The Riddleblog

The Release of the JFK Files, Conspiracy Theories, and the “Deep State”

My Interest in the Kennedy Assassination

I was nine years old on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was in class with my chums at the local elementary school when our winded and red-faced principal rushed in and pulled the teacher aside. When he whispered in her ear, she turned ashen. What had happened? The principal hurried out, and soon returned with a huge, clunky TV and awkwardly rolled it to the front of the class. By the time the TV was on and the antenna properly adjusted, Walter Cronkite had just announced that JFK died in Dallas from an assassin’s bullet. Our teacher huddled outside the classroom with the principal and other teachers—many of whom were openly crying. The sight of teachers crying was a shock to elementary school kids. The school’s parking lot and the curb along the street were filling up with distraught parents arriving to pick up their confused and frightened children. My parents both were at work (they ran our family business), but the school was close to home so I quickly made my way there and turned on the TV. I’ve always been a news junky—even at age nine.

Not long after, my dad arrived and I was completely taken aback by his reaction. The Riddlebargers did not like, nor support the Kennedys. The Kennedys were Roman Catholic and democrats. My dad had a comedy record mocking Jackie Kennedy’s famous 1961 tour of the White House—he played it frequently and laughed uproariously. I didn’t know what to expect since the President was usually the object of criticism and scorn in our house. How would my dad feel about all of this? He had been an FBI agent during World War Two, and was a Nixon fan, more so after Nixon lost the 1960 presidential election to JFK. Nixon was a local boy and very supportive of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.

My dad was very calm and stoic by nature, but when he came through the door, he too was red-faced and alarmed by what had happened. He was appalled that JFK’s security had failed. He worried about foreign involvement and the possibility that this might lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. To my surprise, I noticed his eyes welling up with tears as he blurted out, “no one has the right to take the life of our president.” And so the Riddlebargers grieved JFK’s death like most Americans. The TV was on constantly that weekend and we watched it all unfold in real time. I had not seen my parents react like this before—with such sadness and concern for the Kennedy family. That made a huge impression on me. This was a national and not a partisan trauma.

To Read the Rest, Follow the Link Below

In Times of Worry, Uncertainty, and Fear, God's People Pray!

We live at a point in time characterized by an unfamiliar uncertainty of a sort which generates great unease, worry, and far too much catastrophizing.

There are plenty of reasons why this is the case.

The most obvious is that there is an upcoming national election. Whichever candidate wins, about 35% of Americans will be thrilled, another 35% will be incredibly disappointed and deflated, the rest will ignore the outcome as same ole same ole and return to their daily lives as though nothing earth-shattering actually happened. The losing side may threaten civil disobedience, the courts will be overwhelmed with litigation, and more Americans will lose faith in our system of government. Many will despair that the American dream is but a mirage.

Many will retreat to social media where truth telling is increasingly rare, clever folk with no expertise or training use their cleverness to pass themselves off as experts to spread all kinds of nonsensical historical revisionism, personal attacks, bad advice, and “foil-hat level” craziness. Social media (which the vast majority of Americans thankfully ignore) is now a place for the “very on-line” where treating others as divine image-bearers is taken as a sign of weakness (or unmanliness).

And there are too many bad actors in the world. In many places on the globe, war is a reality and an increasing threat to our national peace and security (with possible escalation and American boots on the ground). Think of Putin’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine, the Middle East situation (Iran and Israel, particularly), and the looming possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

To read the rest, follow the link below

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident . . .

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Other D-Day: Operation Forager, the Invasion of Saipan (June 12, 1944)

Operation Overlord — The D-Day Invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944

The invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 (D-Day) was a major turning point in World War 2. It is a battle with which we are well-familiar. We have the movie “Saving Private Ryan” and the HBO series “Band of Brothers” to thank for much of the ongoing interest. As we celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the beginning of the end for Hitler and Nazi Germany, we are also witnessing the last living participants in the battle who made their way this week to the famous invasion beaches on the Normandy Coast (Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold, and Sword). It is a poignant scene to see these ninety + year-olds return to that horrible place that is forever etched in their memories and for which we are so very grateful.

The scale of the D-Day invasion in Normandy is simply mind-blowing–the largest seaborne invasion in human history. Some 5,000 landing and assault craft, 289 escort vessels, and 277 minesweepers took part. The total number of men put ashore the first day was nearly 160,000, with a remarkable total of 875,000 allied combatants arriving on the continent by the end of June, 1944. Allied casualties on the first day were around 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead. The Germans suffered between 4,000–9,000 casualties (estimates vary widely) including those killed, wounded, missing, or captured.

