Tim Smith

Minnesota Sports Fan, History guy, and Blake Bortles Stan.

[Honest Youth Pastor @HonestYPTweets]

An individual Christian can sin and still be a believer because their identity rests on God’s saving work and covenant promise in Christ.

Nations aren’t in covenant with God in this way.

A nation is Christian only in so far as it’s people follow and obey Christ’s commands.

[Honest Youth Pastor @HonestYPTweets]

The Loran Livingston clip is revealing something very interesting.

1) No one cares about context.

2) Sermon clips are progressively used more for ammo for one’s theological point than discussion.

3) Christians desire for their ears to be itched, not challenged.

[Honest Youth Pastor @HonestYPTweets]

It’s strange to me that everything event is seen as some kind of litmus for Christianity.

- 2016 was test
- COVID was a test
- BLM was a test
- The election was a test
- The latest controversy is the test

Seems like we are judging everyone on everything except the Gospel.

[Aaron Gleeman @AaronGleeman]

I'm really going to miss Naz Reid.

Few players in Wolves history have been more fun to watch and easier to root for.

He's a developmental success story, but waiting this long for a chance to start only to be traded days after seemingly getting it is a bummer ending.

Two words.

[Michael Foster @thisisfoster]

One of the more frustrating trends online is watching people reduce every disagreement to a false binary.

You’re expected to pick a side between two tribes rather than two arguments. And if you suggest that both sides are wrong in important ways, or that the issue should be framed differently altogether, you’re mocked with labels like “third wayism.”

It’s a rhetorical tactic, a way to pressure people into choosing between loose coalitions of personalities and talking points rather than carefully evaluating the issue itself. Truth becomes secondary to team membership.

[Tom Hicks @TomHicks2LCF]

The Marrow Theology

1. True saving faith has some assurance in it, but it may be clouded by accompanying doubts. Thus, sinners should be called to trust in Christ to cover their sins through His shed blood, to give them a title to heaven and to dwell in them by His Spirit.

2. The atonement is limited to the elect alone, but the power of Christ's death is sufficient for all so that Christ and His death may be offered to all. This is good Dortian theology: sufficient for all; efficient for the elect.

3. The covenant of grace has no conditions that sinners must meet prior to entering the covenant and it has no conditions that could disinherit anyone from the covenant. Effectual calling brings sinners into the covenant of grace, giving them faith, and the Spirit preserves believers in the covenant. Faith is a blessing of the covenant of grace, not a precondition or condition of continuation.

4. Sinners should trust in Christ, not only for justification but also *for* repentance. Repentance is by faith in Christ. No one should be told that they must first change and then they can have Christ and His benefits because change (sorrow for sin, hating and forsaking it) is itself one of Christ's benefits.

5. Holiness and good works are neither a ground nor a means of entering into heaven. Rather, holiness is necessarily present in those who enter into heaven. It is necessary as a fruit of salvation, and it is necessary in those being saved, but we should avoid language that says holiness is "necessary for salvation" (though some orthodox use it, but not the confessions) so as not to imply that we have to do good works to save ourselves.

[Keith Foskey @YourCalvinist]

We tend to think the best of our friends and the worst of our enemies. Therefore we give mercy to those we like and are merciless to those we do not.

We really don’t care if they’re right or wrong. We just care if they’re on our side.

[Eduardus Ekofius @EddyEkofo]

@Brian_Sauve Don’t be a Nazi then we won’t call you that, or embrace the title at least we’ll know who’s who.

[Gabriel Hudelson @GabrielHudelson]

I have way more tolerance for the Ogden folks than many people probably wish I had. I love a lot of what they say, and still listen to their stuff regularly.

But @Brian_Sauve and @Eric_Conn (who probably won’t see this because they both have blocked me) *refuse* to be clear on this issue (among others).

I’m fine with reading historical speeches.

I’m fine with acknowledging that history was messy, and even that Hitler and the Nazis did or said some good things (and the Allies did/said bad ones).

I’m all for rejecting the up-and-coming globalist holocaust (and if you think “holocaust” is an overstatement, I know 250,000 British girls who would disagree with you).

But saying “we are just gonna tell you what we honestly think” and then proceeding to not tell us what you honestly think about *the particular bones of contention* is really not helpful.

(Look at the recent posts by @Protestia if you want more info on what Antelope Hill puts out.)

