I greatly offended a local pastor by saying that online church is to worship as porn is to sex. But he wasn't half as offended as Jesus is every Sunday morning.

Re: the CT article on Elliott & Mollenkott; I am embarrassed how people are responding to this. We can debate the history & veracity of what was reported. But y’all have made an absolute idol of both Jim and Elisabeth Elliott, their lives and their legacy and that’s gross

Sterilization should never be done carelessly, and it should be the man’s burden, argues @Justin_W_Earley. christianitytoday.com/2026/0…

Yes

“Conservatives” are King Theoden

For context, I was explaining the implications of what the church fathers said, that schism is worse than murder and sexual immorality You can screenshot it and say "this is crazy" but that doesn't actually address the argument Granted, it could have been said better. Because most people in the PCA aren't aware of what schism is, so they're less culpable.

If we could just get back to having the state affirm Christianity, maybe it's not too late to reap all of the benefits that the UK has reaped from having consistently done so through all these long years.

It is genuinely wild to me that dozens and dozens of men on the right wing have accepted all-expenses-paid vacations to a foreign country with deeply controversial ties to our own political system—and then seem to view it as a totally absurd question when someone brings it up and asks if it might have influenced them in some way. Obviously, there's a chance that it did. Obviously, it's a relevant question to ask. Obviously, people should know about the free vacation if they're going to figure out whether to trust you on issues related to that country. Right?

My thoughts on Brian Borgman’s video that has been circulating on the law and the gospel. I am grateful for Pastor Borgman’s ministry and that he is seeking to address a real pastoral concern. I share some of his instincts but also want to note places where I see things differently. Agreements 1. Some sermons should press the importance of human action and obedience as the main thrust of the sermon. This should never be done without Christ or the gospel. But some sermons are instructive. Assuming (I think rightfully) that the book of James was meant to be read in public worship, it would be one example of this. 2. The weight of emphasis in a sermon should be governed by the text along with the overall theology of the Bible (law, gospel, centered on Christ), and the thrust of every sermon should not be converted into: “Christ did this for you.” 3. The Reformed third use of the law is important. In Reformed theology, the authority of the law is itself one motive of faithful obedience. Christians obey law as law because it is God’s law and it comes with His authority. Faithful Christians certainly obey God’s law motivated by justification and assurance of salvation, but the authority of the law of God is also a motive. It’s a goad or prod to the Christian. 4. Sermons should never mute the authority of God’s law by preaching Christ and the gospel in such a way that the hearer gets the idea that Christ has done everything and that there is therefore absolutely nothing left for the hearer to do but to relax into his justification and find comfort in Christ's accomplishment of redemption. It is true that Christ has done everything to accomplish our redemption, and He is doing everything to apply our redemption, but there is still something for us to do! We must do what He commands in light of and on the basis of what He has done. 5. I agree with him that a justification-centered view of salvation is wrong. Union with Christ is the unifying center of the doctrine of salvation. Justification and sanctification are the double blessing of union with Christ. But if union with Christ is central, then justification is crucially important in our salvation (along with sanctification) and thus in our understanding of any given text. 6. I agree that sanctification is not merely “getting used to your justification.” I’m not aware of any confessional Reformed Baptists who teach this, and I share Borgman’s concern that such a thin understanding of motives in sanctification would be inadequate. Sanctification has many motives, including but not limited to gratitude, love for Christ, assurance of salvation, reverential fear, joy in Christ, fear of Christ’s discipline, desire for communion with Christ, etc. Differences 1. I respectfully ask whether naming specific interlocutors (or at least offering clearer examples) might have helped him. I understand he was combatting a general spirit, and that approach can be pastoral, but in this case, I think greater clarity about who or what he had in view would have been useful, because I did not recognize his portrayal of law-and-gospel preaching in any of the Reformed Baptist men I know. 2. I see the law/gospel theology differently from the way it is portrayed in Borgman's lecture. Berkhof notes that the churches of the Reformation from the beginning identified every command as law and every redemptive promise as gospel. Colquhoun faithfully explains the Reformed covenantal categories of law/gospel. The law as a covenant does not merely say, “do.” It says, “Do this and live.” Similarly the gospel as a covenant (the new covenant) does not merely say, “Done.” It says “Live and do this.” Strictly speaking, the law as pure commandment has no accompanying promise of life, and the gospel as pure promise has no commandment; yet when we speak of the law as a covenant it includes both command and threat, and when we speak of the gospel as a covenant it includes the promise of redemption together with the commands of the law now held in the hand of Christ. 3. I disagree with his concern that a thoroughgoing law/gospel theology when applied to preaching has any inherent tendency toward antinomianism. Quite the opposite, actually. When we blend law and gospel, failing to distinguish them, we collapse them, which leads to relaxing the law and thus to antinomianism. The full Reformed law/gospel theology guards against antinomianism and legalism. 4. I do not agree that distinguishing law and gospel in every text causes problems in preaching, when the law/gospel theology is rightly understood. For example, “Rejoice in the Lord” is indeed law. It’s glorious, wonderful law, which should be obeyed! But how can we rejoice in the Lord when we don't? Well, first of all because God commands it and that is one motive of obedience. But secondly, because according to the gospel, Christ has given Himself to us and life in Him. But what do we do if we can’t rejoice in the Lord? We cast ourselves on Christ who forgives our sin, accepts us, and loves us because of what He has done alone. We then listen to the proclamation of His redeeming grace. After that, we might find ourselves rejoicing! But then, and this is crucial, we MUST still rejoice in the Lord and grow in rejoicing because our loving and saving Jesus commands it for our own good and for His glory. 5. The true Reformed law/gospel theology has three motions, not two. The Reformed law/gospel theology does not move from law to gospel and then stop, which is what Borgman seems to fear. It moves instead from law to gospel and then to gospel obedience (or to the law in the hand of Christ, which commands us to obey by faith under grace). I am thankful that pastor Borgman has opened this conversation, and I hope some of these reflections can contribute to greater clarity and mutual understanding among brothers who share the same confessional commitments and the same desire to preach Christ faithfully.

A quick reminder that Kyle Rittenhouse showed up to a protest like this, shot and killed others and was celebrated by MAGA. Meanwhile Alex Pretti showed up to a protest like this, was shot and killed, then condemed by MAGA. Please stop saying this isn’t political.