Well, good morning all. And hopefully out there they can hear the speakers so that they realize we're starting and they need to come in. And I need to make sure I turn off all kinds of notifications, otherwise I'll get all kinds of ESPN updates and I don't want that. Okay. We're continuing our excursus on this doctrine of republication as it has been given by Meredith Klein and then some of his followers after him. It's difficult to find the right word to talk about this, his stepchildren, his disciples, his followers. All of it sounds almost cult-like, and I don't want it to sound like that. So just be aware. If you hear me say his followers or his disciples, I'm not using that in some pejorative way. You know, being a former math teacher, I sometimes lack the proper vocabulary in certain spaces, so this is one of them. Just understand, I'm not trying to be, you know, harsh with those that fall into some variation of a Kleinian camp. Now, last week we talked about Meredith Klein in particular, some of his teachings and things like that, and started to inch into a discussion of his doctrine of republication, which even for him evolved, because I mentioned a couple of books that really focus on it, and there are other things too that do as well. an older work called By Oath Consigned, and then later on sort of a revamped version, Kingdom Prologue, and you remember I kind of went on a bit of a rant about the fact, you know, no footnotes, no anything like that, and like how, Why is this required reading from professors when they themselves are going to adamantly require footnotes in their students' papers? I don't get it, but that's fine. Okay, whatever. And I say that recognizing that I realize older works don't have footnotes. That wasn't the standard then. But as plagiarism became more and more of a problem, the whole idea of citations and things like that became necessary. And I get it. That's fine. But Klein's work is not old. So there you have that. One other thing. Well, a couple of things with respect to Meredith Klein that I do think is somewhat important to highlight. One is somewhat unrelated to all of this, but there is some overlap. If you were to make a Venn diagram, there's going to be some overlap. Because of Klein's strong dependence, shall we say, or emphasis on that area of study known as biblical theology, redemptive historical, typology, all of those things related, Klein, in my opinion, got himself into some deep theological trouble in his last book, which, you know, he puts a Hebrew spin on the word, and not spin, that's the wrong word. We know the name Armageddon, right? One of his last published book has Armageddon in the title. But one of the things that he said in that book, and I've seen it, so this is not from someone else, but in my opinion, he got himself into deep theological problems in his last book, and it's not related at all to this doctrine of republication. It's actually related to the doctrine of the Trinity. And honestly, I'm just going to flat out say, if you mess with the doctrine of the Trinity, you're in a lot of trouble. Yeah. Because that's where it all starts. Everything else flows from your doctrine of the Trinity. Now, here's how he did it. And he used biblical theology, types, typology, redemptive historical hermeneutics, that kind of thing. They're all related. With respect to the incarnation, that is Christ Jesus taking on flesh, becoming human, he used that as the basis for something he said with respect to the Trinity. So for instance, not for instance, this is actually what he did. As part of the Apostles' Creed, He was conceived, and the Nicene Creed. He was conceived by what? Who? the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. So he doesn't disagree with that. What he does is take the incarnation and make that the model and then says, in eternity past, with respect to the eternal generation of the Son, that means the Holy Spirit was also involved in eternally generating the Son. And that's where a lot of folks went off the rails with respect to Klein and some today still bring this up because some of his more devout proponents, let's use that word, will consistently say he was never convicted of any sin. He was never convicted in the courts of the church. That's technically true. But even his own son at his funeral mentioned the fact that he had those who were against him. And even as he was dealing, meaning Meredith Klein Sr., dealing with chemotherapy for the cancer that he had, and just could only get around with a walker, that there were those in his presbytery that were looking to press charges. I'm not saying that those men were right or wrong, because you've got a man who's dying of cancer. I don't know what to do in such a situation, okay? But that's beside the point. It's just when people say, and this is taking a much broader step back, away from Meredith Klein, people say, make this defense. Well, he's never been convicted in the courts of the church. We saw this happen in our own presbytery, the details of which you don't need to know. I've never been convicted of sin. You've been charged. Now, I don't know if charges went the full gamut in the case of Meredith Klein. But it just goes to show that some of his teaching raised some eyebrows, to put it mildly. And I do think this particular one, he gets in trouble with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And to say that the incarnation, God come in the flesh, becomes the model for us for what God is like in his essence, that's a problem. The creeds are clear. The son is eternally generated from the father, full stop. The spirit proceeds from the father and the son, full stop. The ancient church dealt