Dana Dill

I don’t always agree with everyone, but I work hard to disagree with civility, respect, and charity. How a person argues reveals a lot. Condescension, mockery, and insults are usually indicators of a weak mind, a weak argument, or a weak character, and often all three.

@KassyAkiva Card board boxes they can crawl into and draw on!

Any toy recommendations that won’t bore a 7-month-old after two minutes?

@NWhite_GA My Baptist heart loves your Baptist heart. Keep being Baptist, brother.

Presbyterians love to argue that infant baptism portrays the beauty of sovereign grace and that salvation is by divine initiative rather than free will. But yet, they won't acknowledge that infant baptism also portrays that salvation is by physical birth rather than by faith. 1/2

Disagreement sharpens me. This post is an idea I would not have thought to articulate without a good-faith conversation with folks who sees things differently. Getting out of echo chambers and into real discussion with people who can disagree without mocking or ranting is an underrated practice. Highly recommended. "Casting a vote is not a full character endorsement nor a baptism. It is an imperfect attempt to love the people around you by supporting whomever you believe will serve them best." apilgrimsfriend.com/2026/04/16/why…

Just finished 2 Kings in my personal devotional reading. The last scene is terrible if you don’t know what you’re reading. Israel destroyed, conquered, exiled. Her last king, total loser, imprisoned for decades then released to eat at a pagan king’s table (2 Kings 25:27-30). No trumpet. No restoration. No glory. If you read the Bible as a collection of moral lessons and spiritual pick-me-ups, this passage has nothing for you. But if you know you’re reading one long story, this ending is insanely hopeful. Earlier in th Bible, God had promised a snake-crushing, world-blessing King from Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), from Judah (Genesis 49:10), from David’s line (2 Samuel 7:12-16) to save Man from sin and Satan. Satan knew this and fought it every step. He killed Israel from without and corrupted them from within until the covenant curses fell and exile came (Dt. 28:64-68). At the end of 2 Kings, it looks like he won. But a son of David is still breathing. The promised Savior line is alive. The seed survives. 2 Kings ends by showing the snake, Satan, won the battle, but he will not win the war. Same passage. Completely different world. If we only know parts of the Bible, we won’t understand the Bible at all. Half-Bibled Christians experience half-Christian lives.

@DDFStrand Get em

As someone who studies Just war ethics for a living and teaches ethics to the military, I’m surprised and delighted to have all the experts today on X teach me that I don’t know anything and the Pope is the undisputed true teacher of Just war.

Some unfortunate realities I've learned from having lots of discussions in the wild: - Many people react to how your words feel, but not what you actually said. - A lot of folks can’t hold two true ideas at once. - Most treat disagreement as a personal attack. - Accusations are most often confessions. - Most turn their disagreements into personal attacks. - Those who emphasize separating church and state often want the government to reward and penalize according to their unique moral framework. - People think other burger places are better than In & Out. - People misweigh a lot of things. Paper cuts become gunshots and gunshots get ignored. - Lots of people want to win more than they want truth. - Those who frequently preach love, compassion, unity, tolerance, and general decency often practice it the least. - What someone truly believes theologically often shows up less in what they say and more in how they explain and defend their political views. - Most thinking never gets past bumper-sticker depth. - Recent Disney Princess movies has genuinely discipled people to believe "Emotions > Logic" - Few have the patience to read anything to the end. From your experience, what would you confirm or add?

@dougponder @SpurgeonPiper This is excellent, thank you! If you’ve a chance, would you be so kind as to point me to some of those articles you mention on Sabbath.

I cited these words from Luther in a PhD seminar on law and gospel once, and the professor was none too pleased. He had recently been bitten by the most virulent strain of New Covenant Theology (n.b. the refinement of Progressive Covenantalism didn't exist in those hoary days). Consequently, his posture toward the OT was not much different than that of dispensationalists, except that he rejected their eschatology and their (terrible, horrible, no good, very bad) "two peoples, two plans of salvation" view. I had pointed out that if the Ten Commandments were a summary of natural law, then the core content (i.e., the substance) of the Decalogue endures, even if some of its particular forms may have been altered. If memory serves, when I presented the paper in class, I made an analogy about melted chocolate versus a chocolate bar, arguing that the material and final causes were retained, while the formal cause (i.e., their shape and texture) had been changed. He flatly disagreed. I asked why this was so troubling to him, given that the Ten Commandments are not only distinguished within the Mosaic law—viz., they are the only part written by the finger of God, the only part kept in the ark of the covenant, and the only part of the law that could function metonymically for the whole (cf. Deut. 4:13–14)—but also are repeated or alluded to in the New Testament in various places (Rom. 13:8–10; 1 Tim. 1:8–11; Eph. 4:25 – 5:21, etc.). To this he replied, "The Sabbath command is not repeated in the New Testament." And that was it. No further comment. The case was closed and the conversation was over. For, because the Sabbath command is not repeated, he reasoned that it could not be part of natural law, and neither were the rest of the Ten. (He did make a possible allowance for the second table here, as many moderns do, but that is a departure from the Reformers and post-Reformers and basically all their descendants until the 20th century.) It was then that I realized so much of the debate about the Decalogue's enduring relevance to Christians boils down to this: (1) first, many biblical-theological types are not particularly well-versed in systematic categories, much less in historical theology and retrieval; (2) second, and even more pressing than the former problem, many people just really, really seem to hate any notion of the Sabbath or the Lord's Day. I was speaking with @DavidSchrock about this last week, and we both had similar thoughts about the latter point. Namely, we suspect that the fastidiousness of some Reformed Sabbatarians has poisoned the well, such that what God intended to be a gift often sounds like a burden (contra 1 John 5:3). I have written briefly on the Sabbath/Lord's Day before, but there's a lot more work that needs to be done here. And I'm grateful for Progressive Covenantalists and PC-adjacent types, like @MichaelCarlino (et al.), who, from my view in the cheap seats, seem to advancing the ball down the field in very fruitful ways.

