On the Nature and Frequency of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper

Introduction

1n 1555, John Calvin asked the following of the Magistrates of the city of Bern regarding the celebration the Lord’s Supper:

Please God, gentlemen, that both you and we may be able to establish a more frequent usage. For it is evident from St. Luke in the Book of Acts that communion was much more frequently celebrated in the primitive Church, until this abomination of the mass was set up by Satan, who so caused it that people received communion only once or twice a year. Wherefore, we must acknowledge that it is a defect in us that we do not follow the example of the Apostles (John Calvin, Letter to the Magistrates of Berne, 1555).

The practical issues surrounding the nature and frequency of the Lord’s Supper have been with us from the earliest days of the Reformed tradition.

The purpose of this essay is to offer a rationale for the frequent (weekly) celebration of the Lord’s Supper. To accomplish this, I will: 1). Address the idea of the Supper as spiritual nourishment by surveying the biblical evidence which speaks to nature of the Supper, then 2). Consider biblical evidence for frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and then 3). I will briefly address common objections to frequent celebrations of the Supper, before 4). I will wrap up with a discussion of the pastoral benefits of frequent communion.

The key take away from this essay is that nature of the Lord’s Supper defines (or at least it should) its frequency. What the supper is–a spiritual feeding–ought to provide the rationale for when and how often we celebrate it.

To read the rest, go here: On the Nature and Frequency of the Lord's Supper

Read More
The Five Solas of The Protestant Reformation (re-post)

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation

Many churches which trace their theological ancestry back to the Protestant Reformation, commemorate Reformation Day. October 31, 1517, is the traditional date when Martin Luther, a young biblical scholar and troubled son of the Roman church, nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in the city of Wittenberg. Professor Luther sought to challenge the Roman church’s understanding of the sacrament of penance. The act of posting written theses (objections) was simply the way in which professors of that day called for academic debate.

Luther was as surprised as anyone when his 95 Theses gave voice those to countless German peasants who felt that the Roman church had grown increasing greedy, corrupt, and indifferent to their needs. When the Dominican friar Johann Tetzel came through Germany selling indulgences–which supposedly shortened the time that a sinner spent in purgatory–ordinary Germans were outraged. How dare Rome send an emissary into Germany to sell indulgences at a time of great economic hardship, especially when the proceeds from the sale went to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome–a grand church which no German peasant would ever see.

While German peasants hated the Roman church because of the church’s arrogance and indifference, for Luther, the issues were theological. When Luther’s theses were published and quickly disseminated across much of Germany, it soon became clear that this was not just a debate about a fine point of doctrine (penance), but a fundamental challenge to the nature of religious authority as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. This was, in fact, a direct challenge to Rome’s teaching on good works, merit, faith, and the nature of the gospel. It was not long before Protestantism was a wide-spread movement and a burgeoning theological threat to the Roman church–especially in northern Europe. Although Protestantism soon separated into Lutheran and Reformed branches, the Protestant objections to Rome quickly crystalized around the so-called “five Solas” of the Reformation. These five “onlys” include: Scripture alone, grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, and glory to God alone.

The Roman church believed Scripture was God’s word. But Rome didn’t see Scripture as the primary ground of religious authority–there was also church tradition as an equal authority. The Roman church believed in grace, but defined grace as a substance dispensed through the sacramental system of the church, and that such grace must be energized by the human will in order to be effective in matters of salvation. Rome militantly defended the deity of Christ and his sacrificial death for sins. But Rome taught that the merit of human good works must be added to the merits of Christ in order for sinners to be made right with God (justification). Rome also taught that faith was an essential Christian virtue, but understood that simple faith must be formed into an active faith which then produced those Christian virtues and good works which merited (earned) favor from God. While in theory the Roman church gave all glory to God, in practice, Rome’s theology spread glory around to Mary, the papacy, the church, the saints, and even to human good works.

