“Confidence for the Day of Judgment” The Ninth In an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 4:7-21)
“Confidence for the Day of Judgment” The Ninth In an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 4:7-21)

God’s Love of Sinners–the Ground of the Gospel

I think it safe to say that most people would identify “love one another” as the primary ethical teaching of Christianity. No doubt, the love of neighbor is an apt summary of those things required by the second table of the law (commandments 5-10). Jesus even spoke this way in Matthew 22 when he summarized the law. But whenever the Bible directs us to love our neighbor, we must not forget that the context for this commandment is always God’s prior love for us. As the apostle John puts it in verse 10 of the fourth chapter of his first epistle, “in this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” It is because of God’s prior love for us–a love which moved God to send his son to suffer and die to take away the guilt of our sins–that we, in turn, are to love our neighbors.

The indicative–the gospel, i.e., what God does for us in Christ–must be properly related to the imperative–the necessity of obeying God’s commands. Understanding this distinction is vital if we are to make full sense of 1 John and the apostle’s stress upon the necessity of obeying the commandments of God, specifically the command to love others as we would ourselves.

The Background Revisited

As we have seen throughout our time in John’s epistles, understanding the specific historical circumstances which prompted John to write these epistles is essential if we are to understand why John addresses the particular topics in the way that he does. Having composed his gospel (likely a year or so earlier), John must now respond to a group of false teachers who had departed from the faith, having supposedly gained insight into the secret teachings of Jesus. Having imbibed from what John calls the spirit of antichrist (a form of proto-Gnosticism), these individuals were denying that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

While affirming that Jesus is truly God, the false teachers also affirmed that Jesus merely took the form of a human–explaining his physical appearance as recounted in the gospels. This fully divine but not truly human Jesus flies directly in the face of everything John had taught in his gospel, which depicts Jesus as the eternal word manifest in human flesh. The denial of Jesus’s human nature poses a great threat to the church, which explains why John opens this epistle with the declaration that he himself had seen Jesus in the flesh, that he had heard Jesus preach, and that he had even seen Jesus perform miracles. Jesus was no docetic phantom without flesh, blood, and bones. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. To deny Christ’s true human nature is to deny Christianity. It is to embrace the spirit of antichrist.

Closely connected to the false teaching which denies Jesus’s true human nature (the heresy of docetism), is an indifference to the commandments of God. In the opening chapter, John has warned us about claiming to be without sin. Given John’s stress upon the necessity of Christians striving to obey the commandments of God, it is reasonable to assume that those who embraced the docetic Jesus believed that they had mastered the power of sin, and were claiming that they had actually reached the point where they ceased from sinning. Because of this self-deception, these people saw no need of obeying the commandments. John describes this as “the practice of sin,” which ultimately produces the kind of worldliness we see in a figure like Cain–who murdered his brother because he was jealous that Abel brought an acceptable sacrifice to God when his produce offering was not accepted.

The Incarnation Is Central

It is because of this denial of our Lord’s true human nature and the errors that were connected to it, that John stresses the importance of Christ’s incarnation–Jesus is truly God and fully human. Those whom Jesus has brought from death to life (and who are now born again), those for whom Jesus has died as a propitiation, those for whom Jesus presently intercedes in heaven before the Father, as well as those upon whom he has poured out the blessed Holy Spirit, will inevitably struggle with sin and they will seek to obey God’s law. Therefore, those who are truly Christ’s will not “practice” sin, in the sense of remaining indifferent to it. From the opening words of this epistle, John has been arguing that what we believe about Jesus must impact how we live our lives.

In order to contrast the truth with the error with which he is dealing, John makes his case in chapter two that Christians must strive to obey God’s commandments, they must love their brothers and sisters in Christ, they must avoid worldliness (thinking and acting like a non-Christian) and be fully aware that many antichrists are already present in the world–an antichrist being anyone who denies that Jesus is God in the flesh. In chapters three and four John repeats these same themes, each time adding new points of emphasis. In the opening verses of chapter four, John reminds us that we need to be ever-vigilant in regard to false teaching and false teachers who–because they speak the world’s language–will always be able to gain a hearing, but who will deny the truth that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, a doctrine which the apostles have all taught with one voice from the very beginning. John’s words remind us that it is not a question of “if” false teachers will come, but rather it is only a matter of “when.”