The Other D-Day — “Operation Forager” — The Invasion of Saipan (June 15, 1944)

As gigantic as the Normandy invasion was, it is nearly forgotten that the United States pulled off another invasion of staggering size and proportion just over a week later on the opposite side of the world. Operation Forager involved the invasion of Saipan in the Mariana Islands on June 15, 1944. Saipan was a significant part of the outer defense ring of the Japanese home islands. Once airbases were established there (as well as on the neighboring Islands of Guam and Tinian) the newly deployed B-29 bombers could begin sustained bombing of the Japanese homeland—a game changer in the Pacific War.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Mike Horton's New Book -- Shaman and Sage

Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

The first volume of Michael Horton’s magisterial intellectual history of “spiritual but not religious” as a phenomenon in Western culture
Discussions of the rapidly increasing number of people identifying as “spiritual but not religious” tend to focus on the past century. But the SBNR phenomenon and the values that underlie it may be older than Christianity itself.

Michael Horton reveals that the hallmarks of modern spirituality—autonomy, individualism, utopianism, and more—have their foundations in Greek philosophical religion. Horton makes the case that the development of the shaman figure in the Axial Age—particularly its iteration among Orphists—represented a “divine self.” One must realize the divinity within the self to break free from physicality and become one with a panentheistic unity. Time and time again, this tradition of divinity hiding in nature has arisen as an alternative to monotheistic submission to a god who intervenes in creation.

This first volume traces the development of a utopian view of the human individual: a divine soul longing to break free from all limits of body, history, and the social and natural world. When the second and third volumes are complete, students and scholars will consult The Divine Self as the authoritative guide to the “spiritual but not religious” tendency as a recurring theme in Western culture from antiquity to the present.

Mike’s been working on this for some time. I was privileged to read an early draft. This a profound and an important work. This is the first of three volumes. You can order it here: Michael Horton, Shaman and Sage

History and Culture, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerMay 17, 2024Spiritual but not ReligiousComment

John Wesley's Take on Election and Human Obedience (in Light of the Canons of Dort’s Declaration that Basing Election on Obedience Is an Error)

The following comes from John Wesley's famous sermon "On Free Grace," (1740).

This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself.
[The doctrine of Predestination] directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell.

Says Wesley, the Christian life is to be lived in light of the hope of a future reward and the fear of punishment. But are hope and fear the proper basis for good works? Should not good works arise from a thankful heart and done out of gratitude? No, says Wesley.

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Festivus for the Rest of Us!

Time for the feats of strength, the airing of grievances, and waiting for that Festivus miracle.

So, lets get it started . . .

I got a lot of problems with you people!

History and Culture, Just having some funKim RiddlebargerDecember 23, 2023Airing of Grievances, Feats of StregnthComment

B. B. Warfield on the Celebration of Christmas

In a review of a German book beautifully illustrating the art associated with the celebration of Christmas written by Georg Rietschel (1842-1914), who was a professor of theology at Leipzig University (H. T. Barry Waugh: Warfield on Celebrating Christmas) , B. B. Warfield concludes by raising the following questions:

1). What can be said for the customs [of Christmas] to which we have committed ourselves?

2). There is no reason to believe that our Lord wished his birthday to be celebrated by his followers.

3). There is no reason to believe that the day on which we are celebrating it is his birthday (Michael Kruger: Five Misconceptions of Christmas).

4). There is no reason to believe that the way in which we currently celebrate it would meet his approval.

These questions cause Warfield to conclude with the follow challenge; “are we not in some danger of making of what we fondly tell ourselves is a celebration of the Advent of our Lord, on the one side something much more like the Saturnalia of old Rome than is becoming in a sober Christian life; and, on the other something much more like a shopkeeper’s carnival than can comport with the dignity of even a sober secular life?”

Christmas is a difficult time for Christians precisely because of these important questions raised by Warfield. What do we do when a secular holiday and all the things that go with it (some good, some terrible) becomes thoroughly intertwined with the Christian celebration of our Lord’s birth and incarnation? There is something wonderful about an annual gathering when families and friends come together, feast, share gifts, and make family memories. There is something awful when “Frosty the Snowman” plays in the annual rotation of the FM radio station of Christmas music right after “Joy to the World.”

To read the rest, follow the link below:

What Will You Hear This Christmas? The Testimony of the Inn-Keeper? Words from Edith Bunker?

