The Riddleblog

Paul and the Charismatics

In Chapters 12-14 of his First Letter to the Corinthians (recently featured on The Blessed Hope Podcast), Paul addresses a number of matters often associated with contemporary charismatics and Pentecostals. What follows are the issues covered in the five episodes of the Blessed Hope listed below.

Some of the Ground Covered In the Blessed Hope Episodes

Paul’s approach to properly understand spiritual things begins with an acknowledgment of Christ’s Lordship (1 Corinthians 12:3).
He addresses spiritual things (especially the Corinthian misunderstanding of them) before discussing spiritual gifts. It is clear that Paul’s concern is to correct the Corinthian’s erroneous views of spiritual matters (which, in Corinth, was often tied to pagan practices—like ecstatic religious experience, and conduct in the churches sadly reflecting what goes on in the pagan temples in and around the city).
Paul is not a strict cessationist, since chapters 12-14 of First Corinthians give practical instructions to the church about the use, function, and purpose of spiritual gifts. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to desire these gifts (especially the higher ones), since they build up the body of Christ, equip church officers for service, and enable us to better love our brothers and sisters in Christ.
But Paul does imply that the apostolic office is not a perpetual one (1 Corinthians 12:28-32—especially in light of of 1 Timothy 3:1-12), and those gifts typically associated with that office (miracles and healing) have ordinarily ceased. Extraordinary manifestations of these gifts certainly remains possible—but rare.
After enumerating a list of the various gifts given by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11), Paul is clear that love for our fellow believers is the glue which holds the church (unity) with its diversity of spiritual gifts together (1 Corinthians 13:1-13).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Calvin on Prayer -- Praying Improperly

In previous installments, we have seen how insightful is when it comes to the matter of prayer. His discussion provides a helpful guide to praying properly, fervently, and often. But what about those times when we pray angrily or with improper motives? What if we do what televangelist Joyce Meyer cautions us not to do—”pray a stupid prayer”?

Calvin addresses that matter in the next section

15. Hearkening to Perverted Prayer

What about those instances when our prayers are offered from anger or from a desire for revenge or retribution?

Here more than one question is raised: for Scripture relates that God has granted fulfillment of certain prayers, despite the fact that they have burst forth from a heart not at all peaceful or composed. For due cause, yet aroused by passionate wrath and vengeance, Jotham had vowed the inhabitants of Shechem to the destruction that later overtook them [Judg. 9:20]; God in allowing the curse seems to approve ill-controlled outbreaks. Such passion also seized Samson, when he said: “Strengthen me, O God, that I may take vengeance on the uncircumcised” (Judg. 16:28). For even though there was some righteous zeal mixed in, still a burning and hence vicious longing for vengeance was in control. God granted the petition. From this, it seems, we may infer that, although prayers are not framed to the rule of the Word, they obtain their effect.

Indeed, Calvin reminds us there are times when we are ill-informed about matters, and pray improperly, like calling down fire on our enemies.

I reply that a universal law is not abrogated by individual examples; further, that special impulses have sometimes been imparted to a few men, by which it came about that a different consideration applied to them than to the common folk. For we must note Christ’s answer when his disciples heedlessly desired him to emulate the example of Elijah, that they did not know with what sort of spirit they were endowed (Luke 9:55).

To read the rest, follow the link below

John CalvinKim RiddlebargerFebruary 26, 2025Praying improperlyComment

“They Will Think You Are Crazy” The Next Episode of the Blessed Hope Is Up! (1 Corinthians 14:20-40)

Episode Synopsis:

My first exposure to tongue-speaking did not go well. In an “afterglow” service which followed a mid-week Bible study at an Orange County megachurch, a large number of the faithful remained after the study to “experience” the gifts of the Spirit, including the “gift of tongues.” A young pastor took over from the Bible teacher and explained how to begin speaking in tongues. He read several passages from Acts 2 and from 1 Corinthians 12-14 and told us that these verses were proof that the gift is “biblical,” “for today,” and enabled you to by-pass the clutter of the mind to commune with God “in the Spirit.” He then told us, if you’d like to speak in tongues here’s what you do. You start by saying “kitty, kitty, kitty,” until the Spirit took over and gave you your prayer language. The room was suddenly filled with people speaking gibberish, swaying, acting as though under the influence, crying, and making contorted faces as they spoke. I wasn’t having it, and quietly slipped out.

