to be taken away through the confession of sins prior to preaching, because that's how serious of an act and house how deadly serious it is to come into God's presence, even in the New Covenant, it's still deadly serious to come into the presence of God. And how much more deadly serious is it to speak on God's behalf to God's people. So he has to have this confession of sin, in a sense to to purify himself before he's able to address the congregation from the Word of God. And I think we've we've, you know, we've we've reduced preaching to sort of like a lecture that's delivered and right. I don't want to, I don't want to slam on any particular church, but I'm going to use an example that that I ran into recently, so when I was in Minnesota, this a couple weeks ago, I went to my home church, my my church in Minnesota, and I love that church and I recognize that when I was there on that Sunday, It was one one slice of the teaching Ministry of that church, right? They do. They have 52 sermons a year and I was there for one of them's right there. I'm still experiencing just a tiny part of the preaching. But then on top of that, they have Bible studies, and they have small groups, and they have other teaching opportunities. So with all of that said, the sermon series that they're in is a sermon series about immigration and refugees, and it's very much a socially oriented sermon series, right. And I listened to some of the sermons earlier in the series, and I've listened to a couple since then, and maybe it was just this one week, but it was 27 minutes into the sermon before any scripture was read 27 minutes into the sermon. And, and this the scriptures that were used during the sermon, were not particularly well executed. They were not particularly well applied. And and I was sitting there thinking, you know, This this sermon is really more a lecture about the current state of immigration in America. And, you know, he was making fine points he he was making the point that in Scripture, the Israelites are commanded to be kind to the soldiers in their country because they were sojourners, he was making good, fine biblical points. But the fact of the matter is that the sermon was not a sermon, delivering God's Word from God's word. It was a sermon where some sort of topic was being addressed. And then God's word was used as like a prop to lend further authority to the message that was already being given the same exact lecture and or teaching could have been given without any scripture at all. And in point of fact, you couldn't have delivered that sermon and use passages from Harry Potter to prove your point in very much the same way that passages from the scripture were right. You could you could say yeah, like Harry's Kind of this stranger in this strange world. And so he has this soft spark even though he's a pure a pure blood from a wizarding family, he has this soft spot for the Mughal borns who are in this world and and he's pushing up against the forces of darkness that want to, you know, oppress these Mughal borns. And so we like Harry, we should be aware of the fact that we too Even though we are now pure born Christians, we too should be kind to those who are not like you could make all of those points in compelling ways by executing Harry Potter. And so this this passage here that I'm going to read from reform preaching, I think really demonstrates exactly what the differences between that kind and I, I'm reticent to even call it preaching. Because it's not like it's it's a lecture that uses the scripture as supporting evidence. And here's the passages from the bottom of page 195. He says every sermon must be the preaching of a text of Scripture. The preacher may select his scripture text topically to speak to some dark or special occasion or by the preaching through a chapter of a book of the Bible. The directory does not mandate either method, but gives the preacher the freedom to do as he shall see fit. But it's noteworthy that the preaching for some special occasion still calls for an exposition of Scripture. So even if you want to do a sermon, you know, let's say I wanted to preach a sermon, and I wanted to teach the congregation about the doctrine of the Trinity, instead of just like, explaining the doctrine and then like peppering in like proof text on it, when I need to do at least according to the Westminster directory, is I need to actually pick a text that the doctrine of the Trinity is is taught through, right you know, like john, john one, one through five would probably be my go to or Genesis one, one through 27. Right, you can you can teach the doctrine of the Trinity by executing those texts, and then bring in other texts to flush that out. But to start your sermon out from a perspective of, I'm going to teach you about this thing and I'm going to then pepper in the Scriptures, kind of like footnotes to my lecture to give some extra authority to it. That's not preaching and here's, here's the main problem. Okay. I ran into someone at at my church in Minnesota after the sermon and they said, What do you think of the sermon? And every time I go, they always asked me the same question. And it's almost always the same answer. I said, You know, I just sat through a 45 minute service, and there was maybe 30 minutes of preaching 35 minutes of preaching. I said, I still don't know what the answer to the question What must I do to be saved is, I still don't know. From that sermon? I've no idea. I know, I know about two people that were refugees that couldn't find asylum in America who washed up on the shore, because they drown trying to escape their country. I know about the fact that that pastors, great grandparents came from Sweden. I know all these facts, but I don't know what needs to happen to be saved. I don't even really know what the Bible calls me to do, in response to the stranger in my land, apart from some out of contact examples from narrative documents that don't really have a didactic purpose in the way that they were presented. And the reason you have to preach a text of Scripture is because the scripture has its own divine logic built into it. And if you faithfully posit that then you're utilizing that divine logic to communicate what God intention that text, not what you intend, not what you want to teach what the Bible teaches and and how that applies to God's people.