For the last few months I have been receiving emails advertising a sermon subscription series—the proprietor and the service shall go unnamed. Either the proprietor added me to his list (not knowing how I’d react to these emails), or someone who does know how I feel about these things (On Subscription Sermon Series) signed me up as a prank. Back in the day, the White Horse Inn crew, (including Mike Horton, our producer Shane Rosenthal, along with yours truly), would sign up our feisty Lutheran co-host, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, for all kinds of stuff to get his goat—Wesleyan Woman comes to mind. It took him all of a few seconds to guess the culprits. So it may very well be the case that someone did that here. The point is, these email pitches came to me unsolicited.

The advertisements contain “highlights” from various sermons for which you can sign-up and then download in their entirety. Aside from the propriety of a minister not preparing his own sermon, there is the matter of attribution. Does the one preaching someone else’s sermon ever feel compelled to tell the congregation that they are doing so? You’d think with content so bad no preacher would want to pass this stuff off as their own work!

Then there is the matter of content. I have never subscribed to such a series—even on a free trial basis out of a sense of curiosity, wondering “how bad can they be?” So I don’t know how much biblical and theological content they may include. I only see what they choose to send me. If these are the “highlights,” I’m pretty sure the body of these “sermons” contain similar piffle—or worse.

To read the rest, follow the link below

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.

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics (Completed Version)

The entire five parts of the Primer on Reformed liturgies have been combined into a single essay. You can find it here: A Primer on Reformed Liturgics

Riddleblog Publication, Reformed Resources, History and CultureKim RiddlebargerSeptember 27, 2023Reformed LiturgicsComment

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: More Lessons from the Past Applied In the Present (Part Two)

Continued from . . . A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Lessons from the Past Applied in the Present (Part One)

Reformed Worship Supports the Church’s Discipline

Churches in the Reformed tradition “fence the table” to preserve the purity of the church and its gospel witness. “Fencing the table” refers to the practice of a church’s elders not permitting unbelievers or those who are under church discipline (as determined by the church’s elders) to receive the Lord’s Supper. Those who anticipate receiving the Lord’s Supper are exhorted to search their hearts for hidden sins and implored to offer sincere repentance before partaking. Lists of specific sins which should keep the unrepentant from the table are often included in that portion of the liturgy designed to prepare the faithful for receiving the elements (bread and wine). The Reformers were not so much concerned that sinners might partake of the supper, rather that unrepentant sinners would eat and drink judgment upon themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29), or that churches who were lax in their practice of discipline might provoke the judgment of God as explained in 1 Corinthians 5.

A proper liturgy warns those under church discipline, or who have a different understanding of the Lord’s Supper than that found in the Reformed confessions, to refrain from partaking until any issues are resolved. A proper liturgy also gives biblical exhortations to communicants to repent of their sins but then come to the table to partake with great comfort and full assurance since Christ’s merits received through faith alone secure our Lord’s welcome and access to the communion table and its benefits.

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Lessons from the Past Applied in the Present–(Part One)

For the Reformers, Recovering the Gospel Also Meant Recovery of Proper Worship

The Reformers understood that the recovery of the gospel was directly connected to proper Christian worship. John Calvin, for one, saw his own conversion and subsequent work of reform tied directly to the removal of all forms of Roman idolatry (especially the mass) from Christian worship. The centrality of the gospel to the life of the church must be made manifest in the pure worship of God. This meant a Word-centered liturgy in which biblical texts were preached upon, biblical exhortations and commands were made clear, and biblical promises made to the people of God were to be read for their comfort and assurance. As one writer puts it, “the recovery of the gospel in the Reformation was ultimately a worship war–a war against the idols, a war for the pure worship of God.”[2] Our worship must reflect our gospel, and our gospel must define our worship.

The Reformers Sought to “Reform” the Church’s Worship

While affirming Sola Scriptura and striving to base all liturgical reform on biblical principles of worship, the Reformers carefully considered the practices of the ancient church and the teaching of the church fathers when revising the liturgies they inherited. The goal was to reform the church’s ancient liturgies by striping them of all unbiblical additions, not to compose entirely new liturgies from scratch. “New” and “contemporary” when used in the Reformed tradition in connection to worship, are therefore best understood as “reforming” (i.e., removing all unbiblical accretions, as well as adding those things which are missing), not replacing the ancient liturgies with contemporary fads grounded in popular preferences.