Years later, after my biblical knowledge increased, I realized that the “afterglow” I witnessed that night was very much like what Paul was instructing the Corinthians not to do in the last half of 1 Corinthians 14. There was no interpretation of any of these tongues, though several attendees did offer exhortations of their own utterances, but which very much sounded like Christianese made up on the fly. Everyone spoke at once, and the whole room was filled with tongue-speakers, not merely two or three in order. I was a Christian and still thought these people were crazy. I can only imagine what an unbeliever would think.

Once TBN graced the airwaves (emanating from Orange County) tongue-speaking was now televised. This time, tongue-speaking was not done in a worship service but was part of the regular programming and often conflated with predictive prophesy– “the Lord will do this or that, and heal this one or that one.” The interpretation was almost always supplied by the tongue-speaker. The low point came during a televised “anointing service” held at Oral Roberts University in which three older Word-Faith evangelists (Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin Sr. and T. L. Osborn) anointed three younger Word-Faith evangelists (Kenneth Hagin Jr, Kenneth Copeland, and Richard Roberts). Once anointed, the men acted as though in a drunken stupor, spoke in tongues (one of which sounded like the Cab Calloway’s riff from the Blues Brothers–scubity-do, scubity-do--scubity-do). Not a known language. A VHS recording of this made the rounds and to no one’s surprise, the universal assessment was “these people are crazy.”

This is why a study of Paul’s instructions to the churches on 1 Corinthians 14:20-40 about the proper use of prophesy and tongue-speaking is about as practical a matter as one can find. Paul would have none of this. Neither should we.

To read the show notes and listen to the episode follow the link below

“God Made a Promise” Hebrews 6:13-20 (An Exposition of the Book of Hebrews–Part Nine)

Setting the Stage

The contrast could not be greater. The Psalmist says of the human race, “all people are liars” (Psalm 116:11). Yet the author of Hebrews tells us that “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Our track record is so–so at best when it comes to keeping our promises. But God cannot lie. When he makes a promise, he will keep it. He must keep it because he is truth itself. In fact, the entire Christian faith and the gospel depend upon this very point. God promises to save sinners who trust in Jesus Christ. This is why the gospel is “good news,” because salvation is of the Lord and grounded in his sacred oath. And this is why the author of Hebrews reminds the struggling church to which he is writing that the gospel they have believed is grounded in God’s unshakable promise. It is not grounded upon human faithfulness, good works, or in our ability to keep our promises. Rather, God made a promise. He will keep that promise and the work of Jesus Christ is the proof.

We pick up where we left off last time with Hebrews 6:1-12, when we considered the author’s stern warning not to turn away from Jesus Christ or else suffer eternal consequences. But that warning is not the end of the author’s overall argument. So, it is helpful to do a brief bit of review before we turn to the specifics of our text (verses 13-20 of chapter six).

The author of Hebrews has spent the first five chapters of this remarkable book making a powerful case for the superiority of Jesus Christ. The author has shown us from the pages of the Old Testament that Jesus is superior to angels, Moses, and the priests of Israel. The reason why the unknown author of this epistle has made this impressive case is because the church to which he is writing is facing a serious crisis. Many of the members of this congregation who were reading/hearing this letter were likely recent converts to Christianity from Judaism. Yet many of these same converts were facing intense persecution from civil authorities, or from the Jewish community they had left behind. Because of this pressure, a number of the members of this church renounced their faith in Jesus, and had returned to the synagogue.

To read the rest, follow the link below

HebrewsKim RiddlebargerFebruary 21, 2025God's Promise, Hebrews 6:13-20Comment

I Was a Recent Guest on “Issues, Etc.” Talking About Recent Prophetic Punditry

I was interviewed by Todd Wilken and we discussed The Rebuilding of the Temple and Current Events in light of comments made by Pete Hegseth about the possibility of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem

American Religion, Current EventsKim RiddlebargerFebruary 19, 2025Prophetic PunditryComment

“Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel” -- Article Nine, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel

The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

____________________________________

The authors of the Canons have been very clear from the very beginning that the only reason why any are delivered from God’s wrath stems from something good in God and not because God sees anything good or meritorious in us. We are sinful creatures.

The theology of the Canons relates to our contemporary situation in that we cannot begin any discussion of human sin and God’s grace with the presuppositions typical of American democratic egalitarianism, namely, that everyone is equally entitled to a chance at heaven and that it would not be fair for God to elect some or bypass others because this would mean that God’s decree in election somehow prevents people from receiving that to which they are supposedly entitled, a chance at heaven.

