The Riddleblog

Musings (05/13/2023)

News and Updates:

This past week I wrapped up my Spring course (ecclesiology) at Westminster Seminary California. My three year term as visiting professor of systematic theology is up and a new full-time professor will be filling the gap which I had previously covered.

I truly enjoyed my time in the classroom, but am ready to step aside. Thanks to the WSC faculty for giving me the chance to finish up my career as a seminary professor! Thanks to the students who endured too many dad jokes and quips from the beloved Rod Rosenbladt (AKA “the prophet Rod”).

I’ll be plenty busy with the Riddleblog, The Blessed Hope Podcast, several book projects, as well as teaching the weekly adult Sunday school class at Christ Reformed Church.

To read the rest of my “musings,” and peruse the “recommended links” follow the link below

"The Man of Sin" (Part One) -- The Latest Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast Is Up As We Tackle 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and the Doctrine of the Antichrist!

Episode Synopsis:

There is little doubt that one of the most interesting, controversial, and a constant source of on-going speculation is the doctrine of the Antichrist.

Indeed, there has been so much written about the Antichrist by Christians–both ancient and modern–and so many references made to the Antichrist in film and popular culture, it is vital that we go back to the biblical accounts of this mysterious and evil figure to separate biblical fact from speculative fiction. What does the Bible actually say about the Antichrist?

Paul tackles the subject head on in his second Thessalonian letter. Soon after completion of his first Thessalonian letter, Paul received news that someone in the Thessalonian congregation was teaching that the day of the Lord had already come. If true, this meant that all of Christ’s promises to his people have already been realized. It also reminds us that Bible prophecy pundits and speculators have been around for a long time.

Paul exhorts the Thessalonians not to listen to such wild speculation because the day of the Lord had not yet come. Two things need to happen first. One is a great apostasy, and only then comes the revelation of a figure whom Paul identifies as “the man of sin.” Either the apostasy creates the conditions necessary for the man of sin to be revealed, or the apostasy is closely connected to the man of sin’s appearance. But Paul is clear that the day of the Lord has not come because these two things have not yet occurred when he writes his second letter.

Paul also tells the Thessalonians that something is preventing the appearance of the man of sin, a mysterious “restrainer” who, at some point, will cease to hold back the revelation of the man of sin (the Antichrist), who then will be destroyed by Jesus when the Lord returns.

Join us then, in this, part one of our discussion of the “man of sin,” as we tackle 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

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

The Basics -- The Fall of Adam

Most Americans operate on the sincere but misguided assumption that deep down inside people are basically good. When we compare ourselves to others, we might be able to measure up pretty well. Sure, there are some who we might begrudgingly admit are better people than we are, but still, we usually do pretty well in most of our self-comparison tests made against others.

The problem with assuming that people are basically good is that it completely ignores the fact that ours is a fallen race, under the just condemnation from God, awaiting the well-deserved sentence of death and eternal punishment. The reality is that on judgment day God is not going to compare me to someone else, who is a fallen sinner like I am. Instead, God will measure me against the standard of his law (specifically, the Ten Commandments), which is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). And when God measures me using the standard of his law, it will become all too clear that like everyone else descended from Adam, I cannot meet God’s standard of absolute and complete obedience to his commandments. I am a sinner. I am guilty before God. I am under the sentence of death. How did this happen?

For most folks, this dilemma immediately raises the question of fairness. Is it fair for God to judge me against a standard I cannot possibly meet? The answer would be “no,” if we were to look at this question in a vacuum without any biblical context. The Bible teaches that Adam was not only the first human (from whom all humans are biologically descended), but that Adam was created holy, without sin, and with the ability to obey God’s commands. Adam was placed in Eden for a time of probation under the covenant of works with its condition, “do this (not eat from the forbidden tree) and live,” or “eat from the tree and die.” Adam chose the latter, bringing down the covenant curse of death upon the entire human race. Many people agree with Ben Franklin’s famous adage that the only two things in life which are inevitable are death and taxes, both of which I might add, stem from human sin. Yet, the fact remains, death is not natural to the human race. Death is the consequence of the fall of Adam.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"Election Unchangeable" -- Article Eleven, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 11: Election Unchangeable

Just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced.

___________________________________

The synod appeals to the fact that God is immutable (unchanging) in both his being and his purpose. Therefore his decree of election is likewise unchanging. We know this to be the case because election is based solely upon God’s good pleasure and purpose, and occurs, as Paul says, “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). This means the full number of the elect is unchangeable.

