Kevin DeYoung has chosen the CN study committee members. They are free to contact me at any time. To aid them in their study, here's a selection of my work:

Everyone forgot the best one, “For All the Saints”

At what point in their sanctification do EO converts start wearing track suits?

What is it about ChristNats and syllogisms?

Protestantism is an integral part of America.

Just so everyone's on the same page, this is the same as a movie vampire cringing and hissing at a cross.

I was grateful to return to the @KenwoodInst and discuss natural law. Despite the look on my face in the thumbnail, I enjoyed my time with Tom. The Argument for Natural Law | Pillar and Buttress Episode 23 piped.video/l80EY_Wd_eA?si=_QsX… via @YouTube

In May 2000, @JohnPiper preached "Don't Waste Your Life," and it profoundly impacted a generation. Six years later, @joe_rigney (a man discipled by Piper) preached this message. It deserves at least the same amount of fame. piped.video/21CK-gzZxwE?is=bo_7…

You can see how the aesthetics of debate give the left wingers the advantage post Charlie. They walk up and say: “We killed you and we will kill you again?” And then what’s the response? A joke? That seems weak. A prayer? That looks like cope. Answer the threat with a threat? You just got TPUSA ejected from campus permanently The assassination of Kirk let the left show its power, and they are reveling in it.

"The law of creation requires man to perform perfect obedience and says, 'Do.' But the law as a covenant of works requires him to 'do and live'; to do, as the condition of life; to do, in order to acquire by his obedience a title to life eternal. The command to perform perfect obedience merely is not the covenant of works, for man was and is immutably and eternally bound to yield perfect obedience to the law of creation though a covenant of works had never been made with him. But the form of the command in the covenant of works is perfect obedience as the condition of life. The law in this form comprised not only all the commandments peculiar to it as the Law of nature but also a positive precept that depended entirely on the will of God: 'The LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' (Gen. 2:16-17). This positive precept was, in effect, a summary of all the commands of the natural or moral law; obedience to it included obedience to them all, and disobedience to it was a transgression of them all at once. The covenant of works, accordingly, could not have been broken otherwise than by transgressing that positive precept... For though the law in its covenant form is broken, yet it is far from being repealed or set aside. The obligation of this covenant continues in all its force, in time and through eternity, on every sinner who is not released from it by God, the other party. The awful consequence is that every unregenerate sinner is bound at once to perform perfect obedience and also to endure the full execution of the penal sanction. The preceptive part of that divine contract continues to bind both by its original authority and by mans consent to it, which consent is no more his to recall, except he is freed from his obligation by the other contracting party. And now that the curse of the covenant is, in consequence of transgression, become absolute, it binds as strongly as even the precept. The law, then, as a covenant of works, does, in the most authoritative manner, demand from every descendant of Adam who is under it perfect holiness of nature, perfect righteousness of life, and complete satisfaction for sin. And none of the race of fallen Adam can ever enter heaven unless he either answers these three demands perfectly in his own person or accepts by faith the consummate righteousness of the second Adam, who 'is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom. 10:4)."

Nearly every political question in Reformed Protestantism today boils down to how you distinguish nature/grace, covenant/nature, theology/politics, and the formal objects of church/state; and whether you consistently apply those distinctions. In the end, the disputes are over political prolegomena and method.

Common view, even among those who wanted the state to prevent the formation of Baptist churches.

This work is a defense of Christian government. It’s not primarily exegetical but philosophical, theological, historical, & confessional. But still interacts with the Bible and makes important theological points grounding the argument (such as in R2K chapter). berithpress.com/bookstore/p/…