00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
All right, folks, it is time. Oh, I don't know if the amps
are on, the two amps. So even though I'm being recorded,
it is coming, now it is. Yeah, I think the amps were off.
So though it was recording. wasn't coming through the speakers,
but now it is. All right, let's go ahead and
get started. And of course, anybody who's visiting today, I kind
of feel bad for them because we're already in the middle of
this large series. And then even within this series,
this little excursus that we're dealing with, we're in the middle
of that. So, try to bring things up to speed.
We're in this larger scheme of discussing what's known as covenant
theology, and we've been spending a good deal of time talking about
the Mosaic covenant, and now we've moved into this sort of
excursus of this what I've called a modern doctrine of republication
that has kind of come into our own reform circles in various
places. And last week I pointed out a
few books to kind of critique in some way this doctrine of
republication. These first two are directly
critiques of them. This one by Andrew Elam, Robert
Van Kooten, and Randall Berquist. Robert, I probably know the best
of the three. Randall, I knew of. But these
were written, basically what this book came about was originally
a paper. In the Presbyterian of the Northwest,
what happened was there was some strife, we'll put it, over this
question. And so the presbytery decided
we're going to set up a committee on both sides. They present their
paper to be helpful. Well, that wasn't quite enough.
Unfortunately, there was some conflict of personality more
than there was conflict of theology. So this ended up being a critique,
originally being a critique of republication by these three
guys, which they later published. And that's where this came from.
I've got the original PDF, but it's really not much different.
This one is called Merit and Moses. critique of Kleinian doctrine,
the Kleinian doctrine of republication. So that is a direct critique
of it. And then I also showed you this
other one, New Directions in Biblical Theology by Dr. Leonard Koppus, retired OP minister
up in the Presbyterian of the Colorado's. This one is self-published,
so you're gonna have a tough time finding it out there. And
of course, because it's self-published, you got plenty of typos and formatting
quirks and things like that. So that's the thing you'd have
to look out for. This one's not very thick at all. Related to
those two, even though they're not direct critiques per se,
is this book by Ernest Kavan, The Grace of Law, A Study in
Puritan Theology. An important work, I think. And then this book by Mark Jones,
which in my opinion really needs to be annually read by ministers
and elders. Antinomianism, and the subtitle
is Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? So by Mark Jones. This is an outstanding critique. And I can remember particularly
one section of this book when I got it, which wasn't that long
after I got here. There's this little section of
characteristics of antinomian preaching. And when I was reading
it, I felt like I was listening to folks in this church. I can
hear their voices in what Mark Jones was saying, because that's
kind of where this church got off the ground, as a result of
some of that. On the pro side of republication,
I didn't have this book last week. I had forgot it. I didn't
stick it in my bag for whatever reason. This one is The Law is
Not a Faith. And this is the key one, or especially
that expression, the law is not a faith, that I plan on pulling
that out of scripture so that we see where they get it from
and how we go about critiquing it. This is a collection of essays
by a number of biblical scholars on the issue of republication
and the law and so forth. A number of them are in the OPC,
so part of our denomination. So yeah, there you have it. And I did read an excerpt from
T. David Gordon a couple weeks ago. So just by way of rehashing
this doctrine of republication as it is called today, the understanding
of what it is today is the idea that in some sense, The covenant
made at Sinai with Moses, the Mosaic covenant, was in some
sense a republication, a reenactment of the covenant of works. And
it was given in such a fashion to show the nation as a corporate
entity, that you can't keep the law Somebody
else is going to have to come and do that. And of course, that
looks forward to the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I think I said last
week that on paper and sort of the academic ivory tower setting,
it kind of sounds good. I mean, because we do get it. We understand that in and of
ourselves, we can't keep the law. We can't, we're still dealing
with remnants of sin within us and nothing we can do to save
ourselves, nothing we can do to merit eternal life. But what
ends up happening is you end up in Israel, particularly, and
then some of the consequences for us on this side of the cross. You end up with a conflict of
ideas, because they will admit that the Mosaic Covenant is still
