Sinclair Ferguson warns ministers against an "oppositional tone" in preaching, where the pastor preaches in an "attack mode" and is "coming down upon the people instead of bringing them up to the Lord Jesus Christ." He says there is a way in which men can even preach the great indicative truths of the Scriptures in an imperative tone because of the preacher's affections. Sinclair includes this great line that the people need to hear that "the only interest Jesus has in their sin is to get rid of it." Really convicting stuff here for preachers.

If Protestants had a higher view of the Lord’s Supper, it would make it a lot easier to convert for Catholics and Orthodox who are teetering.

Just finished going through this with some guys from church. It’s a helpful introduction that breaks down the concept well and makes it practical and meaningful for the everyday Christian. This will now be my go-to recommendation for a covenant theology intro

At Ohio Valley Presbytery’s meeting today and very thankful for this resource. It’s been a regular companion of mine to presbytery meetings since it came out. If you can find a copy, definitely pick one up! Thanks to @jacobgerber / @PCAPolity / @gospelrefnet for putting this out.

It really is sad how prevalent the memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper still is in the Protestant world. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

Seeing everything happening in France and the rest of the world these days, it’s good to be reminded: Christ won, is winning, and will win. “He lives to crush the fiends of hell; Glory Hallelujah! He lives and doth within me dwell; Glory Hallelujah! Shout on, pray on, we’re gaining ground, Glory Hallelujah! The dead’s alive, and the lost is found, Glory Hallelujah!”

We cry down the law in respect of justification, but we set it up as a rule of sanctification. The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified. —Samuel Bolton, “The True Bounds of Christian Freedom,” 71

Joel Beeke with a convicting challenge to prioritize family worship and just do it. It’s been such a blessing to me and my young family to have daily family worship. As Beeke reminds us, “God is worthy of this.” It doesn’t have to be exhausting — even 5-10 minutes a day, he says. In closing, he challenges us that neglecting it could be taking God for granted. “You’re not even going to get down with your family on your knees for 5-10 minutes a day to acknowledge the God to whom you owe everything?”

I’m all for modern translations, but I like showing this to folks when they say the KJV is “old English.” The KJV is a lot more readable than most modern people give it credit for

Kill *every* sin with a holy violence. John Piper exhorting us to take the same holy violence we’re used to hearing about for lust, and to go after our self-pity, anger, sullenness, etc. Whether it’s lust or it’s laziness, it has to be seen as an enemy we are willing to destroy.

Mark Jones also has a really helpful little intro book that is in the same vein. One of the best cures for antinomianism is having a healthy view of good works and rewards. Jones has a chapter on it in the “Antinomianism” book, but he wrote this little intro a few years later and dedicated 90ish pages to the topic. Definitely recommended.

“Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you” 1 Peter 5:5-6 These guys supposedly sit in the chair of the guy who wrote this? Please…

What is the actual difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics on faith and justification? Where is the real disagreement on the question: “are we justified by faith alone?”

This clip is one of the most helpful breakdowns of the difference between Protestant and Catholic articulations of faith and justification. Both sides spend a lot of time critiquing mischaracterized views or even strawmen, and it doesn’t help the dialogue whatsoever. Guillaume Bignon (@gui_bignon_theo) has a really helpful explanation (on Gavin Ortlund’s @gavinortlund show a few years ago) and talks through this matrix he developed to narrow down where the real disagreement lies.

One of my favorite lines on the cross. “God spared the thief but not his fellow. God spared one, that no man might despair: God spared but one, that no man should presume.” —Lewis Bayly, “The Practice of Piety,” 90

Retrieval work has forced us modern Christians to wrestle with theology proper, political theology, nature/grace, etc. One area that hasn’t become as “mainstream” in the retrieval world, and it’s always perplexed me as to why, has been regarding the doctrine of Scripture. I’m thinking of things like providential preservation, textual criticism, TR vs MT vs CT, etc. There are certainly folks like @Lanier_Greg and @William_A_Ross and @Riddle1689 and others who are engaged in this work and represent different approaches. And there are circles where these issues are debated more. But as I’ve seen all this retrieval work take off in recent years, the fact that retrieving and wrestling with our forefathers views on Scripture hasn’t gotten as much attention as it probably should get, it has always perplexed me. -What did the divines mean in WCF 1.8 that the Scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages?” -How do Turretin and Owen and Whitaker’s views line up with modern scholarship? -Am I fine with using the ESV? -Am I fine preaching the longer ending of Mark or John 8? -Do I need to use the NKJV or KJV? etc. There’s a lot of thought and nuance that go into these matters, but I’d love to see the retrieval efforts focus on this area too and bring these discussions to the “mainstream” more.