The Riddleblog

"True Circumcision" (Romans 2:17-29) A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast

Episode Synopsis:

Gentiles had a difficult time understanding why Jews would circumcise their male children. There was no Gentile heritage or memory of Abraham. Further complicating the situation was the fact that, among Jews in Rome—as with Jews across the Greco-Roman world—circumcision was understood to be a meritorious act. Those who were circumcised were numbered among the people of God, and those who were not were not. Imagine the difficulty of converting from Gentile paganism to Judaism and then having to undergo a very painful surgery in a very delicate place. Proselytes not only needed to embrace monotheism, embrace Jewish feasts and ceremonial washings, follow the dietary laws, and obey the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), but also undergo circumcision as adults.

But just as Paul challenged the Galatian Judaizers—the covenant God made with Moses at Mount Sinai was not to be confused with the gracious covenant God made with Abraham—so too the true meaning of circumcision was not found in the cutting of flesh. The cutting of flesh was an outward sign of the cutting of the heart—a way to speak of faith in Jesus Christ. In Romans 2:17–29, Paul is not only correcting the Jewish misunderstanding of circumcision—a serious error in its own right—but also letting Jewish Christians know that uncircumcised Gentiles could be numbered among the people of God and become true children of Abraham without undergoing circumcision.

Paul’s discussion of circumcision (verses 25–29) flows out of his efforts to take the Jews to task for their hypocrisy in verses 17–24. The Jews demand certain behavior of others—stop stealing, stop committing adultery, stop robbing temples. But many Jews were doing the same things themselves. The Jews are supposed to instruct those who live in ignorance and walk in darkness—the Gentiles. They were to show them that truth is found in the law of Moses, the very embodiment of God’s will. But instead of leading and teaching the blind and foolish Gentiles, the Jews commit the very same sins themselves. Imagine the blatant hypocrisy of insisting upon something permanent like circumcision, all the while committing the same sins that you insist the person about to submit to the procedure is supposed to stop doing.

This leads to one of the most tragic lines in the whole of the New Testament (verse 24): “For, as it is written, `The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’”

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

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerSeptember 28, 2026True circumcision, Romans 2:17-29Comment

Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Four) -- The Inevitable Result: Self-Deification

As mentioned in the previous installments, Warfield’s extensive “Review” of four of Evelyn Underhill’s books was published in the 1914 Princeton Theological Review, (105–123). Underhill’s works were gaining popularity at the time, the reason for Warfield’s detailed and critical response. Many of her books remain in print today, and she still has a following despite her death over eighty years ago (1941). Her “Christianized” form of mysticism (actually pantheism) still finds an audience among those who identify as “spiritual but not religious,” a phenomenon currently being addressed by Michael Horton’s three volume series on the subject.

In Part One, I took up Warfield’s less than favorable review of Evelyn Underhill’s works championing a so-called “Christian” mysticism—a subjective religious impulse grounded in ecstatic experience and not based upon the written word of God. In Part Two, Warfield addresses her notion of God as the “Absolute,” which, as we noted, has much in common with the inscription on the infamous Athenian altar dedicated to an “unknown god,” mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23. A better term for the “religiosity of the human spirit,” might just be “the flesh,” as identified by Paul in Romans 8:5-8.

In Part Three, The Lion of Princeton presses her on matters of definition—a problem often associated with mystical religious experience, because such experience is difficult to put into explanatory words. But Christianity is essentially a religion of objective truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) revealed in revelatory speech and acts, not in subjective experience. As noted, the heart should follow the mind, not skip over it into a mystical and subjective abyss divorced from those historical events upon which Christianity is based.

Warfield’s in-depth review of Underhill’s work is important for us to consider because mysticism always seems to resurface in times of religious confusion because its gives people a way to unite through shared mystical experience without any doctrinal commitments—“the heart rules over the head.” Such religious experience exists apart from creeds, objective truth claims, and redemptive history, which provides the foundation for a proper Christian faith, which looks to a very real incarnation, a life lived in perfect obedience to the law of Moses, the shedding of RH-typable blood and an empty tomb. Many of today’s “spiritual but not religious” folk have read or would enjoy the Underhill’s writings.

We pick up where we left off last time. Warfield points out that Underhill mistakes the writings of Plotius and her own pantheizing tendencies with that of “abounding culture,” which, she contends, creates a society which fosters those like her who seek God through direct experience. Warfield corrects her misguided assumption.

Miss Underhill would have us believe that Mysticism appears always in the train of great periods of abounding culture; it is the consummate flower of human culture. We think it truer to say that it appears always in the train of periods of the dominance of a Pantheizing philosophy: it is the effect in the religious mind of prevalent Pantheizing thought. . . . Miss Underhill allows (though this is far from all that she allows) that the Mystics at least speak the language of Plotinus. So true is this, that even she, though set upon cleansing the idea of Mysticism from the smudge of Pantheism, yet herself speaks the language of Plotinus, if indeed she stops with that. Though she may on occasion therefore insist that in his achieved “union with the Absolute,” the Mystic does not lose his identity in God, but “in the Mystic this union is conscious, personal thought”; and even indeed that what the Mystic “calls ‘Union with God’ is only his utter identification with the interests of the spiritual life”—she naturally cannot maintain this point of view, and everywhere lapses into language with quite other implications. . . . [I]t is of the very essence of Mysticism to maintain the immediate presence of the divine in man, needing only to be recognized and felt; and it is therefore that it is by the way of “contemplation” that the Mystic bids us seek and find God. Miss Underhill herself tells us that “the whole claim of the Mystics ultimately depends on man’s possession of pure being in ‘the spark of the soul’” “pure being” being but a synonym for the Absolute.