Jesse Schwamb 50:28
This is the difference between proclamation and presentation. Right? There's so much that happens nowadays. That's presentation that masquerades even inadvertently, in the I would say in the mind of the preacher as preaching or proclamation because it sounds like it's in line with the scriptures. But the bottom line is that everything you just said there about certainly like the crisis facing our country with respect to immigration is a real thing does God wants to be loving Of course he does, but to disassociate that from God. By basically just trying to bring in some evidence says no the Bible would agree with this is to make everything man focused, not God focused. And that's really what speaking I think he's emphasizing here that all of what he's writing about preaching is always God's word. It's always God centric. And so it's really easy to think that you're centering everything on God, when really you have a hobbyhorse, you have an excellent idea. And doing something that is good that the Bible would support does not mean that you are preaching. It just doesn't. And so I think there's a lot that happens. I mean, incidentally, we should say that like one of the great things about this chapter, is it's really intensely practical boys, the section you're reading from, he basically beaky lists, like I think it's like seven, six or seven points here. Yeah, from the directory about basically how to preach and also what your preachers sermon what a good sermon should look like. And so he's going through like intensely just almost seems like a monotonous things like it talks about, here's what an introduction and your preaching should be right? And here's what instruction and preaching looks like, here's what application in preaching is like, this is awesome, because there's just a lot of meat to chew on here. And it's not just all heady, like theoretical, philosophical stuff. It's like, here's how you should approach you should you should think about when you come into the Lord's house on Wednesday, preaching, one of the things that I really appreciate about that is, and this gets this is a tangent that is connected to what you presented about the rigorous requirements. And here's what just blew me away. So on the one hand, you have the assembly saying, Listen, these dudes got to know their stuff. They've got to be thoroughly steeped in theology, they need to be expressive in the theology got to know the actual original languages, then go to the source documents that are going to translate in between the documents. So we're talking about not just ordinary translation, like you said, but like translation to a very large technical degree, an explanation that is detailed it would be rigorous and complicated in your own native tongue, but even more so and two that are foreign to you. So we got all that going on. And then here's what they also say about the internet. I love this says the introduction, your sermon should be short and clear and focused on the scripture text. And making many divisions of the text or using obscure terms only makes it hard for the congregation to understand. And remember all the divisions in terms. So I love that they're saying, Listen, you should be intelligent, you should be well crafted called to this well state in this. But Don't be a jerk about it. You shouldn't be this kind of normal guy that goes in and tries to use this knowledge deliver over people that you're somehow really important and smart. If anything, you should try to if you're not making this understandable, then you've actually failed. It doesn't matter how smart you are.

Tony Arsenal 53:39
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think we've all heard sermons where you can tell that the preacher is just really enamored with their own mastery of Greek,

Jesse Schwamb 53:49
right

Tony Arsenal 53:50
there and, and what's really funny as someone and I'm not an expert in Greek by any stretch of the imagination, but as someone who has a moderate knowledge of biblical Greek It's really funny because when you hear those people, it's actually really clear that they don't have nearly as mass as much of a mastery of Greek as they think they do. Because they usually pull out, you know, like they make big, a big deal about the fact that like, Jesus uses two different words for love in the end of john, or, or, like they make those kinds of points. And the reality of it is like, Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek. So it wasn't Jesus that was using two different words for that. JOHN may or may not be making a point by using two different words for love. But the word those two words for love are used interchangeably in other parts of the Scripture. So you can usually tell them the habits, but I do think it's important because it's may seem strange to talk about in the Westminster directory, it may seem strange to talk about whether or not it's appropriate, you know, he gets to this towards the end of the chapter, whether or not it's appropriate to use technical terms or to use Foreign Language terms and then also whether or not it's appropriate to cite or to, quote, non biblical sources. And, and the reason that it is coming up is because you have to remember what they're up against, right. They've got Anglicanism, which at this point in history is more or less just Catholicism. They have Anglicanism that they're pushing up against, they have Roman Catholicism properly speaking that they're pushing up against. And in both of those cases, the alterations were very high language, it would be equivalent to like a pastor in our day and age, getting up and insisting on using King James English for the entire duration of their sermon like it wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't land with the people, it'd be hard to understand. And they gave themselves this air of authority by using this kind of language. And then on top of that, you have the over dependence on church fathers and ecclesiastical sources. But at the same time, the Westminster directory is saying well, you should be cautious With that, but at the end of the day, the individual pastor at the congregational level is responsible for knowing their congregation and preaching in a way that is going to feed their congregation. And and the way that this plays out for me in my mind is one of the things that's really common among like Bible students or seminary students, is a struggle to find a church where they really feel like they are being preached to at sort of an appropriate level, because a lot of times, and it depends on where you go. But a lot of times you come out of seminary, and you actually end up in a church, at least. And nowadays, you end up in a church where you're actually more well educated in the subject than the pastor is. And so it can be difficult because you're sitting there going well, I, you know, I wish he would dig into this a little bit more. So if you had, for example, a congregation that was in downtown Boston by all of the academic institutions, you might you might be justified in using a little bit more technical language because they're capable of understanding it, it's going to actually appeal to them in a way that really sort of common language may not. But at the same time, if you're in a country church where every you know that most people only have a high school or first sort of like primary college education, you really need to avoid that stuff, because it's going to actually just be confusing. So I like that they they want to emphasize that although these are some things that are important, theologically, there's reasons for it, the actual application of these principles that the Westminster directory gives, that's up to the local pastor in order to determine according to his prudence, what's best for his congregation?

