Відео

Hey Jordan, typically, I listen to the podcast, not watch. Jumping on here to let you know the past few eps. of Kiffin's Keep have been excellent. They have been timely and just helpful for me to think through things that pop up that I might not have been able to spend time on otherwise.

This show is hands down my favorite monthly show. Excited to hopefully start learning under Jesse at Welch.

Love this Show.

Excellent episode. Very profitable listen.

I need to get some books to know more

Jake and Jesse are twinning.

Excellent episode. Could you link the Leeman article in the description?

Sovereignty and omniscience seem to almost require to impassibility.

You said that the pinnacle of blessedness is the lack of suffering, but then what do you do with Matthew 5:10-12? Jesus calls people blessed who suffer persecution. I'm not so sure that being blessed speaks of an emotional or passionate/passionless state. I'm not saying that I wholesale disagree with impassibility either, but that argument seems weak.

@thelondonlyceum. Hey, Jordan. Really appreciate your more laid-back, inclusive approach to these inter-Reformed debates. I’m sacramental, credobaptist, and presbyterian (in polity), so I don’t really fit in anywhere. Comfortably in an ACNA parish for the moment. The Reformed Baptists strike me as incredibly insightful in so many ways, but-perhaps due to their paucity of numbers-they seem insular and dogmatic. There is a certain je-ne-sais-quois nature to Baptists in general that feels somewhat anti-intellectual and subjective to me. By contrast, there is a more academically robust feel to conservative Presbyterians. It could be nothing more than the absence of an influential seminary and/or publishing house. I am extremely impressed with Sam Renihan (and his father), as well as with Tom Schreiner and Pascal Denault and Timothy George. Plus, all the popularizers like you and Brandon Adams and James White and Jeff Durbin and Al Mohler and on and on. It’s not that there is a dearth of figures who are both brilliant and grounded. It’s something I can’t put my finger on. Perhaps some remnants of Dispensationalism that you all can’t quite shake. The arguments between the 1689 folks and Westminster-esque clan don’t feel like they have been entirely fleshed out. Of course, some of that is probably just inter-paradigmatic miscommunication. I don’t have a background in philosophy, but so often these heated discussions center around supposed “entailments” rather than the substance of opposing viewpoints. It’s kind of like what happens when people argue by analogy…and then push the analogy past its breaking point. I have personally followed your “one baptism” stance. I was baptized as an infant, so I have not sought rebaptism. But my children will be baptized as believers (with which my Anglican priest is supportive). I should add that the tolerance often goes both ways: I became a member of a Reformed Baptist church for a while…without being required to be rebaptized.

God wants me to get education. I'm wondering how far I should go. I'd want to take my time. Could I spread it out? I'm a missionary. I actually tell people their education is more than a piece of piece of paper. Education provides opportunity. Paper makes a claim. How many credits if one have a master's? I read it was 40.

“I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.” - Sincerely the Nicene Creed. If someone denies the validity of infant baptism, then they cannot truly accept this sentence. To acknowledge the validity of infant baptism in any fashion means that one is no longer simply a Baptist but rather resembles a Classical Protestant who prefers to wait until a profession of faith before baptizing. Therefore, there is no need for division; the denominational walls should be broken down. In the Anglican, communion, one has a choice on whether to wait upon a profession of faith to baptize their children or to baptize them as infants, this is a duel practice method and is more historically accurate, however, once the position is truly understood, most people choose to let their children partake of the visible church. Baptism puts us on the Ark, 1 Peter 3:21 Noah was the only on on that ship who was said to have "received grace" however his family was still delivered through the flood. Thus, just like the art was a vessel of salvation, so is the church and therefore we bring our children with us for "such as these the Kingdom of heaven." Blessings 🙏

Honored by the answer, Jordan. I think I agree with your principle, even if I may differ on its application. I’m wrestling specifically with the extent to which Christians can cooperate intellectually with people who hold views that are morally abhorrent. There has to be some kind of balance between a retreatist who refuses to buy groceries from the non-Christian grocer and the person who feels no need to distinguish themselves from the world. I’m not specifically concerned about the pro choice example, it just functions as a helpful catalyst for these discussions. Especially in academic contexts where the libs (for lack of a better phrase) are running the show, it seems like a Christian academic has to decide between either only writing for/participating in Christian academic circles or thinking about where/how they can partner with and engage with non-Christian academics. Still not sure how I would approach every sort of scenario. But I’m also not writing any books so I’m glad I don’t have any practical pressure to think about these things! Appreciate your thoughts.