Notice, for Underhill, there is no mediated encounter with the Holy God. She seeks something quite apart from the intercessory work of Jesus Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit as described in Romans 8:14-17. According to Underhill, we can encounter the immediate presence of the Absolute, who is “pure being.” Recall that Isaiah had an encounter with the Lord (Isaiah 6:1-13), so did Paul (Acts 9:1-16), as did John (Revelation 4-6). But these were certainly not the sort of experiences sought and endorsed by Miss Underhill. Isaiah, Paul, and John were immediately aware of their own sin and unworthiness and were filled with dread and terror. Union with the God of the Bible requires mediation, lest we be consumed, “for our God is a consuming fire,” (Hebrews 12:29).

Although you would think things could not get worse—they do, and quickly in fact. The mystic consciousness soon leads one to become aware of one’s own deity apart from which, no union is possible.

That in this “ineffable experience” called “the act of union,” something more is achieved than merely the identification of ourselves “with the interests of the spiritual life”—something very much like the identification of ourselves with God—emerges from such statements as the following: “All pleasurable and exalted states of Mystic consciousness in which the sense of I-hood persists, in which there is a loving and joyous relation between the Absolute as object and the self as subject, fall under the head of Illumination.” “The real distinction between the Illuminative and the Unitive life is that in Illumination the individuality of the subject—however profound his spiritual consciousness, however close his communion with the Infinite—remains separate and intact.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerSeptember 25, 2026Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism and self-deificationComment

Herman Bavinck -- The Doctor and the Theologian

In his book, the Certainty of Faith (1901), Herman Bavinck writes

. . . there is also a practical side to theology that makes it akin to medicine. The theoretical knowledge of the doctor is doubtlessly very important, but his worth and the worth of his science only comes into its own when he heals people. Similarly, theology must prescribe medicine for the ailments of the soul. It must be able to say how and in what way we can be freed from our guilt, reconciled with God, attain to patience and hope amidst life’s tribulations, and find reason to sing praises in the face of death.

A theology that does not concern itself with these things and only dedicates itself to critical and historical studies is not worthy of the name theology. And a theologian who is acquainted with all the latest issues of his science but who stands speechless at a sickbed and knows no answer to the questions of the lost sinner’s heart isn't worthy of his title and office.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 23, 2026Bavinck on Drs. and theologiansComment

The Righteous Shall Live By Faith

An excerpt from “Not Ashamed of the Gospel” Season Five/Episode Five (Romans 1:16-17)

What, then, should we take with us from Romans 1:16-17?

The first thing we need to say is that, like Paul, we must never be ashamed of the gospel. Yes, the cross is a scandalous message. Yes, the cross is foolishness to the Greeks. Unfortunately, in much of American religion (and even in much of evangelicalism), the gospel has become a message about how the holy God makes himself acceptable to self-righteous sinners. While preachers, teachers, and evangelists have every right to be cognizant of the culture and communicate the gospel accordingly, we are never given the right to change the message of the cross to appease that culture.

The power of God is revealed whenever the gospel is preached, not when ministers seek to entertain, strive to be politically relevant, or speak to the whims of the congregation. Until Christ’s church recovers its confidence in the preaching of the cross, we will never see a healthy church, nor witness genuine reformation. Let us sincerely desire and eagerly pray that we may follow Paul’s example and that we, as individual believers and as church members, may never be ashamed of the gospel. For the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. The preaching of the gospel is the means by which God saves sinners! "The righteous shall live by faith." But how can people come to faith when there is no gospel? As P.T. Forsyth once put it, "We must preach to our age, but woe to us if it is our age which we preach, and only hold up the mirror to the time."

To read the rest, follow the link below

Blessed Hope Podcast, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 21, 2026The Righteous Live By Fath, Romans 1:16-17Comment

“By This We Know”- The Seventh in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 3:11-24)

Light and Darkness

In the first two chapters of his first epistle, the apostle John sets out the contrast between those born of God and those who embrace the phantom Jesus of the proto-Gnostics. John says that this contrast is as clear as the difference between light and darkness. Indeed, those who believe that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh will walk in the light of that one who is the light of the world. But those who deny that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh instead prefer to live in darkness. And so in the next section of this letter (chapter three), John continues to develop this theme when he tells us that the contrast between believers and the proto-Gnostics can be readily seen in the lives of those who are children of God.

The way in which someone demonstrates that they are a child of God is very simple. Those who have been brought from death to life by Christ will strive to obey God’s commandments, while those who embrace the gnostic heresy are not at all interested in obeying the commandments. This is because such people have deceived themselves into thinking that they have somehow gained enough knowledge and insight into the mysteries of Christ that they no longer sin. And since they think they have risen above their own sinfulness, their conduct inevitably reflects their indifference to the commandments of God. Those who abide in death (as John puts it) love darkness, hate Christ, and are indifferent to righteousness.

The Word Is Manifest in the Flesh

As we continue to work through the Epistles of John, we come to chapter three of 1 John, where John is discussing the contrast between those who are children of God and those who deny that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh (whom John describes as children of the devil). In this chapter John repeats a number of themes he’s already addressed in the earlier chapters. John does this to emphasize to his reader the importance of realizing that all those who believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh will walk in the light that Jesus came to reveal.

As John develops this contrast, he sets forth a cause and effect relationship. This can be expressed by the indicative and imperative moods (or as is often expressed in terms of the contrast between law and gospel). Those who are born again (the cause) will strive to obey God’s commandments (the effect). John’s opponents not only deny this cause and effect relationship, but they also deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh because of their view that matter is evil. They also see no need to reign in their sinful impulses because they think they have been able to purify their own souls through the religious secrets they have learned. To put it bluntly, they are about as wrong as one can be, hence John’s labeling their teaching as the “spirit of antichrist.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 18, 20261 John 3:11-14, Wesley's perfectionismComment

“Perseverance Depends Upon Human Willingness to Do So” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (2)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man’s will whether or not he perseveres.