with this issue. It's not like there was debate. They dealt with it. Just keep that in mind as well. Now, to be fair, I'm gonna go one step further, because you hear me talk about Van Til a lot, because in principle, I'm a Van Tilian presuppositionalist. Maybe some of the things that he says and does, I don't necessarily agree with everything, but the principle. In Van Til's introduction to systematic theology, He gets himself into trouble when he starts talking about God as being one person. And it's like, um, no, that's bad. I mean, that's just as bad. So I want you to understand that, you know, I look at Van Til and presuppositional apologetics as a whole, and I think, you know, that's the right way to go. But I'm like, I read that even in seminary, I'm like, yo, Cornelius, this is not good. And a lot of other people, especially those who are more of a classical apologetics, like R.C. Sproul and the like, they love to harp on that one. And you know what? They're right. That's kind of a problem. But in general, you know, Van Til was Trinitarian, but that statement in that book was horrible. It really was. So again, With respect to this, it just reminds us we all have our blind spots sometimes, but we all also need to be held accountable even for our blind spots. If we're gonna make statements in publication or in presentations, that's why in certain sense, I kind of hate what I do. Because honestly, I'm scared to death especially because I tend to be somewhat extemporaneous, that I'm going to say something that leads people astray, that scares the daylights out of me. But all of us need to be held to account, and that's necessary. Jake? Well, see, that's the thing. It's not that any particular churches do. There are those within various denominations that do. First and foremost is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He's got plenty of proponents in the OPC. Well, that is a different topic. That's correct. That's really the issue. And that's a much broader topic. Not that you have time as a college student. You could go back to when we talked about doctrine of God and some of those things way back when. It really depends on how things play out in various things. The Council of Nicaea, 325, and then subsequent ones, especially the Council of Chalcedon, as they formulated all of this and gave us what we have as the Nicene Creed. And the Cappadocian fathers, you guys know who those are? You got the two Gregories and then you got Basil. They were so instrumental in helping, and Augustine, and Athanasius, all these guys. The church spent a long time hashing this out and the implications of some of it. So the problem is, like you said, once you start getting God wrong, the implications are pretty bad. The problem is scripture makes it clear. Father. Spirit, distinct persons. The Father, the Son is begotten of the Father, not of the Spirit. Now the incarnation, that's something different. That's ad extra, that's the technical term, that's outside of God's essence. So, Roy, real quick. Yeah, we're 1,700 to 1,500 years removed from that. And it's like, well, we get this. Right, he doesn't give the New Testament the whole, the New Testament church immediately. Right. And this gets to the broader point. I think Roy is bringing up a good point, and I want to move off his Trinitarian issues in that book, OK? Because everywhere else, I don't know what else Klein had to say about the Trinity. It's just that book, he said something that raised some eyebrows, in the same way that Van Til did in his introduction to systematic theology. Said something that raised some eyebrows, and it should have. But the broader point is that there is intended, in God's wisdom, a church, godly ordained men to hold one another accountable. And that includes what we're talking about here, this doctrinal republication. We've got to have all of this understanding. Here are the proposals. Let's talk about it. Hey, what about this? What about that? It sounds like you're saying this. And that takes time. And we should be doing this. Yes, humility is at the forefront. We need, as a church, to do this. It is not academia that has the final word. It's the church. And you guys know, I promote their conference every year. I'm a Greenville grad. Greenville Seminary, that's where I recommend everybody to go if they're seeking theological education. Greenville Seminary is not the final word. They are not the church. With humility and submission to God's word, the church is established as a buttress and pillar of truth. They don't create the truth, they support the truth. That's the issue. Well, yeah, the procession and so forth, yeah. So with all of this, unfortunately, some of the discussion, just like many other kinds of discussion of theology throughout church history, has really created some conflict, to put it mildly, Now, sometimes that conflict is a result more of personality than it is theology. That's unfortunately the case. But what are you going to do? I think there was a stretch, just by way of illustrating personality conflicts. Some of you are aware, and this is in the apologetic realm, of the debate that R.C. Sproul had with Greg Bonson on apologetics, because they come from two different camps of apologetics. I'm more on Bonson's side. Some are more on Sproul's side. Some of the issues where they both fought together at one time were, you had two really strong personalities in R.C. Sproul and Greg Bonson, and that can create some problems in and of itself. But at the end of the day, it really needs to boil down to a case of humility. And even years later, R.C. Sproul admitted that both of us should have been a bit more humble in how we approach things to his