This is an important point because it affirms that God does not change his mind or his purpose once his decree is executed as it unfolds in time and space. God does not add to the number of the elect when he sees someone doing something good he did not expect. Nor does God subtract from the number of the elect when one of those whom he has chosen happens to fall into sin. All of God’s elect will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. This is God’s purpose in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-14; Romans 8:28-30) and it does not (indeed, cannot change).

The knowledge of this fact should give us great comfort because it means that no one who is presently numbered among the elect can fall away and be lost. Jesus clearly affirms this to be the case when he says “all that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). God is not capricious nor does he change his mind. This means that if we are truly in Christ at this moment, we can be assured that we will die in Christ, because he will never leave nor forsake us. We cannot simply slip through his fingers. Nor will he cast us away on a whim or in a moment of anger.

As Paul reminds the Philippians, “and I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). Indeed, the Good Shepherd reminds us, “my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one” (John 10:27-30).

Just think of where we would be if God's decree was not immutable . . .

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerMay 8, 2023Election UnchangableComment

How Much Evidence Is Required for Christ’s Resurrection?

Here’s a simple and effective argument to use when contending for the truth of Christ’s resurrection.

According to John Warwick Montgomery . . .

The issue here is a miracle: a resurrection. How much evidence is required to establish such a fact? Could evidence ever justify excepting it?
Phenonmenally (and this is all we need worry about for evidential purposes) a resurrection can be regarded as death followed by a life, D. then L. Normally, the sequence is reversed, thus L. then D.
We are well acquainted with the phenomenal meaning of the constituent factors (though we do not understand the “secret” of life or why death must occur), and we have no difficulty in establishing evidential criteria to place a person in one category rather than in the other. Thus the eating of fish (Luke 24:36-43) is sufficient to classify the eater among the living, and a crucifixion among the dead. In Jesus' case the sequential order was reversed, but that has no epistemological bearing on the weight of evidence required to establish death or life. And if Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, then resurrection has occurred.

From John Warwick Montgomery, “A Revelational Solution” in Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1986), 154-155.

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerMay 4, 2023Christ's resurrectionComment

Richard Muller on the Ministerial (or Instrumental) Use of Reason

There are two common extremes regarding the relationship between faith and reason. The first is rationalism, which attempts to base theological claims on universal principles of reason and absolute knowledge, The second is fideism, which makes theological claims with no attempt at arguing their basis, usually in opposition to reason and knowledge.

However, “faith seeking understanding” is the proper relationship between belief and knowledge. This is consistent across the arts and sciences: in every pursuit of truth a basic interpretation of reality is presupposed.

The Christian faith is not opposed to reason, but to its suppression and perversion in unrighteousness against the truth of God. Therefore, faith must not be opposed to knowledge. Every Christian doctrine transcends reason’s comprehension, but does not contradict reasonable apprehension. A “ministerial” or “instrumental” use of reason in which God’s revelation is apprehended and interpreted is necessary to understand the basic teaching of the Bible. But a “magisterial” use of reason (in which human reason seeks to discover truth apart from divine revelation) is to be rejected. It is this magisterial use of reason against which Martin Luther railed,

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

“The Beauty of a Gentle and Quiet Spirit” – (1 Peter 3:1-7) – Words from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Six)

Christians in American do not encounter the same kind of persecution which Christians among Peter’s first century audience were facing. Many of those to whom Peter was writing were forcibly displaced from their homes and land by an edict from a previous Roman emperor, Claudius, because they refused to worship pagan deities, and did not consider the Roman emperor to be a “god.” Peter speaks of these struggling Christians as elect exiles and describes them as a chosen race. The apostle is writing to remind them of their living hope and sanctification in Christ, which will help them cope with the very difficult circumstances which they were then facing. Peter’s original audience experienced open hostility from their government and their pagan neighbors. The opposition we face is a bit more subtle, but no less dangerous. In the thoroughly secularized America in which we live, we are not persecuted so much as we are pressured to conform to non-Christian ways of thinking and doing. Peter’s discussion of the relationship between husbands and wives will expose some of these non-Christian ways, and challenge us how to think of this foundational relationship within human society in the light of God’s word.

