Did A Free Grace Advocate destroy Free Grace with one sentence

Mark Matheny (who has a Jewish background) joins me to discuss this debate. I am going to try to have Truth in Telos join also (The other person in the debate.)

I am supposed to be debating Charles Jennings (Layman's Seminary) in September 2025 on the issue of if Covenant has anything to do with Salvation. I think it clearly does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWjAgjJwM5k
How is the link to the debate for more context.

In preparation for my upcoming debate against Charles Jennings of Layman’s Seminary this September (assuming he doesn’t back out), I’ve been reviewing some of his previous debates.

One thing becomes clear very quickly: when pressed, Jennings often retreats into credentialism — appealing to seminary training instead of Scripture. That’s not the mark of someone who’s winning a debate. It’s a red flag.

Even more concerning is that he doesn’t seem to grasp how covenant theology works from Genesis to Revelation. He makes the shocking claim that “the covenant isn’t about salvation.” But that’s the very foundation of God’s redemptive plan — from Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, to the blood of the New Covenant in Christ.

It’s hard to overstate how damaging that statement is to his credibility. And he said it while posturing as the “more qualified” voice based on his seminary background.

The key chapter for exposing the flaw in his thinking is Daniel 9 — and surprisingly, he seems very hesitant to talk about it. That’s like a Seventh-day Adventist dodging Daniel 8.

Here’s the issue: so much of Jennings’ theology rests on how he interprets Daniel 9. If he’s wrong about that, everything else collapses.

And he is wrong.

Daniel 9:27 is clearly about the Messiah confirming a covenant with many — not some future Antichrist. That covenant causes sacrifice and offering to cease because they are fulfilled in Him. That alone refutes his claim that “the covenant isn’t about salvation.” The entire list of goals in verse 24 (to end sin, atone for iniquity, bring everlasting righteousness) are fulfilled by the covenant Messiah confirms — the one He calls “the new covenant in My blood.”

This simplifies the whole debate. There’s no need for endless speculation. Just look at Daniel 9, in context, and read it carefully.

He challenged me to debate the covenant. So I told him, “Great — then we’ll finally debate Daniel 9.” He got nervous. He should be. Because if his understanding of Daniel 9 is off, then everything he’s built — including his view of grace, salvation, and eschatology — is resting on a broken foundation.

Debates are limited in time. That’s why Daniel 9 is the most efficient way to prove the covenant is central to salvation. And I plan to keep this grounded in the Old Testament — the only Scriptures the early church had. Salvation came through the Jews. Jesus didn’t start a new religion — He fulfilled a pre-existing one.

Christianity isn’t a new faith.

Christianity is the Jewish faith — fulfilled in Messiah.

It's a waste of time to listen to him talk about other subjects, when these other subjects depend on his view of Daniel 9 being correct. Could you imagine listening to people talk for hours about building a structure, yet the foundation they are going to build it on will not support it? It would be an absolute waste of time to listen to such people talk about their grand building plans if the foundation is not going to hold it.

And so I am forcing a careful examination of that foundation.

And Charles has no reason to be scared. SURELY he would have checked the foundation BEFORE wasting hours of people's time talking about what he is building on it.

And if he does back out, he is a fraud and a poser. A man who’s afraid to test the foundation he’s standing on.

But if he shows up, I will walk the audience through Daniel 9. And I’ll prove, clearly and carefully, that the covenant is central to salvation — and always has been.