Two times earlier in this epistle, John has spoken of the necessity of Christian love–that is, how we regard our brothers and sisters in Christ. In verse 23 of chapter 3 (which echo the words of John 13:34), John stated “this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.” In chapter 4:7-21, John will again take up the necessity of loving one another. It was William Tyndale who said of this section of John, “John singeth his old song again.”[1] Indeed, he does. Although repeating the same basic point, John changes the emphasis significantly, this time focusing upon how Christian love flows out of God’s love. But John immediately moves on from considering God’s love in the abstract, to considering God’s love as it is manifest in history–Christ’s work on the cross in offering himself as a propitiation for our sins.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerGod's love, 1 John 4:7-21Comment
“That Believers Can Commit the Unpardonable Sin” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (4)
“That Believers Can Commit the Unpardonable Sin” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (4)

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

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

For the same apostle John, after making mention of those who commit the sin that leads to death and forbidding prayer for them (1 John 5:16–17), immediately adds: “We know that anyone born of God does not commit sin” [that is, that kind of sin], “but the one who was born of God keeps himself safe, and the evil one does not touch him” (v. 18).

_______________________________

The issue raised here is whether a Christian can commit the sin unto death mentioned in 1 John 5:16–18. The Canons of Dort, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Article 6, specifically teach that God does not permit his elect to fall so far that they commit the sin unto death or the sin against the Holy Spirit (the so-called “unpardonable sin”) and plunge themselves into eternal ruin. The Canons do not deny that genuine believers can fall into serious sin; rather, they affirm that God preserves them from final apostasy and eternal destruction. John writes, “we know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 John 5:18). According to John, those born of God are protected from continuing in sin and from the wiles of the Devil (the evil one).

As noted in the previous articles on the fifth head of doctrine regarding perseverance, Arminians insist that salvation ultimately stems from an act of the human will—choosing to trust in Jesus Christ. Of course, Arminians argue that universal grace is available to all who seek it, but such grace remains merely provisional and conditional unless people avail themselves of it. If this is true, then it naturally follows that one can, through an exercise of the will, cease believing, fall from grace, and ultimately be lost.

The mention of a sin that leads to death in 1 John 5:16 is used as a proof text to support the idea that, should a Christian commit this sin, they do indeed fall away, nullifying the Reformed doctrine of final perseverance.

This is why it is important to notice that John makes a distinction here between sin that leads to death and sin that does not. John does not define this sin, and Christians have long been divided over its meaning. Some take this to refer to a specific sin, such as those mentioned in the Mosaic law as capital offenses (to be punished by death). Some of the church fathers interpreted this to mean that there were sins of ignorance and other sins stemming from wanton rebellion against God—the latter leading to death. This eventually led to Rome’s distinction between venial sin and the so-called seven deadly “mortal sins.” Rome’s view is in error, given the arbitrary nature of the distinction. It certainly does not fit the context here.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe sin unto deathComment
"The Advantages of the Jew" -- A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! (Romans 3:1-8) + Bonus Material
"The Advantages of the Jew" -- A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! (Romans 3:1-8) + Bonus Material

Episode Synopsis:

In the opening eight verses of Romans chapter 3, Paul continues to address the matter of Jewish hypocrisy by asking a series of rhetorical questions that have obvious answers. The Jews were given many blessings by God as beneficiaries of the national covenant he made with Israel at Mount Sinai—especially the covenant sign and seal of circumcision. Yet the Jews mistakenly assumed that the mere possession of these blessings protected them from the wrath of God that was coming upon the Gentiles. The Jews condemned the Gentiles for their godless conduct but, as it turns out, were doing many of the same things themselves.

To expose such hypocrisy, Paul now takes up a role in which the apostle speaks as a former Jew, who is then answered by “Paul the apostle.” Each of these questions and answers is designed not only to expose Jewish hypocrisy but also to remind his Jewish readers of God’s right to judge his disobedient people. God alone tells the truth and does not lie. And those who claim to be spared from judgment by the mere possession of covenant blessings will find themselves exposed to the covenant curses and will realize that God is just and righteous when he punishes the disobedient—especially the hypocritical.

But Paul also addresses an objection he has heard that reveals the depths of misunderstanding regarding the judgment of God. Someone is claiming that since God judges sin and evil, then sin and evil are good things, since through them God reveals his righteousness. So why not sin if it serves God’s purposes? Paul quickly and forcefully rebukes those teaching such things. As he says in verse 8, their condemnation is just.