In a lengthy section of his first epistle (vv. 2:13-3:7), Peter is addressing specific societal relationships held in common by Christians and non-Christians–elements of the unwritten but widely accepted “household code” which defined many of the social relationships within Greco-Roman society. These relationships include the authority of civil government, the relationship between slaves and masters, and the relationship between husbands and wives. All of these fall under the heading of what we now call natural law. Although Christians and non-Christians both value these social institutions, God has spoken about these same relationships in his word, and so Peter is writing to do two things: 1) To remind his hearers that Christians do indeed regard these relationships as the foundation of society just as do Greco-Roman pagans, and 2). To correct whatever misconceptions his Christians readers/hearers may have regarding these relationships in light of God’s word.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The First Two Volumes of the "Classic B. B. Warfield Collection" Are On Sale!

You can order these from The Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore for 50% off. But hurry, the sale ends soon (May 5)!

The First Two Volumes of the Classic B. B. Warfield Collection

Here’s my endorsement:

“Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five Warfield volumes published by P&R from 1948 to 1958. My own Warfield volumes are thoroughly highlighted and well worn. I have purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes had fallen out of print, so I was thrilled to learn of the republication of this new and entirely updated version of the five-volume set. I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough or sufficiently thank the folks at P&R for bringing the ‘Warfield set’ back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did.”

Kim Riddlebarger

Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California; author, The Lion of Princeton: B. B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian

A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven” (2 Thessalonians 1:1-12)

Episode Synopsis:

Paul has already written one letter to the Thessalonians to clear up the confusion in their midst about the Lord’s return on the last day. Paul has instructed the congregation that should anyone die before the Lord’s return, they will not miss out on any of the benefits secured for them by Jesus Christ (including eternal life) as some feared. Paul also told them that since the Lord will return as a thief in the night (suddenly and unexpectedly), there should be no speculation among them about the date or timing of Christ’s return.

But not long after the first letter was sent, additional news came to Paul that someone in Thessalonica had been teaching that the day of the Lord had already come. So, Paul writes a second letter to the Thessalonians to inform them that the day of the Lord had not come since two as yet future event must occur before Jesus returns. First, there will come a time of great apostasy, and then will come the revelation of the man of sin–a figure often spoken of as the Antichrist. Furthermore, these things cannot happen until a present and mysterious restraining power is lifted so that the man of sin is revealed, only to be destroyed by the Lord Jesus at his return.

Paul opens this second letter by reminding the Thessalonians that when Jesus returns he will bring about God’s righteous judgment–when all accounts are settled and everything will be made right. But Christians need not fear this day because the coming day of God’s wrath, vengeance, and vindication is their day of deliverance when God is glorified in his saints. Paul also writes to these Christians to encourage them to persevere against the opposition they were facing, and reveal the content of his prayers for them. There is much here, so get out your Bible and join us for a look at 2 Thessalonians chapter 1.

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

The Basics -- The Covenant of Works

In Hosea 6:7, the prophet records the word of the Lord as follows: “But like Adam they [Israel and Judah] transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Based upon this declaration it is clear that Adam stood in a covenant relationship to his creator while in Eden, and that Adam had indeed violated the terms of that covenant through a personal act of disobedience. In this declaration from Hosea, we find two very important elements of Christian theology as understood by Reformed Christians. The first is that Adam was created in covenant relationship with God–this covenant was not arbitrarily imposed upon Adam after God created him. Second, Adam’s willful violation of this covenant brought down horrible consequences upon himself, as well as upon the entirety of the human race whom he represents and which has biologically descended from him.

The identity and character of this covenant is a matter of long-standing debate. The covenant of works or, as it is also known, the “covenant of creation,” lies at the heart of the balance of redemptive history both before and after Adam’s fall into sin. Indeed, it is important to acknowledge the presence of this covenant from the very beginning of human history for a number of reasons. Because Adam was created as a divine image-bearer, he was therefore in a covenant relationship from the first moment of his existence, because moral and rational creatures are by their very nature obligated to obey their creator. If Adam should disobey the demands of this covenant–perfect obedience in thought, word, and deed—then Adam and all those whom he represents (the entire human race) are subject to the covenant curse, which is death.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The BasicsKim RiddlebargerApril 27, 2023The covenant of works, Adam in Eden Comment

"Election Based on God’s Good Pleasure" -- Article Ten, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 10: Election Based on God’s Good Pleasure

