The Riddleblog

“Calling God `Our Father'” -- Wisdom from Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 120

“Calling God `Our Father’”

It is not uncommon to hear critics of the Protestant Reformation complain that Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with those who followed them throughout subsequent generations, were so preoccupied with a Christian’s legal standing before God (justification), that both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions downplayed the loving relationship that sinners enjoy with their creator as his adopted children. This charge usually arises from the nature of the biblical doctrine of justification as understood by those whose theological origins are found in the Reformation. Protestantism, in most of its forms, understood that the righteousness earned by Jesus through his personal obedience to God’s commandments is reckoned (or imputed) to a sinner through the means of faith, so that the sinner is given a right-standing before God and is therefore delivered from God’s wrath.

In emphasizing a Christian’s right-standing with God via imputation, critics contend that broadly conceived the Reformation’s approach to the Christian life falls squarely upon a person’s legal standing before God, and as a consequence, necessarily depreciates the personal relationship that a sinner enjoys with God downplaying Jesus’ role as a loving Savior. I once heard a Roman Catholic apologist put it like this: “Protestants use a courtroom model, while we [Roman Catholics] use a family model.” In other words, the Reformation emphasis on justification supposedly shifts the focus of the Christian life to being saved “from” God, instead of emphasizing being saved “for” God. If the doctrine of justification is the true watershed doctrine by which the church stands or falls, then God is primarily understood as a stern judge, not as a loving father. The Christian’s standing before God is essentially legal, not familial.

This would be a powerful argument, if it were true.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Gems from Warfield's Essay, "Christless Christianity"

Warfield’s essay, “Christless Christianity” was originally written for the Harvard Theological Review in 1912. It is a decimating critique of that cycle of liberal theology which sought to respond to Arthur Drew’s 1909 book, “The Christ Myth.” Drew’s book was widely identified as anti-Christian propaganda, even by liberals. But liberal theologians who sought to respond to Drew, particularly German liberals, conjured up a form of Christianity which was no longer dependent upon a historical Jesus. Warfield will have none of it. In many ways Warfield’s essay argues the same points Machen does in his Christianity and Liberalism, written in 1923. Warfield argues that whatever it was that German liberals were exporting into American seminaries and churches it was not Christianity, but an altogether different religion with a completely different Jesus. The liberal’s collective response to Drew’s attack was a not a defense of Christianity but a capitulation to unbelief.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMay 23, 2022Christless Christianity, Protestant LiberalismComment

Musings (5/20/22)

More great stuff from Dr. Godfrey’s lecture series at the Escondido URC:

Dr. Godfrey -- "What Is Going on Right Now?" Lecture 13

Dr. Godfrey -- "What Is Going on Right Now?" Lecture 14

Speaking of the Escondido URC, pastor Chris Gordon’s New Reformation Catechism on Human Sexuality is now out and available from Reformation Heritage Books. You can check out the forward by Rosaria Butterfield here: "Forward" to the New Reformation Catechism
By the way, if you ever want to visit Escondido via road trip, there is a pretty decent soundtrack: The Road to Escondido
Gaffin on why the Book of Acts focuses on Peter and Paul: Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts
Nancy Guthrie gives us four good reasons to read the Book of Revelation: Four Reasons Why We Should Read and Study the Book of Revelation
To read the rest, follow the link below

An Exposition of Article Twenty-Six of the Belgic Confession: The Intercession of Christ

While it is easy to think of our Lord’s work as high priest exclusively in terms of what he has already done for us in the past–especially his once-for-all sacrifice for our sins upon the cross–we must consider that our Lord’s priestly work on our behalf continues on into the present. Jesus’ priestly office did not expire like an elected official’s term of office when he sat down at the father’s right hand after his ascension. Jesus remains our high priest after his Ascension, and his present intercession for us serves as the basis for both our on-going sanctification as well as our perseverance in faith. As the mediator of the covenant of grace, Jesus, who is our friend and advocate, constantly intercedes for us with our heavenly father. And his intercession is always with full effect. He will not lose a single person given to him by the father but will raise all of them up on the last day.