Jesse Schwamb 57:37
Right. There's a whole section to that point on adaptation and preach, right, I really hadn't considered previously. Yeah, but it's this wonderful advice to do exactly what you just said. They talked about the preacher should exercise flexibility. And in that, what would be your perspective, like how they communicate what they're saying the language they use, but also this blew me away, not to develop every doctrine which lies in the text In fact, yeah, he goes, makes this kind of humorous mention of the fact that we talked about William Perkins before he had a very like, consistent and elaborate rubric for like how to preach and be keynotes that if you tried to develop every doctrine in every text and every sermon. According to Perkins, if you went letter by letter of his approach, you'd have to result in 126 application, which, which is like very periods and I totally Yeah, but I love this idea where he says, Listen, the pastor needs to be selective in his applications. He doesn't need to pull out everything and every single text every time he preaches on that text, and that his knowledge is actually gained and enforced by his residence and conversing with his flock so he knows what they need to hear and what he needs to draw out. So it's almost in some ways, like a liberty. I mean, you've preached before anybody who's taught before and felt the weight of here's a passage of scripture, you think, Oh my word when you start to get into it, you start to read, you start to pray over it. You start to Look at all these commentaries think, Oh my gosh, there's so much in here. How do I say all this stuff? And basically there's some liberty and freedom being presented here say you don't need to exact what we need to do is make sure that we have a certain series of points which you believe God has called us to my preaching in this and to make them crystal clear, right that those who are hearing it can answer the question that you put out there. What must I do to be saved? Let me just say this, and it's from another book, but it reminds me what you're talking about with respect to preaching generally. So in this Compendium that's called worship by the book, there's a story in there of a Presbyterian minister, young Presbyterian minister, who was called to a church took over the church after the existing minister had retired. And he said when he came to this church, she was surprised because there was a little old lady that would always sit in the back. And when ever she would sense that the minister had gone on too long, without speaking of Jesus and the gospel, she would just, you know, get them up. And I love that this idea Do that, like we should never stray too far from that central message which is, so what must I do to be saved? What is the good news of Jesus Christ? So I love there's just so much amazing practical stuff in this, I read this and thought, Man, this is just be a great resource for all pastors. I think so many pastors, I know do many of these things. They do them exceptionally well. But I think of like my own work, my own industry. And I'm always blessed when somebody can kind of give me something very thoughtful, that tells me how I can better approach my job. And I just thought this is that kind of resource and was, you know, again, penned out of this hard, amazing work as investment of like, how many man hours but at least, you know, that was in some meetings, to kind of sit down and try to distill what it means for preaching to be efficacious in I would say in any error. It's timeless truth.