For this view is obviously Pelagian; and though it intends to make men free it makes them sacrilegious. It is against the enduring consensus of evangelical teaching which takes from man all cause for boasting and ascribes the praise for this benefit only to God’s grace. It is also against the testimony of the apostle: “It is God who keeps us strong to the end, so that we will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8).

___________________________________

The Arminian error addressed here reflects a long-standing but erroneous teaching found in the church to the effect that “if the human will seeks grace, then God responds to human willing by giving more grace to those who take avail of it.” The assumption here is that, even though fallen, the human will retains the ability to respond to a universal, potential form of grace that does not save but makes salvation possible for those willing to seek it. In this case, the Arminian holds that those who persevere are those willing to seek grace and then choose to persevere with God’s help. The Arminians of the time of the Synod spoke of God giving “sufficient power to persevere,” or of God giving “all things necessary to persevere.” This makes salvation conditional and dependent upon human willing, rather than upon the effectual grace and on-going work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, spoken of throughout the New Testament.

The Arminian error assumes that fallen human nature was merely weakened by the fall, but not enslaved to a sinful human nature. Such a view—which appears from time to time in church history, most notably in the writings of Pelagius—has been condemned as far back as the Council of Orange in 529. In Canon Four of that council, we find the statement, “if anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit…” before citing Philippians 2:13, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerSeptember 16, 2026Perseverance and Human Willing Comment

"Doers of the Law" -- A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part Two of a Deep Dive into Romans 2:1-16)

Episode Synopsis:

Paul’s words in Romans 2:13 come as quite a shock to the Christian ear of those who have grown up with a theology that God is all-loving, but not holy in the sense described by Paul: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” These words are enough to send shivers down the spine of any conscientious Christian willing to examine themselves in light of the demands of God’s law. How can God be so strict? How can such a God be loving? How is that fair? If God requires perfection, this would mean that everyone is bound for eternal punishment. Yes, it does. But that is only half the story.

Reformed Christians affirm that Adam—as the biological and federal head of the human race—was created in a covenant of works. Therefore, Adam lived in Eden under a time of divine probation. He must keep YHWH’s commands perfectly on behalf of all humanity. If he does, God will confirm him in righteousness and glorify human nature. But should he disobey, he will plunge the entire human race into sin, guilt, and death. The covenant of works remains in force, as indicated by Paul in Romans 2:6, which is repeated in 2:13. Paul’s words have generated much controversy, which we will discuss, not because Paul isn’t clear, but because he is—crystal clear. His words challenge many people’s assumptions about how a loving God can demand such perfection from sinners. Yes, God is supremely loving. But he is also holy.

Romans 2:12–16 is part of that section of chapter two in which Paul continues to expose Jewish hypocrisy for criticizing Gentile behavior, all the while doing the same things the Gentiles were doing. Paul now explains why the Gentiles (who did not have the law) are as guilty as the Jews who had the law given through Moses at Mount Sinai. It is because God’s law is written upon the human heart by virtue of the fact that all people are created in God’s image. This is the basis for natural law—God’s revelation in the natural order (the civil kingdom and the ordering of society)—and is revealed through reason, the conscience, and human emotions.

So, there is much here in this part of Romans well worth our consideration. And just so I don’t leave you hanging, the second part of the story answers all the objections just mentioned. In the gospel, through the merits of Jesus Christ—the law keeper—God freely gives what he demands of us under the law. There’s no more loving act imaginable. And we’ll get there, Lord willing, when we get to Romans 3:21 and following. But for now, only doers of the law can be justified. The bad news comes before the good news.

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

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerSeptember 14, 2026Romans 2:12-16, The covenant of works, The "works principle", Natural Law Comments

Who Said That? (15)

Who Said That?

The [Roman] Church, even in the case of a serious error in matters of faith and morals, can go on living; the errors of popes and bishops (like those of theologians) are a very serious and portentous affair, but not ultimately a threat to the Church’s existence.

Leave your answer/guess in the comments section below. Please, no Google or ChatGP searches!

Who Said That?Kim RiddlebargerSeptember 11, 2026Errors in faith and practice Comments

A Glaring Flaw With the Premillennial Conception of a Millennial Age

In a recent comment on X (June 2026), a noted evangelical apologist offered a thought experiment based upon a conversation with a colleague (a professor of New Testament) about human nature in a future millennial age. He raised two points for consideration: “Will Christ reign on earth for some time AFTER His return?” “And if Satan is absent, would humanity finally choose to follow Him?” The first question assumes that the answer is “yes”—a standard premillennial assumption. The second question assumes the premillennial notion that Satan is not bound until Christ’s return and that the Devil’s absence is associated with the beginning of Christ’s one-thousand-year reign upon the earth.

The colleague gave the following response (summarized by the apologist) to the second question: “even after the return of Jesus and under His perfect reign, the human tendency is still to turn away from God and choose brokenness. Understanding this condition of mankind helps make sense of the millennium as a vindication of God’s justice.”