Article Twenty-Six of the confession deals with the on-going priesthood of Jesus Christ. In Article Twenty-One, our confession carefully summarizes the biblical teaching regarding Christ’s priestly office, focusing upon how it is that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament’s emphasis upon a perpetual sacrifice for sin, by offering the final sacrifice for sin, namely himself. In Article Twenty-Six, our confession summarizes the biblical teaching that our Lord’s priesthood is an on-going office, that Jesus remains our high priest, and that his priestly work is essential to those of us who live in this present evil age. Without Christ’s on-going prayers on our behalf, who among us would make progress in our sanctification? Who among us would persevere to the end our lives in faith? Without our Lord’s intercession for us, who of us would not wander away from the fold? Not one.

To read the rest, click here: "Who Loves Us More than Jesus Christ Does?"

Belgic ConfessionKim RiddlebargerMay 18, 2022Christ as high priest, Jesus our IntercessorComment

Jonah -- Preacher of Repentance (4): Tossed Overboard to Calm the Storm

Call Upon Your God!

As the storm intensifies, the ship’s captain found Jonah below deck, sound asleep. The captain screams at Jonah, “what do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call out to your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we may not perish.” (Jonah 1:6) We know that sailors can be a superstitious lot–then as now. After awakening Jonah, the captain insists that the fleeing prophet call upon “his god” as the others had done. We are not told if the captain knew yet that Jonah was a worshiper of YHWH and was aware of YHWH’s great power. Perhaps the captain’s fear was that unless all onboard were praying to one of their collective gods, one of these gods would remain unappeased and cause all onboard to perish. But the irony should not be lost upon us. Jonah is awakened by the captain to pray because the storm truly is Jonah’s fault! Jonah is fleeing from YHWH’s prophetic call which is the reason for the terrible storm which has placed the ship and its crew in jeopardy.

Of course, praying to gods who do not exist does not end the storm. In fear and panic, the crew seeks to figure out which one of the crew or its passengers has offended his god sufficiently for that particular god to bring the storm down on the lot of them. The suddenness and intensity of the storm points to some sort of supernatural peril, since none of the other measures have worked and the ship is about to break up. Pacifying whichever god was angry became paramount to the crew. According to verse 7, “and they said to one another, `Come, let us cast lots, that we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us.’ So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah.” YHWH brought the storm to pass. So too when the lot is cast, it falls on Jonah. It is just as the author of Proverbs (16:33) tells us, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” YHWH is directing all things (even the roll of the die) to his appointed end–that his word be preached in Nineveh. The mysterious passenger sacked out below deck is the one who has brought the terrible storm to pass.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Do People Die or Do They "Pass Away"?

Those who know me well are probably aware of my dislike of the phrase, "passed away" as a euphemism for death. The phrase originated in 15th century England in reference to superstitious notions surrounding the dead person’s soul during the wake or funeral. It was thought that the soul of the departed remained present to witness the mourning process until the funeral services were over. After that, the soul departed to heaven or hell, by “passing away.” Over time, it has become increasingly common to refer death as a “passing away.”

My long-time friend and colleague, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, makes a compelling case that the phrase “passed away” is better suited to Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science than Christianity which sees death as a consequence of Adam’s fall. Convinced by Rod’s observation way back when, I too now urge Christians to cease using the phrase “passed away” and instead speak of “death.” As an avid reader of the local obituaries, since they reveal much about the current religious/theological spirit of the age, it is clear to me that for Christians the phrase "passed away” has replaced the grim reality of the curse; “so and so died.” The use of “pass away” is an evasion of the real issue--that death is brutal, ugly, and stems from human sin. Death is called “the curse,” and our last enemy. There is much wisdom in the biblical acknowledgement that there is indeed a time to weep, and the last thing I want to do when someone I know and loved dies, is “celebrate.” That is much better done at birthdays, graduations, weddings, etc.

One writer, Brian Jay Stanley, nails it as to why the phrase “passed away” fails to capture the reality of death:

The word "death" is a strong and solid word that does not blush or flinch, calling life's terminus by its first name, without apology. But most people euphemize death with the softer phrase "passed away". To pass away suggests a gentle and painless transition from one state to another, like chilled water passing imperceptibly into ice. Thereby words conceal from thoughts the horrors of violent accidents and the wracking agonies of terminal illness, as if everyone, instead of only a lucky few, died peacefully in his sleep. And where we peacefully pass is "away", a nebulous word that does not suggest a termination, but neither specifies a destination. It is a kind of leaving off, a gesture of open-endedness, an ellipsis at sentence's end. It is, accordingly, the perfect word for the skeptical yet sentimental modern mind, which cannot accept annihilation, nor easily believe in immortality. "Passed away" allows vague hope without dogma, as if to say, "He has gone somewhere else, please don't ask for details."
From aphorisms and paradoxes

People die, they do not “pass away.”