The Scriptures teach that all of Adam’s children fell into sin when he did (Romans 5:12-19), and we suffered all of the consequences of Adam’s act on our behalf—sin and death. The Scriptures do not teach that everyone has an equal chance to go to heaven. Rather, Scripture teaches that the entire human race equally deserves eternal punishment. The entire human race is under God’s curse, since each one of us have sinned in Adam (the biological and federal head of the human race), in addition to the fact that we have each personally sinned against God’s infinite majesty. God owes us nothing but judgment.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerFebruary 17, 2025Responsibility for UnbeliefComment

Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Four)

“Taking the Roof Off”

1). I think this is the most helpful and significant area of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. “Taking the roof off,” or “finding the point of tension,” is at the center of Schaeffer’s approach to defending the faith.

2). Schaeffer bases this notion upon the principle of “common ground” occupied by both believer and unbeliever. Says Schaeffer,

“If the man before you were logical to his non-Christian presuppositions, you would have no communication with him. . . . But in reality no one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions, and consequently, because he is faced with the real world and himself, in practice you will find a place were you can talk. . . . In practice then, we do have a point for conversation, but this point is not properly to be spoken of as `neutral’. There are no neutral facts,[1] for facts are God’s facts. However, there is common ground between the Christian and non-Christian because regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world.”[2]

For Schaeffer, then, the Christian doctrine of creation underlies the apologetic task. The world has been created by God in a particular manner, and therefore certain foundational first principles of knowledge which work in our world are necessary to both Christian and non-Christian alike—no communication is possible without them.

3). For Schaeffer, the central principle is that of antithesis (the law of non-contradiction). God has created humans in his own image, therefore people are naturally able (even while fallen they remain human) to use those foundational first principles of knowledge. In fact people cannot even think or communicate without them. But the non-Christian believes in a world of chance (no God, but order), fate, or determinism, or chaos. If this is the world that is, then what use is there in even trying to communicate? A first principle might change or no longer be valid tomorrow. Schaeffer sees this point very clearly. “If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe and the real man, and conversation and communication would not be possible.”[3]

4). Schaeffer correctly fancies this to be the presuppositional method—i.e. challenging the foundation of non-Christian thought using a transcendental argument. “In this way, it does seem to me that presuppositional apologetics should be seen as ending the conversation with the people around us. . . . There is no use talking today until the presuppositions are taken into account, and especially the crucial presuppositions concerning the nature of truth and the method of attaining truth.”[4] But one can argue presuppositionally without adopting the presuppositionalist epistemology–Schaeffer being a good example. We can identify presuppositions of method (i.e., Thomas Reid and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers), without arguing for presuppositions of content (Van Til). What is necessary to know, not what is known innately? Since everyone does have presuppositions, the question should be asked, “whose presuppositions are the right ones?” To answer this, we must then deal with the ways in which we come to know before we examine the facts at hand. This is what Schaeffer is trying to do here.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerFebruary 14, 2025Taking the Roof Off Comments

This Will Drive the Bible Prophecy Pundits Wild

In 2018, when Pete Hegseth was still a reporter for FoxNews, he made several provocative comments about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Now he is Trump’s Defense Secretary. But the internet never forgets.

According to Qatar-backed London based media site Middle East Eye,

Donald Trump's choice as the next United States defense secretary has called for the building of a third Jewish temple on the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

Hegseth has previously touted his avowedly pro-Israel credentials, which derive in part from his fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Speaking at an event in Jerusalem in 2018 he said there was "no reason why the miracle of re-establishing the temple on the Temple Mount isn’t possible", using the Israeli name for the raised plateau in occupied East Jerusalem where Al-Aqsa Mosque stands.

"I don't how it would happen, you don't know how it would happen, but I know that it could happen - and a step in that process is the recognition that facts and activities on the ground truly matter," he said at the event, which took place at Jerusalem's King David Hotel.

He also told attendees that Israel should take advantage of Trump being in office to do what they needed to do in the region, because there were "true believers" in Washington who would back them.