But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, “When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad …, she [Rebecca] was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (Rom. 9:11–13). Also, “All who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

________________________________________________

As we saw in the previous articles, the Canons point out that the only biblical basis for God’s choice of a multitude of sinners so vast they cannot be counted to become vessels of honor and not remain vessels fit for destruction (Romans 9:22-23) is to be found solely in God’s own inscrutable will (Isaiah 46:8-10; Psalm 115:3; 135:6). Likewise, the reason why God passes over others allowing them to perish is known only to himself (Romans 9:14-16). Whenever this topic is discussed, we must keep firmly in mind that since all of Adam’s children are sinners by nature and by choice (Romans 5:12-19) and therefore guilty before him, no one deserves to be chosen unto eternal life. Instead, we are by nature children of wrath (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3).

To put it yet another way, the only reason why any are chosen to be redeemed from their sin is to be found in God’s eternal purposes and not because there is something within the creature which causes or motivates God to choose us. The canons affirm the clear teaching of Scripture–God’s election of sinners to be saved is based upon God’s sovereign pleasure and purpose, and not upon anything good within our hearts or wills, since we are seen as fallen in Adam when we are chosen.

To read the rest, follow the link below:

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerApril 24, 2023Article ten, Election based on God's good pleasureComment

More Places to Find Paul's Two Age Eschatology

Paul’s two age eschatology can be seen in various ways throughout Paul’s letters.[1] Here are several examples:

• First, the contrast which Paul develops in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, between Adam (the first man, the biological and federal head of the human race, whose disobedience brought about sin, guilt, and death) and the “last” Adam (Christ), whose one act of obedience brings righteousness and life to his people. Adam is of this age, Christ is of the age to come.

• Second, Paul’s contrast between “flesh,” (what we are in Adam, fallen, and “jars of clay”–2 Corinthians 4:7) and “the gift of the Spirit.” Those who are indwelt by the Spirit possess eternal life according to 2 Corinthians 2:4-18, where Paul contrasts what is seen with what is unseen.[2] Paul also speaks of those who are sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit until the day of the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection (Ephesians 1:11-14).

• Third, Paul contrasts death as the inevitable outcome of life in this present evil age with eternal life, which is described as participation in the new creation, inaugurated by Jesus at his resurrection (Romans 8:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Colossians 1:15-17).

• Fourth, Paul speaks of the wrath of God, which is the fate of all things associated with “this age” in contrast with the reception of the promised inheritance (all that is ours in Christ, i.e., resurrection life, eschatological glory, etc., as in I Thessalonians 1:10; Ephesians 2:3, 5:6).

• Fifth, Paul contrasts the law (associated with this age, and a major point of discussion in Galatians 2-4) with the gospel (God’s work of redemption in Christ). This, of course, is a major theme in confessional Protestant theology.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield -- "The Christ that Paul Preached"

The excerpt which follows was originally published in The Expositor, 8th ser., v. xv, 1918, pp. 90-110.

It has been republished in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol ii, Biblical Doctrines, 235-252

Paul is writing the Address of his Epistle to the Romans, then, with his mind fixed on the divine dignity of Christ. It is this divine Christ who, he must be understood to be telling his readers, constitutes the substance of his Gospel-proclamation. He does not leave us, however, merely to infer this. He openly declares it. The Gospel he preaches, he says, concerns precisely “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” He expressly says, then, that he presents Christ in his preaching as “our Lord.” It was the divine Christ that he preached, the Christ that the eye of faith could not distinguish from God, who was addressed in common with God in prayer, and was looked to in common with God as the source of all spiritual blessings. Paul does not speak of Christ here, however, merely as “our Lord.” He gives Him the two designations: “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” The second designation obviously is explanatory of the first. Not as if it were the more current or the more intelligible designation. It may, or it may not, have been both the one and the other; but that is not the point here.
The point here is that it is the more intimate, the more appealing designation. It is the designation which tells what Christ is to us. He is our Lord, He to whom we go in prayer, He to whom we look for blessings, He to whom all our religious emotions turn, on whom all our hopes are set—for this life and for that to come. Paul tells the Romans that this is the Christ that he preaches, their and his Lord whom both they and he reverence and worship and love and trust in. This is, of course, what he mainly wishes to say to them; and it is up to this that all else that he says of the Christ that he preaches leads.
The other designation—“the Son of God”—which Paul prefixes to this in his fundamental declaration concerning the Christ that he preached, supplies the basis for this. It does not tell us what Christ is to us, but what Christ is in Himself. In Himself He is the Son of God; and it is only because He is the Son of God in Himself, that He can be and is our Lord. The Lordship of Christ is rooted by Paul, in other words, not in any adventitious circumstances connected with His historical manifestation; not in any powers or dignities conferred on Him or acquired by Him; but fundamentally in His metaphysical nature. The designation “Son of God” is a metaphysical designation and tells us what He is in His being of being. And what it tells us that Christ is in His being of being is that He is just what God is. It is undeniable.