Who Is to Blame for Tragedy? A Look at Jesus’ Answer in Luke 13:1-5 and John 9:1-3

Almost every culture–whether ancient or modern–seems to possess a superstitious belief that whenever anything bad happens to someone, it must be because the person has done something which brought the tragic event about. People seem wired to ask themselves, or inquire of others, what the victim did which brought calamity down upon their heads. What did they do to provoke God to anger? The underlying assumption is correct–bad things happen to bad people. We do live in a fallen world after all, so we expect tragedy and disaster. But the conclusion often reached when we seek an answer as to “why?” these things happen is incorrect–that there is an immutable cause and effect relationship between specific sins and immediate bad consequences. What is often overlooked is that the one questioning why something bad happened to someone else, is as guilty before God as is the person they are speculating about.

In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus speaks about two tragic events which occurred in first century Israel which produced just this sort of speculation. The first of these is mentioned in verse 1, when we read of those “who told [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We do not know exactly to what historical event this was referring (we have no known record of it), but the implication seems to be that Pilate ordered certain Galilean Jews to be killed at the time of the Passover sacrifices, in effect “mixing blood.”

The question is an important one because based upon Old Testament texts such as Job 4:7 (“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?) the Pharisees commonly taught that bad things happened to people as a consequence of personal sin. But the assumption that the Galilean’s blood was mixed with their sacrifices because of a particular sin is addressed directly by Jesus in the form of a rhetorical question. In verse 2, Jesus asks those asking about this, “do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?” In a second example, Jesus mentions another disaster apparently well-known to his audience. “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?” (v. 4).

To read the rest, follow the link below

One People or Two? The Challenge Raised to Dispensationalism by Ephesians 2:11-22

It was the famed New York Yankees’ catcher turned philosopher, Yogi Berra, who once said, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it!” Paul’s discussion in Ephesians 2:11-22, addresses the relationship between Jew and Gentile in Christ’s church. It is a passage which requires us to ask a “fork in the road” sort of question. “In the new covenant era, does God have one people (the church), or two peoples (Jew and Gentile) each assigned different redemptive purposes?” Reformed amillennarians and dispensationalists take quite different directions when coming to this important Pauline “fork in the road.”

Dispensationalists struggle to understand and explain Ephesians 2:11-22 because Paul assets something much different than the standard dispensational claim that although there is but one gospel, nevertheless, God has two distinct redemptive purposes, one for national Israel and another for Gentiles.

To illustrate the problem faced by dispensationalists, it is useful to survey the way in which traditional dispensational writers have approached this passage. J. Dwight Pentecost, writes that this passage describes God’s purpose for the present age (where there is a visible unity), but does not describe his purpose for the millennial age when the two peoples (Jew and Gentiles) are again distinct groups. Pentecost is so bold as to state, “Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people Israel and that for the church.”[1]

John Walvoord understands the passage as referring to the “new program” for the church which, he claims, was a mystery in the Old Testament. In the New Testament dispensation, a living union is formed so that Jew and Gentile are brought together with all racial tensions eliminated [2]. Like Pentecost, Walvoord argues that such unity is only temporary and in the millennial age the historic and ethnic differences between Jew and Gentile re-emerge.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Warfield on "Faith" -- A Corrective to Edwardsianism (Faith as Affectional)

The Following quotations come from B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “Faith” originally written for the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1905). This article was reprinted in volume 2 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, “Biblical Doctrines” (467-508). Warfield’s essay can be found here in its entirety: The Biblical Doctrine of Faith. Well worth a read.

I’ve taken a number of citations from Warfield’s essay and included the page numbers from the Biblical Doctrines volume.