Any discussion of the future of the Jerusalem Temple and its environs is provocative to say the least. The news article spells out the reasons why this subject is so fraught with religious and political tension.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"Speaking in Tongues" -- a New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (1 Corinthians 14:1-19)

Episode Synopsis:

Speaking in tongues was causing chaos in the Corinthian church. Tongue-speakers were speaking at the same time, and their tongues were not always interpreted as required by Paul. Some acted as though tongues was the greatest of the gifts of the Spirit and were lording it over others who did not possess the gift. Paul is also writing to correct the misguided (and pagan notion) that tongue-speaking was the manifestation of ecstatic religious experiences from which tongues spontaneously came forth. Much of what he has written in chapters 12-14 has been to correct false Corinthian notions about the “spiritual,” informing the Corinthians that gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for the benefit of the recipient, but for the strengthening of the church. These gifts enabled Christians to love one another, and equip officers and others in the church for the building up of the body of Christ. Chapter 14 is the conclusion to Paul’s extended instructions about these matters.

But what exactly is “speaking in tongues?” Is it a language known or unknown to the speaker? Is it a heavenly or angelic language? Paul disabused the Corinthians of that notion in chapter 13. Is it some sort of ecstatic speech? Are tongues an untranslatable utterance (divine gibberish) which must be interpreted by someone with the Spirit enabled gift of interpretation? Given the inability of commentators across time to agree on just what exactly Paul is describing, we cannot be certain as to how the gift operated in the Corinthian church–especially since tongue speaking ceased in the churches by the mid-second century. There are plausible theories, but I am not confident anyone really knows. But then Paul does say, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” So the matter cannot be dismissed.

What we can say for sure is that when someone has a private, subjective, religious experience and speaks forth an ecstatic utterance, that person cannot then appeal to the New Testament and claim that what they are doing is what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14. Nor can they claim that their experience is how we ought to practice tongue-speaking today. Instead, we work from biblical teaching about tongues to explain what tongue-speaking is and how we ought to utilize the gift in both public and private settings. Paul assumes the Corinthians know what tongues is–they’ve seen it. But since he does not explain in detail what this gift is, we should be cautious and charitable in our assessments.

To see the show notes, recommended links, and listen to this episode, follow the link below

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerFebruary 10, 2025Speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14L1-19Comment

Winter Musings (February 7, 2025)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:

The Blessed Hope Podcast has hit the 100 “five star” likes count on Apple Podcasts! Thank you so very much!
My Riddleblog series on Hebrews and Francis Schaeffer continue
How do you like the new “musings” photo?

Thinking Out Loud:

With Trumps’s executive order removing restrictions on lo-flow shower heads, I can finally get my Commando 450.
One subject most all comedians seem to address is the dreaded colonoscopy—the new “rite of passage” for 50 year-olds. Foxworthy’s shtick is among the best. The night of prep before the procedure gets most of the various comics’ attention, with one explosive drano-like product often singled out for ire, “Golyghtly.” I’ve consumed this stuff twice and no product has ever been so badly misnamed. I guess “Run-Quickly” (the apt title) was turned down by the marketing people.
The makers of Rinvoq promise sufferers of ulcerative colitis “visible repair of the colon lining.” How does the “visual” part work? Just asking . . .
According to those progressive politicians and pundits who fiddled while Los Angeles burned, the freakish windstorm which drove the LA fires (after months of no rain) was the consequence of climate change. OK, for the sake of argument, if true, why did these same people do nothing to prepare for what they claim was inevitable? Even if this windstorm was truly a consequence of climate change, why did state and local officials cut funding to the fire departments and infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, and do nothing to store last year’s rainwater, etc.? They have no excuse. Elections have consequences.
Speaking of no excuses, those Los Angeles voters who said to themselves, “yeah, Rick Caruso would do a great job as mayor, but I think it more important to elect the first black woman to that office, even if she’s never run anything, so I’ll vote for her,” got exactly what they deserve. You vote for a candidate’s resume, competence, and skill set, not ideology, race, or gender. For those political offices which deal with local emergencies when they arise, being able to actually do the job really matters, not progressive virtual signaling.
All of the above leads me to ask, has Trump not done the same thing with some of his cabinet picks (i.e., Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard)? These people are not known for their resume, competency, and leadership skills, but instead for the fact they are loyal to Trump, telegenic, and vow to “shake things up.” What will happen when their competency is tested by a crisis? And it will.
I am still amazed at the ease in ditching the constitution undertaken by both Biden and Trump. While heading out the White House door, Biden declares the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment ratified upon the stroke of his pen, while in his first week in office Trump bulldozes the Birthrate Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts have already said to Trump, “not so fast.”
What could possibly go wrong? Trump appoints Word-Faith heretic and pastorette Paula White to establish a White House “Faith Office.” Some Word of Faith devotee must have named it and claimed it.