an administration of the covenant of grace, and that even in the
Old Testament, you're saved by grace through faith in the Messiah
to come from their perspective. but also as a corporate body,
as a nation, they're under this typological, this reenactment
of a covenant of works. So you see, you're kind of almost
a schizophrenic Israelite. That's really what it amounts
to. Now, where do they place their emphasis in the Bible for
this? I first want you to turn to Leviticus
18. This is where they get, this
is part of where they get it, but this is where their stress
comes. Leviticus 18, and you might think, wow, just
one verse. It's really not one verse. It's
the rest of scripture's use of this verse. particularly how
Paul uses this verse that becomes the issue of debate and discussion
in all of this. So Leviticus 18.5, it reads this
way. I'll actually start at verse
four, but it's really verse five that's key. You shall follow
my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord
your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes
and my rules. If a person does them, he shall
live by them. I am the Lord. That expression
in there, if a person does them, he shall live by them. That's
their key verse. And what they do is they go to
the New Testament in particular and Paul's citation of this verse
as proof of their doctrine of republication. Now, even that's
a bit simplistic, but there is going to be a strong emphasis
on that. Even in This book, this collection
of essays that promotes the doctrine of republication, you have in
here one particular essay, and here's the title. Leviticus 18.5
and Deuteronomy 30.1-14, In Biblical Theological Development, Entitlement
to Heaven Foreclosed and Proffered. That's almost a Puritan title. It was written by a professor
at a seminary. I won't say which one, but we'll
just say, for anonymity's sake, it's an Escondido. So you can see that there is
going to be a key aspect. Now, how does Paul use this verse? Well, we're going to turn to
Galatians 3, but you can start turning there if you want. Let
me just briefly say that there are allusions, at the very least
allusions, to Leviticus 18.5 in the Old Testament as well,
particularly in Ezekiel. But there are other possible
places as well. But I really want to focus here
on Galatians 3. Because this is their nub. This is really where they've
got it. And you think about this expression,
if you do them, you will live by them. Well, that sounds like
you're going to merit blessing by doing the statutes
and commands of the Lord. And so there, they would say,
is your evidence that there is, in some sense, a republication
of the covenant of works given there at Sinai. Because, you
know, you can't earn them. And we know that in the New Testament. So now let's turn to Galatians
3. Romans, first and second Corinthians,
Galatians, chapter three. I want you to notice in particular verse 12, that's
the heart of it right there. Notice what it says. But the
law is not a faith, rather the one who does them shall live
by them. Now, do you see that first expression,
but the law is not of faith? Where do we see that? That was
the title of the book I showed you. So that's the whole point. They love this verse, Galatians
3, 12. The law is not of faith. And
that's where the title comes from. And the second part of
that verse, the one who does them shall live by them. Where
did we just see that? That's Paul's citation of Leviticus
18.5. Now, just as a quick aside, the
other place that Paul hits upon this verse is in Romans chapter
10. And the argument comes at it
a bit differently, but I think the conclusion really in critiquing
this is gonna be the same, yeah. I think even as it's used in
Leviticus, it does have to do with our lifestyle, how we live. We are living in accordance to
the laws, statutes, commands of God. I think that aspect is
undeniable. And so because of that, and what
you see here in Galatians, remember, the overarching purpose of Galatians
is to uphold this doctrine of justification by faith alone.
And so you have these Judaizers. What do the Judaizers keep saying
needed to be done in order for you to be saved? Circumcision,
which was the specific thing, and what Jim said also is correct,
they had to keep the whole law. Now we know that not just from
Galatians, because Galatians really focuses on circumcision,
because that's kind of the thing. But you go back to Acts chapter
15, and you don't need to turn there, but the whole purpose
of the Jerusalem Council, circumcision is mentioned, but the Judaizers
also mentioned one other thing. They had to be circumcised and
keep the whole law of Moses, of which circumcision became
the spotlight example of what it means to keep the whole law
of Moses. And see, this is what Paul is
dealing with, the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
And you think about this, the law is not a faith. You can't
be saved by keeping the law. That's Paul's point. And it's
like, well, okay. Maybe then there's something
to this. Maybe that's what's being described.