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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerAdvantages of the Jew, Romans 3:1-8Comment
Fall Musings (10/9/2026)
Fall Musings (10/9/2026)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Updates:

  • I am pleased to announce that I have a substantial book and an academic essay forthcoming, Lord willing. Both are under contract and should reach publication by the end of 2027 or early 2028. I am very excited about these projects and I’ll tell you more about them later (when I can)

  • I am hard at work on the Romans series on the Blessed Hope Podcast. I hope you are enjoying going through Romans as much as I am! There are eleven episodes posted, with about fifteen episodes written. Completing these projects may require a break in podcast releases early in the New Year. We’ll see how this all unfolds

Thinking Out Loud:

  • Protestia is in my “X” feed and I must say, glimpsing at it is like passing an auto accident and slowing down to gawk. One of the frequent images from progressive churches is the number of middle age and older women clergy. My guess is that in their off-hours or before they were ordained, many of them are known by their neighbors as “cat ladies,” or a vocal “Karen” who shows up to complain to their HOA board that someone is flying an American flag or wearing a Maga hat while walking their dog through the neighborhood. Those who loved quilting and arts and crafts are now finding/creating liturgical vestments adored by their congregations of a dozen or so seniors and their caregivers, who like the bright colors and attend these churches on Sundays as outings from their residential facilities. These “cleric-ettes” even wear their fuzzy slippers to work! Thanks, Protestia, for reminding us of the absolute folly and soul-risking danger of progressive theology

  • When my musings become fantasies, I can only wonder what life in America would be like if we are one people, united by a constitutional Republican government, where the legislative branch actually did its job. Then the fantasy goes away when I’m reminded of our two miserable political parties who rule our congress, trying to “own” each other, and not working together to get important things done at a time when important things really do need to be done

  • If the Reformed ever had a “blessings of the animals” ceremony, would cats be included?

  • As a Yankees fan I can’t help but take special delight in the fact that both the Red Sox and them cheatin’ Astros were eliminated from the playoffs on the same day. Then the Yankees self-destructed against the Rays. Ugh . . . the ups and downs of being a sports fan

  • The title “Heritage American” is now a big deal in some Christian nationalist circles. If anyone has reason to be a Heritage American, I have more. 3x Mayflower descendant on my maternal side (Howland, Tilley, Allerton), my paternal line (Rötlisperger) arrived in PA in 1733. Of my 32 ancestral lines, the most recent one of them to arrive in America was in 1830. So, when asked about my nationality, I am truly an American. I do affirm “Christ is king” but always along with his other two offices (prophet and priest). As to lineage—Swiss (some) and British (mostly). As to criminal record or parking tickets, faultless. But I count it all dung to know I am a member of Christ’s church and am looking forward to the realization of my heavenly citizenship. And just in case one of these “Christian” nationalists becomes president, I do keep my passport current and pray the Swiss will take me back as a refugee

  • We can only wonder what Trump’s presidency might have been like had he never opened a “Truth Social” account

  • After spending so much time working through Romans 7:14-25, I think I’ll change my personal pronoun to the “wretched man”

  • I don’t get the “care emoji.” It is supposed to be a “virtual hug,” but it looks like a cartoon monster, or a face in a bad dream. I’ll bet AI or the CCP will use it for nefarious purposes if not already doing so

  • Endnotes are still a tool of the devil. When AI takes over, there will be no footnotes, only endnotes. Let that be a warning to you

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
MusingsKim RiddlebargerBlog/podcast updates, Ka, Kamala on AI, Recommended links, American RevolutionComment
From “Strangely Warmed” to “Utterly Ashamed” -- Wesley Gets Around to Reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians
From “Strangely Warmed” to “Utterly Ashamed” -- Wesley Gets Around to Reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians

John Wesley’s published journals run to four volumes with an opening entry dated October 14, 1735, with his final entry recorded on Sunday, October 24, 1790.

Wesley’s conversion account in 1738 is widely known. Here’s how I describe it in Season Five, Episode One, of my Blessed Hope Podcast deep dive into Romans:

Like Luther, John Wesley was yet another deeply troubled man. For ten years Wesley struggled to live out the demands of the Ten Commandments but finally confessed that he had not obtained freedom from sin, nor the witness of the Spirit, because he sought to gain all of these things through his own futile efforts, rather than through faith in Christ.

Exhausted and out of answers, he attended a meeting of the Moravian Brethren at Aldersgate street in London. It was there that Wesley heard the Preface from Luther's Commentary on Romans being read aloud. Wesley recalled, “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt that I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation.” [1]

I lamented that, “it is too bad that Wesley’s mind was not enlightened when his heart was warmed because he would later go on to reject much of the contents of Luther’s commentary as Wesley’s theology eventually sank back into the semi-Pelagianism of the Middle Ages.”