It looks like I'll be done ABD the beginning of 2028 (60 crh) and then on to the dissertation. Of course, I'll be doing some research and writing along the way. I am grateful for your channel.

You and The London Lyceum are a tremendous blessing!

Given your triage pyramid, I wonder where you would place the gospel of justification by faith alone. In other words, in what ways can we collaborate with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? It's one thing to talk about scholarship on Trinitarianism, but what about in evangelistic ministry or other forms of ministry collaboration?

Excellent and. Rey helpful! Thank you!

Yet another “our club is better” opinion. Where is the humility? They are different doctorates aimed at different outcomes. Just as MD is practicing medicines vs PhD in the lab. The sheer fact that you repeatedly said “you don’t have the right to be called ‘doctor’ so many times, reveals the arrogance of your heart. You deserve to be called “doctor” because of your degree - your other brothers are not worthy because they are not in your club. I sincerely hope you are not a pastor teaching that all are of equal value in Christ. As a fellow brother in Christ, I offer this advice. You should take this down. You should learn some humility, and you should honor your other brothers in Christ instead of looking down on them.

Jesse is awesome to bad we have to listen to a Calvinist lol just kidding Jake.

Is there video where you expound on the Covenant of Grace?

awesome advice, thanks brother!

Baptist Pastor from deep south texas. Always love the banter and appreciate your great conversations. Blessings! Marco A Garza Jr

Old Testament believers DID NOT go to heaven, Sam's position on the limbus patrum may not be the the position of traditional covenant theologians, but it is absolutely correct, and the view of historic christianity.

I find this helpful. I anticipate joining Princeton Seminary for Fall 2025

I know Jake’s view on Bunyan but am curious as to Jesse’s view. Jesse do you consider Bunyan a Baptist?

How can some preacher becoming more successful than people that have PHD/DMin in general...? On the other hand, some experience Cristhians prefer DMin over the PHD since they consider it more practical for the church needs at these days than doing research in theological research...? God bless everyone there and thank you for sharing. Shalom, Shalom

There are too many assumptions built in to this question. The better question is, is the seminary in its current form serving the church? Are the things taught at seminary necessary? Why is seminary a masters level project: should a person waste 4 years in undergrad first? Seminary has become the "christian" version of secular colleges: they exist to perpetuate themselves.

Should Christian’s collaborate on academic projects pertaining to Christian theology/ethics/history with socially progressive academics? Should a confession ally Christian church historian, for example, coauthor a work on church history with a professing Christian academic who is pro choice? At what point do the social issues bear on whether or not a Christian academic can work with someone?

Thanks for the thoughtful content, as always :)

👊

Your point at ~19:15 is crucial. Thank you brother. It is not a retreat to mentally commune with our Lord (ponder and feast on Christology), and then from that strength tackle everything else.

I think the definition of this is your own feelings on it and worst extreme examples of it. Kinda like when people label all Calvinists as hyper calvinists.

Thanks for this video. It was extremely helpful.

Do I think the Church could replace the Seminary? No. I *do* think there is something wrong in the idea of taking someone called by God to serve *in* the church, *at* the church, *out* of the church, to train *about* how to serve the Body he is called into. I grant this may be my own experience at having went to Bible College and Seminary most of a decade, only to see closed doors when I got out, and no help in placement. I think ministry training needs to be much closer to the assembly, with a clear view of not turning those called to be pastors into academicians divorced from the Church.

Kinda wild how unorthodox it is to tell people it makes sense to stay up late sometimes since there are no kid/family interruptions. I agree. As long as you maintain good sleep habits overall (wake up at same time, no screens beside bed, etc)

Didn’t upset me- very measured. Thanks brother.

Indeed. I've been hearing about R.Scott Clark on this.

I purchased Recovering The Reformed Confession book as you strongly recommended it. Can you tell me what you find so strong about it? Obviously Reformed Presbyterians hold to infant baptism (which is not my position). I agree that it's a matter of conscience whether to rebaptize post conversion after infant baptism. I previously thought it was almost necessary but I have softened my position to optional on it.

simple answer: it's not

The issue between Clark and baptists is that Clark wants to deny that there is a lower-case R "reformed" tradition and that there is only capital "R" Reformed. And that all attempts (from any side) to turn the "Reformed Church" into the "reformed Church" is anathema. He's trying to protect and preserve his Reformed Church by saying other things can't use the R word if they don't hold to 100% of the tenets of the Westminster or Three Forms of Unity and the churches that adopt them. It's not worth having the argument because history shows that there obviously is a lower-case R reformed tradition and that the term is extremely useful and clarifying for saying in shorthand "We're with the reformers for the most part." I think Scott Clark is brilliant and great. Many of his writings are useful to me. But I wish people would acknowledge what the argument with him is about and acknowledge that he has set up a debate framework that only he can win. He will never concede to a reformed tradition that isn't purely the Reformed Tradition.