What has separated Protestantism from Rome since 1517, is not Scripture, grace, faith, Christ, or glory to God. What caused the great divide between Protestants and Catholics was the Protestant insistence upon that little adjective “sola” or “only.” Scripture alone. Grace alone. Christ alone. Faith alone. Glory to God alone.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Remarkable Machen Quote

Since it is the 100th anniversary of the publication of J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, and it is being widely read again, let us consider these words of warning from Machen. This comes from Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1981) 152.

Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism [and we can substitute any “ism” here]; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it is accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well.

But if Christianity be directed toward another world, if it be a way by which individuals can escape from the present evil age to some better country, what becomes of “the social gospel”? At this point is detected one of the most obvious lines of cleavage between Christianity and the liberal Church. The older evangelism, says the modern liberal preacher, sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks to transform the whole organism of society: the older evangelism was individual; the newer evangelism is social.

It should not be lost upon us as to how much current cultural transformationalists or Christian nationalists sound like the progressives of Machen’s day.

Read More
New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast -- "Eschatology by Ethos: Why Optimism and Pessimism Do Not Work as Eschatological Categories"

Episode Synopsis:

The first time I heard the term “optimistic amillennarian” was in seminary, when a student asked one of the professors whether they were postmillennial or amillennial. The professor said he admired much about postmillennialism, but thought amillennialism was the biblical view. But after saying that, he blurted out, “well, maybe, I’m optimistic Amillennial.” That started quite a discussion among the students, with the postmillennial students pressing the amillennial students to give up their “pessimistic eschatology” and do as the professor had done, declare themselves to be eschatological optimists. Presumably, this was the first step on the way to becoming postmillennial. I was one of those present who still hadn’t figured out how my newly-found Reformed convictions were going to influence my views on eschatology. The only thing I was sure about was that I could not remain a dispensationalist.

I did indeed give up my premillennialism and dispensationalism for amillennialism and have spent much time since writing, teaching, and discussing why I made the move. Over time I thought that I had managed to distance myself from my dispensational past, and I worked hard to replace my dispensational hermeneutic with a covenantal approach to Scripture.

Yet there was one tie which still bound me to dispensationalism–the postmillennal charge that both schools of thought (amillennial and dispensational premillennialism) were intrinsically “pessimistic,” while only postmillennarians have an eschatology of “essential optimism.” This always struck me as odd, since as an amillennarian I believe that the kingdom of God is victorious over unbelief and all the forces of the devil, that the gospel will spread to the ends of the earth because God is sovereign over all things. But I remain pessimistic about the city of man which will destroyed in the end when Jesus returns to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.

Both amillennialism and postmillennialism contend that the scene in Revelation 20:1-10–the only place where a period of a thousand years (or a millennial age) is mentioned in Scripture–occurs before Christ returns, not after, as in premillennialism. This means that structurally speaking, amillennialism and postmillennial are very similar. The two views have coexisted from time of the apostolic age, usually identified as non-chiliastic (non-millenarian). It wasn’t until early in the 20th century that the two views (amillennialism and postmillennialism) were distinguished from one another as distinct eschatological positions. Both have existed together from the time of the Reformation–the differences centering around the timing, duration, and character of the millennial age.

As we will see, in the 1970's things changed. So where did the optimism-pessimism categories come from? Do they accurately describe the three main eschatological schools of thought? Might they even be misleading? And therefore not helpful? That’s my take . . .

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

Read More
“The Day of the Lord Will Come Like a Thief” (2 Peter 3:1-13) -- Words of Warning and Comfort from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Six)

Jesus Is Coming Back

Peter has lambasted those false teachers and prophets who were secretly introducing destructive heresies into the churches, and then leading people away from Christ so as to indulge the lusts of the flesh. As Peter has told his readers, the chief heresy being taught by these false teachers and prophets is the denial of our Lord’s bodily return at the end of the age, to judge the world, raise the dead, and to make all things new. If, as the false teachers were contending, Jesus is not going to return, then there will be no final judgment. And if there is no final judgment, then, as the false teachers were apparently arguing, there is no reason to restrain the lusts of the flesh.