Such an answer to the second question exposes a serious flaw in premillennial expectations regarding the future course of redemptive history, one which premillennarians often and glibly dismiss as though this rather obvious problem has no impact upon the millennial question: “How can there be people on the earth in natural, unresurrected and redeemed bodies, still retaining a sinful human nature and susceptible to the wiles of Satan, when Jesus is, supposedly, physically reigning on earth?”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Amillennialism, Biblical Events, Biblical Theology, eschatologyKim RiddlebargerSeptember 9, 2026Glaring flaw in Premillennialism Comments

The Preached Gospel Summons Us to Faith in Christ

An excerpt from“Not Ashamed of the Gospel” Season Five/Episode Five (Romans 1:16-17)

The message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel summons all who hear it to faith in Jesus Christ. Those who believe when the gospel is preached to them manifest what Paul calls the “obedience of faith.” The gospel saves those, but only those, who believe [trust] in Jesus Christ. Paul is not addressing the exceptional cases here–for example, such as what happens to children of believers who die before coming to faith, or the thief on the cross, and so on. Paul’s point is that the gospel summons us to believe it when we hear it. Those who obey that call and believe are “saved,” while those who are summoned but who do not believe will face the wrath of God on the day of judgment. It is correct to say that those who reject the gospel when it is preached to them, disobey God and remain under his judgment unless and until they trust in Christ.

In his wonderful little commentary on Romans, Anders Nygren, makes a very important point, well worth our consideration.

The gospel and faith belong together inseparably. Therefore we may not speak of faith as something which could exist apart from the gospel. Faith is not a state of the soul which man must have, that by its aid he may receive the gospel. It is the gospel which is primary, which creates faith and awakens it in us. When one hears the gospel and is conquered by it, that is faith. Faith is not prior to the gospel and independent of it. It [faith] arises only through one’s meeting with the gospel [1].

Nygren’s point is that saving faith arises only in connection to the preaching of the gospel. Faith is not our contribution to our salvation, nor is faith the one work God requires of us in order to be saved. Rather, as a demonstration of his power, God creates faith in our hearts through the preaching the gospel just as when he created the universe from nothing.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Blessed Hope Podcast, Pauline Studies, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 7, 2026Faith in Christ, Romans 1:16-17Comment

“He Appeared to Take Away Sins” The Sixth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:28-3:10)

Christians Walk in the Light

The apostle John makes a direct connection between Jesus as God manifest in the flesh and the fact that Jesus died to take away the guilt of our sins. But there were some, John says, “who went out from us, but who were not of us” and who were doing everything in their power to deny this essential connection (1 John 2:19). As John has set out in the opening chapters of this epistle, those who are Christ’s will live in the blessedness of the knowledge that their sins are forgiven. Those who are Christ’s have the benefit of knowing that Jesus Christ is presently in heaven interceding for them as their advocate before the Father. And those who are Christ’s, will not be characterized by sin–something John describes as “practicing sin.” Why? Because God’s people walk in the light. Those who walk in the light will wage war upon their sins as well as strive to mirror that righteousness which is found in Christ. The behavior of God’s children stands in sharp contrast to those whom John will now characterize as children of the Devil, who practice “sinning.”

The Second Section of the Letter

We now make our way into the third chapter of John’s first epistle, which includes the second main section of this letter.[1] Throughout this portion of his epistle, John will repeat–for the sake of emphasis–a number of themes he’s already set out in chapter two. In 1 John 2:28-3:10, John once again addresses the importance of obeying the commandments of the Lord. As John will put it, Christians are people who are characterized by the “practice of righteousness” and not by the “practice of sin.” Then, in verses 11-18, John reminds his readers of the necessity of loving their brothers and sisters in Christ, while in verses 19-24, John speaks of the assurance of our salvation in light of our own sinful hearts. And then in the first six verses of chapter 4, John returns to the theme of discerning truth from error. Although in many ways this section of 1 John is a repetition of the first section–something which was often done in letters of this period– John now tweaks each of these points to emphasize their importance in light of the challenges then facing the churches to which John is writing.

Throughout our time in these epistles, we have seen that historical context is everything. If we don’t understand why John writes these letters as well as have knowledge of the errors he is refuting, we’ll make a mess of things–as many have done, especially with the section we are currently covering. The apostle John writes these three epistles at some point toward the end of the first century. While at many points in these epistles John alludes to his gospel–likely written a short time earlier–John is writing to both state and defend the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. The incarnation of Christ–that Jesus is fully God and fully man–is the very foundation of the Christian faith. To deny the incarnation is to deny Christianity. To deny the incarnation is to embrace the spirit of antichrist.

The Reality and Importance of the Incarnation

The critical importance of understanding that Jesus is the word of life manifest in the flesh can be seen when John opens this epistle by making an emphatic truth claim grounded in John’s own encounter with Jesus earlier in his life. John had seen Jesus perform miracles with his own eyes. John had heard Jesus preach with his own ears. John had even touched Jesus with his own hands. Therefore, Jesus is a flesh and blood Savior, and Christianity is necessarily grounded in history. As B. B. Warfield once pointed out, our most important doctrines are also historical facts. Either Jesus was God in the flesh, or he wasn’t. Since John saw Jesus, heard Jesus and touched Jesus, John sees Jesus as the truth incarnate, as well as that light of the world who has come to cast out the darkness of sin and false teaching.

The reason John must state and defend this basic point of Christian theology is that in and around the city of Ephesus (where John was living as an elderly man) a form of early Gnosticism had appeared in which it was held that reality consisted of a dualism between spirit (good) and matter (evil). According to this primitive Gnosticism, God was pure spirit, but since matter was evil, it was supposedly impossible for God to take to himself a true human nature, since matter was intrinsically evil. This meant the incarnation of Jesus Christ was an impossibility. But how then do we account for physical appearances of Jesus throughout the gospels? Well, these proto-Gnostics were arguing that while Jesus was fully God he only appeared (or took the form) of a man. Jesus was fully God, but took human form as a phantom or apparition. This is known as the heresy of docetism, which John directly associates with the spirit of antichrist. As we saw last time, John warns the churches that many of these docetic antichrists had already come. In fact, says John, anyone who denies that Jesus is God in human flesh has denied both the Father and the Son. This is no small error with no small consequences.