To read the rest of My Musings, follow the link below

The Works of B. B. Warfield (ebook collection) Is Now Available for Free from Monergism.Com

Included are the ten volumes from the 1927 Oxford Edition of “The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield,” reprinted by Baker Books in the 1980s. Monergism is also including sixteen other essays and full-length books in this collection. You can find it here: The Works of B. B. Warfield, eBook collection. This is an outstanding resource!

Monergism continues to provide an invaluable service in making thousands of Reformed sermons, essays, books, and audio available for download. I recommend, if you haven’t already done so, that you check out their website Monergism.com. They are well-worth your support.

Also, P & R has released the first two volumes of the five volume Warfield set which they first published in the 1950s and which has some overlap with the Oxford set. The P & R volumes are nicely updated—new typeset and edited for modern readers. Worth owning! Two essential works from Warfield

But the AI-generated Warfield picture in Mongerism’s email flyer is , well . . . Let me put it this way—AI generated portraits have a long way to go. Warfield’s puffed-out hair-do and beard, along with a youthful appearance makes him more Brooks Brothers than Old Princeton.

To see the AI pic, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerFebruary 6, 2025Warfield eBook collectionComment

The Full Assurance of Hope” Hebrews 5:11-6:12 (An Exposition of the Book of Hebrews–Part Eight)

The Danger of Apostasy

In the first five chapters of the Book of Hebrews, the author has made a powerful case for the superiority of Jesus Christ. Jesus is superior to angels, to Moses, and to the priests of Israel. The author of this epistle has built a powerful case because the church to which he is writing is facing a serious crisis. A number of people in this church came to faith in Jesus Christ as converts from Judaism. Now, apparently, a number of these same converts were facing serious persecution. As a result, many have renounced their faith in Jesus and returned to the synagogue. In light of the superiority of Jesus Christ, the author issues a stern warning to the members of this church to grow to maturity, to know what they believe and why, as well as warning them of the need to persevere to the end of their lives in faith. But the nature of the warning raises an important and long-standing theological question. Can a professing Christian fall away from Christ and be lost?

The author’s warning about the possibility of apostasy is set out in Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Christians have long debated the meaning of this passage. Some see it as proof that a true Christian can fall away from Christ and be lost, while others see the passage as a warning for Christians not to fall away, a warning which those are truly Christ’s will heed–the implication being that those who fall away were never truly Christ’s in the first place. Far too often this debate takes place apart from the context in which the possibility of apostasy arises, the author’s warning to professing Christians about returning to Judaism. So, as we deal with this issue, it is imperative that we keep the original context in mind.

To read the rest, follow the link below

HebrewsKim RiddlebargerFebruary 5, 2025Apostasy, milk and meat, Perseverance of the SaintsComment

“The Serious Call of the Gospel” -- Article Eight, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 8: The Serious Call of the Gospel

Nevertheless, all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe.

__________________________________________

The doctrine of calling occupies a major place in Scripture. To put it simply, when the gospel is proclaimed God’s elect are called to faith. The Canons have described this call as the “ministry of reconciliation,” based upon Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. As a result of being called, the elect embrace Jesus Christ through faith, trust in him and in him alone, for their salvation.

Throughout the Scriptures, calling is directly connected to regeneration. “Calling” precedes the exercise of faith. In other words, no one can come to faith in Christ, unless they are first “called,”" as in John 6:65 when Jesus says, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

There are a number of important considerations here. The first thing that we need to consider is that the Reformed make a distinction between the so-called “general call” which goes out without exception to all men and women (elect and non-elect alike) whenever the gospel is preached, and the “effectual call” which is made to God’s elect only.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerFebruary 3, 2025Calling, Effectual calling, The general callComment

Calvin's Fourth Rule of Prayer

Calvin’s treatment of prayer is very helpful in uncertain times such as our own. His fourth rule instructs us to pray with hope, knowing that God will answer us, just as he has promised to do

The Fourth Rule: We pray with confident hope[1]

Hope and faith overcome fear

Calvin exhorts us to pray in humility, yet with the resolute expectation that our prayers (if offered in faith and repentance) will be answered.

