Sun Kim

I argue, yeshuath ישועת is a preparatory paronomasia (noun) of the name of Jesus (christ)

@derekradney Sorry, I used Siri

@oceansides47374 To what does "this sentiment" refer? Could you rephrase your post for me? I'm having a hard time following your thought and grasping your claim. I can't tell if you're talking about Dr. Hart's post or mine.

narrowly Reformed is immoral? so many Presbyterians condemned. "The video never suggests it'd be immoral to move away from that vision (from broadly Reformed to narrowly Reformed)"

@derekradney I mean, those were on the Internet campaigning for a smaller tent, which I actually grease theologically with them, but I don’t agree with their approach obviously just thinking about how many elders in the PCA don’t go on Twitter.

@derekradney @ReallyOldLife I think people who boldly express this sentiment on social media only do so because they don’t know anyone in real life that are indeed narrowly reformed when in fact it is the continuing narrowly reformed people who founded the PCA

@ReallyOldLife Thanks. I forgive you.

The Somatic coming of the LORD can be abundantly traced in the Old Testament prophets

@Modern1689 The Pharisees thought Jesus was a credo baptist in their infinitely knowledge, “orthodox” exegesis and hermeneutics. And that’s not a good thing…

Compelling. Bold. Insightful.

@pj_schreiner Go angels 😇

Let's go!

@WesleyLHuff @DailySeptuagint Best YouTube channel on the website

The most recent @DailySeptuagint discussing the Greek text of the minor prophets scroll from the Cave of Horrors. Does it show evidence of being a translation from another revisional stream of OT Greek? youtu.be/on0RGL6ZhEA

Credobaptism from infant baptism does not just take an alternative view on Covenant theology. The Covenant theology which it necessitates, because baptism comes from Covenant, seems to be a heresy. It’s to take Christ out of the Old Testament, like the Pharisees.

A reminder that the Westminster divines rejected eternal justification

Spurgeon would’ve been amazing at lectio continua in my opinion if he approached choosing Bible books, the way he chose single sermons

SoCal pastors, seminarians, and Bible study/ministry leaders: Join me! DM if you’d like more info… #exposition #Bible #Jesus

Just heard a Princeton seminary lecture making fun archibald Alexander 😮‍💨 Then he starts speaking Latin mid speech They create controversy and act like their linguistic knowledge is more astute than orthodox Presbyterians, thus they have the answers. This about to be wiped.

@neulsaem One day, I will attempt to try to start doctoral work somewhere

@oceansides47374 Thanks!!

Prepping my defense. It feels weird and anticlimactic to be doing it after three years of working and teaching, too. Oh well!

@realmattcarr @jwsherrod @elimcgowan If you’re in good standing in the ARP, i don’t think any of these twitter pastors have the right to talk to you this way.

@jwsherrod @elimcgowan Booher is a Spanglerite and is similarly apostate. If he were part of a legitimate church he would be deposed and potentially excommunicated.

This Presbyterian pastor is musing about the appropriateness of beheading @elimcgowan, seemingly because Eli called out a pro-Nazi book publisher. He also accused Eli of slander without substantiating his claims. We have an epidemic of men serving in the office of pastor who are manifestly unqualified to do so. The person who should be called to repentance is Thomas Booher.

@warne I’m surprised they knew what an overture was

@MikeRiccardi_ Amen

Chapter 18, section 2, of WCF/2LCF is helpful on the issue of assurance of salvation: The “infallible assurance of faith [is] founded on “[1] the blood and righteousness of Christ revealed in the Gospel; “and also upon [2] the inward evidence of those graces of the Spirit unto which promises are made, “and on [3] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; and, as a fruit thereof, keeping the heart both humble and holy.” Joel Beeke comments, “Assurance grows by faith in the promises of God, by inward evidences of grace, and by the witness of the Spirit. Each of these kinds of assurance should be diligently prayed for and pursued; none should be separated from the others[,] for undue emphasis on one will lead to a distortion of the others” (Quest for Full Assurance, 285). He goes on to summarize a comment from Ernest Reisinger, who observes insightfully: “To hold to assurance by means of the first (i.e., the promises of God) without affirming the second (i.e., Christian character and conduct) and third (i.e., the Spirit’s witness), is antinomianism. To hold exclusively to the second without the first and third is legalism. To maintain the third at the expense of the first two, is ‘either hypocrisy or the deepest self-delusion or fantasy’” (Beeke, Quest, 285n43). I think that is exceptional. If you insist upon assurance without any reference to the work of God in your changed life, you’ll be an antinomian. If you insist upon only looking at your changed life, without the objective promises and the internal testimony of the Spirit, you’ll be a legalist. And if you look at only the testimony of the Spirit, you’ll become a mystic with no basis in objective, measurable reality. We need to make use of all three means of fighting for assurance of faith.