To read the rest, follow the link below

John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 4, 20261 John 2:28-3:10, Christ came to take away sinComment

“The Error of Teaching That Perseverance Is Obtained By Free Will” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that the perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ’s death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his “peremptory” election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

For Holy Scripture testifies that perseverance follows from election and is granted to the chosen by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession: “The chosen obtained it; the others were hardened” (Rom. 11:7); likewise, “He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not, along with him, grant us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised—who also sits at the right hand of God, and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:32–35).

_______________________________________________

It is an odd feature of Christian theology that doctrinal errors are much more complicated and convoluted in their structure than positive statements and summations of biblical truths. This is the case with the rejection of errors under the five heads of doctrine published at Dort. In these sections, the Canons address specific charges raised against the Reformed churches in Holland in the early 1600s. They tend to be a bit more time-bound than the doctrinal affirmations set forth in the articles, but nevertheless, we hear many of the same kinds of arguments against Reformed doctrines today.

The specific error being addressed is that as a consequence of starting with the premise of human freedom—which, according to Arminians, Adam’s race retains in large measure even after the fall into sin—the possibility of perseverance in faith to the end must likewise be conditioned upon the continual exercise of human freedom (i.e., our free will). This shifts both the merit needed to satisfy God’s demands and the ground of our salvation away from election and our deliverance from the guilt and power of sin—secured for us by Christ’s death upon the cross.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Kim RiddlebargerSeptember 2, 2026

"Storing Up Wrath" A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! (Part One of a Deep Dive Into Romans 2:1-16)

Episode Synopsis:

The church in Rome was predominately Gentile–made up of recent converts from Greco-Roman paganism to Christianity. Such Gentiles knew little if anything about the Old Testament, nor its central figures, Abraham, Moses, and David. They knew that Jewish Christians cared about dietary restrictions, as well as circumcision–a surgical procedure which seemed bizarre to former Gentile pagans. They knew the Jews revered the law of Moses–which they claimed to be the very commandments from God. Gentiles ate things Jews did not. They touched things Jews regarded as unclean. As new Christians, Gentiles were learning about the evils of idolatry and the importance of rejecting the libertine sexual ethics and practices of Roman life in favor of a biblical sexuality. But they were also learning about Moses, Abraham, the law, and the covenants God made with Abraham and Moses.

Paul has been clear in the opening chapter of his letter to Rome. “You Gentiles may not have known who Moses was, nor why the commandments God gave to Israel through him at Mount Sinai were so important, but you do know what is right and what is wrong because God has made it plain to you through the created order, which, until coming to faith in Jesus, you tried to suppress in unrighteousness. You may claim ignorance, but you knew deep down inside that the things you were doing lead to death.“

But Paul is not finished. Even as he exposes Gentile godlessness and the futility of exchanging the truth of God for pagan nonsense, you can almost hear the Jewish Christians in Rome cheering Paul on. Eyewitnesses of bad Gentile behavior and victims of Gentile oppression, Jewish converts, of course, were thrilled to hear Paul “give it to them good.” “About time someone called out the Gentiles for their sinful and immoral practices.”

But as the second chapter of Romans unfolds, Paul shifts gears and raises the uncomfortable reality of Jewish hypocrisy. “Ok, you Jews who criticize the Gentiles, do you do the same things they do?” “How can you judge the Gentiles when you are no better.” The truth is, God is going to judge all people according to their works–Jew and Gentile. The blessing/curse principle will apply to all humanity. Those who do good will receive God’s blessing, while those who do not keep God’s commands will face him on the day of judgment. Yes, Paul has good news to proclaim, but there can be no good news until we realize that we are sinful, law-breakers, and deserving of God’s wrath whether we be Jew or Gentile.

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

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerAugust 31, 2026Romans 2:1-16, Paul's warning to JewsComment

One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

The following is the edited text of my WSC chapel lecture on the Nicene Creed for their series on the Creed from the Fall of 2025

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

My purpose in this post is to address that section of the Creed which speaks to the attributes of the church: “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Reformed Christians usually emphasize the marks of the church (preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, church discipline, and for some, prayer) before discussing the attributes of the church. When confessing the Nicene Creed the matter of the attributes or characteristics of the church moves to the fore. What are those attributes which must be confessed as necessary in order for the marks of a true church to be present?

There are four classical attributes of the church found in the Creed and embraced in different forms/ways across various Christian traditions: These attributes are 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Reformation churches all confess these same attributes but understand them in fundamentally different ways. There may be less catholicity here than elsewhere. I will cite from several Reformed writers and our confessions to make these differences apparent.

Several Reformed theologians have pointed out the classical attributes confessed in the Creed are not merely descriptive, they are also an exhortation. These are the ideal–the aspirational goal for which the church must strive. When seen in this light, these attributes are both a gift and a mandate. There is an eschatological dimension as well–these attributes tell us what the church is, what it should be, but they direct us ahead to that day when they will all be realized in perfection when the Lord Jesus returns.[1]

Briefly, I will go through the four attributes from this line in the Creed and then wrap up with a look at 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, where all four attributes are explicitly mentioned by Paul.

We Confess that the Church Is “One”

We begin with our confession that the church is “one.” It will come as no surprise that Rome anchors unity in the papacy. Ubi papa ibi ecclesia – “Where the Pope is, there is the church.” And we can add “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[2] In Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, he contends that “the Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[3]

The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. It is not bishops which hold the church together, leading Kallistos Ware to ask, so “what then holds the Church together? [The] Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments. . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of [Christ’s] flock.”[4]

In contrast, the Reformed depart from both Rome and the EOC in terms of how we understand the attributes of Christ’s church. When it comes to unity, we speak in terms of an invisible and a visible church. Invisibly, Christians enjoy a common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love. God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly (in part, but not exclusively, through external organization). Berkhof notes, the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[5]

The Belgic Confession, article 27, speaks of “one single catholic or universal church” and concludes by affirming Christ’s church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”

According to Herman Bavinck,

This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[6]

We might say that unity of organization, of some sort, is one of the things we strive for, but the elements of institutional unity do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Ecclesiology, History and Culture, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerAugust 28, 2026The Nicene Creed, One Holy Catholic and ApostolicComment

What Would Paul Say to the Prosperity Preachers?