credit. And that's what we need to do. We need to understand that sometimes godly men fumble over things. We have to approach things with humility and we have to approach things fairly, without the broad brush sweeping things and stuff like that. And that's the case here with this doctrine of republication as well. It becomes difficult because some of the terminology and language that is used is already found in confessional language and Puritan works and things like that. But terms are slightly redefined so that it kind of changes. And that's where I think the trouble lies. So what is this doctrine of republication? I hinted at it last week. We're going to start to unpack it. I want to be as fair as possible. in articulating it. And I also mentioned this bears repeating, like federal vision, kind of the reformed antithesis, I put reformed in quotes there, because I don't like federal vision. I don't like federal vision at all. Federal vision and republication, those guys are like It's like a cat fight. It really is. I'm just going to put it out there. It's ridiculous. So, like federal vision, you can't just Pick a guy, he's federal vision, and say he holds the federal vision. There's truth to that, but I guarantee you that guy's going to have disagreements in certain areas of federal vision. Always that same thing with republication. Guys will say, yeah, I'm Kleinian, or I hold the Kleinian republication, or I hold to this new idea of two kingdoms theology. But you start pressing a bit, and you realize there's not as much identification as it may seem. So that's what makes this hard because you talk about a concept and you will find guys who say they hold to that concept and say, well, I don't hold to that. That's what makes this hard. So I really can only talk in general broad brush terms. So in general, The purpose, I don't wanna say purpose, the idea behind the doctrine of republication at its core is that in some sense, the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works that was given by God to Adam in the garden, in some sense. You know what I think about that expression? Not very helpful. That's my opinion, in some sense. Now, here's what happens. What we see here is a connection, and this is where the biblical theology and the redemptive historical approach comes in, which is not necessarily wrong. Adam, Israel, Christ. They're trying to uphold a relationship there, and that somehow the Mosaic Covenant serves as sort of a hinge, to use my terminology here, not theirs specifically, to help us understand where Adam failed and why we need Christ. Now on the surface, that sounds pretty good. And I'm actually okay with just that. I get it. But it does tend to go off the rails in a number of areas. Chase? I personally think Robertson does a better job. And just by way of example, got into a conversation about republication because it was becoming, once again, the hot topic in the OPC with a couple of OP ministers that are climbing in there. As soon as I mentioned with respect to, you know, Robertson and the Christ of the Covenant, those guys were like, oh, Robertson. That's not an exaggeration on my part. That's literally what they did. And their immediate go-to after that was, do you hold a new perspective on Paul? Immediate. It's like, guys, really? Because really, Robertson was a disciple of Murray. And I have on good authority of one who sat in Klein's class that Klein said that John Murray made mush of the gospel. That's apparently what he said. I wasn't there. The man who made the claim made the claim on the floor of our General Assembly and is well known in our denomination. And he said, this is what Klein said. So hopefully I can try to bring all this together. So here's the idea. You have Israel as a nation, as a kingdom. They come to Sinai and they're given the law. What Kleinians in general will say is that in some sense, what is happening at Sinai is that Israel as a whole is given a reenactment, if you will. That part is actually Klein's words, a reenactment of the giving of the covenant to Adam. And the purpose of it is to show Israel that they can't do it. Somebody else has to do it. Now I know there are a few people in this room that are hearing that language and they're like cringing because, yeah, we'll just stop there. So this is the idea. for Israel to enter into the land and maintain possession of the land. That's a key phrase, maintain possession of the land. They needed to obey the Mosaic covenant in order to merit that. I'm not kidding, that's the language. Now, here's how they get around this question of merit. I will say one of my professors in seminary, Dr. Piper, in his critique of republication, he basically said, they redefine merit. And they do it in this sense, that merit is defined basically by whatever God says within that covenantal framework, so that it could change. So for Adam, as our confession puts it, perpetual, perfect obedience, right? That's our confessional language. The covenant of works in order to merit that which God promises, the obedience of Adam had to be perpetual and it had to be perfect. That's a confession on the covenants, chapter seven. When you come to merit in this reenactment of the covenant of works at Sinai, the language is such that the merit is just some measure of obedience. Some measure of obedience. My question always is, well, how much obedience? Which is kind of funny because they ask me the same questions when I say that Christians are bound to keep all of God's commandments. Well, how much good works? Yeah, it is a question that kids ask. It really is. But see, and this is where we do need to give them credit because what they are doing is they're