The degree to which Wesley would later reject Luther becomes apparent in Wesley’s journal entry for Monday June 15, 1741:

I set out for London, and read over in the way that celebrated book, Martin Luther's comment on the Epistle to the Galatians. I was utterly ashamed. How have I esteemed this book, only because I heard it so commended by others; or at best, because I had read some excellent sentences occasionally quoted from it. But what shall I say now, I judge for myself. Now I see with my own eyes? Why, not only that the author makes nothing out, clears up not one considerable difficulty, that he is quite shallow in his remarks on many passages, and muddy and confused almost on all; but that he is deeply tinctured with Mysticism throughout, and hence often dangerously wrong. Two instances, only one or two points--How does he (almost in the words of Tauler), decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ? Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called), but the power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing? Which power is no more to be condemned in the gross than seeing, hearing, or feeling. Again, how blasphemously does he speak of good works and of the Law of God, constantly coupling the Law with sin, death, hell, or the devil; and teaching that Christ delivers us from them all alike. Whereas it can no more be proved by Scripture that Christ delivers us from the Law of God than that he delivers us from holiness or heaven. Here I apprehend, is the real spring of the grand error of the Moravians. They follow Luther, for better, for worse. Hence their "no works," "no law," "no commandments." But who art thou that "speakest evil of the law, and judgest the law?"

Just four years after being “strangely warmed,” Wesley now confesses to being “utterly ashamed” for previously speaking and thinking highly of Luther. It is unfortunate that as early as 1741, Wesley so badly misunderstood (best case) or rejected Luther’s theology (worst case) regarding several critical doctrines. In fact, by the time the Methodist Minutes were published (at some point after 1744), Wesley’s theology was now thoroughly couched in Semi-Pelagian terms, with hints of a full-blown Pelagianism lying just beneath the surface of the discussion recorded in the minutes. On this point, see my prior post, Wesley’s take on election and human obedience.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Biblical Theology, Riddleblog PublicationKim RiddlebargerJohn Wesley on LutherComment
“The Spirit of Truth” The Eighth In an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 4:1-6)
“The Spirit of Truth” The Eighth In an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 4:1-6)

False Teachers Have Arrived

In his first epistle, John is defending the doctrine that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh against a group of false teachers who have departed from the truth by teaching that Jesus was not a flesh and blood Savior, but a deity who merely appeared in the form of a human. John calls this teaching–which is known to us today as the heresy of docetism–the spirit of antichrist (2 John 1:7). For the apostle, Christianity is not a religion in which one learns a set of secret principles revealed to a few enlightened individuals who have managed to gain insight into the “real” teaching of Jesus. For John, Christianity is a religion grounded in the historical work of a flesh and blood Savior (Jesus Christ) whom John has heard preach, whom John witnessed perform miracles, and whom John even touched with his own hands.

To deny that Jesus is truly human is to deny the truth of Christianity. Given the importance of this point, John once again returns to a discussion of the nature of the Christian truth claim, and warns his readers yet again of false teachers and antichrists, who will inevitably come and attempt to deceive God’s people. But John does more than merely warn us about these false teachers, he gives us a test to determine whether or not someone has imbibed from the Gnostic heresy–“does a teacher confess that Jesus is God in human flesh?”

Yet Another Warning

As we have been working our way through John’s epistles, we now come to the fourth chapter of 1 John. John is returning to issues in chapter 4 which he’s already addressed in the first three chapters. John likely does this for the sake of emphasis. In chapter two John had emphasized the need for Christians to obey God’s commandments, to reject worldliness (the non-Christian way of thinking and doing), and to heed his warning about the presence of many antichrists in the age in which we now live.

In chapter three, John repeats these themes while emphasizing different aspects of them. For example, not only must God’s people strive to obey his commandments, we are no longer to be characterized by the practice of sin. Furthermore, Christians will strive to love their brothers and sisters in Christ, while rejecting the murderous ways of Cain, who is the epitome of worldliness, and whose indifference toward God (i.e., his produce offering) and hatred of his brother Abel (whom he killed) prefigures those whom John describes as antichrists.

These false teachers, says John, deny that Jesus is God in the flesh. They seek out “esoteric,” secret truths about God, and they deceive themselves into thinking that they have somehow risen above sin. This explains their indifference to God’s commandments and their lack of love for both God and his people. They may claim to have gained “wisdom,” but John has repeatedly exposed them to be theologically clueless, which is a very serious and dangerous place to be.

Spiritual Darkness and the Appearance of Antichrist

In chapter two, John tells us that the difference between these two groups (Christians and those taken in by the false teachers) is as plain as the difference between light and darkness. In chapter three, John says the contrast between the two groups is apparent in the fact that Christians struggle against sin, while the proto-Gnostics do not. Now, as we make our way into chapter four, John stresses that the contrast is also made plain through someone’s confession about Christ. In this case, the truth claim is very specific. “Is Jesus God manifest in the flesh, or is he not?”