Hezekiah stands at death’s door, but God promises he will recover “on the third day” and gives a sign to prove it: the shadow on Ahaz’s steps will go down, not up. Spoiler: he lives. (2 Kings 20:8-11) Notice the sign. “The shadow will be lowered, but you will raised.” Hezekiah’s shadow will be buried, but he will rise. Those who trust Christ will experience the same. Because Jesus took the sting of death, we experience only its shadow. Because Jesus rose, so shall we. (1 Cor 15:55; 1 Cor 15:20-22) Believers will indeed “walk through the valley of the shadow of death” (Ps 23:4), but not its substance. That’s not only comfort, it’s prophecy.

@LandenCrouch That means a lot, brother. Confusing times. Writing stuff out like this helps me clear my ow thoughts up. So glad you found it helpful too.

@DanaGDill Dana, this is so well said. Thank you for this.

After the foolish, immature, and blasphemous image Trump posted the other day, I noticed something: many Christians had zero problem clearly calling it out and condemning it. So then why do they still vote for him? Policies. Political realism means Christians seeking to influence current politics can only work with the candidates offered, not the ideal candidates they wish for. For Christians of all political persuasions, this means many cast votes for people with whom they still have major reservations. This isn't an evil thing, but a reality thing. Given this, Christians going back to Rome have never required their leaders to be Christians. They characteristically value and support people of faith and character in office, but those are preferences, not requirements. All Christians ought to vote according to which policies or candidates they believe will do the most good for the country. Voting for a President is not a blanket endorsement of everything he believes or does. It is an attempt to love your neighbor by supporting whoever you believe will govern best for the common good. This means that a Christian who voted for Trump and also condemns his foolish behavior is not being hypocritical. Their vote was never about the man's character in full. It was a judgment about who would best execute the duties of the office in service of the common good, and nothing more. Those calling out the President's most recent sin are doing the right thing. I did, and I have no problem saying so. But consistency matters. Those who reflexively defend everything Trump does and refuse to condemn any wrong are not conservatives or Christians first. They are partisans. And those who reflexively condemn everything Trump does while never acknowledging any good he has done are exactly the same. Both groups have traded principle for a jersey. This piece from @DennyBurk is one of many examples of conservatives critiquing Trump for this. No partisan pandering here. But I have to ask: will believers with Left-leanings do the same when their preferred leaders act wrongly? wng.org/opinions/in-th…

@foxes_on_fire Heyyyyyyy!!!!! Congratulations l, my brother! May the Lord bless your relationship and future union!

Fellas, I traded in my girlfriend for a fiancée today. Rejoice with me!

@AlanShlemon @CapturingChrist

Your argument doesn't work because it begs the question. Notice you created an analogy where two people are talking about the SAME subject - Jones. There's only one person in your analogy. But that's the very point that's in question - is there one or two? I could just as easily start with a different premise and different analogy, where there are two different people: Smith and Jones. So, now I've baked my conclusion into the premises of the argument - there's two people and therefore we don't worship the same God. For example, suppose two people, Jesus and Frank, are standing side by side. Christians worship Jesus while the other religious devotees worship Frank. To your point, we disagree about the nature of Jesus and Frank, but still do not worship the same person. So, you can disagree and not be talking about the same subject.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Here's the strongest argument that they do, and I almost never see anyone deal with it. Christians and Muslims DISAGREE about God. Christians say God is triune. Muslims say He's not. That looks like a straightforward contradiction. But here's the thing: disagreement is only possible if you're talking about the same subject. If I say "Jones is tall" and you say "Jones is short," we're only disagreeing if we mean the same Jones. If we're talking about two different guys who happen to share a similar name or title, there's no actual disagreement at all. Just two unrelated claims. So if Christians and Muslims DON'T worship the same God, then they don't actually disagree. They're just making separate claims about separate beings. But that's absurd, of course they disagree. And it gets worse. Ancient Israelites before Christ weren't Trinitarians. But almost no Christian wants to say the Old Testament prophets worshipped a different God. So now you need to explain: what metaphysical rupture happened between ancient Israel and 7th-century Arabia that broke the chain in one case but not the other? Good luck drawing that line without it looking completely arbitrary. The real answer is that Christians and Muslims refer to the same being, the one creator God of Abraham, and disagree about His nature.

Annnnd...

Protestants joyfully confess that Scripture, our only ultimate authority, teaches we’re saved by God’s grace alone in Christ alone who is received through faith alone for the Glory of God alone. As opposed to other “Jesus Plus” teachings like these:

The bravery 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🎬 Weird that Democrats who hate Trump are imitating his worst attributes.

“All my stories are about the action of grace on a character who is not very willing to support it, but most people think of these stories as hard, hopeless and brutal.” Flannery O’Connor Grace is always & brutal to those unwilling to surrender to it.

@The_Kyle_Mann Those are my teams. I knew I liked you.

@DanaGDill Yes though I follow hockey much less closely

When you tell your wife you threw your favorite hat onto the ice The female mind cannot comprehend