showing, they're trying to say that what happens at Sinai and the fact that they just can't do it, they can't do it, they can't do it. Jesus did it. And see already I can feel the cringe in a few people in this room because they heard this over and over again for years. And it's not necessarily a direct connection to Klein, that's the thing. We'll get to that in another aspect of this. So the idea is there needed to be some measure of obedience in order for Israel, as the typological son, That's important language. Israel, as a kingdom, became a type of Christ where they had to learn that they couldn't do it as a kingdom, but Jesus, the true son, did. So that's the heart of it all. That's really the heart of where we get all of this. Some will go so far as to say, well, I don't wanna say some, but let me give it to you this way. What many Kleinians, and I can't say all, I don't know that they all do this, but I do see it a lot, that what we see is gracious covenants are enacted by God. Law covenants are enacted by the people. And so, yeah, I know, I see my wife back there. What? Yeah, I agree. I just happened to look your way when I said that. You're like, what? Yeah. And so the idea of what we see at Sinai also, we see two things take place. God gives, and then the people say, all of this we will do. Therefore, that's a works-based. I read a quote a couple of weeks ago from T. David Gordon that I think bears repeating again. Because he goes so far, oh, I don't have it with me. Shame on me. My apologies, you're gonna have to go back and listen to it, but it's in the book, The Law Is Not a Faith. I don't have that book with me, unless I didn't pull it out of my case in the back. But T. David Gordon, he goes so far as to say that Israel, in adopting this law covenant, erred. And he says, and I'm paraphrasing, This is a terrible deal. If I was back there, I'd be like, this is awful. That's what he said. This was instituted by God, not the people. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little hyped about this. And by the way, I recommend a book by T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach. That's an awesome little book. It really is. He's got a bit of a bite to him when he presents himself. And maybe that's part of why I like it. I'm sorry, I know I come across pretty strong sometimes. I love all my brothers, I really do. I know it may not sound like it sometimes, I really do. But you have to say that. I'm sorry, I'm going to say this and put it bluntly. You have to make that kind of distinguishing characteristic in order to uphold what you're trying to propose. You're not gonna find that in scripture. I'm sorry, you're not. Conrad? Somebody's been listening to Piper. Well, right. What? No. And that actually is literally what Piper said in response to T. David Gordon's words. That sounds just like dispensationalism. And this is also why we had a guy once that we were examining for presbytery who was a graduate of Westminster, California, and his answers were the stock answers coming out of there of republication and so forth. Well, somebody who was in our presbytery, just sort of on the side at a later meeting, just kind of went up to him and said, so do you still hold to dispensationalism 2.0? to make the point. I mean, that's the issue to me. And so what ends up happening as a result of this is that the whole of the Mosaic Covenant with respect to the nation, okay, with respect to the nation as the typological son, It's presented in such a way to show that they failed and only Christ can merit the things of the covenant of works. Now, there are numerous issues with this that are somewhat nitpicky, but help us to see where it falls. And before I say that, let me just remind you. The motivation behind this is actually good, because what they are seeking to do is defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and specifically, see I didn't mention this before, I just mentioned that first part generally, but specifically, the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to the believer who comes to him in faith. They are really trying to defend that, and we've got to give them credit. Amen, hallelujah. I'm glad they want to defend that. But... But... I hope that in the past, As we started talking about the Mosaic Covenant in particular, I tried to bring forth from the text, from Exodus 19 in particular, from the preface to the Ten Commandments in the beginning of Exodus 20, from when God revealed just the back end of his glory to Moses in Exodus chapter 34, that the covenant established was gracious, all of grace. So what Conrad said about the fact that all of that occurred after they're redeemed out of Israel, that's exactly the point. And also the reality, Conrad brought this up too, he alluded to it, that the whole thing is a fulfillment or the beginning or furthering of the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, which was gracious. So that's where I think the whole system breaks down, right there. Jonathan? the land, which is typological of heaven. Because see, there is a certain sense, in some sense, they're right about one thing. Heaven needs to be merited. So who's gonna merit it? Christ does, and they're right about that. But a couple of things, and a lot of these things are seemingly disjointed, but if you kind of take them as a whole, they do start to fall in place. Taking a step back, at least what I've read and what I've been taught with respect to this, I'll call it theological science of what's known as biblical theology, following Gerhardus Vos and a lot of guys after him, which is much more modern, and I don't have an issue with it, typology and stuff like that. Everything that I