But Peter was with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. The apostle was given a glimpse of Jesus’s glory which will be fully manifest when Jesus returns at the end of the age. Peter was also present with Jesus on the Mount of Olives (the Olivet Discourse) on that fateful night when Jesus spoke of his second coming as sudden–like a thief, who comes at an hour when you least expect him. The denial of something so clearly taught by Jesus and his apostles lies at the basis for the great irony spelled out by Peter in his second epistle–that these men who despise authority, and who are enslaved to the passions of the flesh, will find themselves facing the very same Savior on the day of judgment whose coming they deny, and standing before him for a final judgment in which they do not believe.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Basics -- Good Works and the Christian Life

Closely related to the doctrines of justification and sanctification is the subject of good works. One of the most common objections raised by critics of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is this: “If we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, what place does that leave for good works?” Even apostle Paul had heard a similar objection raised among Christians in Rome. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1).”

Questions like this one arise from the concern that if God’s grace is stressed too much, Christians will become lazy and indifferent to the things of God and will not demonstrate a sufficient zeal for good works. After all, what incentive remains to do those works God commands us in his word, if our standing before God depends upon the good works of another–Jesus Christ? More importantly, as the critics contend, if the doctrine of justification is true, and we are justified sinners even after we become Christians, then why do good works at all, since they are still tainted by our sin?

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Error of "Exalting Human Ability" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (Four)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those,

IV. Who teach that in election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words of the apostle: “We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:3–9).

_________________________________________________

The fourth error rejected by the authors of the Canons is still quite popular today. This is the idea that God elects those who through natural ability and spiritual insight, place themselves in a position to receive grace from God. In other words, they are able to prepare themselves to receive and act upon God’s grace. At its heart, this is the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, which holds that even after the fall of our race into sin, humans retain the ability to save themselves. This amounts to an outright denial of sola gratia (grace alone). It also denies the biblical teaching about election as set forth in articles one through nineteen of the first head of doctrine in the Canons.

In the Pelagian scheme, grace is understood to be the communication of right information about what God requires of us, so that the creature (who retains sufficient natural ability) can do what is necessary to be saved. The Pelagian road is built upon human ability, and inevitably leads to the dead-end of works-righteousness.

Unfortunately, this very flawed idea is very common in much of American Evangelicalism. In large measure, it was bequeathed to us by Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875), who wrote in his Systematic Theology, “Regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love and benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work” (Systematic Theology, 224).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
My Take on the Hamas Attack on Israel -- 10/7 2023

A number of friends, church folk, and Riddleblog readers have asked about my take on Israel’s 911 (10/7). So, here you go.

It won’t surprise you that my take on the Hamas’s vicious attack on Southern Israel is much different than Greg Laurie’s ("Fasten Your Seat Belts"). A legion of prophecy pundits and “end-times” YouTubers have popped up, many offering wild and bizarre speculation about the tragedy and its role in the end-times. This is what they do. Admittedly, I have not watched or read much of this recent prophecy speculation, but what I have seen (most of which folks have sent to me) is largely a re-hash of prophetic scenarios long-since discredited (by the embarrassing fact that they got it wrong when previously proposed) now re-packed and presented as new material, with the hope that people will forget how wrong the pundits were the last time they made such predictions.

My points for consideration:

1). As for any biblical significance to the horrors inflicted upon Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, this clearly falls under the category of signs given us by Jesus regarding wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6-8). Jesus did not predict specific conflicts (such as this one), only what he describes as “birth pains” of the end. What happened in Southern Israel falls into the category of “wars and rumor of wars,” with no specific fulfillment of any biblical prophecy regarding Israel. What Hamas did was very much like what Vladimir Putin did in his barbaric invasion of Ukraine. He ignored all conventional rules of war and inflicted savagery upon innocents—the elderly, women and children, and unarmed civilians. Hamas has done the same in Israel. In this we see the depths of human depravity as divine image-bearers are slaughtered merely to satisfy someone’s rage and anger. Jesus told us to expect as much until he returns.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Musings and a Bunch of Riddleblog/Blessed Hope Podcast Updates (10/11/2023)

Blog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:

  • In case you are wondering about the changes in the appearance of the Riddleblog, I did a dumb thing. I dropped my phone on my keyboard while editing a blog post. Whatever keys I hit changed a bunch of formatting. I’m still working on fixes with Squarespace (they’ve been wonderful!). There is a lesson here for all of you.

