Denver Clark

“God may, through Christ, pardon the greatest sinner without any prejudice to the honor of His majesty. The honor of the divine majesty indeed requires satisfaction, but the sufferings of Christ fully repair the injury.” - Jonathan Edwards

@Thatbrian I think the difference maker is how regularly said Christian is spending time in the Word.

It takes an average of 12 years for the typical Evangelical to finally accept Reformed Theology — that God is sovereign in election and salvation is entirely of the Lord. So if you’ve been a Christian for longer than 12 years and you’re still fighting it. . . you’re a bit slow.

I think it’s better to look at the overarching narrative of the Scriptures as well as specific verses but am heading out the door and will need to circle back with an expanded answer in that regard later. That said, I think John 6:39-40 is clearly referring to the last day when all will be bodily raised for the final judgment.

@chariotsofiron What strong verses would you point to for end of the world?

I don’t see how you can make 2 Peter 3 about Jerusalem’s destruction if the context surrounding the passing away of the present heavens and earth was tied with Noah in which the entire globe was judged by water, the world of that time. They expected an actual cosmic event

@realSammyPasta @sola_chad You might enjoy this message… sermonaudio.com/sermons/772434…

@sola_chad Ecclesiastes. It is so nihilistic I'm surprised it's included in the Bible. But as a former atheist I really liked it because it shows the Bible has answered the questions atheists ask over and over again.

What’s an underrated book of the Bible that needs to be preached from more often?

@PLeithart @_Theopolis @dangibsonatty Yes & I would also like to recommend following up that book with “Deep Exegesis”. Both of these books have been very helpful for me & I do give thanks to God for resources like this that help me see more of the beauty in the Scriptures.

Basic rule: read, re-read, and re-re-read. Read with attention to detail, and with the assumption that everything is significant. Second rule: Find good guides - teachers and books that alert you to the recurring patterns. Through New Eyes by James Jordan is the place to start.

@PLeithart I love the connections @_Theopolis makes between different passages of scripture. But I don't feel able to make such connections myself. How do you make those connections? Are there resources you recommend? Example of this method: theopolisinstitute.com/baptismal-rain…

One of the problems is that it’s difficult to find a good partial preterists rebuttal of the full preterists position. Most of the material I’ve encountered just dismisses their views without serious interaction & I think this is one of the reasons some people fall into that particular error. If you have the Canon+ app then James Jordan has a really good rebuttal of J. S. Russell’s book, “The Parousia”. In addition to John 6:44, I think that 1st Corinthians 11:26 is worth showing. - “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” If full preterists think that all 2nd coming passages refer to 70 AD then why do they still take communion?

I was accused of hyper creedalism (whatever that means) bc I left full preterism when in reality it was John 6:44 that made me leave. If the elect drawn by the Father & given to Christ were already raised on the last day then the Father is no longer drawing & giving

Yes, the time texts should be taken literally. “…to show him the things which must soon take place.” - not “might soon” or “could soon”, but “must soon take place.” - Rev 1:1 “…for the time is near.” Verse 3 As to what should be taken as symbolic, I would encourage you to just read the introduction to David Chilton’s commentary “Days of Vengeance”. Bottom line is that you must look to the Bible as the best interpreter of the symbolism in the Bible. Too much to explain on X, so if you’re genuinely interested then just read Chilton’s introduction and see if you’re not convinced that he is correct in his methodology. Available for free here: garynorth.com/freebooks/docs…

@DrGladd How do you determine what should be read symbolically? What's your criteria? Can any of Revelation be taken literally?

The phrase “made it known” (1:1b) ought to be rendered signified or symbolized (see HCSB, KJV), and the word signified alludes to Daniel 2. According to the LXX of Daniel 2:45, the word describes the symbolic vision that King Nebuchadnezzar saw: “the Great God has symbolized to the king what will come to pass in the latter days." In Revelation 1:1, John deliberately employs the language from Daniel 2:45 to demonstrate that the general content of Revelation is likewise symbolic. As a rule of thumb, then, the book of Revelation should be largely read and interpreted in a symbolic manner. See discussions in the commentaries of Beale, Schreiner, Osborne, Fanning, etc.

In this clip @douglaswils does not say that we should “never pray directly to Jesus” and he does not teach that view. I’ve listened to many of his sermons and he has said we do and should sometimes pray directly to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Primarily we are taught to pray to our Father in the name of Jesus (through the Son) by the Spirit.