But I think the common problem, particularly here in Galatians
3, It is not law as opposed to faith. It's not law as opposed to grace. It might look like that here
in this verse, and even just the verse before, you mentioned
verse 11. Now it is evident that no one
is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall
live by faith. And that's a citation from Habakkuk
chapter two. This is the key thing. And I
think, in my opinion, this is where they miss the boat. And
it really is a lot simpler than they need to make it. It is not
law as opposed to grace. What Paul is actually arguing
here, and I hope to demonstrate this with the previous verses
and the subsequent verses. that Paul is arguing justification
by law as opposed to justification by grace. That's what he's arguing. And you might think, well, Pastor
Jim, you're splitting hairs. No, I don't think so. It's a
question of how one is right before God. That's what justification
is all about. Justification is that declaration
by God that we are righteous in his sight because of the imputed
righteousness of Christ. And see, that's kind of the point
of contention. That's really the issue. And
this is a bit of an aside, but it is related to what Conrad
is asking. Why isn't also the New Covenant,
the New Testament, because of its commands, somehow a republication
of the covenant of works? Interestingly enough, I think,
I haven't read it, but I just distinctly remember this on the
floor of General Assembly when the committee presented its report
on republication, that one of the ministers got up and said,
I think you're misusing Charles Hodge here. Because those that
are promoting republication were trying to quote Charles Hodge,
the great Princeton theologian and professor there. Well, the
thing is, Hodge said something similar to that a few pages in
his commentary on 1 Corinthians after he talked about republication
at Sinai. The thing is, Hodge didn't mean
the exact same thing that these guys are. So that's part of it.
And see, this also gets to another aspect of it. When these guys
who hold to this doctrine of republication, that the covenant
of works was somehow republished at Sinai, what they are saying
here with Leviticus 18.5 is that that demonstrates that there
is some kind of works principle that is in play at Sinai. If you do them, you will live. In some sense, there's this works
principle, and that works principle applies to the nation that if
you want to get into the promised land and stay in the promised
land, you need to do this so that you can live. That's their
understanding. And when Christ comes, he perfectly
fulfills the law. That righteousness we receive
by faith and therefore the works principle
is now gone. So in the New Testament, there
is no works principle in that sense. Good works are not a condition
of anything. All good works is, is just mere
evidence. And so for you to preach imperatives
kind of brings us back to Sinai. that this is the argument that's
made. Now, I realize this is kind of
like language and theology that's kind of up here, which is why
I talked about before, you know, the ivory tower, the study and
things like that. In a certain sense, it kind of
sounds attractive. And you may remember in the past
two weeks, I've been trying to give these guys credit for defending
the Reformation, the biblical doctrine of justification by
faith alone, but they go off the rails here. And so any speaking
of the law, moral law, any speaking of good works as being some sort
of a condition, is bringing us back to Sinai under the covenant
of works. Yeah. Well, that's the difference
between the individual and the corporate nation. And so that's
kind of how they get around it. Yeah, that's my thinking. See, that's my thinking. So let
me just look at Galatians because I tried to stress to you my critique
in particular is that what Paul is doing here is not law versus
grace. That's not the case because elsewhere
at the end of Romans chapter three, Paul says, what about
the law? We uphold the law. What does
Paul say in Romans chapter seven about the law? The law is spiritual
and good. Paul here is dealing with how
we're justified. He's not setting the law against
the gospel per se. It's the misuse of the law. That's the issue for the Judaizers. That was the issue, the misuse
of the law. Now, let's look at this text.
Let's go back to verse 7. Here's Paul's argument. Know
then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
And the scripture foreseeing what? That God would justify
the Gentiles by faith. That's his overarching argument. He's not opposed to the moral
law per se. It's the misuse of that law,
saying that you need to obey the law in order to be justified. That's what he's arguing against.
And notice he continues that God would justify the Gentiles
by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying,
in you all the nations will be blessed. So then those who are
of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Now
verse 10, to better understand Paul's point in verse 12, you
gotta look at verse 10. For all who rely on works of
the law are under a curse. Rely on the works of the law
for what? For the very justification he's just spelling out that comes
by faith. So, am I being clear? I know it seems like I'm splitting
hairs here, but there are implications if we don't. Do we understand
that Paul is not contrasting law against grace? He's contrasting
the means by which one stands before God and is declared righteous
in his sight. And Paul's point is, in order
to be justified by the law, what do you have to do? You have to keep it perfectly. And Paul's point is, that's true,
you can't. But that's not because there's
something wrong with the law, it's because there's something
wrong with all of us. That's the issue. Jake? Because the law is good
and gracious, once we justify that, holy lifestyles
of where the Jews were practicing Yes, that's it. That's the evidence
side of it, that's correct. Yeah, yeah, that's right. So what are the implications?