The fourth rule is that, thus cast down and overcome by true humility, we should be nonetheless encouraged to pray by a sure hope that our prayer will be answered. These are indeed things apparently contrary: to join the firm assurance of God’s favor to a sense of his just vengeance; yet, on the ground that God’s goodness alone raises up those oppressed by their own evil deeds, they very well agree together. For, in accordance with our previous teaching that repentance and faith are companions joined together by an indissoluble bond, although one of these terrifies us while the other gladdens us, so also these two ought to be present together in prayers. . . . For not only does his majesty constrain us to reverence but through our own unworthiness, forgetting all pride and self-confidence, we are held in fear.

For Calvin, times of trouble and tribulation are an important occasion for prayer, and during which we discover God’s goodness to us

But “assurance” I do not understand to mean that which soothes our mind with sweet and perfect repose, releasing it from every anxiety. For to repose so peacefully is the part of those who, when all affairs are flowing to their liking, are touched by no care, burn with no desire, toss with no fear. But for the saints the occasion that best stimulates them to call upon God is when, distressed by their own need, they are troubled by the greatest unrest, and are almost driven out of their senses, until faith opportunely comes to their relief. For among such tribulations God’s goodness so shines upon them that even when they groan with weariness under the weight of present ills, and also are troubled and tormented by the fear of greater ones, yet, relying upon his goodness, they are relieved of the difficulty of bearing them, and are solaced and hope for escape and deliverance.

To read the rest, follow the link below

John CalvinKim RiddlebargerJanuary 30, 2025Calvin's fourth rule of prayerComment

The Release of the JFK Files, Conspiracy Theories, and the “Deep State”

My Interest in the Kennedy Assassination

I was nine years old on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was in class with my chums at the local elementary school when our winded and red-faced principal rushed in and pulled the teacher aside. When he whispered in her ear, she turned ashen. What had happened? The principal hurried out, and soon returned with a huge, clunky TV and awkwardly rolled it to the front of the class. By the time the TV was on and the antenna properly adjusted, Walter Cronkite had just announced that JFK died in Dallas from an assassin’s bullet. Our teacher huddled outside the classroom with the principal and other teachers—many of whom were openly crying. The sight of teachers crying was a shock to elementary school kids. The school’s parking lot and the curb along the street were filling up with distraught parents arriving to pick up their confused and frightened children. My parents both were at work (they ran our family business), but the school was close to home so I quickly made my way there and turned on the TV. I’ve always been a news junky—even at age nine.

Not long after, my dad arrived and I was completely taken aback by his reaction. The Riddlebargers did not like, nor support the Kennedys. The Kennedys were Roman Catholic and democrats. My dad had a comedy record mocking Jackie Kennedy’s famous 1961 tour of the White House—he played it frequently and laughed uproariously. I didn’t know what to expect since the President was usually the object of criticism and scorn in our house. How would my dad feel about all of this? He had been an FBI agent during World War Two, and was a Nixon fan, more so after Nixon lost the 1960 presidential election to JFK. Nixon was a local boy and very supportive of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.

My dad was very calm and stoic by nature, but when he came through the door, he too was red-faced and alarmed by what had happened. He was appalled that JFK’s security had failed. He worried about foreign involvement and the possibility that this might lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. To my surprise, I noticed his eyes welling up with tears as he blurted out, “no one has the right to take the life of our president.” And so the Riddlebargers grieved JFK’s death like most Americans. The TV was on constantly that weekend and we watched it all unfold in real time. I had not seen my parents react like this before—with such sadness and concern for the Kennedy family. That made a huge impression on me. This was a national and not a partisan trauma.

To Read the Rest, Follow the Link Below

"The Greatest of These Is Love" (1 Corinthians 13:1-13) A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Is Up!

Episode Synopsis:

What the Bible says about love, and the way most Americans think about love, are usually two vastly different things. Our contemporaries tend to think of love as a powerful emotion, most often associated with romance and intimacy. Images of hearts and cupids on Valentine’s Day are ingrained in us from an early age. Love is also tied to a utopian dream when people experience a powerful sense of brotherhood and unity when they join together for a worthwhile cause. Sadly, these images are far from the biblical meaning of love (agape)–an emotion which issues forth in action. Agape arises in our hearts not from romantic or sentimental feelings, but from reflecting upon the bloody cross of Good Friday through which God redeems unlovable sinners–people like us who are anything but worthy of the love which God showers upon us in Christ’s work of redemption.