Doug Wilson, along with Bruce Ware, both hold the mistaken view that Christians should restrict prayer to the Father alone and never pray directly to Jesus. But this position runs into a serious problem, because Jesus Himself said otherwise. In John 14:13–14, Jesus told His disciples: 13 “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. Notice that Jesus did not say, "Ask only the Father and I will only relay it." He said ask ME, and I WILL do it. Jesus both receives and answers prayer. That is not the role of a mere created being or a subordinate intermediary. That is the role of God. And did the early Christians pray to Jesus? Absolutely! Stephen, while being martyred, called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts ), directly addressing Christ in his final moments. The apostle Paul prayed to Jesus pleading with Him about his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:8–9) Paul pleaded with Jesus three times regarding his thorn in the flesh, and Jesus answered him personally (2 Corinthians 12:8–9) John and the early church lifted up the petition, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation ), a prayer addressed directly to Christ. Those who say that you are not allowed to pray to Jesus are in the same camp as the Jehovah's Witnesses who also forbid prayers to Jesus. Doug Wilson and Bruce Ware are wrong. Jesus is fully God and as God He receives and answer prayers. Years ago I sat through a lecture by Bruce Ware in which he argued that the worship given to Jesus is in some way limited or restricted. It was deeply troubling to hear. I was sitting with an entire row of former Jehovah's Witnesses, and every one of them was equally disturbed. They recognized the argument. They had heard it before, just dressed in different theological clothing. The idea that Jesus, in His eternal state, is somehow deserving of a lesser degree of worship, or that we cannot address Him directly in prayer, is not a humble, cautious position. It is a deviation from both the testimony of the early Christians and the plain teaching of Scripture. The first believers called upon the name of Jesus, prayed to Him, worshipped Him without restraint, and were willing to die rather than deny His full deity. They did not worship a subordinate Christ. When a theological position on the person of Christ makes former Jehovah's Witnesses uncomfortable because it sounds too familiar, that is worth pausing over. It should cause us to ask hard questions about where that road leads and whose company we are keeping doctrinally. Jesus Christ is not a lesser object of worship. He is not off-limits in prayer. He is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, and He is worthy of every prayer, every act of worship, and every confession of faith we can offer.

@ParamountChurch Amen

For decades, many within dispensational circles, including voices associated with The Master's Seminary, have argued that their literal-grammatical hermeneutic uniquely safeguards biblical authority, while redemptive-historical and Christ-centered interpretation risks speculation and undermines Scripture. But the historic Reformed tradition has never separated grammatical-historical exegesis from the unfolding history of redemption centered in Christ. The issue is not whether we read the text carefully. The issue is whether we read the Bible the way the Apostles themselves interpreted it (see @RScottClark, "Is There An Apostolic Hermeneutic And Can We Imitate It?" heidelblog.net/2014/01/is-the…). The New Testament repeatedly interprets the Old Testament Christologically, covenantally, typologically, and redemptive-historically. Christ Himself taught that all the Scriptures testify about Him (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39). The Apostles proclaimed fulfillment, promise, shadow/substance, type/antitype, old/new covenant, Adam/Christ, temple fulfillment, priesthood fulfillment, sacrificial fulfillment, and kingdom fulfillment. That is not speculative liberalism. That is Apostolic interpretation. Dennis Johnson’s excellent book, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, directly addresses this very issue. The book explicitly calls preachers back to “apostolic preaching”—preaching that is Christ-centered, redemptive-historical, and grounded in grace. Johnson argues that faithful preaching must set every text within the context of God’s unfolding redemptive plan centered in Christ. That is not a denial of biblical authority. It is an affirmation of the Bible’s own unfolding canonical unity centered in Christ. Historically, dispensationalism has often operated with a particularly rigid form of literalism that fractured the unity of Scripture, separated Israel and the Church beyond biblical warrant, and obscured the organic unfolding of God’s covenantal purposes in Christ. And, historically, dispensationalism has hardly been immune from speculation itself. Entire prophetic systems, charts, timelines, geopolitical identifications, parenthetical church-age theories, and highly inferential eschatological constructs have often been preached with enormous confidence. That concern about speculation must be applied consistently, including to highly inferential prophetic and eschatological systems. Piper’s actual caution was reasonable: do not preach possibilities with the same authority as explicit textual assertions. But statements like this are sometimes used to caricature Biblical Theology itself, as though redemptive-historical preaching weakens biblical authority. In reality, the opposite is true. A Christ-centered, redemptive-historical hermeneutic does not diminish Scripture’s authority. It recognizes the Bible’s own inspired unity, unfolding progression, and fulfillment in the risen and ascended Christ. For those interested in a robust defense of Christ-centered, redemptive-historical preaching, Dennis Johnson’s Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures is well worth reading: amazon.com/Him-We-Proclai…

I’ve seen videos where he said that it eliminates a foot of the swing where things can go off early & also that since it’s good to keep the club low at the beginning of your take away, well you can’t get any lower than having it already on the ground back there. There’s a lot of great videos of him explaining his thinking about why he came up with such a simple swing.