See, this is where it goes off the rails, because those who
hold to this doctrine of republication, those that are consistent, thankfully,
within our own denomination, people are really not that consistent
in implying it in the everyday. But what ends up happening is
they say that now in the New Covenant, there's no works principle
at all. It's all faith. And justification
becomes the end-all, be-all of what the New Testament is about. Everything is justification.
And don't get me wrong. It's a great doctrine. It's part
of the Protestant Reformation. I uphold it. Hallelujah. Amen. But what ends up happening is
that these guys then take a, and I'm gonna be blunt and say
it, a Lutheran perspective on reading scripture, that everything
they read is through the lens of law versus gospel. And so they even say you need
to have the law gospel hermeneutic. How many of you have heard of
that? I know some of you have. You've got to read the scripture
through a law gospel hermeneutic. Well, it does. That's how I see
it, yeah. And so since there's no works
principle, what ends up happening is when people start talking
about doing good works, they will then ask the court, well,
how much good works are necessary? That's what they'll ask me. Somebody
in our own denomination, when I spoke of good works on Twitter
one time, he just said, well, how much good works are necessary?
The problem is that's a category error. Because in terms of justification,
we understand that we require perfect obedience. Well, we can't
do it. Where does it come from? It comes
from Christ. And so before God is judged,
you who have faith in Christ, are viewed as perfectly righteous
in his sight. Because what does God as judge
say? He sees the perfect record of
Jesus Christ imputed to you, reckoned to you, credited to
your account. But when you get to doing good
works as a Christian, now you're no longer dealing with God as
judge, you're dealing with God as your father. It's a category error, that's
the problem. And so with God as your father,
look, all of us were kids at one times. There are a few in
here that still are. You mess up from time to time,
right? But it doesn't change your judicial
status as being viewed as perfectly righteous. So to ask the question
of a Christian, how many good works are enough? That's the
wrong question. Just live in obedience. And the
fact that even my good attempts at obedience are tainted by sin,
I've got hope. You know why? Because my good
works, even though they're tainted in sin, are accepted in Christ. They're accepted in Christ. Roy? Yeah, or any atheist unbeliever. Or put another way, every person
who is not a Christian in some way says, my standing before
God depends upon me and what I do. And I can get right with
God. That's correct. The unbeliever. And that's why I said it's a
category error. You've got two different classes
of individuals that you're talking about. Unbelievers and those
who have been redeemed. And so there's a different perspective
as one who's been redeemed. Now, what I want to do is just
kind of show you what this does, and it's not exclusive to those
who hold to republication. There are other movements, if
you will, out there that kind of lead to the same antinomianism,
that anti-law type thing. Some of you may have heard of
Sonship, Sonship theology. The idea there in trying to counsel
people through their struggles and their doubts, hey, you're
a son of God, you can't lose that. On the surface, that sounds
right. But both of these end up at the
same place, even though they come at it from different angles
and theological perspective. But what is common is you have
this view of law bad, you can't keep it, stop trying because
if you're trying, you're trying to earn your way to heaven. Jesus
did it, you can't do it, thanks be to God that Jesus did it for
you. Now you notice how some of that has some truth. There's a lot of truth. But the whole point is, we've
been redeemed therefore. Look, even from a theological
perspective. And I always go to this. Westminster
Shorter Catechism. You could do the larger if you
want, but just want to save a little time. And then I wanna talk about
some of the implications of what they do with certain texts of
Scripture because of this mentality of law bad, Jesus did it, you
can't do it. Westminster Shorter Catechism,
it's question 40, I believe. Nope, my mistake, it's 44. I was in the right vicinity. And please understand, when it's
talking here about the Ten Commandments, what it said back in 41, the
moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. So that's
what we're talking about, the moral law. So question 44, the
preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us that because God is
the Lord and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep
all his commandments. Do you hear that language from