Paul will make the case that love (agape) is the glue which holds the divided Corinthian congregation together during their current time of distress. Despite all the tensions present in the Corinthian congregation, the church’s members are the temple of the living God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and given gifts of the Spirit to equip them for service, and to enable them to properly and faithfully love one another.

This type of love, Paul says, will continue on in Christ’s church until the perfect comes. Paul is not a cessationist–the gifts of the Spirit no longer manifest themselves in the church when the New Testament is completed, or after God’s people reach a certain level of spiritual maturity. Those gifts enumerated by Paul in chapters 12-14 remain active in the church until Jesus returns. Granted, there are no more apostles (and those gifts associated with that office, miracles and healing, have ordinarily ceased), but there are ministers, elders, and deacons, who are equipped through the various gifts of the Spirit to rule and serve in Christ’s church until the Lord of the church returns.

Meanwhile, Christ’s church is to be a body of redeemed saints, who are to grow strong together and serve one another in love as equipped by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will all pass away when the Lord returns (i.e., the coming of the perfect). Until then, faith, hope, and love will abide, but the greatest of these is love.

To see the show notes and listen to the podcast, follow the link below:

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerJanuary 27, 2025Love is the greatist, When the perfect comes, 1 Corinthians 13Comment

Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Three)

Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetic Methodology

Part one can be found here

Part two, the life and times of Francis Schaeffer

Presuppostionalist or Evidentialist?

1). Examining Schaeffer’s comments about epistemology will help us to answer a critical question often asked in regards to Schaeffer: “Is Francis Schaeffer an evidentialist or a presuppositionalist?”[1] While Schaeffer does not like this kind of question, nevertheless, he is one or the other, or some combination thereof.

2). Most important for our discussion, we cannot understand someone’s method for defending the faith apart from their views on knowledge, truth, and method. The study of Schaeffer’s epistemology is therefore essential in determining his methodology for defending the faith.

3). It seems that everyone who studies Schaeffer arrives at different conclusions about his methodology. As Gordon Lewis points out, in 1976 alone three major works appeared, all evaluating Schaeffer’s apologetic, and all arriving at differing conclusions.[2]

4). This raises the question, “when so many knowledgeable reviewers reach such different conclusions, what is the problem?” “Are the reviewers confused?” “Or is Schaeffer not clear?” I affirm the latter.[3]

5). Schaeffer is not clear in discussing verification and he appears to be very much at ease about mixing conflicting methodologies. There is a strong pragmatic inclination in his work. He approaches questions of truth as a pastor and evangelist (concerned with the person), not as a theologian or philosopher.[4] Nevertheless, he does indicate sympathy for the presuppositional approach to apologetics.

To read the rest, follow the link below

“A Great High Priest” Hebrews 4:14-5:10 (An Exposition of the Book of Hebrews–Part Seven)

The Superiority of Jesus

The author of Hebrews has been relentless in building his case for the superiority of Jesus Christ. Jesus is superior to the angels–he is their creator and they worship and serve him. Jesus is superior to Moses–Jesus is without sin, and the mediator of a better covenant with much greater promises. The Christian Sabbath (the Lord’s Day) has much better promises than those of the Jewish Sabbath–on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) we are given a foretaste of our eternal rest, in addition to being given an opportunity to rest our weary bodies. Beginning in verse 14 of chapter four, the author of Hebrews returns to a theme he introduced earlier in the epistle, the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus Christ to that of the priesthood of Israel. The author will spend several chapters demonstrating to his readers/hearers a number of the specific ways in which Jesus’s priesthood is superior to that of the priests of Israel.

We take up what amounts to the central theme of this epistle–the superiority of Jesus Christ to all those elements in the Old Testament which pointed ahead to the coming of our Lord, yet which served as the heart of first century Judaism. While we don’t know the name of the author of the epistle (he is likely someone well-known in the Pauline circle, Apollos?), and we don’t know which congregation was receiving this letter (likely a struggling house church in Rome or even Alexandria), we do know that this letter was written to a church composed largely of Hellenistic Jews who were recent converts to Christianity. Hellenistic Jews (Greek in culture, Jewish in theology) accepted the authority of the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), and many Hellenistic Jews converted to Christianity during the apostolic age.