The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests. It is never on account of its formal nature as a psychic act that faith is conceived in Scripture to be saving,—as if this frame of mind or attitude of heart were itself a virtue with claims on God for reward, or at least especially pleasing to Him (either in its nature or as an act of obedience) and thus predisposing Him to favour, or as if it brought the soul into an attitude of receptivity or of sympathy with God, or opened a channel of communication from Him. It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ: faith in any other saviour, or in this or that philosophy or human conceit (Col. 2:16, 18, 1 Tim. 4:1), or in any other gospel than that of Jesus Christ and Him as crucified (Gal. 1:8, 9), brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith; and in this the whole biblical representation centres, so that we could not more radically misconceive it than by transferring to faith even the smallest fraction of that saving energy which is attributed in the Scriptures solely to Christ Himself. (504)

So little indeed is faith conceived as containing in itself the energy or ground of salvation, that it is consistently represented as, in its origin, itself a gratuity from God in the prosecution of His saving work. It comes, not of one’s own strength or virtue, but only to those who are chosen of God for its reception (2 Thess. 2:13), and hence is His gift (Eph. 6:23, cf. 2:8, 9, Phil. 1:29), through Christ (Acts 3:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Pet. 1:21, cf. Heb. 12:2), by the Spirit (2 Cor. 4:13, Gal. 5:5), by means of the preached word (Rom. 10:17, Gal. 3:2, 5); and as it is thus obtained from God (2 Pet. 1:1, Jude 3, 1 Pet. 1:21), thanks are to be returned to God for it (Col. 1:4, 2 Thess. 1:3). Thus, even here all boasting is excluded, and salvation is conceived in all its elements as the pure product of unalloyed grace, issuing not from, but in, good works (Eph. 2:8–12). The place of faith in the process of salvation, as biblically conceived, could scarcely, therefore, be better described than by the use of the scholastic term ‘instrumental cause.’ Not in one portion of the Scriptures alone, but throughout their whole extent, it is conceived as a boon from above which comes to men, no doubt through the channels of their own activities, but not as if it were an effect of their energies, but rather, as it has been finely phrased, as a gift which God lays in the lap of the soul. (505)
To read the rest of the citations from the Warfield essay, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMay 7, 2022The Biblical Doctrine of FaithComment

An Exposition of Article Twenty-Five of the Belgic Confession: The Fulfillment of the Law

As believers in Jesus Christ, who are saved by grace through faith, the question inevitably arises, “what do we do with Moses and the Ten Commandments?” One of the major themes running throughout the New Testament is the thorny relationship between a Christian under the new covenant and the law of Moses which lies at the heart of the old covenant. Not only is this a prominent theme in the ministry of Jesus–as for example, Luke 24:44, where Jesus states that “that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled”–but this is a major theme in the letters of Paul. In Romans 10:4, Paul writes that “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” What do we as Christians do with those ceremonies, feasts, and practices associated with the covenant God made with Moses at Mount Sinai, after Christ has come and has declared all of these things are fulfilled in him?

We now treat two articles which deal with themes related to the work of Christ as our high priest and the sole mediator of the covenant of grace. These two articles (Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six) follow the discussion of faith, justification, and sanctification (articles Twenty-Two through Twenty-Four) because how we understand the covenant God made with Moses and Jesus Christ’s present mediation on our behalf (the subject of article Twenty-Six) will impact considerably our conception of the Christian life and the nature of those good works which we now do because we are justified on the basis of the merits of Jesus Christ which we have received through the means of faith.

To Read the Rest, "The Ceremonies and Symbols of the Law Have Been Fulfilled"

Belgic ConfessionKim RiddlebargerMay 5, 2022Fulfillment of the law, types and shadowsComment

Jonah -- Preacher of Repentance: A Fool's Errand -- Attempting to Flee from God

Jonah on a Fool’s Errand

God called the Prophet Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh (in the heart of the Assyrian empire) to preach YHWH’s word to the Ninevites. Refusing to go to Nineveh, instead Jonah undertook the fool’s errand of attempting to flee from YHWH, boarding a ship which Jonah hoped would take him as far away from Nineveh as humanly possible. But why was Jonah, known to us as the “reluctant prophet,” so hesitant to go where YHHW was sending him? The answer is both religious and political. Jonah is an Israelite. Assyria is Israel’s enemy and a serious military threat. Jonah knows that his own people (Israel) are hardening their hearts against YHWH and are likely to come under YHWH’s judgment. Jonah also knows that should he go to Nineveh and preach, YHWH might bring about the city’s repentance, sparing it from imminent judgment. As a loyal Israelite, Jonah fears that his preaching might be YHWH’s means of sparing Assyria from judgment. Jonah refuses YHWH’s call to go and preach and attempts get as far away from Nineveh as he can. But his plans are about to change in ways he cannot yet begin to imagine. YHWH will change Jonah’s mind and his destination.