consistently see, at least with respect to scripture, always points forward. I don't really see it pointing backwards. Well, somebody may say, well, what about the Lord's Supper and baptism? Well, granted, but they point to Christ and it still points forward. So there's that side to it. The other thing is this question of merit, okay? And this is where Kleinians, with respect to what our confession says in chapter seven, this bears looking at. Let's go to Westminster Confession, chapter seven. Oh, is it nine? See, those are the kind of errors I can kind of live with. Oh, page 923. Oh, okay. I just, for a second there, I'm like, wait, there are 23 paragraphs in chapter nine? No, it's page 923. See, listening skills. Not so good. All right, so in chapter seven, very first paragraph, The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. Now Klein and some of his proponents after him really have a problem with some of the language in this paragraph. Do you know which part? Voluntary condescension. They see in the covenant of works as given to Adam no grace whatsoever. That's no grace. There's no grace. It was real merit on Adam's part and of course that's based on how they define merit. It wasn't, right, just to create them was condescending. Now, remember what I said earlier about using confessional biblical terms the way that the divines used it and the way the Puritans after them used it and you start to see We're not using merit in the same way. We're just not. And this is where it gets a bit difficult. See, the confession is absolutely right. If your starting point is recognizing that the distance between God and man is so vast, if you believe that, you recognize that. than any kind of reward that God gives, even if it's based on you, as God, deciding and decreeing that it's going to be based on Adam doing something. That can only be gracious. In other words, the reward is what is gracious. What is gracious about it is that there's no possible way that just simply avoiding eating fruit from a tree merits me, in and of itself, eternal life and full blessedness with God. The distance there is impossible. So it's the reward aspect that is really the gracious side to it because Finite creatures cannot give strict, perfect merit to an infinite God. That's the issue. And so there has to be some sort of grace. Now I realize there are even some in Reformed circles that are not Kleinian that have problems with the term common grace. And I think even at the time of the Westminster Divines, there was that issue. That's why they don't use the word grace there. They talk about voluntary condescension. Tomato, tomato, that's my opinion. Okay. What happens with all of this then? What happens with all of this? As a result, Israel fails. We all know that, right? Israel fails. And so they are exiled because they did not demonstrate that they could merit the stipulations of the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant. They could not merit staying in the land And so they were taken out of it. But you do understand that part of what they're saying is actually biblically accurate. They disobeyed, that's why they're kicked out of the land. But it has nothing to do with merit. That's really what it boils down to. And they will also say, you notice, I've been careful to couch the language, Israel as a kingdom. Because to their credit, they will still say, they're not saying the Mosaic Covenant is just a covenant of works. They're not. They will affirm that even in the Old Testament, individuals were saved by faith in the one who was to come. But as a kingdom, typologically, they were in a covenant of works. to show that they couldn't do it, somebody else had to come pointing forward to Christ. I know many of you are sitting here right now and you're trying to process this in your brain because some of it actually does sound good. Some of it does. The problem is we take it so far, and then as a result, Christ comes, meets, and fulfills all that the Mosaic covenant required, and therefore the whole thing's out. Whole thing's gone. And what does that sound like? More dispensationalism again. And as a result, On this side of the cross, this side of the resurrection, here in the new covenant, those who were proponents of Klein cringe when you start talking about obedience, when you start talking about good works, despite what our confession says. I know of one who used to be in the OPC, moved out, went into the PCA, which I find ironic, very strong Kleinian in his approach, who himself wanted to gut chapter 19 on the law in the confession. Because you start talking about obedience and start talking about the law, wait a minute, you're bringing works righteousness, Christ fulfilled that. Right? You see how they're kind of right, but also, Pretty wrong. And this is what makes it so hard. Because it's, please don't misunderstand me. It's a subtle difference. And when I say it's a subtle difference, I'm not saying they're trying to be sneaky, they're trying to pull one over your eyes or anything like that, but it's subtle. This is what happens. It's great when people use orthodox language, but are they using it correctly? That's the issue. Conrad and then Jonathan. Well, they won't disagree with that, but at the end of the day, it was a question of their disobedience, which again, that's partially correct. See what I mean? There is truth in that. But what are some of the results? See, what happens is their view of the new covenant is now there are no more conditions. Okay, there's really no more conditions. And there is no more of, for the church, those who are in the new covenant, no real from God consequences against sin like the exile. That's a good