In 2 Corinthians 9, Paul discusses the proper motives behind Christian charity. He does away with the tithe and reminds his readers that Christians are to give as much as they can–if they can do so freely and joyfully. He tells the Corinthians that Christians do not “give to get”–no prosperity gospel here. Rather they are to give what they can when there is a genuine need. The model for such giving is God’s grace as manifest in the cross of Jesus Christ, the proof that God loves us and cares for us. Christian giving does not appease an angry god (as the pagans taught), it does not ensure that we’ll prosper financially or regain health (as the prosperity gospelers claim), and giving is always to be done simply because it is good to give–especially to those in need. While there is a spiritual blessing for the cheerful giver, the Christian offering is but an act of gratitude in response to the inexpressible gift God has given to us in the person of his son.

To listen to the the Blessed Hope discussion of this from 2 Corinthians 9, here’s the link: “The Inexpressible Gift” Season Four/Episode 12 (2 Corinthians 9:1-15)

Kim RiddlebargerAugust 26, 2026

Musings — Late Summer Edition (8/24/2026)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Updates:

Note the new musings photo—nowhere else does the muse come upon me as when I am here—Lake Mary in Mammoth
Don’t forget the Blessed Hope Podcast series on Romans is well underway. Thanks for all the great feedback! Such a wonderful and powerful book
I am also going through the Epistles of John in the blog

Thinking Out Loud:

Goodbye Meghan and Harry—don’t let the door hit you on the way out
The City Council of McKinney, Texas (where my son and his family now live), heard five hours of pleas from 120 citizens not to approve a 32,000 sq.ft. Mosque. The council voted 7-0 to approve the site plan. Of course, their minds were already made up and like city councils everywhere, they went through the ritual of hearing citizen complaints, feigning interest while trying not to yawn, but knowing all along what they were going to do before the meeting even got under way. The solution when city councils do this—recall the lot of them
The WNBA just keeps hitting new lows. Caitlin Clark is the best female basketball player I have seen (perhaps Cheryl Miller excepted). Sophie Cunningham is the paradigm “all-American” girl. Because of the two of them, the WNBA has drawn a bunch of new fans, sold a ton of merch, has new media contracts, and is on the verge of sound financial footing for the first time in the league’s history. But the league’s LGBTQ crowd, along with the league’s refs and coaches, treat Clark and Cunningham like they are in the UFC. These two women—the victims of pure jealousy, racism, and spite—deserve much, much better
Why does President Trump feel compelled to issue an executive order to scrap electromagnetic catapults on aircraft carriers in favor of the old steam catapults? He knows nothing whatsoever about the technology and to convert an under construction carrier from electromagnetic catapults back to steam, will cost billions and delay construction by years. Good grief
I used to hear a garage band or two occasionally playing Saturday afternoons in the neighborhood. Not so much any more. My guess is they’ve moved from the garage to playing as “worship bands” in local churches. This way they get to practice once a week before an appreciative audience
Alexis de Tocqueville once mused in his Recollections, “a dwarf on the summit of a great wave is able to scale a high cliff which a giant placed on dry ground at the base would not be able to climb.” The quote was a reference to Napoleon III (Louis-Napoléon), but it certainly applies to a number of contemporary politicians, podcasters, and social media mavens
The famous Roman orator Seneca described how in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was common to drown or discard unwanted babies (infanticide). Oh wait, he was speaking of the Romans, not a progressive American governor (Maura Healy) who signed a law last week allowing abortion up to the moment of birth
I got a kick out of the Abounding Grace Radio’s AI picture of me—especially on an episode devoted to the Antichrist. Besides, I would never wear that tie with that shirt
I forgot to complain about it in the last musings, but endnotes are a tool of the devil and part of his plot to deceive the world by keeping people in darkness

To read the rest, follow the link below

MusingsKim RiddlebargerAugust 24, 2026Augustine, new mosques, WNBA, The Holy Land, flock camerasComment

“Antichrist Is Coming” The Fifth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:18-27)

A Constant Source of Speculation

It is difficult to find anything in the Bible which has provoked as much unbiblical speculation as has the doctrine of antichrist. The very mention of this mysterious figure sends the Christian imagination off and running. This is nothing new. The church fathers, by and large, thought the Antichrist would be an apostate Jew who would come to power after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Reformers–and virtually the entire Reformed tradition–have seen the warning about antichrist fulfilled in the Roman papacy. More recently, the dispensationalists have taught that the Antichrist will appear near the time of the end in connection with the rapture of the church. At the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period, dispensationalists tell us, the Antichrist will make a seven-year peace treaty with the nation of Israel before turning on God’s ancient people, declaring himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Much of this antichrist speculation is so far afield from the way John uses the term “antichrist” in his epistles, it is truly remarkable. For the apostle John, antichrist is not some dreaded future foe, but a very present threat to those to whom he is writing. John warns his readers in Asia Minor, “Antichrist is coming.”

Context, Context, Context . . .

We now take up John’s warning regarding the Antichrist in verses 18-27, the final of the four things in this part of John chapter 2 which John says should characterize all those who walk in the light. The first thing which should characterize Christians, John says, is that they confess their sins (1:5-2:2). The second thing they will do is to strive to obey the commandments of God, which are a published revelation of God’s will (2:3-11). Those who walk in darkness have no interest in God’s law. Then, in verses 12-17, John warns us not to love the world. John is not referring to the physical world (the universe) when he warns us not to love the world. Rather, John is referring to the fallen world as it is currently under the control of the evil one (cf. 1 John 5:19). John puts this in very stark either/or terms. If we love the fallen world in its opposition to God, we cannot love the Father.