Martin Luther stated that his intention was to not to abolish, but to cleanse the liturgies of “wicked additions” (i.e., Roman inventions) and recover their proper (pious) use. Calvin too sought to remove Roman additions made to the liturgies of the ancient church, which is why his Genevan liturgy (The Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers) was subtitled “According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.” Like Luther, he was no innovator, but a “Reformer.” It was said of Heinrich Bullinger (the Reformed pastor in Zurich and a contemporary of Calvin) that he restored “all things to the first and simplest form of the most ancient, and indeed apostolic tradition.”[3] It is fair to say that “tradition mattered to the Reformers. It was the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living.” [4]

Returning to the ancient ways meant, in part, incorporating the reading of the Ten Commandments (or “law” texts from throughout the Scriptures), using the Lord’s Prayer (either recited or as a model for prayer), reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, God’s people thereby confessing the orthodox faith while effectively uniting the church of the present to the people of God of the past—the so-called “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Liturgical Diversity Among the Reformers

Elements and Circumstances [1]

The Reformed divide liturgical practice into two categories: elements and circumstances. Elements are limited to what Scripture authorizes (either by command or good and necessary inference) along the line of Acts 2:42, while circumstances refer to how we put elements into practice. Circumstances are matters left to our judgment and discretion, but remaining within the general bounds of God’s word.

Elements are a distinct and usually ordinary act of worship (e.g., prayer, Scripture reading, the preaching of word, the administration of sacraments, etc.). Circumstances pertain to practices not unique to religious worship, but common to “human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6). Circumstances refer to matters such as where and when to meet, how many hymns should be sung, how the church furniture should be arranged, etc. Circumstances are not indifferent nor ungoverned, but are regulated by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture (WCF 1.6). For example, we can choose what times to meet on Sunday, but we cannot move our Lord’s Day worship to another day of the week.

As the Reformed liturgical traditions took shape (the elements), there were wide variations in circumstantial practice. The various church orders (the constitutional documents of the churches) often developed along national/local lines. Most liturgies were full services, while others were partial liturgies or set forth guidelines for parts of the service—i.e., John Knox’s Practice of the Lord’s Supper. And there was the collection and publication of prayers to be used in worship (i.e., Thomas Cranmer’s Collects which are found the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics -- The Reformed Liturgies Take Shape

General Characteristics of Early Reformed Liturgies.[1]

As the Reformation got underway and the Reformed churches began to develop their own distinct theological identity and practices, general characteristics of Reformed liturgical practice emerged. The following are found in the majority of Reformed liturgies in the Reformation era and can be summarized as follows: (1) The assumption that the church is the assembly of the covenant community. (2) The assembled people of God participate in worship in the common tongue. (3). Simplicity. (4). The centrality of word and sacrament. (5) A central role for Psalms. (6). Adaptability to need and circumstance.

Emerging Liturgical Forms and Practices

Given the stress upon congregational participation in worship as central among the changes brought about by the Reformation, the assembled worshipers sang, prayed, heard the word of God read and preached, and received the sacraments regularly. These things were not limited to the clergy, choirs, etc. Full congregational participation can be seen in the common liturgical practices adapted early on. Worship in the Reformed churches was grounded in a word-centered liturgy in the vernacular (the common language). This was a departure from pre-Reformation practices, amounting to a . . .

Far-reaching change . . . The whole service [was read] in a clear audible voice [not Latin] and in the vernacular tongue. Low mass had been the popular form of service for a considerable period before the Reformation, and this meant that the old service had been said in Latin and also inaudibly. Now, for the first time, the people both heard the words and understood them, while at one stroke the old secret prayers disappeared and the central rite [i.e., the mass] stood clear of medieval accretions.”[2]

Much of the Reformation era liturgical reform was adapted from the ancient church, in part, to demonstrate that Reformation churches were not schismatic–a charge often leveled against them by Rome. Because the goal was the reform of the true church, the following became mainstays of the Reformed liturgies: The Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, a confession of sin with absolution or declaration of pardon, and intercessory prayers.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Gettysburg 160

Today marks the final day of the 160th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg—the largest land battle ever fought on the North American continent.

On the afternoon of July 3, 1863, Pickett’s charge—an event many contend was the turning point in the Civil War—got underway only to be smashed by Union defenders on Cemetery Ridge. Pickett’s failed assault wrapped up three days of fierce fighting in brutal Pennsylvania heat. The day after Pickett’s charge, the exhausted, depleted, and demoralized Confederate army packed up, headed south, and crossed the Potomac River back into Virginia. The war would last nearly two more years, but for all intents and purposes, the South could never recover and would not invade the North again.

Allen Guezlo’s book on the Gettysburg campaign and battle is a wonderfully written volume, and must reading for anyone interested the Civil War or curious about this battle. I highly recommend it.

This is from my review, which you can read in its entirely here: A Review of Allen Guelzo's Gettysburg

If you've read Michael Shaara's Killer Angels or have seen the glue-on beard marred epic movie "Gettysburg" (which actually isn't that bad, except for Martin Sheen's horrible portrayal of Robert E. Lee as some sort of Eastern mystic), then you probably believe that the South's failure to capture Little Round Top toward the end of the second day’s fighting (July 2) was the turning point of the three-day battle. Not true.