As we move deeper into the Book of Jonah, (chapter 1:4-10), we read of Jonah fleeing YHWH’s prophetic call, only to find himself thrown overboard by terrified sailors and then swallowed by a great fish, where Jonah spent three days and nights entombed in conditions beyond human imagination. As we discussed previously, when we raised and answered the “Who?” “When?” “Why?” and “What?” questions, the assumption often made by readers about the Book of Jonah is that the story is so implausible that it cannot be historical. When viewed in this manner, the fictional story of Jonah becomes an object lesson or moralistic tale about obeying God’s will so as not to suffer the consequences–like those which befall the reluctant prophet.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Reflections on JonahKim RiddlebargerMay 2, 2022Jonah -- fleeing from God, JonahComment

"A Vice Very Common with Books of This Class" -- B. B. Warfield's "Review" of Andrew Murray's "Spirit of Christ"

As readers of this blog are no doubt aware (because I keep reminding you), B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) is widely hailed as one of America's greatest theologians. His books have remained in near-continuous publication since his death in February, 1921. Although dead for over a century, Warfield remains a theological force with whom to be reckoned.

As professor of polemical and didactic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Warfield published 781 book reviews over his long and exceedingly productive career. Some of Warfield's reviews are published in his collected works, while many are not. I thought it might be of interest to bring some of these currently unpublished "Reviews" to light. The first review discussed was "Children in the Hands of the Arminians". The second was Warfield's review of C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel), Warfields Review of C. F. W. Walthers' "Law and Gospel". For this installment, I have chosen Warfield's "Review" of Rev. Andrew Murray's book, "The Spirit of Christ," published in 1888, and which Warfield reviewed the following year. This influential book still remains in print (The Spirit of Christ) and is available from Whitaker House, a charismatic/Pentecostal publisher.

A brief word about Andrew Murray is in order. Rev. Murray (1828-1917) was a Dutch Reformed minister who labored in South Africa. Murray had a life-long passion for missions and was a champion of the South African Revival of 1860. Murray was devoted to the so-called "Keswick" theology which stressed the "inner" or "higher life." He also endorsed faith healing and believed in the continuation of the apostolic gifts. He was a significant forerunner of the Pentecostal movement--a remarkable accomplishment for any Dutch Reformed minister (I am being facetious, of course).

Murray was a prolific author, cranking out more than fifty books and hundreds of pamphlets. We sold cases of them in our bookstore (when I was growing up) and for which I have long since repented. So when I first ran across BBW's "Review" of Murray's book, I was very interested in what Warfield would have to say. Needless to say, the Lion of Princeton was not terribly impressed with Andrew Murray.

To read Warfield’s “Review” follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerApril 30, 2022Review of Andrew Murray Comment

A Rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem? A Look at Ezekiel's Vision in Chapters 40-48

In light of periodic calls to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (Time to Rebuild the Temple?), the matter of whether or not this will come to pass is part and parcel of the on-going debate about events associated with the end times and the return of Jesus Christ. The very possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple raises a number of serious theological questions which ought to be addressed, especially in light of the dispensational expectation of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the dawn of the supposed seven-year tribulation period, which then functions as a center of worship during the millennial age.

As for the possibility of the temple actually being rebuilt, I am one who says “never say never” about future world events. I have no idea what will happen over the long run in Jerusalem and Israel. That said, I do not think such a thing is even remotely likely, given the current tensions in Jerusalem over control and access to the Temple Mount, much less the long-term political circumstances of doing so. Should Israel develop the religious and political will to occupy the Temple Mount (something unforeseeable at this point in time) and eventually take the steps necessary to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the third holiest site in Islam), the Jewish state would face the wrath of the entire Islamic world as well as that of much of the secular West. Since dispensationalists often connect the rebuilding of the temple to the geo-political tensions necessary to foster the appearance of the Antichrist, who, they claim, will make a peace treaty with Israel before betraying the nation leading to a final end-times catastrophe, such upheaval is not beyond the realm of possibility. Dispensationalists expect the Jerusalem Temple to be rebuilt and fervently hope for it.