To respond to the controversy by saying “They republish historical speeches, history is messy, and yeah we probably should have researched them better-” this does not tell us what you honestly think about the issues in question.

The obvious direction of AHP is not simply the republication of historical speeches. The agenda of AHP is clear.

Imagine if a mainstream Christian conference had some LGBT-affirming publishing house in their vendor hall. The truth comes out during the conference, and conference officials respond with a mild, soft-shoe backpedal. “Yeah, we probably should have researched them better, human sexuality is a complicated thing.”

Everyone on the Christian right (correctly) would say that was fake and gay nonsense at a time when a clear and courageous rebuke was necessary.

Clarity is charity, and it isn’t hard to say “we are cool with historical speeches, but we are not cool with calling blacks subhuman or promoting Nazi paganism and ethnic vainglory. We thought Antelope Hill was just republishing speeches, but have since discovered that they have a clear agenda, and we will not be having them back to our conference. And while history is complicated, Hitler and the Nazis were definitely not heroes, and the large swath of our fans who think that they were need to repent.”

This isn’t “dance, monkey, dance.”

It’s “why will you not be clear about what you believe on this issue?”

“But we have been clear on one of our podcasts 17 months ago!”

OK. Please, for those of us who missed it, sum it up in a tweet.

Shouldn’t be hard.

[Adriel Sanchez @AdrielTweets]

It's "unfortunate" when they run out of coffee in-between sessions at a conference, or when the breakout you wanted to go to is full. It's unacceptable if a vendor is allowed to push Nazi ideology at a conference. These kinds of permissions demonstrate incompetence, no discernment, and sinful compromise. You can't play hardball with feminism and LGBTQ issues, and pattycake with Nazis. The whole thing is shameful, and we can see through the cowardice that continues to give oxygen to these errors by calling them unfortunate instead of abominable. Stubbing your toe is unfortunate. We use stronger words to describe wickedness.

[Michael Foster @thisisfoster]

Two somewhat related thoughts…

First, recasting Hitler as some misunderstood, persecuted, well-intentioned leader is false. It’s historical revisionism, and no doubt part of a broader effort to corrupt the way people think about evil, power, and history.

You don’t have to buy into every prevailing narrative about the twentieth century to recognize that. A society that loses the ability to clearly identify genuine evil is a society that becomes vulnerable to it.

Second, so much (which is different from saying all) of what has been going on in the online Reformed world over the last few years is a strange mix of proxy wars, bitterness from soured relationships, and influencers fighting one another over what they treat as a zero-sum audience. It’s a mess. The more things moved in that direction, the more I moved away from it. And I have no intention of getting pulled back into it.

Even posting this will bring out the “name names” and “declare your allegiance” crowd. You get it from both sides. Disavow this guy or declare your loyalty to me. If you don’t publicly denounce someone, you’re secretly with him. If you don’t publicly pledge your allegiance to another person, you’re not a real friend.

Oh well.

[Brandon Warne @Brandon_Warne]

The Twins are always better as underdogs

[Richard Barcellos @richbarcellos]

[Christ] gives [his sheep] his righteousness, which … entitles them to eternal life. ~ John Gill

[Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund]

Apologetics should be pastoral and spiritual, not just intellectual.

"The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power" (II Cor. 10:4).

[Tim Smith @timmbob17]

This is not a knock on uncapping the house, but a 11,000-member legislative body maybe means the country is too big (but nobody is ready for that conversation yet).

[Conor Rogers @conorjrogers]

No one is ready for the real solution to Gerrymandering:

A return to the Constitution's original standard of 1 Member of Congress for every 30,000 Americans, resulting in an 11,000-member House with city-council sized districts so small you can't Gerrymander them if you tried.

[Colton Yarbro 🥝 @ColtonYarbro]

My favorite thing about @gavinortlund is not that he is well read (though he is). It's not that he is smart (though he is). It's not that he can articulate arguments well (though he can). My favorite thing about him in the space he occupies is that he displays the fruit of one who is regenerate.

[Nostalgia @NostalgiaFolder]

Zoboomafoo (1999-2001)

[Ken @Ken_FiveSolas]

I’ve observed that these guys never see the gospel as a solution.

[Ryan Denton @TexasPreacher]

The most misunderstood subject in the American Church today is the Holy Spirit. You have strange and goofy charismania on the one side, and dry & deistic hyper-cessationism on the other.