To read my review and/or order Guelzo’s book, follow the link below

Book Reviews, History and CultureKim RiddlebargerJuly 3, 2023 Comments

A "Review" of Daniel G. Hummel's, "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism"

Daniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over the End times Shaped a Nation (Eerdmans, 2023), 400 pages, $29.99

What Sort of Book Is This?

Daniel Hummel’s book is not written to defend or refute the dispensational approach to biblical prophecy and the end times. I noticed a fair bit of pre-publication chatter to that effect, so it is important to tamp down that expectation now that the volume is available. What Hummel has done is to write a thorough, quick-paced, and well-sourced history of the origin, development, and current status of what we speak of today as “dispensationalism.” Hummel’s “nothing but the facts” approach makes the book hard to review since the author moves quickly through the history of the movement with but minimal amounts of evaluation along the way. This is the proper method for a volume such as this one, but leaves little about which a reviewer might quibble.

The most significant thing to note about The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is that Hummel situates the rise of a distinct dispensational theology within the broader context of what we often identify as “American evangelicalism.” This is Hummel’s purpose, one which he accomplishes quite well, and which is very valuable in its own right. But this broader perspective can also be a bit frustrating for those who participate in a more nuanced and related space which Hummel only addresses tangentially—the internecine debate about whether or not dispensationalism provides a helpful, and dare I say “biblical” manner of interpreting the Bible. Those readers of the Riddleblog who are interested in Hummel’s volume should keep his purpose in mind so as not be disappointed in what they will find. This is not a refutation of dispensationalism. Hummel’s book is exactly what it claims to be—an account of the rise of a distinctive dispensational theology in the 1830’s until its most recent period of development, which Hummel identifies as the “pop dispensationalism” of the Trump era. This is an historical account of dispensationalism and the role it has played in the development of American evangelicalism, and a well-written and important one at that. Hummel’s book is therefore must reading for anyone interested in eschatology, the rise of American evangelicalism, or who might have deep dispensational roots as does the author and this reviewer.

To read the review, click here: A "Review" of Hummel's Rise and Fall of Dipsensationalism

The Church Fathers, Origen, and Augustine on Antichrist

The earliest Christian documents which mention the Antichrist contain slight theological reflection, apart from a brief mention of him in connection with a particular biblical passage. Over time, the short-shrift given him begins to change. Some tie Antichrist to heresy (appealing to the epistles of John). Others speak of him in connection to the persecution of the church. Some think he will be an apostate Jew who would appear at the time of the end in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem while introducing destructive heresies. Other focus upon his role as a deceiver. Some follow the biblical texts closely (i.e., Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians, the Epistles of John, and Revelation 20), while a number indulge in more fanciful speculations. In other words, the church fathers, Origen, and Augustine have diverse views on the subject, many quite similar to interpretations offered in our own day.

The Epistle of Barnabas (4:1-5), written soon after the close of the apostolic age, identifies the fourth beast of Daniel 7 as the Roman Empire, while specifically referring to the beast as Antichrist.[1] A similar reference surfaces in the writings of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was born about AD 70 and likely martyred about AD 156 A.D. In 7.1 of his Epistle to the Philippians (written about AD 135), Polycarp quotes from 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 2:7 and contends that Antichrist is the spirit of heresy.[2] This is the same emphasis found in John’s epistles, to the effect that the threat from Antichrist arises from within the church, takes the form of apostasy and heresy, and is not connected to state-sponsored persecution like that of the beast of Revelation 13.[3]

In his Dialog with Trypho, Justin Martyr (who was put to death in Rome about AD 165) speaks of the appearance of the “man of apostasy” who speaks “strange things against the Most High” and ventures to “do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians” (Dialog with Trypho, 110). Justin is clearly alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, but does not specifically speak of this individual as Antichrist.[4]

To read the rest, follow the link below

Allen Guelzo Asks, "Was America Ever Christian? Founding, Awakening and a Common Myth"

ABSTRACT: The idea of a “Christian America” holds both myth and significant meaning. On the one hand, American history offers little evidence of a distinctly Christian founding; many of the Founders, in fact, actively opposed Christianity and sought its disenfranchisement in the new republic. On the other hand, the decades after the Founding saw a surge of Christian faith throughout the country. By the eve of Civil War, America could justifiably be called a “Christian nation,” but its Christianity was cultural, not political, the result of vigorous local and national enterprises rather than governmental action.

Here’s the link to the article: Guelzo: Was America Ever Christian?