@Toddgravesgolf I'm sure you've covered it plenty, but why set up the club so far behind the ball

Moe Norman never believed the modern swing was simpler. Watch how confident he was in his setup, his strike, and his contact. No wasted motion. No digging trenches. No manipulation. Just clean geometry and repeatable impact. That’s why he could look at a pile of balls and already know what they’d do. The strike told the story before the ball even landed. 👉 gravesgolf.com/fit

I had never heard of you when the Joe Rogan podcast came out & was initially worried that he had some lightweight, generic apologist who would be a disappointment. You have no idea what a joy it was to hear you on that show. You are a gift to God’s church & I hate that you must endure online stupidity and ridiculous attacks trying to distract from your work. Praying for you to stay strong & keep rejoicing in the face of it all, my brother in Christ. 🙂 “The joy of the LORD is my strength.” - Nehemiah 8:10

So apparently I’m embroiled in some sort of controversy. Let me set a few things strait: 1. I don’t know Sam Allberry personally. We've met in-person a total of once — back in January while I was in Nashville when I did the Shawn Ryan Podcast, where I ran into and took a picture with Sam. When I saw the news initially about his removal from leadership I took that picture down. I had already started to see people commenting that by keeping it up I was implicating myself in his sin. I do not think they were correct. But ironically, said comments were then replaced with ones telling me that by taking it down… I was hiding something and implicating myself in his sin. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. 2. I believe the language in the current public statements to be potentially unhelpfully vague. From my (brief though not uninformed) understanding of the details of the situation, what Sam did that disqualified him from leadership was not due to sexual or even a romantic impropriety, but what could best be described as a sinful emotional attachment. This is not to justify it or say that it wasn't disqualifying (I think it probably was). But the lack of clarity has left room for those who desire to gossip, defame, and sinfully speculate online to run wild — which they have. 3. I am genuinely saddened with the internet’s desire to tear down and jump to harsh judgements regarding another Christian’s failing. When someone falls into sin, those who are spiritually mature should work toward their restoration, approaching them with a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1-2). The motivation for restoration carries spiritual weight. Bringing someone back who has wandered from truth saves their soul from death and covers a multitude of sins (James 5:19–20). This isn’t merely about correcting behaviour, it’s about spiritual rescue. The desire to gossip and breed quarrels, which is so obviously warned against in scripture (Proverbs 17:19; 26:17; 2 Timothy 2:14, 23-24; Titus 3:9-11; James 4:1-2) is, to say the least, lamentable and disappointing to see. 4. Sam Allberry is being labelled as “Side B,” this is genuinely confusing to me. To quote Sam in his own words: “Same sex attraction is not a good thing. It is... a consequence of the fall. ...This kind of attraction is not something God designed for us, and it contradicts his design” (Is God Anti Gay, 63). Sam has expressed in multiple places throughout his written work and public talks that he holds to the biblical position of marriage, that homosexual relationships are sinful, and that identifying as a “gay Christian” is incompatible with scripture. To be clear, I don't agree with Sam on all the nuances of how he discusses the issue. But I can only conclude that this attempt to make him into an LBGT advocate comes from either shear ignorance of his public work or some sort of internet-level frothing of the mouth to jump on whoever “we don’t like this week.” But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. - Heb 3:13.

@DjokovicFan_ Tennis is all about the edge. It’s such a small fraction of a difference on any given day. Djokovic having the edge over his opponents for so long is unreal. He has the best chance of anyone in the field to beat Sinner. It would be unbelievable to see him capture one more slam.

Does anyone else think Novak Djokovic has a great chance of winning Roland Garros? 

Even last year, he was better than Sinner in sets 2 and 3. He just simply made some crucial mistakes in key moments. Go for it, Novak. In 25 we trust.

@JeffTaylorLR Wasn’t the relationship was as a Father / son relationship, though? “Thus says the LORD, “Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let My son go that he may serve me.” - Exodus 4:22-23

In the Former Prophets, the Suzerain summons His vassal to repentance and obedience, records the vassal’s breach, and displays His own covenant faithfulness. In the Latter Prophets, the summons gives way to verdict: the Suzerain announces the coming judgment and projects the eschatological future beyond it. Former: call + case. Latter: sentence + future. #AdamicArchitecture #CanonicalOrder #KlineanContours

@TodAshby @ManassehRJones Greg Bahnsen spoke of a conversation he had with Van Til about how many pairs of socks he had & God’s relationship to that knowledge. It is of Creator / creation. Knowledge is not something He has that exists apart from Him. It exists because He is the Creator of that knowledge.