the Westminster Divines? They are bound. And why? There's two reasons given. You've
heard me talk about this. There are two reasons the Westminster
Divines, following the word of God, say we are bound to keep
the moral law. What are those two reasons? He's God and he's our Redeemer. It's a two-fold reason. One of which applies to all the
pagans, that's correct. But Christians, I can remember
people had conniption fits online one time when I put as a tweet,
these are reformed, our own people, as it were. I said, Christians
are bound to keep all God's commandments. That's works righteousness, blah,
blah, blah. And I said, this is a reformed
and confessional statement. It is not, you have no idea what
you're talking about. Then I posted the question and
answer from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Nothing came after
that, not a thing. Christian, right. And that's
why the divines here, it speaks of God and as our Redeemer. We're redeemed to obey and enabled to obey. By the way,
that's the other side of this. That's the other side of this,
and this makes me cringe. We all understand, as good reform
Calvinists, what the doctrine of total depravity is. What it's
not is that we're as bad as we can possibly be. That's not what
it means. What it means is historically,
what that doctrine means is every aspect of ourselves has been
affected by sin such that we in and of ourselves are unable
to flee to Christ because it's not in our nature. You see, that's
the heart of the doctrine of total depravity. It's that inability
in and of ourselves because it's not in our nature. Any more than
it's my nature to climb the highest building of Tulsa and jump off
and fly. But I'm exercising my free will,
right? It's not in my nature to fly. Our nature needs to be
changed. What some of these people are
saying is that even as Christians redeemed and set free from the
bondage of sin and the law, the curse of the law, that Christians
are totally depraved. It is. If all they meant was
that every aspect of ourselves is still affected by sin, well,
yeah, I agree with that. But the heart of the doctrine
of total depravity is that question of inability. That's really the
heart of it. When Christians are regenerated,
they're enabled. So the heart of what makes total
depravity total depravity is taken away, right? Yes, unwilling. Right. Right. He's answering a different question. That's correct. Now, just by way of example,
I want to take a step back because this is not unique to those who
hold to this doctrine of republication. It's also, it can be a result
of those who hold to sonship. It can be a result of those that
are really clinging to a Lutheran view of things. Like you may
remember the name Tullian Chevigian, the grandson of Billy Graham.
He was antinomian par excellence, and he was in the PCA until,
of course, he wasn't. We'll just leave it at that.
But here's what they do, and I'm not gonna turn to them because
these are texts you're probably familiar with. The parable of
the Good Samaritan. This is what they do to a text
like this. Those who are consistent, and again, they don't all do
this. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given because somebody
asked a question after Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself.
Somebody said, well, who's my neighbor? And so Jesus told the
parable of the Good Samaritan. What they say, they put this
strong emphasis on Jesus was the Good Samaritan. He did it
for you. That's the emphasis. But you
don't have to, because Jesus did it. That's really what Jesus
is trying to say there. Except you know what the problem
with that is? Jesus, at the end, he told them, go and do likewise. That's what he told them, go
and do likewise. So yeah, the parable of Good
Samaritan is about you two. Go and do likewise. In 1 John,
where John talks about how the commands of God are not burdensome. That's supposed to be motivation
for you and for me to obey the commands of God. But you know
what they say that that text means? You know why God's commands
are not burdensome? Because Jesus took it all away. And you don't have to do it.
That's their response. That's what they do to texts
like this. Hebrews chapter 12, where we're told to strive for
two things, strive for peace and strive for holiness. You
know what they say the striving for holiness is? Coming to faith
in Jesus Christ so you're justified with the imputed righteousness
of Christ. That's what that means. You can't do it. And I'm sitting
there, strive for holiness. The verb, the command is strive. Yes, it does. And plus the fact
that if you're striving for holiness, it assumes you've already been
enabled to do it. And that's for somebody who's
been saved. It is. Jim? Yeah. Here's what they do, and Mark
Jones hits on this in this book about halfway through or so.