Recall that in verses 18-25 of chapter two, John introduced the figure of antichrist. As we saw when we worked through that portion of this epistle, according to John, many antichrists have already come. In 1 John 2:18-22, the apostle writes:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.”

If an antichrist is someone who proclaims a message which denies that Jesus is the Christ (God manifest in the flesh), and if the very presence of these antichrists is characteristic of the last hour (the final period of human history), then the conclusion we must reach is fairly obvious. The final period in human history began with Christ’s ascension into heaven. We live in that same period of redemptive history as did John’s original audience. And just as the Christians in Ephesus (to whom John is writing) did combat with these antichrists, so must we. And while too many of our contemporaries have interpreted John’s message through the distorted lens of modern dispensationalism–antichrist is the one who makes a peace treaty with Israel at the start of the seven-year tribulation period and will attempt to brand everyone with the mark of the beast, the mysterious 666–John’s test for the presence of an antichrist is rather different. What does someone confess about Jesus Christ? Do they confess that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh? Or do they claim that Jesus is God who merely took the form of a man (like someone putting on a costume and playing a role) but was not truly human (with real flesh and blood).

To put it another way, Christianity is founded upon a particular set of historical facts. Did God truly take to himself a true human nature in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? Did that same Jesus, who was true and eternal God and true man, suffer and die for our sins, offering up a propitiatory sacrifice which turns aside God’s wrath toward our sins? Did that same Jesus rise bodily again from the dead and ascend into heaven where he presently intercedes for us as our advocate with the Father? If he did, then Christianity is true whether someone believes it or not. If he didn’t, then Christianity is false, no matter how many Christians believe it to be true.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim Riddlebarger1 John 4:1-6, Warnings of False TeachersComment
“Justifying Faith Can Be Lost” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)
“Justifying Faith Can Be Lost” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)

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

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

For this opinion nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration as well as the continual preservation by Christ, contrary to the plain words of the apostle Paul: “If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, we will therefore much more be saved from God’s wrath through him, since we have now been justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:8–9); and contrary to the apostle John: “No one who is born of God is intent on sin, because God’s seed remains in him, nor can he sin, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9); also contrary to the words of Jesus Christ: “I give eternal life to my sheep, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29).

________________________________________

The issue here is, “Can someone who genuinely comes to faith in Christ and is declared righteous (justified) then cease to believe and lose their righteous standing?” The Arminian assumption is “yes.” Those who are truly regenerate and, at a point in time, do possess true faith and are justified can subsequently cease to believe and lose both regeneration and justification. To put it another way, according to Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism, if regeneration results from a human action (faith and repentance), then it is possible to cease believing and lose both regeneration and justification. If salvation is grounded in human freedom, not the grace and mercy of God, then perseverance depends upon human willing as well.

As the 3rd Rejection makes clear, the Arminian error is in direct conflict with Christ’s ongoing priestly, kingly, and prophetic work on behalf of those chosen by the Father, granted the new birth by the Holy Spirit, and who then come to faith. As we have seen, Jesus presently intercedes on behalf of the elect, praying for them and ensuring that they do indeed persevere to the end—as definitively stated in John 10:28–29. Can Jesus’s prayers on behalf of the elect go unanswered? Of course not. The justified persevere because Christ preserves them.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerCan justifying faith be lost?Comment
"True Circumcision" (Romans 2:17-29) A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast
"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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerTrue circumcision, Romans 2:17-29Comment
Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Four) -- The Inevitable Result: Self-Deification
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

Read More
B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerEvelyn Underhill, Mysticism and self-deificationComment
Herman Bavinck -- The Doctor and the Theologian
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

Read More
Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerBavinck on Drs. and theologiansComment
The Righteous Shall Live By Faith
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

Read More
Blessed Hope Podcast, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerThe 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)
“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

Read More
John's EpistlesKim Riddlebarger1 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)
“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

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerPerseverance 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)
"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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerRomans 2:12-16, The covenant of works, The "works principle", Natural Law Comments
A Glaring Flaw With the Premillennial Conception of a Millennial Age
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

Read More
Amillennialism, Biblical Events, Biblical Theology, eschatologyKim RiddlebargerGlaring flaw in Premillennialism Comments
The Preached Gospel Summons Us to Faith in Christ
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

Read More
Blessed Hope Podcast, Pauline Studies, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerFaith 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)
“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

Read More
John's EpistlesKim Riddlebarger1 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)
“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

Read More
Kim Riddlebarger