  • BTW-if the font size is an issue on your device, you can use the zoom feature associated with your browser to adjust the screen size and appearance.

  • I have been adding downloadable PDF versions of various essays which appear on the Riddleblog. You can find the link to the PDF at the top of each essay on the blog post to which the PDF’s have been added. I have completed the most popular articles/essays.

  • I have wrapped up the Blessed Hope Podcast series “The Future,” along with two follow-up episodes (“The Future of Israel”, and “The Antichrist”). Next up will be an episode dealing with "Eschatology by Ethos: The Misuse of Optimism and Pessimism as Eschatological Categories.”

  • The Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast release schedule with be irregular through Thanksgiving since the Riddleblogger is doing some conference speaking and then taking a trip to Europe with missus Riddleblogger and some friends.

  • The Blessed Hope Podcast series on Paul’s Corinthian Letters is in the works. Watch for updates.

  • My contribution on 1 Corinthians in the Lectio Continua series (picked up by Reformation Heritage Books) has gone through a complete re-edit and proofreading. I should have a release date soon.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
“The Armor of Light” (2 Peter 2:10b-22) – Words of Warning and Comfort from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Five)

“Here They Come!”

In the first three verses of chapter two of his Second Epistle, Peter warns the churches that false teachers will arise throughout the course of the age and disrupt the church. They will do so until Jesus comes back a second time–which is, ironically, a doctrine which the false teachers denied. According to Peter’s warning, false teachers and false prophets will arise within the churches and secretly introduce destructive heresies, utter false prophecies, and speak blasphemies against God. Peter warns us that their motives are sinister–because of their greed, false teachers and prophets seek to exploit the people of God. The apostle tells us that these false teachers and prophets are like the angels who rebelled against God in the days before the great flood. They are like those evil men who mocked Noah as he built the ark. They are like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah–men who lived to gratify the lusts of the flesh. Such false teachers and prophets will say and do anything to exploit the people of God. But their ultimate destruction is as sure as is the prophetic word (Scripture) given by God.

Peter Does Not Hold Back

In the last half of the second chapter of 2 Peter 2, Peter describes these individuals in the harshest of terms. The reason why Peter can speak so harshly when referring to them is the damage these people do is not slight. They disrupt the peace of the churches. They despise Christ’s authority and his word. They place their own made-up prophecies above the authority of Scripture. They seduce others so as to steal their chastity, their money, and their reputations. The methods and attitudes of these false teachers and prophets are so callous and deceitful that Peter can say of them that it would have been better for them to have never known the way of the truth, than to turn their backs upon Jesus (the master, who they claim “bought” them), while seeking to abuse and exploit Christ’s sheep. Peter minces no words when describing these people, their shameful ways, and their inevitable destruction.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
"The Antichrist" -- The Latest Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast Is Ready

Episode Synopsis:

The mere mention of the Antichrist conjures up all kinds of spooky movie images, demonic plot lines, and eerie special effects–all designed to play upon our fears of a satanically inspired, menacing figure doing their master’s bidding. The list is long, but a few examples should help–The Omen (with the brat antichrist child, Damien), and the sequels, then came Rosemary’s Baby, 11-11-11, the Devil’s Advocate, and a host of others fit in this genre.