This brings us to verses 18-27 and the fourth characteristic of those who walk in the light–they will oppose the many antichrists who have already gone out into the world. In order to make sense of John’s warning about these antichrists–these arch-enemies of Jesus Christ who is the word made flesh–recall that John is responding to an early form of Gnosticism, which held that reality exists in the form of a dualism between pure spirit (the good) and matter (evil). As we have seen, this conception of the universe makes Christ’s incarnation a metaphysical impossibility because if these proto-Gnostic categories are in fact correct, God (who is pure spirit) cannot take to himself a true human nature (which would be evil). In order to explain the physical appearances of Jesus in the gospels these proto-Gnostics opposed by John were affirming that while Jesus was truly God, he only appeared to be human (or took the form of a human). It is this so-called docetic heresy which John will now label the “spirit of antichrist.” This definition is quite different from the way in which most people use the term.

Two Different Ways to Speak of Antichrist

When it comes to the term “antichrist,” it is important to notice that theologians use the term in two ways. The first is the broad use, which is a reference to the end-time foe of Christ and his church. The second, and narrow use of the term is used by John in this epistle. The broad use (which is far and away the most common) refers to that mysterious end-times figure whom Paul labels the “Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2) and whom John calls “the beast” in the Book of Revelation (i.e., Revelation 13). This individual is usually thought to be the final antichrist in the series of antichrists about which John warns his readers in these epistles. When Christians speak of the “Antichrist,” they are most often referring to that individual who appears at the time of the end and who is a composite figure which we get when we put all the information from John (the beast, antichrists) and Paul (“Man of Sin”) together.

The second and “narrow” way the term is that used by the apostle John in his first two epistles. John uses the term “antichrist” as a specific reference to those false teachers who deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. For the apostle John, an antichrist is anyone who embraces the docetic heresy threatening the churches in Asia Minor at the time John writes these epistles. So, when we speak of the Antichrist, we need to keep in mind that the term can be used in these two ways. John’s usage of the term in these epistles–John, by the way, is the only biblical writer who even uses the term “antichrist”–is vastly different from the way in which most people use the term. In these epistles John is not warning us of a future end times foe, but of an ever-present threat to Christ’s church.

With that in mind, as we move into our text (verses 18-27 of the second chapter of this epistle), John turns to the subject of eschatology and begins by explaining how we as Christians should understand that period of time (the “last hour”) in which we presently live.

To read the rest, follow the link below

John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerAugust 21, 2026Antichrist is coming., 1 John 2:18-27Comment

“Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance” – Article Fifteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 15: Contrasting Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance

This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it—a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers—is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.

___________________________________

Article fifteen concludes the fifth head of doctrine by offering a brief summary of the previous articles before the Canons take up the refutations of particular Arminian objections to the Reformed understanding of perseverance in the following section. The doctrine of perseverance should bring comfort to the people of God, reminding us that God does not call us to faith in Jesus and indwell us with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), only to give up on us should we not make quick enough progress in the Christian life, or in those cases where we are plagued by doubt or fall into deep sin. The very heart of the Reformed doctrine is that we persevere in faith because Jesus Christ preserves us in the faith. He will lose none of his sheep, he will save all those given him by the Father, and no one shall snatch them from his hand (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30).

As the Canons note, and as we have seen throughout our time looking at the articles under the fifth head of doctrine, the doctrine of perseverance is taught throughout the Scriptures and does two very important things. First, the doctrine directs our attention away from ourselves and our daily struggles to Jesus Christ, who preserves us through the means of grace—his Word and Sacraments. This is especially difficult and important for us moderns to learn: the painful lesson that not all of life and reality centers around us. The second thing this doctrine does is direct us away from our selfish preoccupation with ourselves unto the glory of God. The Canons speak of this as “very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers.”

But this doctrine was one of the primary objections of the Dutch Arminians, who challenged it on the grounds that if Christians were told that, since they were presently saved, they should be assured that they will finally be saved, then this opens the door toward indifference to living the Christian life with the goal of finally obtaining salvation. It is argued (then as now) that if people know with certainty that they cannot lose their salvation, what reason is there to live godly lives? This removes the implied incentive for Christian living: fear of punishment and hope of reward. As we noted previously, the Christian life (as understood by the Arminians of that time, and by the Wesleyans later) is a carrot-and-stick affair. As long as you strive to take the carrot, you won’t get hit from behind with the stick. Understood in this manner (which makes sense to Adam’s fallen children and their darkened understanding), the Christian life becomes an entirely self-centered matter. The Canons express the matter as one which “the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerAugust 19, 2026Reactions to PerseveranceComment

“God Gave Them Over” A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part 2 of a Look at Romans 1:18-32)

Episode Synopsis:

What happens to those who know right from wrong but choose to follow their own path even though their conscience and the Word of God warn them not to go that way? No, lightning does not strike them, nor does the ground open up beneath their feet and swallow them whole. They don’t keel over dead. According to Paul, what does happen to those who willingly exchange the truth of God for a lie and who willfully suppress the truth in unrighteousness is far more consequential than it seems at first glance. In exposing Gentile sinfulness, Paul warns of how God gives such people over to the consequences of their sin. If this is the path they persist in taking, well then, God will let them follow it to the end—an end, Paul says, that is deserving of death.