In the face of Persecution

The issue which the author of Hebrews is addressing is that many of the members of this church had made professions of faith in Christ and were baptized, but began to wilt under the pressure from their Jewish friends and family, or from the civil authorities. Sadly, many in this church renounced Christ and returned to the synagogue. Others, apparently, were seriously considering doing the same thing. Therefore, the unnamed author writes this epistle to warn the members of this church about the serious nature of the sin of apostasy. It is no small thing to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, be baptized in his name, and then renounce him by returning to a religion founded upon the types and shadows which had pointed ahead to the coming of Jesus in the first place.

To make his case, the author repeatedly appeals to the Old Testament (specifically, the LXX, seen as authoritative by his audience), demonstrating how the Old Testament writers spoke of the coming of Jesus Christ and his superiority to those things which Hellenistic Jews found central in the Old Testament. Throughout this epistle we not only see how Jesus was hidden in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, but we, as Gentile readers two millennia removed, are given a lesson in how to read the Old Testament through the lens of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

To read the rest, follow the ink below

HebrewsKim RiddlebargerJanuary 22, 2025OUr High Priest, Hebrews 4:14-5:10Comment

“God’s Freedom Revealed in the Gospel” -- Article Seven, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 7: God’s Freedom in Revealing the Gospel

In the Old Testament, God revealed this secret of his will to a small number; in the New Testament (now without any distinction between peoples) he discloses it to a large number. The reason for this difference must not be ascribed to the greater worth of one nation over another, or to a better use of the light of nature, but to the free good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore, those who receive so much grace, beyond and in spite of all they deserve, ought to acknowledge it with humble and thankful hearts; on the other hand, with the apostle they ought to adore (but certainly not inquisitively search into) the severity and justice of God’s judgments on the others, who do not receive this grace.

______________________________________

While Arminians place much emphasis upon human freedom, the Canons are clear that Christians must begin any discussion of God’s saving purposes where Scripture begins the discussion. This is not with human freedom, but with the freedom of God.

As we have seen throughout prior articles, Scripture informs us that the human race has fallen in Adam and is described as dead in sin, unable and unwilling to exercise faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., Romans 3:9-20). Yet because he is loving and gracious God has chosen to elect a vast multitude unto salvation based upon reasons known only to himself. Furthermore, God has also determined how he will call those to faith whom he has chosen—through the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:17). God ordains both the ends (those whom he will save) and the means by which he will save them (the preaching of the gospel).

In article 7, the Canons make the point that God’s hidden decree (in eternity past) is carried out in time and space, of which the Scriptures are the divinely-inspired account. God’s plan to save fallen sinners–otherwise hidden in the shadows of eternity–is revealed in ordinary human history as God brings to pass the very things that he has decreed would come to pass, and which accomplish our salvation.

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerJanuary 20, 2025God's Freedom, The preaching of the gospelComment

Warfield on the Evidential Value of the Empty Tomb

Early in his career, Warfield produced an essay entitled “The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Fact.” It was written for the The Journal of Christian Philosophy, vol. III., 1884, 305-318.

Here are some of the points raised by Warfield which focus upon the empty tomb—an essential fact of Christianity. Did the disciples forget where Jesus was buried and went to the wrong tomb? Where did the body go? Was it stolen? Although I’ve addressed Warfield’s comments about the empty tomb, the essay is well-worth reading in its entirety since Warfield also deals with the eyewitness accounts and historical circumstances surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. What follows are selections from Warfield’s response to well-known critical biblical scholars of his day, David Strauss (1808-1874) of the Tübingen School, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1786-1834), the father of Protestant liberalism,and Ernest Renan (1823-1892) who, among other pursuits, was interested in the early development of Christianity. All three were well-known resurrection skeptics.

Warfield addresses Strauss’s “sorry hypothesis” that the disciples couldn’t remember where Jesus had been buried.

Is the admitted fact that Christ’s earliest followers were all convinced that he rose from the dead, adequately explained by the supposition that they were the victims of a delusion? We must remember that the testimony of eye-witnesses declares that Christ rose on the third day; and that we have thus to account for immediate faith. But, then, there is the dead body of Jesus lying in the grave! How could the whole body of those men be so deceived in so momentous a matter with the means of testing its truth ready at their hand? Hence, it is commonly admitted that the grave was now empty. Strauss alone resorts to the sorry hypothesis that the appearances of the risen Christ were all in Galilee, and that before the forty days which intervened before the disciples returned to Jerusalem had passed, the site of the grave (or dunghill) had been wholly forgotten by friend and foe alike.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerJanuary 18, 2025The Empty Tomb Comments