A little Charnock to dismantled your timeline. “As [God] knows multiple things with an immutable and firm knowledge, so he knows future things with a present knowledge.” God doesn’t foresee the future as future, He knows all things in one eternal, immutable act. What is future to us is present to Him. Not learning. Not reacting. Knowing, perfectly, eternally, immutably.

I think many people in the modern church seem to miss the fact that had Adam not sinned we would still have needed to: 1. Learn & grow in maturity as we advanced the world from glory to glory in building the heavenly architecture here on earth 2. Engage in spiritual warfare with Satan & the fallen demons

Modern cosmology imagines higher beings and layered universes. Scripture never does. The biblical architecture is this: One created cosmos. Two registers: invisible and visible. One throne: the Suzerain with the enthroned Second Adam. The invisible register is the archetypal throne‑temple — the heavenly court where God reigns and where Christ sits at His right hand. The visible register is the ectypal replication — the earthly arena patterned after the heavenly throne. Adam was created to be the vassal priest‑king in the visible register, filling the earth with the royal family and extending the temple pattern to the ends of the world. And here’s the eschatological center: Had Adam obeyed, the visible register would have been glorified and united with the invisible — one cosmos, one temple‑kingdom, one Suzerain with His glorified people. This is the destiny the Second Adam now secures. Klinean clarity doesn’t shrink the universe. It reveals the glory it was always meant to reach. #KlineanArchitecture #TwoRegisters #ArchetypeEctype #CovenantOfWorks #SecondAdam #TempleKingdom #EschatologicalGlory

@WesleyLHuff So, your post here prompted me to check the original tweet to see who’s assuming you’re talking about them & the first reply was an innocent question from Megan Basham. 😂🙃

Very interesting to see how many people think I’m talking about *them* with this post rather than just a general principle for all who bear the name of Christ — which is a message I’m posting for me first and foremost. I mean this respectfully, and I hate to break it to the handful of communities that seem to be so triggered by Bible verses being quoted online, but you are not living rent free in my head.

@JeffTaylorLR I’m curious how you deal with the fact that the angelic view was universally held in the 1st century & Jude literally quotes from the book of Enoch which explains that these were in fact fallen angels?

Genesis 6, Royal Hubris, and Why the Angel View Collapses the Architecture Genesis 6 isn’t a myth detour. It’s a covenantal crisis. The phrase “sons of the gods” is not angelology. It’s royal ideology—the ancient Near Eastern claim that kings were divine sons with divine rights to seize, dominate, and rule by self-exaltation. This is Pharaoh-before-Pharaoh. The architecture of Genesis makes this unavoidable: • The narrative is tracing two human lines—the covenant line and the tyrant line. • The text prepares you for royal overreach, not celestial romance. • The phrase matches ANE kingship claims, not angelic ontology. • The storyline depends on genealogical continuity, which the angel view breaks. The angel view simply doesn’t fit the frame Genesis builds. It imports a mythic category the book never uses and collapses the covenantal contrast the book is actually developing. Genesis 6 is the first great anti-kingdom moment: self-deifying rulers seizing women, seizing power, and filling the earth with violence. This is the pre-Flood Armageddon pattern—false sons enthroning themselves, the world descending into chaos, and Yahweh responding with judicial de-creation. The Flood is not random wrath. It is covenantal warfare against counterfeit kingship. Kline’s point stands: Before Babel, before Pharaoh, before the Beast, Genesis 6 already reveals the pattern— human rulers claiming divine sonship, Yahweh bringing the ordeal, grace preserving the remnant, and history resetting toward the true Royal Son. The architecture holds. The angel view doesn’t. #Genesis6 #CovenantArchitecture #Klinean

The film ‘A Great Awakening’ tells the story of a mighty God who brought mighty revival through a consecrated, capable, courageous voice — the same kind of voice that God may use to awaken sleeping souls today. desiringgod.org/articles/the-v…

Respectfully, you give away your error with the way you speak. “Biblical data.” Out traditions teach us to chop up & dissect the Holy Scriptures into data points, Systematic Theologies, Confessions of faith, etc. These are valuable to be sure, but you can’t help but be blind to the primacy of many things in the Scriptures. The Word is living & active. When you dissect an animal, you can study the various features but you’re better to study the harmonious interrelationship while the being is alive. Looking for the “data” points is not how the Scriptures were given to us & I would humbly encourage you to read with attention to details in the text & from Genesis to Revelation, again & again. Also, audio listening from cover to cover is a great way to use our time. Blessings to you my brother in Christ. 🙂

Amillennialism is the eschatological category that is most consistent with the entire biblical data.