Throughout the history of the West, there has been no shortage of political leaders, emperors, conquerors, and religious figures who have been identified as antichrist candidates, yet all of whom have come and gone without claiming the title. Of late, this mysterious figure is thought to lurk in the shadows of the deep state, or is a mastermind in the tech world (especially since the rise of AI), or as a villainous super-hero sort of figure who will lead humanity into a post-apocalyptic world with a new reality and radically transformed human existence.

Here is where we bid adieu to this speculation and take a much different course. We will go back to the teaching of Scripture and the church’s reflection upon what is a truly fascinating topic. If Christians in the apostolic age were not sure who or what this meant, the Reformers were absolutely sure–they identified antichrist with the papacy. Many Protestants have agreed, while Rome’s response was to return the favor–it was Protestants who were doing the devil’s work by dividing Christendom. Currently, evangelicals have taken up the quest to figure out just who or what the Antichrist will be, as they wait for the Antichrist to appear as the leader of a revived Roman empire, make a peace-treaty with Israel, and then betray the nation and usher in the final battle–Armageddon.

The best way to deal with all of this wild (on the one hand) and understandable speculation (on the other) is to return to the teaching of Scripture. Ironically, the Bible is the source of much of the speculation just mentioned–many of the speculators and fiction writers know just enough about the Bible to make them dangerous, while others got much of the biblical data right–but it was simply not God’s time for this figure to appear. So, lets go back to the biblical text, see what it actually says about the Antichrist, and then summarize the biblical teaching.

But don’t get your hopes up. Such a study won’t tell us who the antichrist will be, or when he (or she) will appear, but hopefully, it will clear up much or all of the speculation surrounding this figure and get us back to grounding all our future expectations in the Scriptures.

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

Read More
The Basics -- Sanctification

It is not until we understand what it means to be justified, that we are in any position to discuss sanctification. Sanctification is that life-long process through which the old habit of sin (what we call “indwelling sin”) is progressively weakened and the new nature (given us by virtue of regeneration) is progressively strengthened. This is because the same act of faith which unites us to Christ so that his merits are imputed to us and thereby provides the basis upon which God pronounces us “not guilty,” also begins the life-long process of sanctification, in which our 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. To put it yet another way, every justified sinner is also being sanctified.

The moment we place our trust in Jesus Christ, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven. Through that same act of faith which justifies us, Christ’s righteousness becomes ours so that we now rely on the obedience of Jesus Christ crucified which is ours when we believe in him. Because we are justified by the merits of Jesus Christ which we receive through the means of faith (and not through our own good works), our consciences are freed from fear, terror, and dread. Since we are not paralyzed by the fear that God will punish us when we fail, we find ourselves free to obey the law of God, not to earn greater righteousness, nor to become “holier.” Rather, we obey the law of God and do good works because we have already been reckoned as “righteous” and our eternal standing before God has already been settled by the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ. This is what it means, in part, to be sanctified.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
"The Error of Imputing Faith as Righteousness" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

III. Who teach that God’s good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God’s choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God’s choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For by this pernicious error the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ are robbed of their effectiveness and people are drawn away, by unprofitable inquiries, from the truth of undeserved justification and from the simplicity of the Scriptures. It also gives the lie to these words of the apostle: “God called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of works, but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9).

__________________________________________________

This particular Arminian error may be the most pernicious, since at first glance. it appears to come close to the truth, but nevertheless bases the ground of our salvation upon an act of the creature, not in the decree of God and the merits of Christ. This argument is often presented by more capable Arminian theologians.

In this instance, the Synod of Dort rejects the error of those who argue that God determines the way of salvation (faith in Christ, not good works), but at the same time also contend that God’s purpose does not involve the election of specific individuals who are to be saved. God’s purpose in election is limited to determining how people are to be saved, not who will be saved. To put the matter another way, God chooses a method of salvation, not the individuals whom he will save.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Warfield on Imputation

In a 1909 entry on “Imputation,” written for the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, in the second of six sections, Warfield defines the three acts inherent in a proper understanding of the meaning of “imputation.”