To read the rest follow the link below

Musings (4/25/22)

My favorite political theorist, Yuval Levin, nails it (again): Levin: How to Cure the Culture War
A great summary from Craig Carter: 25 Theses on Classical Christian Trinitarianism
Putin is not alone. More wannabe autocrats are on the rise. The world order is changing, and not for the better: The Age of the Strong Man
The prophecy pundits must be going crazy over this one—a call to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. Granted it is one thing to call for the temple to be rebuilt, but entirely another to actually clear off the Al Aqsa Mosque and begin construction. A more important question: “why would you want to see the Temple rebuilt with animal sacrifices resuming?” If you think this is a great idea, please re-read the Book of Hebrews: Time to Rebuild the Temple
To read the rest of this edition of Musings, follow the link below

When We Confess the Church to be Apostolic

When We confess the Church to Be Apostolic

I know that this might come as a shock to my fellow baby-boomers, but the Christian church wasn’t founded by the Jesus people in the 1960’s—although their own congregation might have been. Americans often think about the church as though it was founded by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening. It was not. Nor was the church established by Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening. The church was already fifteen centuries old when Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to reform it at the time of the Reformation. There is even a sense in which the church is as old as Adam and Eve and the first family. And Calvin was absolutely correct to affirm that the church existed in its infancy in the midst of Israel before the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Christian church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ when he called his apostles to follow him, and is then given a significant Spirit-filled role in redemptive history after Pentecost. When we consider that the church of Jesus Christ is apostolic, this is where we begin.

It is fashionable in those circles dominated by critical biblical scholarship to think of the church as a worshiping community in need of a Messiah–the first Christians supposedly elevated an itinerant apocalyptic prophet (Jesus of Nazareth) to his messianic status and then put pithy “Jesus sayings” back in his mouth. The church was not the fruit of the organizational genius of a group of followers who came to believe that Jesus had risen in their hearts (the so-called “Easter experience”) as they tried to cope with the disappointment they felt once Jesus was put to death by the Romans and his glorious kingdom did not manifest itself as promised. Rather, the biblical record tells us that the church was founded by a Risen Savior who left behind an empty tomb and then appeared to a number of his chosen witnesses the first Easter, confirming that his death on Good Friday was the ultimate triumph over human sin. The church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ, victorious over sin, death, and the grave.

to read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Events, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerApril 22, 2022The church as apostolicComment

Jonah -- The Preacher of Repentance: Preaching to Your Enemies

Jonah: Factual Account or Mere Parable—”Dare to be a Jonah”?

When it comes to the “why” and “what” questions associated with the Book of Jonah, these are difficult to answer because they are tied to the nature of the book itself. Critical scholars openly scoff at the assertion the Jonah is describing historical events. Was he really swallowed by a large fish, and spent 72 hours in a fish’s belly? Surviving despite a lack of oxygen and despite the fish’s digestive juices which ordinarily would have dissolved Jonah’s remains rather quickly. Because the book cannot be accepted as historical the critics contend, the Book of Jonah must be an allegory telling some sort of moralistic tale: “dare not to be a Jonah,” or “obey God when he calls you, so you don’t suffer the consequences,” or some such.

The better critical scholars see a broader redemptive historical purpose in Jonah. Israel failed in its mission to be YHWH’s witness to the Gentile nations, a reason why YHWH was about to bring judgment upon the nation. So, before Israel’s destruction in 722 by the Assyrians, YHWH raises up a prophet (Jonah) who will do what Israel failed to do, go to the source of Israel’s impending destruction (the heart of the Assyrian empire) and call for Gentiles to believe in YHWH and repent of their sin. To these scholars, Jonah’s apologetic purpose (in the form of a sermonic parable) does not require the events with the book to be true. This is certainly a possible interpretation of Jonah’s overall mission and this apologetic purpose may indeed be behind YHWH’s prophetic call of Jonah.

But if this is true, why does Jonah so actively resist YHWH’s call to the point that he states he would rather die than see the Ninevites repent (Jonah 4:3)? Jonah is a loyal Israelite. We know from 2 Kings 13 that Israel had been continuously at war with Syria, the Gentile kingdom immediately to the north. Syria was a sometimes client state, sometimes rival of Assyria, growing in power and geographically to the north of both Syria and Israel. According to the account in Kings, YHWH kept Syria at bay through Assyrian aggression, weakening Syria so they could not invade Israel and preventing either nation from conquering the Northern Kingdom. YHWH even granted Israel military success against Syria during the reign of Jeroboam II. These nations would have been Israel’s (and Jonah’s) natural enemies.

to read the rest, follow the link below

An Exposition of Article Twenty-Four of the Belgic Confession: The Sanctification of Sinners

Okay; “if I am justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, then why should I do good works?” The answer is because I am justified by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone! The same act of faith which links us to Christ so that his merits become ours and thereby provides the basis upon which God pronounces us “not guilty,” also begins the life-long process of sanctification, in which old sinful habits begin to weaken, new Godly affections begin to grow, and we begin to obey (however, feebly), not some, but all of God’s commandments. Indeed, only justified sinners can actually do good works.