He says, and if I remember correctly, he's quoting Tully and Chevigian
before his improprieties, that justification, or excuse me,
sanctification is nothing more than remembering your justification. That's what sanctification is. It's just remembering that you're
justified. And see, That's kind of a Lutheran
view. I wouldn't even say Luther held
that view. That's kind of the modern Lutheran
view. Well, right, that's the flip
side to it, right. Yeah. Right. It's gratitude, thankfulness,
and simply because we're trying. That's correct. It's not burdensome
because we no longer have the curse of the law to have to obey
it perfectly to be saved because we already are. That's why they're
not burdensome. But we still have to obey. In
the short time I've got left, I want to go to 2 Peter chapter
1. And I want to try to illustrate that Obedience to God, living
in accordance to his word, is still required of us, and what
it means for us, and three minutes, yeah, okay. We're familiar, even
though it's a different version here than the ESV, we're familiar
with verse three. His divine power has granted
to us all things that pertain to life and godliness. What's
on our bulletin? everything necessary for life
and godliness. It really comes out of this verse,
okay? And keep that in mind. I want
you to jump down to verse 11. This is where I want to go and
show you the importance of good works in the life of the believer.
For in this way," key phrase, in this way, hold on to that,
in this way, there will be richly provided for you an entrance
into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
So Peter here is discussing entrance into the kingdom, into eternal
life, from this life into the next. And he's like, oh, okay,
how are we getting there? Well, he says, in this way. Well,
in what way? Well, go back one verse. Therefore,
brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election.
For if you practice, the verb there is to do, these qualities,
you will never fail. Well, wait a minute. That sounds
like works-based righteousness. It's not. That's Peter's point. He's speaking to Christians.
What he's saying is you're justified. Now live at one who bears the
name of Christ, bearing the name of your elder brother as a citizen
of the kingdom. And that's the path upon which
you walk in this life so that one day you will attain that
which Christ secured for you. Anybody remember my airplane
ticket analogy? Remember that? Airplane ticket,
you get your boarding pass. All right, I'm at home, print
my flight out, print it, great. How come I'm not at my destination? I got my ticket. Oh, yeah, I gotta go to the airport. Okay, I've made it to the airport.
How come I'm not at my destination? I gotta go through security.
I gotta actually walk down the tarmac, have it scanned. The
ticket, the boarding pass is what gives me the right to be
on that flight. Okay? But I'm not getting on that flight
unless I do the work to make my way there. Let's turn this around. Suppose
I don't have a boarding pass, and I drive to the airport, I
park my car, I take the shuttle, I go through security somehow,
and I get to the plane, and they say, you can't get on the plane.
Yeah, but I worked my way here, I got here. You don't have the thing that
guarantees you the seat. Well, what? The wedding clothes.
That ticket is like our justification. That's what gives us the right
to be on the plane. Our justification is what gives
us the right to heaven. It's nothing we earn. Christ
did it for us. That's the point. But in order
to get on that plane, I've actually got to go to the airport. It doesn't just magically transform
me and put me at my destination. This is why you hear me say from
time to time, Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
did not end when the burden came off of Christians back. The story
continued. He had to press on. He had to
persevere. He had to do good works, not
to be saved, but because he has been saved, and he had to attain. That's what Peter's saying here
in 2 Peter 1. If you do these things, and then
you start in verse 4, all the way through that passage, you'll
see those qualities that you need to do. So we're out of time. I really, I kind of want to put
this to rest, be done with this doctrine of republication. It
is heady stuff, and it gets confusing because they do use some orthodox
language. It becomes confusing because
they have the right motive in maintaining the doctrine of justification
by faith alone, to which we say amen. the way they get there
and what the results are, are problematic. And that's the issue
as I see it and others do as well. So, all right, let's close
in prayer. Our Father in God and heaven,
we do thank you for your word and what it teaches us, reminding
us of what Jesus Christ has accomplished for us, that we are indeed justified
through faith in him. But Lord, may we also recognize
that as those who have received Christ, we have been enabled
to live in obedience to your commands. And it is in that sense
that your commands are not burdensome. And so, Lord, we pray that your
Spirit would continue to enable us more and more to conform to
the image of Jesus, our Savior. And now, Lord, prepare our hearts
as we're about to enter into your presence to worship and
adore you. We pray all this in Christ's
name, amen. Sorry for the fire hose. That was a lot.
Covenant Theology (27): Excursus on Republication, part 3
Series Covenant Theology
| Sermon ID | 49231916315997 |
| Duration | 48:15 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday School |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.