You can read the entire essay here: Warfield -- "The Christ that Paul Preached"

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerApril 19, 2023The Christ Paul PreachedComment

“Live as People Who Are Free” – (1 Peter 2:13-25) – Words from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Five)

Those Christians receiving this letter from the apostle Peter are aliens in their own land. They have been displaced from their homes by a decree from the Roman emperor Claudius several years earlier. As elect exiles, beloved by God, and members of Christ’s church, Christians of the diaspora in Asia Minor are to consider themselves as the New Israel enduring their own time in the wilderness. In God’s sight, believers in Jesus compose a chosen race, a spiritual house, a royal priesthood, and holy nation dwelling within the midst of the civil kingdom. In the first half of 1 Peter 2, Peter exhorts these Christians to keep their conduct honorable before the Gentiles persecuting them, so that those who speak evil of them will be forced to give glory to God. In the last half of chapter 2 (vv. 13-17), Peter instructs these elect exiles how to view the civil magistrate which oppresses them. Then, in vv. 18-25, Peter instructs those Christians who are slaves and servants, how to respond to their masters. If Christians are to live honorable lives before the watching Gentiles, they must have a proper view of the civil government. As for those who were bound to their masters–the large caste of slaves in the Roman empire, many of who were Christians–they are to serve their masters and follow the example of Jesus, who, more than all men, suffered unspeakable injustice and humiliation.

At the end of chapter 1 of his first epistle, Peter gives three imperatives to those believers whom God caused to be born again, who already have been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, and who are set apart (sanctified) by God for obedience. These imperatives are Peter’s exhortation to fix our hope upon Jesus (v. 13), to live holy lives which reflect the holiness of our creator and redeemer (vv. 14-16), and to live in the fear of the Lord, because the one we invoke as our Father is also judge of all the earth (vv. 17-19).[1] The practical implications of these commands are spelled out in the next section, vv. 1-12, of chapter 2.

Peter implores his readers/hearers to set themselves apart from “all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” To prepare themselves for action (as Peter exhorted his readers in verse 13 of the first chapter), Christians should see themselves as “newborn infants, [who] long for the pure spiritual milk,” of God’s word. Christians are to realize that their struggles arise because of their identification with Jesus, who was the rejected foundation stone of Israel’s messianic kingdom. Yet, at the same time, Jesus is the foundation of a spiritual temple composed of all those who have been delivered from their sins by the blood of Jesus, and who are identified as a New Israel by Peter, who uses a number of images taken directly from the Old Testament and applies them to Christ’s church. Peter encourages his struggling readers to consider their identity as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

To read the rest follow the link below

I PeterKim RiddlebargerApril 17, 2023living as free people, The civil magistrateComment

Coming Soon! -- The Blessed Hope Podcast Episodes on 2 Thessalonians

I am hard at work on the concluding episodes of season two of our podcast series on Paul’s two Thessalonian Letters entitled, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”

In our remaining episodes on 2 Thessalonians, we will cover Christ’s return to vindicate his persecuted people (2 Thessalonians 1:5-12), Paul’s discussion of a great apostasy, and the appearing of the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). How does Paul’s man of sin relate to the doctrine of antichrist, thought to be an end-times personification of evil, who is presently being restrained? We will conclude our time in this letter by considering Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonian church as they await the Lord’s return (2 Thessalonians 3:1-18).

You can catch all of the previous episodes in this series, as well as season one on the Book of Galatians, here: "The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger" or here: The Blessed Hope Podcast

Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerApril 14, 20232 ThessaloniansComment

The Basics -- Divine Image-Bearers

With the language of the eighth Psalm clearly in mind (“you have made [man] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” v. 5), Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til declared that as an image-bearer, Adam was created to be like God in every way in which a creature can be like God. These words sound rather shocking when we first hear them. But as Van Til goes on to point out, because Adam is a creature, he can never be more than a creature. He will never be divine. Christians cannot talk about the creation of humanity without first being clear about the fact that God is distinct from his creation, and he cannot be identified either with the world around us or its creatures.