We are in that section of our confession (Articles Twenty-Two through Twenty-Four) which deals with familiar doctrines to many of us: faith, justification, and sanctification. These wonderful doctrines not only unfold throughout the pages of Holy Scripture, but the Reformed formulation of these truths, such as we find in our confession, clearly differentiate Reformed Christianity from Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism at the time our confession was written in 1561. But these doctrines also differentiate Reformed Christianity from Romanism and much of American evangelicalism today. This is why it is so important to be familiar with our confessions, so that we know what we believe and why we believe it. How can we proclaim the truth to the unbelieving world around us, if we do not know the truth?

Articles Twenty and Twenty-One of our confession summarize and describe the saving work of Jesus Christ, which provides the ground or the basis of our justification. Jesus Christ not only satisfied the wrath of God when he suffered upon the cross for us and in our place, so also he came as our high priest who represents us before God. In addition, Jesus came as the mediator of the covenant of grace, so that through his own perfect obedience to the covenant of works and the law of Moses, Jesus’ saving merits (his personal and perfect righteous) are reckoned to us through the means of faith.

To read the rest, Article 24, the Sanctification of Sinners

Belgic ConfessionKim RiddlebargerApril 18, 2022sanctification, why do good worksComment

"The Triple Cure: Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King" -- Some Reflections on the Three Offices of Christ

Jesus Christ - Our Prophet, Priest and King

The diagnosis is not very good: we are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt.

As a litany of biblical texts reveals, we find ourselves as fallen sinners ravaged by this threefold consequence of our sins. Our foolish hearts are darkened (Romans 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Genesis 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant of the things of God (Ephesians 4:17-18), although in our folly we often boast about our supposed knowledge and great wisdom. Paul tells us that we have exchanged God’s truth for a lie (Romans 1:25). Our minds are “blinded by the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Like a blind man pitifully groping his way through life, so our sin has blinded us to the truth of God. Intoxicated by our own self-righteousness, like boastful drunkards we stumble through life seeking to justify ourselves before God.

We labor under the tremendous weight of guilt–the penalty for our many infractions of the law of God. While many of us are quite adept at ignoring God's just verdict against them, many others feel like they will buckle under the weight of God's heavy hand. Not only are we guilty for our own individual violations of God’s law in thought, word, and deed, but we are also rendered guilty for our participation in the sin of Adam, whose own guilt has been imputed to all of us as his biological and federal children (Romans 5:12, 18-19). While we may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only, David knew that this was not true. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,” (Psalm 51:4). Because of our guilt, there is no way we can dare stand in the presence of God. “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Psalm 130:3). He does keep such a record and we cannot stand.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Putin's Worldview, the Slavic Soul, and a Secular Apocalypse

We, in the West, cherish our liberal intellectual heritage: our free markets, our individual freedom and liberties, our republican form of limited government, and our practice of electing national leaders to office for short terms in office, with clearly defined responsibilities and limits. From his recent comments, it is clear that Vladimir Putin sees things much differently. Those things we tend to cherish are anathema to him. He is in every sense an dictatorial autocrat, but also a self-professed Russian Orthodox Christian with an incomprehensible worldview to most in the West (identified in recent Russian academic thought as Eurasian Nationalist Bolshevism). Putin loathes what he sees as western decay and decadence. America is responsible for many of the evils in the West which he deplores.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is only the most recent in a series of military endeavors which are the logical outcome (perhaps the necessity) of his view of Russia and his hoped-for recovery of lost empire. He seems obsessed with his personal role in determining just what that Russian future might be. “How will history remember him?” We will think of him as a tyrannical war-criminal who will go down in memory as a despised butcher of non-combatants. But he thinks of himself as the savior of the Slavic people, a man who is recovering the Slavic soul—a heroic effort for which those living in the future Russia will venerate him for generations to come.

To read the rest, follow the link below.

Current EventsKim RiddlebargerApril 12, 2022Putin's worldview, Putin and the Slavic SoulComment

I Was a Guest on the Bible Theory Podcast Hosted by the Chicano Knox

We discussed signs of the end, the Rapture, problems with dispensationalism, all in light of amillennialism

You can listen to the podcast by following the link below