question. That's a sarcastic answer, I realize, but yeah. This is where, and that's the very thing I do, I go, well, okay. At the end of the day, and believe me, brothers and sisters, I have not even scratched, I've barely scratched the surface of this stuff, okay? And that's what makes it hard. How am I gonna get all of this in one, three sessions, whatever it takes to discuss? I'm not gonna be able to get the whole of it. But that's a thing that I've consistently tried to bring up when I get in discussions online with those who may not explicitly say they're Kleinian, but they follow some of his proponents that are out there today, and they use the same language. And I go to text. Ephesians is one of my favorite to do because it's so clear. There's a beautiful dividing line. That's kind of humorous to say it that way. Right down the middle of Ephesians. And you've heard me describe it this way. It's a simple outline. You've got the wealth that Christians have in Christ in the first three chapters. That's all your doctrine. It's just beautiful, tightly packed, all the wealth that we have in Christ. Chapter four through six is our walk in Christ. Therefore, therefore, riches of Christ, therefore, here's how you're to walk. Romans does the same thing. Of course, it's a little bit more lopsided and into the weight. You've got 11 chapters of the doctrine. And then chapter 12 comes in view of God's mercies. Well, where did he first start talking about God's mercies? Middle of chapter three. In view of God's mercy, this is how you're to live. That's the New Testament. All right, imagine that. Amazing, isn't it, how that works? So here's what ends up happening. I think, and this is not absolute, I'm talking about in principle, I think republication is not confessional with its view with respect to the Mosaic Covenant, because when you apply, even in a typological sense, even if you try to say typologically that some measure of obedience would have merited. That flies in the face of what our confession says with respect to the covenant of works, perfect, perpetual obedience. One of the things that in a conversation, back to that conversation I had, I was telling you when I said, oh yeah, old Palmer Roberts, you hold new perspective on Paul, that's their knee jerk reaction. They tried to point out to me that, you know, in Exodus chapter 16, the manna is given, and God says, gather twice as much on the sixth day so you don't go out on the seventh day and disobey, right? And it says, God was displeased because they didn't listen, but that was it. But then later on, after the law is given at Sinai, you've got the guy who's picking up sticks on the Sabbath. What happens to him? He's put to death. That's their proof that Sinai shows a covenant of works. Well, I said a couple of things to them. I said, first of all, that was an individual, not a nation. Your whole argument is that as a nation. Second, I said, if that's your basis, Sinai, then what do you do with David? What do you do with David who committed adultery and was spared? What do you do with Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament? What do you do with Onan in Genesis, what, 38, 37? And we won't get into the ugly details of what happened there. But the point is that he was put to death by not following a Mosaic instruction. That means that there had to have been something there before. So you have people being put to death by God before Sinai and people shown grace after Sinai. And this is the response that I got. And for those who may be listening, I'm going to have to illustrate this audibly. Blink, blink, blink. Now, I'm not trying to sound sarcastic. It just shows that... And this now is my perspective, okay? So understand that. What I observed, my observation here, this idea of republication, I mean, it sounds good in some sense, pun intended, in academia, in the ivory tower. But when it plays itself out in the life of the believer, it ends up being antinomian. That's what ends up happening. And, oh, they don't like to hear that. They don't like to hear, oh, I'm going way over time. Oh, I'm so sorry. All right, so maybe we'll have to just start a few minutes late. I hate to do that, but anyway, I know I've tried to condense a whole system of doctrine and explain it, and hopefully I gave it some justice. Just real quick, quick books. A direct critique of republication written by three OPC ministers in the Presbytery of the Northwest. One is no longer an OP minister. We'll just leave it at that. Very good critique. Really critiques The Law Is Not a Faith, which is a book about republication. This is more general. This is The Grace of Law. This is written by Ernest Kavan where he traces Puritan thought on the law. It is a good book. And then also more generally, Antinomianism by Mark Jones. I would highly recommend this. So there you have it. I got another one here, too, that's not formatted very well because it's self-published, but New Directions in Biblical Theology, the New Republication Doctrine and the New Two Kingdoms Doctrine by Leonard Coppice, who's a retired OP minister. So, all right, let's close in prayer. Sorry to kind of just cut it off like that, but let's pray. Our Father in God in heaven, we do give you thanks that you have given us your word. And Lord, we do give you thanks that in your wisdom, you have given us the church, which is to be the buttress and pillar of truth. Father, we pray that we would look at various doctrines as we come across them with humility and test them against your word. Father, now help us prepare our hearts and minds as we're about to be ushered into your presence to worship and adore you. We pray all this in Christ's name, amen.