The biblical account tells us that Adam was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), which indicates that Adam is neither divine, nor the product of some unspecified primordial process. Adam was created by a direct act of God in which Adam’s body was created by God from the dust of the earth, while his soul was created when God breathed life into the first human (Genesis 2:7). The divine image extends to Eve as well (Genesis 2:4-24). To be human then, is to be male or female and to bear God’s image in both body and soul, which exist as a unity of both spiritual (the soul) and material (the body) elements. To be a divine image bearer is to be an ectype (copy) of which God is archetype (original).

Because all men and women are divine image-bearers, we are truly like God, and we possess all of the so-called communicable attributes of God–albeit in creaturely form and measure. This is what constitutes us as “human” beings, distinct from and superior in intellectual, moral, and rational capabilities to the creatures who make up the animal kingdom. The creation of Adam and Eve marks the high point of the creation account (Genesis 1:28-31), as God pronounced the first man Adam to be “very good.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

The BasicsKim RiddlebargerApril 12, 2023Divine image-bearersComment

I Was a Recent Guest on Several Podcasts — Here Are the Links

To listen to the recent interviews on Renewalcast and Pilgrim Radio, follow the link below

eschatology, Amillennialism, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerApril 11, 2023Amillennialism, AntichristComment

Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith -- Article Nine, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

__________________________________________

The authors of the Canons move on to make the point that since the Scriptures teach that election is based upon God’s good pleasure and purpose (and nothing good within us), election cannot be based upon anything external to God (i.e., something good that God sees in the creature). It is equally clear that God does not elect any as the consequence of some action that the creature takes which causes or motivates God to respond (in this case, the exercise of faith). The view of election set forth in the Canons assigns all glory to God when we believe the gospel, and all blame to us if we do not.

Many have tried to evade the force of this critical point by arguing that God’s election is based upon factors external to God, i.e., something which the creature does. God sets things in motion (by providing a generic, universal, and non-saving grace), and he then reacts to what his creatures do with the grace he’s made available to them. But this amounts to nothing more than a practical deism and mistakenly assumes that Adam’s fall has left us with the ability to choose Christ apart from prior regeneration.

To read the rest, follow the link below:

He Is Risen! A Blessed Easter to You and Yours!

From the Heidelberg Catechism . . .

Q & A 45 How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?

A. First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he obtained for us by his death.

Second, by his power we too are already raised to a new life.

Third, Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge to us of our blessed resurrection.

Warfield on Charles Finney's Gospel -- "A Mere System of Morals"

Toward the end of his illustrious career at Princeton Theological Seminary, B. B. Warfield took up his pen (beginning in 1918) in response to the burgeoning movement known as “Christian perfectionism,” and the closely related “higher-life” teaching. Both were then making a significant impact upon American Christianity. Warfield identified both as theological descendants of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, now injected into the American evangelical bloodstream by one Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) and his many followers of the “Oberlin School” and among the higher-life teachers.

What follows are but a few brief citations from Warfield’s volume Perfectionism, (Volume Two) published posthumously in 1932. In a lengthy essay, Warfield dissects Finney’s theological “system,” exposing it for what is is, a “mere system of morals,” which in Warfield’s estimation would function just as well with God as without him.

Warfield writes of Finney’s theological system . . .

This brings us back to the point of view with which we began—that the real reason of the election of the elect is their salvability, that is, under the system of government [according to Finney] established by God as the wisest. God elects those whom He can save, and leaves un-elected those whom He cannot save, consistently with the system of government which He has determined to establish as the wisest and best (170).
The ultimate reason why the entire action of God in salvation is confined by Finney to persuasion lies in his conviction that nothing more is needed—or, indeed, is possible (172).
It speaks volumes meanwhile for the strength of Finney’s conviction that man is quite able to save himself and in point of fact actually does, in every instance of his salvation, save himself, that he maintained it in the face of such broad facts of experience to the contrary. How can man be affirmed to be fully able and altogether competent to an act never performed by any man whatever, except under an action of the Spirit under which he invariably performs it? (178).

To read the rest, follow the link below