II. THREE ACTS OF IMPUTATION

From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term “imputation” is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in this sense. But the applications and relations of the doctrine expressed by it were thoroughly worked out only in the discussions which accompanied and succeeded the Reformation. In the developed theology thus brought into the possession of the Church, three several acts of imputation were established and expounded. These are . . .

the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity;

the imputation of the sins of His people to the Redeemer;

the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
“There Will Be False Teachers Among You” (2 Peter 2:1-10) – Words of Warning and Comfort from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Four)

Peter Continues to Warn the Churches

It is not a question of if, but a matter of when. False teachers and false prophets have come, they will continue to come, seeking to introduce destructive heresies until the Lord returns. In his 2nd Epistle–which is Peter’s “testament,” i.e., his final words to the churches–Peter warns the churches of his day that false teachers and false prophets were already working their way into the churches and wreaking havoc. Peter tells us that these false teachers will speak false words and utter false prophecies. They blaspheme God and they seek to secretly introduce destructive heresies. They willfully seek to exploit the people of God–looking for any struggling saint weak in faith, or for those who have even the slightest bit of apathy regarding the truth of Christian doctrine. Their doctrinal errors provide justification for indulging the lusts of the flesh, instead of manifesting those Christian virtues which Peter has described in verses 5-7 of the first chapter of this letter. As Peter has told us in verse 19 of chapter one, we have the prophetic word (the Scriptures) which is more sure than any human opinion and which is the light shining in the dark, and the standard by which we discern truth from error.

As we continue to study 2 Peter, we come to Peter’s dire warning (in this chapter and in the next) about false prophets and false teachers who will arise, infiltrate the churches, and seek to lead the people of God astray. There is a very good reason why believers need to be concerned with how they live, and why they should live their lives in eager anticipation of Jesus’ return–so as to contrast themselves with those who have been deceived. The false teachers and false prophets described by Peter were undermining the very foundation of the Christian life–that God has saved us from the wrath to come, and then called us to reflect his glory through our conduct. Even as they encourage professing Christians to live no differently than the pagans around us, the false teachers are denying one of the fundamental doctrines of Christian theology; the bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.

To read the rest, follow the link below:

Read More
What Does the Future Hold for Israel? The Latest Episode of Blessed Hope Podcast Tackles Romans 9-11

Episode Synopsis:

Whenever you discuss biblical eschatology and the end times, you must address the future of Israel and the Jewish people. The subject is greatly complicated by the fact that along with the longstanding biblical debates over Israel’s future, there is also the complicated history of Zionism. The unprecedented events surrounding the establishment of a Jewish state first conceived in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (as a consequence of the Great War), came to fruition with UN Resolution 181. The resolution was approved on November 29, 1947, and established the “formal partition” of Palestine into Jordan (the Palestinian state), and the nation of Israel (a Jewish state). Debates over biblical expectations for the future of Israel, along with the geopolitical conflict between Israel and her Middle Eastern neighbors have raged ever since.

The return of the Jews to Palestine had a profound effect upon American evangelicals and fundamentalists, pushing eschatological speculation surrounding Israel to the fore. Whenever you mention the end times, people want to know about your views about Israel, which inevitably leads to the intermixing of biblical expectation with political matters and American foreign policy. Israel’s security and survival are constantly in the news, because the nation exists in a largely Muslim region which is very unhappy with the presence of a Jewish state in Palestine, an area which had been in important part of an Islamic caliphate from the 7th century until 1948.

Indeed, the return of the Jews to the nation of Israel is a remarkable thing, and has given great credibility to dispensationalism and the long-standing belief that the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and thereby set into motion God’s prophetic end times blueprint that will unfold until the Lord’s return.

Rather than focus upon the fascinating historical developments surrounding Israel from the First World War until now, I am going to tackle the one place in the New Testament where Paul speaks about the future course of redemptive history, specifically what God has decreed for his people–including Jew and Gentile. No, God is not finished with his ancient people, the Jews. And yes, dispensationalists get much of this wrong.

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

Read More