While it is common for Christians to emphasize those sexual sins that figure prominently in Paul’s vice list in Romans 1:18–32 (and indeed they do), the sins mentioned here by Paul are universal to all of Adam’s fallen race and include things we might consider “little” or insignificant sins—envy, gossip, and disobedience to parents. The point of this list is to show the Gentile Christians in Rome that despite the fact that they know neither Moses nor the law of God, their sins are self-evident and condemn the entire human race. No one will be able to stand before God on Judgment Day and claim, “But I did nothing wrong.” And “if I did something wrong,” it is certainly not worthy of eternal condemnation. But since God is holy and cannot look upon sin, Paul’s vice list makes clear the sobering fact that all of us are sinners who have sinned against God and whose hearts are filled with sin and darkness.

Those who don’t think this is fair are those who compare themselves to their neighbor, some of whom are better than they are, while some are worse. But God does not measure us by our neighbor; he measures us by his perfect holiness, which he demands of all his creatures.

The dreaded phrase “God gave them over” reminds us that we cannot stand before God on the Day of Judgment and plead ignorance or claim that our sins really are not that big a deal, deserving of such severe punishment. “I didn’t kill anyone.” Maybe not with my hands, but I’ve done it countless times in my heart, and so have you. Although the phrase “God gave them over” has an eerie finality about it, we also ought to consider that the process of letting sinners feel the weight and consequences of their sins just might be the means by which God is preparing people to come to faith and repentance. The conviction of sin is a work of the Holy Spirit. The conviction of sin is actually a good thing—because we realize that we need to be delivered from the guilt and power of sin. Much better to feel the conviction of sin than to be allowed to continue uninterrupted on our chosen path to destruction.

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

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerAugust 17, 2026Romans 1::18-32, God gave them overComment

Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Three) -- A Religion of Subjective Experience and Mere Opinion

The Christian mystic, Evelyn Underhill, still remains a popular figure in certain Anglo-Catholic groups, spiritual retreat movements, and among those interested in Christian mysticism and contemplative spirituality—especially as a means of coping with secularization and what such people consider to be sterile doctrinal rigidity—i.e., confessional Protestantism. Her views still find an eager audience among the “spiritual but not religious crowd” being addressed by Michael Horton’s three volume series on the subject. Underhill died in 1941, but her books became popular in the 1910s, drawing scrutiny from the guard dog of Old Princeton, B. B. Warfield.

In Part One, I addressed the background to Warfield’s stinging review of Evelyn Underhill’s works championing a so-called “Christian” mysticism—a subjective religious impulse grounded in what my late colleague Rod Rosenbladt called the “liver shiver,” an ecstatic experience not based upon the clear voice of God found in his Word when it is read and preached.

Warfield’s “review” addresses the challenge raised by mystics that doctrine divides, but spirituality—such as a “conversion experience”—unites a broad segment of Americans, which includes many professing evangelicals who do not agree with each other on important fundamental doctrines. In Part Two, Warfield points out that the “Absolute” supposedly encountered by Mrs. Underhill has much in common with the inscription on the infamous Athenian altar dedicated to an “unknown god,” mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23. In fact, a better term for the “religiosity of the human spirit,” might just be “the flesh,” as identified by Paul in Romans 8:5-8.

In part three of my look at Warfield’s “Review” of Underhill’s works (his “Review” was written in 1914), he continues to press her on her slippery definitions—a nagging problem associated with mystical religious experience, which claims to be “felt,” and therefore difficult to put into explanatory words. This matters because Christianity is essentially a religion of objective truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) revealed in revelatory speech and acts, not in subjective experience. The heart should follow the mind, not leap-frog over it.

Warfield continues to press her on the matter of definitions.

Miss Underhill reformulates her definitions thus (p. 97): “Mysticism, then, is not an opinion: it is not a philosophy. It has nothing in common with the pursuit of occult knowledge. It is not merely the power of contemplating Eternity. It is the name of that organic process which involves the perfect consummation of the Love of God: the achievement here and now of the immortal heritage of man. Or, if you like it better—for this means exactly the same thing—it is the art of establishing his conscious relation with the Absolute.”

But just who or what is the “absolute”? Here the mystic runs into reality that the God of the Bible is holy and those who encounter him experience nothing but sheer terror due to his glorious transcendence and holiness (see Isaiah 6:1-7; Hebrews 12:29). This is why any proper Christian relationship to God must be established in and through the incarnate Son (whose glory is veiled in human flesh) and through the indwelling Holy Spirit who enables us to approach the holy God as Father, without fear or terror.

Warfield sees the inconsistency in Underhill’s attempts at definition as highly problematic.

What was formerly declared to be a “science” has now become explicitly an “art”: but in varying the term we do not escape from the thing—behind the “art” the “science” necessarily lies. Miss Underhill says the Mystic is the man who has attained to union with the Absolute. Let us be more modest and say that the Mystic is the man who professes, or supposes himself, to have attained to union with the Absolute. Then Mysticism surely may be fairly described as that congeries of notions which are presupposed or implicated in this profession; or, if we choose, in the practice of the art by which this end is supposed to be attained. It would seem, therefore, that it must inevitably embrace a doctrine of the Absolute; a doctrine of the relation of the human spirit to this Absolute; a doctrine of the possibility of the human spirit attaining “union with the Absolute”; a doctrine of the nature of this “union with the Absolute” which the human spirit may attain.

But the subjective nature of Underhill’s enterprise means that no real definition of the “absolute” is possible and all we have is mere opinion—“I think,”, “I feel.” Such subjective claims, with little or no reference to any sort of objective reality, sadly, is the way in which many of our contemporaries determine their “personal truth.” What some describe as an “experience of the divine,” might just a weird thought, or an idea, a dream, or perhaps, lunch not properly digesting.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerAugust 14, 2026Subjective religion, Evelyn UnderhillComment