Baptists are not reformed, catholic, or orthodox. And that's okay.

Oh, this is Gold! What a blessing! 1. When I was a Baptist, I would have defined the regulative principle as it is laid out in the 1689 LBC and as Fred Malone laid it out in his book “The Baptism of Disciples Alone.” However, one of the central tenets of Fred’s book is that the WCF does not apply the regulative principle properly. He says that “good and necessary consequence” reflects the “normative principle” and not the regulative. As I pointed out in the second half of Ch2, Paragraph 6 of the 2LBC, it reflects the same thought of “good and necessary consequence” just reworded. It is a copy and paste of “good and necessary consequences” and justifies the normative principle in certain situations where scripture is unclear. So, to say that I don’t understand the regulative principle is to say that Fred Malone does not either. 2. Secondly, thank you for proving my point about subjective interpretation; given your response, I would ask a couple of questions. - Is your interpretation of “one baptism for the remission of sins” the consensus of the Baptist faith? - Would your interpretation be accepted by the signers of the 1641 LBC or the 1689 LBC? - Could you present this to any communion in the Baptist faith and be considered orthodox within the framework of the Baptist faith? - If you stood on the pulpit of the SBC annual convention and announced your view to the whole convention, would you be allowed on a pulpit again in the SBC? - Is your interpretation of the Nicene creed in keeping with what the writers of the creed itself believed? If you accept infant baptism and count it as valid and would not re-baptize, then you, by default, deny “Believer baptism” as laid out in every major Baptist confession ever written. You are officially not a Baptist, doctrinally. I think I know the answer to all of these. John Bunyan tried your view once and was excommunicated from the fellowship of the signers of 1689. So good luck, friend. I will be praying for you, brother. Lord willing, He will open your eyes and call you back to the one true holy catholic and apostolic faith. May the Lord bless you. (edit: citation of 2LBC in 1st paragraph.) Cheers.

Good video, Jordan. We use distinctives (plural) as a cocktail of views that taken together make someone Baptist (note the capital B; many baptistic non-denominational churches are presbyterian at the local, even if they don't have connectionalism; also Pentecostals affirm credobaptism and they seem to be a distinct theological system from the Baptists).

I think Clark's view actually entails a bit more than the idea that infant Baptism is required for one to be reformed. Clark seems to specifically say that Westminster (or three forms) Covenant Theology is essential to what it means to be reformed, and he would say that entails infant baptism. As I understand your view (I apologize, but I have not read your paper Reforming Cresibaptism) you would suggest that pedobaptism is not necessary to Reformed CT. I think that is the core of your disagreement with Clark.

Thanks for the Free Will Baptist shout out! I am proud to consider myself Reformed, Baptist, and Arminian. I have the privilege to be part of my local association's credentials committee / ordaining council. A stronger associationalism will make stronger, healthier churches. This was a good video -- very helpful.

Excellent!

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say "Baptists can't be Reformed" my mortgage would be paid off. Great content as always, Jordan. The London Lyceum is starting to destroy my "Baptist shame" that I have subconsciously adopted due to Baptists usually being the butt of the joke in most reformed circles. Keep it up, brother.

Jesus doesn't baptize with water - He baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. Apostle Paul didn't do water baptisms either. The men in Acts below, who had partaken of John's water baptism, didn't receive the Holy Spirit, they hadn't even heard about such a thing. When told the meaning of water baptism, the Israelites were preparing to believe in the One coming who can take away sins, they wanted to be baptized in Him. After Paul placed his hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit (and eternal life), no water required. I also find it interesting that every recorded baptism in the New Testament, as this one, was in the name of the Lord Jesus only, not in a trinity of names. Acts 19:2-6 MEV and said to them, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" They said to him, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." [3] He said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." [4] Paul said, "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Christ Jesus." [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in other tongues and prophesied.

Thanks go sharing. I would say Religious Liberty is a Baptist Distinctive. Because it ties into our anti-Establishmentarianism, and the more restrained view of the Civil Magistrate. But that's a quibble. And otherwise, I agree.

I like Gavin Ortlund. He holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is mostly Westminster.