Tony Arsenal 1:00:52
Yeah. And you know, it's funny because I didn't I didn't really plan this because we don't plan anything But Trump this passage, you know, we started the show. And in denials we talked about Doug Wilson and no quarter November and how ridiculous it is. And and then I, my eyes land on this passage, which is on page 202. And this is in the section of kind of like the responsibilities of a preacher of the way that he must preach or minister. And point four says he must preach wisely. And it says wisdom also shows a minister how to preach boldly, but not disrespectfully, or in passions or bitterness. So we see that on one hand, the Puritan preacher should not be a man pleaser. And yet in the fear of God, he must still honor all men, and especially all in authority, he must preach against sin, yet avoid preaching from his own sinful anger or frustration. And I think that this is a word of wisdom for not just preachers, but really for all of us that kind of exist in this reformed orbit this reformed world is, so often we get passionate and we get frustrated. And we get angry about people's lack of discipline, their lack of caring about holiness, their lack of dedication to sound doctrine, that we get upset about all sorts of things. And the first thing we have to remember is like, we got our own problems. So we should, we should always be aware of the fact that we're still the chief of sinners, right? For sure. But on top of that, there's an appropriate way to address those issues and an appropriate way to confront those issues. And we should do so without being overly concerned about what a person is going to think of us. But at the same time, Paul also says that pastors should be have good reputation with outsiders, otherwise, they may fall into the snare of becoming a man pleaser, to try to regain that reputation. It's the snare of the devil. That's for elders specifically for preachers and specifically, but that's something that applies All of us right when I confront someone online, I need to be hyper aware of how I'm presenting myself. He says here, he says, The preacher must constantly ask, what will woo them? What will win them, and sometimes what's going to woo them and what's going to win them is a little bit of slap upside the head and a good dose of reality. But also sometimes it's a gentle touch, and, and a quiet hand or a quiet voice that says, please consider what I have to say, brother, or sister. So I think there's a lot here for us that we just need to, we need to digest a little bit, the wisdom that's coming to us from this document. Because, again, thousand sessions, right, men who were better educated, more righteous, more sold out for Christ's more devoted, more passionate and more knowledgeable, and I would say had a probably a greater dose of the function of the Holy Spirit than most people that I run into whatever Half myself included. They are the ones who came with this and said, This is what our assembly has come up with the proper way for a preacher or a Christian to approach communicating the gospel through the text. We just need to remember that

Jesse Schwamb 1:04:15
right on quiet hand now.

Quiet hand. Yeah, that that's definitely a

hardcore band name right there.

Tony Arsenal 1:04:22
Yeah. Quiet. Hey, there's quiet hand. Yeah, it's that's kind of like that old joke where you say what's the hand of what's the sound of one hand clapping? And then they try to do it and then you slap him upside the head. Never heard that before. It's like on the office when Dwight's like Knock Knock Who's there? And he's like the KGB. And he's like the KGB who and he slaps him in the face. He's like the KGB will wait for no one.

Jesse Schwamb 1:04:52
That's great.

Tony Arsenal 1:04:53
Yeah, don't slap people.

Jesse Schwamb 1:04:56
No, we're not condoning that.

Tony Arsenal 1:04:58
No, well Jesse, we should probably wrap things up. Jesse, we have a question cast coming up soon, don't we?

Jesse Schwamb 1:05:08
We do have a question cast coming up. I'm laughing because before we speak about question cast, I'm laughing because hopefully, if you if you will listen to us for any length of time, there's a point in every episode, where there's like a moment of pure tension. And as if we are teetering, there's a seesaw. And it could go into just straight craziness or could come back, and the episode could just end and you never know. There was always that moment and it just happened and not just a solid right into like a boy. Just know, craziness.

Tony Arsenal 1:05:44
So just hit us, hit us with that phone number, if people want to leave a voicemail for us.

Jesse Schwamb 1:05:50
So funny thing about that. I knew you're gonna ask that and I don't know the phone number. Remember what it is?

Tony Arsenal 1:05:57
Oh, man, it's 607 4442767 and it spells bros

Jesse Schwamb 1:06:05
Bros. Friends definitely call us leave a message join the conversation you get so again for everybody's listening you can tell Tony is really good at podcasting. He was trying to throw that to me so there'd be like a little bit of like conversational flavor to that in spite of ourselves we still can't do good podcast because I just jack it all up by saying I don't actually know the number so yeah, I could have just said I'm sure it could have come with something like smoother like that's a great idea Tony Why don't you tell the number while I share the email address but

Tony Arsenal 1:06:37
would that have been so? That doesn't seem smoother?

Jesse Schwamb 1:06:42
Melissa, my bar is really low. So anything would have been smoother. I think the me being like, I don't know the number How about you just tell me what

Tony Arsenal 1:06:53
we do not a land this plane Jesse. This happens MMO

Jesse Schwamb 1:06:56
did everybody did everybody feel it? There was that moment again. There it is again. Right. We saw so let Yeah, let's bring it back in. So this was clearly the definitive podcast on chapter 11. of reform preaching by Dr. beaky. It was great. We had a great time. You all clearly had a great time. So on that note until we question cast, honor everyone,

Tony Arsenal 1:07:19
love the Brotherhood.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai