“Antichrist Is Coming” The Fifth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:18-27)
“Antichrist Is Coming” The Fifth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:18-27)

A Constant Source of Speculation

It is difficult to find anything in the Bible which has provoked as much unbiblical speculation as has the doctrine of antichrist. The very mention of this mysterious figure sends the Christian imagination off and running. This is nothing new. The church fathers, by and large, thought the Antichrist would be an apostate Jew who would come to power after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Reformers–and virtually the entire Reformed tradition–have seen the warning about antichrist fulfilled in the Roman papacy. More recently, the dispensationalists have taught that the Antichrist will appear near the time of the end in connection with the rapture of the church. At the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period, dispensationalists tell us, the Antichrist will make a seven-year peace treaty with the nation of Israel before turning on God’s ancient people, declaring himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Much of this antichrist speculation is so far afield from the way John uses the term “antichrist” in his epistles, it is truly remarkable. For the apostle John, antichrist is not some dreaded future foe, but a very present threat to those to whom he is writing. John warns his readers in Asia Minor, “Antichrist is coming.”

Context, Context, Context . . .

We now take up John’s warning regarding the Antichrist in verses 18-27, the final of the four things in this part of John chapter 2 which John says should characterize all those who walk in the light. The first thing which should characterize Christians, John says, is that they confess their sins (1:5-2:2). The second thing they will do is to strive to obey the commandments of God, which are a published revelation of God’s will (2:3-11). Those who walk in darkness have no interest in God’s law. Then, in verses 12-17, John warns us not to love the world. John is not referring to the physical world (the universe) when he warns us not to love the world. Rather, John is referring to the fallen world as it is currently under the control of the evil one (cf. 1 John 5:19). John puts this in very stark either/or terms. If we love the fallen world in its opposition to God, we cannot love the Father.

This brings us to verses 18-27 and the fourth characteristic of those who walk in the light–they will oppose the many antichrists who have already gone out into the world. In order to make sense of John’s warning about these antichrists–these arch-enemies of Jesus Christ who is the word made flesh–recall that John is responding to an early form of Gnosticism, which held that reality exists in the form of a dualism between pure spirit (the good) and matter (evil). As we have seen, this conception of the universe makes Christ’s incarnation a metaphysical impossibility because if these proto-Gnostic categories are in fact correct, God (who is pure spirit) cannot take to himself a true human nature (which would be evil). In order to explain the physical appearances of Jesus in the gospels these proto-Gnostics opposed by John were affirming that while Jesus was truly God, he only appeared to be human (or took the form of a human). It is this so-called docetic heresy which John will now label the “spirit of antichrist.” This definition is quite different from the way in which most people use the term.

Two Different Ways to Speak of Antichrist

When it comes to the term “antichrist,” it is important to notice that theologians use the term in two ways. The first is the broad use, which is a reference to the end-time foe of Christ and his church. The second, and narrow use of the term is used by John in this epistle. The broad use (which is far and away the most common) refers to that mysterious end-times figure whom Paul labels the “Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2) and whom John calls “the beast” in the Book of Revelation (i.e., Revelation 13). This individual is usually thought to be the final antichrist in the series of antichrists about which John warns his readers in these epistles. When Christians speak of the “Antichrist,” they are most often referring to that individual who appears at the time of the end and who is a composite figure which we get when we put all the information from John (the beast, antichrists) and Paul (“Man of Sin”) together.

The second and “narrow” way the term is that used by the apostle John in his first two epistles. John uses the term “antichrist” as a specific reference to those false teachers who deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. For the apostle John, an antichrist is anyone who embraces the docetic heresy threatening the churches in Asia Minor at the time John writes these epistles. So, when we speak of the Antichrist, we need to keep in mind that the term can be used in these two ways. John’s usage of the term in these epistles–John, by the way, is the only biblical writer who even uses the term “antichrist”–is vastly different from the way in which most people use the term. In these epistles John is not warning us of a future end times foe, but of an ever-present threat to Christ’s church.

With that in mind, as we move into our text (verses 18-27 of the second chapter of this epistle), John turns to the subject of eschatology and begins by explaining how we as Christians should understand that period of time (the “last hour”) in which we presently live.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerAntichrist is coming., 1 John 2:18-27Comment
“Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance” – Article Fifteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance” – Article Fifteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 15: Contrasting Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance

This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it—a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers—is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.

___________________________________

Article fifteen concludes the fifth head of doctrine by offering a brief summary of the previous articles before the Canons take up the refutations of particular Arminian objections to the Reformed understanding of perseverance in the following section. The doctrine of perseverance should bring comfort to the people of God, reminding us that God does not call us to faith in Jesus and indwell us with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), only to give up on us should we not make quick enough progress in the Christian life, or in those cases where we are plagued by doubt or fall into deep sin. The very heart of the Reformed doctrine is that we persevere in faith because Jesus Christ preserves us in the faith. He will lose none of his sheep, he will save all those given him by the Father, and no one shall snatch them from his hand (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30).

As the Canons note, and as we have seen throughout our time looking at the articles under the fifth head of doctrine, the doctrine of perseverance is taught throughout the Scriptures and does two very important things. First, the doctrine directs our attention away from ourselves and our daily struggles to Jesus Christ, who preserves us through the means of grace—his Word and Sacraments. This is especially difficult and important for us moderns to learn: the painful lesson that not all of life and reality centers around us. The second thing this doctrine does is direct us away from our selfish preoccupation with ourselves unto the glory of God. The Canons speak of this as “very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers.”

But this doctrine was one of the primary objections of the Dutch Arminians, who challenged it on the grounds that if Christians were told that, since they were presently saved, they should be assured that they will finally be saved, then this opens the door toward indifference to living the Christian life with the goal of finally obtaining salvation. It is argued (then as now) that if people know with certainty that they cannot lose their salvation, what reason is there to live godly lives? This removes the implied incentive for Christian living: fear of punishment and hope of reward. As we noted previously, the Christian life (as understood by the Arminians of that time, and by the Wesleyans later) is a carrot-and-stick affair. As long as you strive to take the carrot, you won’t get hit from behind with the stick. Understood in this manner (which makes sense to Adam’s fallen children and their darkened understanding), the Christian life becomes an entirely self-centered matter. The Canons express the matter as one which “the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerReactions to PerseveranceComment
“God Gave Them Over” A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part 2 of a Look at Romans 1:18-32)
“God Gave Them Over” A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part 2 of a Look at Romans 1:18-32)

Episode Synopsis:

What happens to those who know right from wrong but choose to follow their own path even though their conscience and the Word of God warn them not to go that way? No, lightning does not strike them, nor does the ground open up beneath their feet and swallow them whole. They don’t keel over dead. According to Paul, what does happen to those who willingly exchange the truth of God for a lie and who willfully suppress the truth in unrighteousness is far more consequential than it seems at first glance. In exposing Gentile sinfulness, Paul warns of how God gives such people over to the consequences of their sin. If this is the path they persist in taking, well then, God will let them follow it to the end—an end, Paul says, that is deserving of death.

While it is common for Christians to emphasize those sexual sins that figure prominently in Paul’s vice list in Romans 1:18–32 (and indeed they do), the sins mentioned here by Paul are universal to all of Adam’s fallen race and include things we might consider “little” or insignificant sins—envy, gossip, and disobedience to parents. The point of this list is to show the Gentile Christians in Rome that despite the fact that they know neither Moses nor the law of God, their sins are self-evident and condemn the entire human race. No one will be able to stand before God on Judgment Day and claim, “But I did nothing wrong.” And “if I did something wrong,” it is certainly not worthy of eternal condemnation. But since God is holy and cannot look upon sin, Paul’s vice list makes clear the sobering fact that all of us are sinners who have sinned against God and whose hearts are filled with sin and darkness.

Those who don’t think this is fair are those who compare themselves to their neighbor, some of whom are better than they are, while some are worse. But God does not measure us by our neighbor; he measures us by his perfect holiness, which he demands of all his creatures.

The dreaded phrase “God gave them over” reminds us that we cannot stand before God on the Day of Judgment and plead ignorance or claim that our sins really are not that big a deal, deserving of such severe punishment. “I didn’t kill anyone.” Maybe not with my hands, but I’ve done it countless times in my heart, and so have you. Although the phrase “God gave them over” has an eerie finality about it, we also ought to consider that the process of letting sinners feel the weight and consequences of their sins just might be the means by which God is preparing people to come to faith and repentance. The conviction of sin is a work of the Holy Spirit. The conviction of sin is actually a good thing—because we realize that we need to be delivered from the guilt and power of sin. Much better to feel the conviction of sin than to be allowed to continue uninterrupted on our chosen path to destruction.

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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerRomans 1::18-32, God gave them overComment
Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Three) -- A Religion of Subjective Experience and Mere Opinion
Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Three) -- A Religion of Subjective Experience and Mere Opinion

The Christian mystic, Evelyn Underhill, still remains a popular figure in certain Anglo-Catholic groups, spiritual retreat movements, and among those interested in Christian mysticism and contemplative spirituality—especially as a means of coping with secularization and what such people consider to be sterile doctrinal rigidity—i.e., confessional Protestantism. Her views still find an eager audience among the “spiritual but not religious crowd” being addressed by Michael Horton’s three volume series on the subject. Underhill died in 1941, but her books became popular in the 1910s, drawing scrutiny from the guard dog of Old Princeton, B. B. Warfield.

In Part One, I addressed the background to Warfield’s stinging review of Evelyn Underhill’s works championing a so-called “Christian” mysticism—a subjective religious impulse grounded in what my late colleague Rod Rosenbladt called the “liver shiver,” an ecstatic experience not based upon the clear voice of God found in his Word when it is read and preached.

Warfield’s “review” addresses the challenge raised by mystics that doctrine divides, but spirituality—such as a “conversion experience”—unites a broad segment of Americans, which includes many professing evangelicals who do not agree with each other on important fundamental doctrines. In Part Two, Warfield points out that the “Absolute” supposedly encountered by Mrs. Underhill has much in common with the inscription on the infamous Athenian altar dedicated to an “unknown god,” mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23. In fact, a better term for the “religiosity of the human spirit,” might just be “the flesh,” as identified by Paul in Romans 8:5-8.

In part three of my look at Warfield’s “Review” of Underhill’s works (his “Review” was written in 1914), he continues to press her on her slippery definitions—a nagging problem associated with mystical religious experience, which claims to be “felt,” and therefore difficult to put into explanatory words. This matters because Christianity is essentially a religion of objective truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) revealed in revelatory speech and acts, not in subjective experience. The heart should follow the mind, not leap-frog over it.

Warfield continues to press her on the matter of definitions.

Miss Underhill reformulates her definitions thus (p. 97): “Mysticism, then, is not an opinion: it is not a philosophy. It has nothing in common with the pursuit of occult knowledge. It is not merely the power of contemplating Eternity. It is the name of that organic process which involves the perfect consummation of the Love of God: the achievement here and now of the immortal heritage of man. Or, if you like it better—for this means exactly the same thing—it is the art of establishing his conscious relation with the Absolute.”

But just who or what is the “absolute”? Here the mystic runs into reality that the God of the Bible is holy and those who encounter him experience nothing but sheer terror due to his glorious transcendence and holiness (see Isaiah 6:1-7; Hebrews 12:29). This is why any proper Christian relationship to God must be established in and through the incarnate Son (whose glory is veiled in human flesh) and through the indwelling Holy Spirit who enables us to approach the holy God as Father, without fear or terror.

Warfield sees the inconsistency in Underhill’s attempts at definition as highly problematic.

What was formerly declared to be a “science” has now become explicitly an “art”: but in varying the term we do not escape from the thing—behind the “art” the “science” necessarily lies. Miss Underhill says the Mystic is the man who has attained to union with the Absolute. Let us be more modest and say that the Mystic is the man who professes, or supposes himself, to have attained to union with the Absolute. Then Mysticism surely may be fairly described as that congeries of notions which are presupposed or implicated in this profession; or, if we choose, in the practice of the art by which this end is supposed to be attained. It would seem, therefore, that it must inevitably embrace a doctrine of the Absolute; a doctrine of the relation of the human spirit to this Absolute; a doctrine of the possibility of the human spirit attaining “union with the Absolute”; a doctrine of the nature of this “union with the Absolute” which the human spirit may attain.

But the subjective nature of Underhill’s enterprise means that no real definition of the “absolute” is possible and all we have is mere opinion—“I think,”, “I feel.” Such subjective claims, with little or no reference to any sort of objective reality, sadly, is the way in which many of our contemporaries determine their “personal truth.” What some describe as an “experience of the divine,” might just a weird thought, or an idea, a dream, or perhaps, lunch not properly digesting.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerSubjective religion, Evelyn UnderhillComment
Wet Paint and Romans 7:7
Wet Paint and Romans 7:7

I grew up at Knott’s Berry Farm—the famous amusement park in Buena Park, CA. My family owned and operated what surely was the only Christian bookstore in an entertainment venue like Knott’s. It was a great place to grow up and meet Christians from around the world.

Our store was located in two places. When my parents opened the store in 1955, it was located in what became Fiesta Village. In 1981, when much of Fiesta Village became “Camp Snoopy,” the Knott family graciously relocated us to the Grand Avenue shopping area, a few doors down from the famous Chicken Dinner Restaurant—a great location for business.

Both locations were adobe style buildings which were painted in Spanish mission colors (bright turquoise, with burnt orange trim and striping, on a tan background). Both buildings required periodic painting to look new and fresh—a feature of most amusement parks. At dawn, the Knott’s paint crews would scatter throughout the park and tackle the area to which they were assigned, working feverishly until the park opened a few hours later.

Since no one wanted guests to ruin their clothing, the painters posted “wet paint” signs with the added caution “do not touch.” The vast majority of days the walls near me went unpainted—no need to do so. No one (at least that I observed) ever reached out to touch any of the walls or surfaces. There was no reason to touch them. That is, until a “wet paint” sign, warning “do not touch” was posted immediately after the walls were painted.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Riddleblog PublicationKim RiddlebargerWet paint and Romans 7:7 Comment
“Do Not Love the World” The Fourth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:12-17)
“Do Not Love the World” The Fourth in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:12-17)

Not Specific Things, But an Attitude

Christians don’t seem to worry about this much anymore, but in the churches of my youth it was common to hear sermons on the evils of “worldliness.” “Worldliness” was always tied to certain things–cigarettes, alcohol, playing cards, women wearing pants, men with long hair, and other assorted man-made blue laws. We were taught that if you avoided these things, you would not become “worldly.” If you are old enough to remember such sermons, you know exactly what I am talking about. If you are not, count your blessings! Yes, John commands us “do not love the world, for the world is passing away.” But John is not warning us about sinful things, but a sinful attitude tied to the lusts of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of possessions. Not only does John warn us about loving the world, he also reminds us that everything connected to this fallen world is destined to perish. Darkness will one day give way to light, because the light (and everything connected to it), will abide forever.

Proto-Gnosticism Is In the Background

John’s first epistle has given us a fascinating look at some of the serious issues facing the churches of Asia Minor toward the end of the first century. We are now in the second chapter of 1 John, working our way through John’s catalogue of the four things which should characterize those who walk in the light–those who have been given life by the word of life, who is God manifest in the flesh. According to John, those who walk in the light will confess their sins (1 John 1:5-2:2), and will strive to obey the commandments of God (2:3-11). We have covered these two distinctives in previous expositions. The third thing which should characterize those who walk in the light is that they are not to love the world (2:12-17). In verses 18-29, John warns the churches that many antichrists have already come into the world–a topic to which we’ll turn next time, Lord willing.

Recall that John is dealing with an early form of Gnosticism which stresses “secret knowledge” and which sets up a dualism between spirit (good) and matter (evil). I’ve already spent considerable time on the distinctives of this proto-Gnosticism, so I would encourage you to look at the previous expositions in this series to understand the circumstances and context in which John’s three epistles were written. In order to properly interpret these epistles, we need to know three things: 1). Why does John write these epistles? 2). We must understand the error John is writing to correct, and 3). We need to notice that virtually everything in these epistles echoes John’s earlier statements in his gospel.

The Gnostic dualism (between spirit and matter) makes our Lord’s incarnation an impossibility. In the Gnostic conception of the universe, how can Jesus be God in human flesh when pure spirit (God) cannot come into contact with matter (which is evil)? These proto-Gnostics were forced to explain Jesus’s physical appearances in the gospels by contending that while Jesus was truly God, he merely took the form (or the appearance) of a man. In other words, Jesus was God, but not human. This is the heresy known as docetism, which John ties directly to the spirit of antichrist.

The Gnostic Heresy and the Spirit of Antichrist

The nature of this heresy explains why in the opening verses John emphatically stresses the fact that he has seen Jesus perform miracles with his own eyes, that he heard Jesus preach with his own ears, and that he even reached out and touched Jesus–who is a flesh and blood Savior, not a phantom or an apparition. John quickly moves on to warn those influenced by these false teachers, and who were now convinced that they were no longer sinful, that they are self-deceived and make God out to be a liar when they refuse to admit that they commit sin. In chapter two, John then reminds us that Jesus offered himself up as a propitiation for our sins, turning aside the wrath of God toward those for whom he is dying. John also reminds his readers that Jesus is now in heaven as our advocate, pleading our case before the Father. All of this requires a truly human Savior who is God manifest in the flesh.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim Riddlebarger1 John 2:12-17, Do not love the worldComment
“The Use of Means” -- Article Fourteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Use of Means” -- Article Fourteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 14: God’s Use of Means in Perseverance

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

___________________________________

As the Canons point out, thankfully, the merciful God who chooses to save a multitude of those fallen in Adam so vast they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9) does not begin the process of salvation and then give up on those who commit serious sins or who, for a time, fall into unbelief (Romans 8:28–30; 1 John 1:5–2:2). God ensures that all those whom he has chosen to save will persevere unto the end of their lives in faith—despite serious or careless sins. Although God does not promise to undo the consequences we bring upon ourselves through such acts, Jesus does promise that he will indeed save all those given to him by the Father (John 6:37–40; John 10:27–30). Paul concurs (Romans 8:31–38).

As we have seen in the previous articles under this head of doctrine, the opponents of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (the Dutch Arminians, Roman Catholics, and later Wesleyan Arminians) held that such a view makes people indifferent to their sins and offers a false sense of security, leaving little, if any, basis for holy living. Grounding the Christian life in the fear of punishment and the hope of reward, these groups are right to see that the Reformed doctrine—grounded in the saving efficacy of God’s grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ—presents a serious challenge to them. Yes, these groups argue that God gives enabling grace to those willing to receive it, but the Reformed have noted that such forms of motivation do not give life to those dead in sin. Indeed, asking someone dead in sin to take the first step toward God is like asking a corpse to take a breath so that it can come to life and take more breaths.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerPerserverance and the means of graceComment
A Possible Reformed Church Plant In Reno? A Core Group is Forming
A Possible Reformed Church Plant In Reno? A Core Group is Forming

Here’s their website and sign-up info: Redeemer Reformed Church Plant in Reno

Here’s their distinctives and mission

We are ordinary people—sinners rescued by God’s sovereign grace—called together to worship, grow, and serve under the lordship of Christ. Our desire is simple: to be a faithful Reformed church in Reno that glorifies God, obeys His Word, and joyfully proclaims the good news of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Whether you are new to the Reformed faith or have been shaped by it for years, if you long for:

  • God-centered worship that is biblical, reverent, and joyful,

  • Faithful preaching that expounds all of Scripture and applies the gospel to daily life,

  • Covenant church where families and individuals are discipled together,

  • Confessional integrity grounded in the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort,

…you are exactly the kind of person we are praying God will bring to this core group.

Read More
Riddleblog Update, Riddleblog PublicationKim Riddlebargerchurch plant RenooComment
"Without Excuse" -- A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part 1 of a look at Romans 1:18-32)
"Without Excuse" -- A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast (Part 1 of a look at Romans 1:18-32)

Episode Synopsis:

I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first? I gave you a hint about the good news in the previous episode, in which we took a look at the thesis statement of Romans—Romans 1:16–17. The next time you'll hear good news from Paul—and it is really good news—is when we get to Romans 3:21, which is still a number of episodes down the road. As will become clear, the good news of the gospel must be seen against the backdrop of human sin and guilt before the holy God. Since the vast majority of our contemporaries think that people are basically good and have the ability, if not the desire, to find favor with God, it is important to notice that Paul sees things much differently.

Which is why the bad news is really bad, and why the good news makes no sense apart from the bad. The entire human race is estranged from God by nature and by choice. When Paul is finished with his indictment of the human race—both Jew and Gentile—there is no one left standing. The wrath of God is being revealed against all those who suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. Because unbelievers inevitably engage in this act of suppressing the truth about God, he gives them over to their lusts and passions so that things run their course and leave such people without excuse. Because all people know that there is a God, but refuse to worship and serve him, they demonstrate that their thinking is futile and their hearts are hardened. And they dare not stand before him on judgment day and make appeal to their goodness, character, good works, or ignorance of the truth.

Paul is clear that the Psalmist is absolutely right to affirm, “The fool has said in their heart, `There is no God.’” As those made in the image of God, he has made us to be creatures well fitted for the world which he also created. We are designed for this world and all of its beauties, joys, and pleasures. This is what makes the suppression of the truth about him so foolish. God has revealed himself to all people—that he is, that he is holy, and that we owe him our every breath. So, when our race fell in Adam, we became a race of rebels who worship and serve created things rather than the Creator. And as Paul is about to explain, the wrath of God is being revealed—not against the innocent who don't know better, but against a race of rebels who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. We live as though none of this were true, or we create a god who blesses our rebellion. But there is a tsunami on the horizon, and it is heading our way.

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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerRomans 1:18-20, Without ExcuseComment
“The Darkness Is Passing Away” The Third in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:3-11)
“The Darkness Is Passing Away” The Third in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 2:3-11)

God Is Light

The contrast between Christianity and false religion is as apparent as the contrast between light and darkness. John the Apostle must deal with certain men who had departed from the faith and who were now denying that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. To expose their errors, John uses a simple contrast. God is light. Darkness cannot exist in his presence, because light casts out darkness. Since Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, Jesus is that light which has come into the world. That light which gives life, enables God’s people to walk in the light, even as Jesus is the manifestation of the light. And since light casts out darkness, so too Christ’s coming in the flesh means that wherever the word of life is proclaimed, darkness passes away.

How We Demonstrate That We Walk In the Light

As we make our way through the second chapter of John’s first epistle, in this section of John’s first letter (verses 1:5-2:29), John describes four ways in which Christians demonstrate that they are walking in the light. The first of these four conditions is the necessity of repenting of our sin. We considered this in the previous installment as we made our way through 1 John 1:5-2:2. The second condition mentioned by John–that Christians must be obedient to God’s commandments–is found in verses 2:3-11. This is our topic in this exposition. The third condition is spelled out in verses 12-17. John says that Christians must reject all appearance of worldliness, which refers to both the lusts of the flesh and the desires of the eyes. The fourth condition–that we must hold fast to the truth in the presence of antichrists–is spelled out in the balance of the chapter (verses 18-29). According to John, these things are characteristic of all those who live in the light of the word manifest in the flesh.

Proto-Gnosticism, False Doctrine, and Apostasy

Throughout his epistles, John is dealing with an early form of Gnosticism, which contends that a dualism exists between spirit (good) and matter (which is evil). In this dualistic scheme of things, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is an impossibility because God (who is pure spirit) could not in any sense be manifest in human flesh (because flesh is material, and therefore evil). This is why John opens this epistle with the emphatic declaration that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. John has seen Jesus, heard Jesus, and even touched Jesus. The good news (of the gospel) is that Jesus has come as a flesh and blood Savior.

But those whom John describes as men “who went out from us” were denying that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh–one of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. In order to explain Jesus’s earthly ministry, these false teachers were forced to contend that while Jesus was fully God, he only took the form (or appeared) as a man. In other words, while fully divine, Jesus was some sort of phantom or apparition, and was not truly human (no flesh, blood, or bones). This is the heresy of docetism. The whole point of Jesus being God manifest in the flesh is that he came to offer himself up as a propitiation for our sins. A propitiation is a sacrifice which turns aside God’s wrath through the shedding of real blood, and through a truly broken body. But a docetic Jesus cannot make such a sacrifice. A phantom Jesus cannot shed real blood. Furthermore, a Jesus who only appears in human form cannot obey the law of God so as to fulfill all righteousness. The docetic Jesus cannot save flesh and blood sinners. John calls those who teach such a thing, “antichrists.”

Another important trait of this early Gnosticism is the idea that enlightenment comes to only a few who discipline themselves to learn the secret insights into the teachings of Jesus, not made public to everyone. Apparently, such esoteric knowledge about Jesus was being taught by those who had departed from the faith. Given John’s focus upon both the death of Christ (who is God manifest in the flesh) and his present advocacy for us in heaven, it is clear that the gospel is grounded in historic and very public events–not some sort of “secret knowledge.” This is why those for whom Christ died must walk in the light. Light casts out darkness. And light can be easily observed.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim RiddlebargerGnosticism, 1 John 2:3-11, Light and DarkComment
The Perils of AI and the Glamour Photo
The Perils of AI and the Glamour Photo

I needed a new glamour photo for the blog and in those instances when I am a guest on someone else’s podcast and they need a current image of me. I’ve recently lost 25 lbs in response to the onset of old man health issues—I am fine, just a bit more svelte. Not only did I need new pants (suspenders are out), but I chose a picture which actually looks like the new me.

To see how I’ve been AI’d, follow the link below

Read More
Riddleblog Publication, Just having some funKim RiddlebargerThe Glamour Photo and AI Comments
“Assurance Does Not Lead to Carelessness” -- Article Thirteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“Assurance Does Not Lead to Carelessness” -- Article Thirteen, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 13: Assurance No Inducement to Carelessness

Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

____________________________________________

Given the number of articles under the Fifth Point of Doctrine addressing the matter of assurance of one’s salvation actually leading to godliness rather than carelessness or indifference to godly living, it is clear that this was a charge frequently raised by the Dutch Arminians (as well as Rome).

The reality is that Christians can and do fall into serious sin—a point acknowledged in previous articles. But in the case of God’s elect, if and when they fall into serious sin, they are eventually restored to God’s favor, even if the consequences of their sin remain a factor in their lives. Since this is the case, those who are restored find themselves taking greater care not to allow such a thing to happen again, as well as possessing a deeper understanding of the grace and mercy of God toward his wayward sheep.

There are a number of biblical cases in which this is evident. In Psalm 51, for example, David cries out for forgiveness, desiring to have his transgressions blotted out (v. 1) and to be washed and cleansed of his sins (v. 2). His sin was exposed by Nathan the prophet after David arranged for the death of Bathsheba’s husband. His sin is before him (v. 3), he acknowledges that he has done evil in God’s sight (v. 4), and he asks for a clean heart (v. 10), praying not to be cast away, nor have the Holy Spirit taken away. Throughout the Psalm, David prays for full restoration before God, the joy of his salvation restored, an increase of wisdom, and to be an example to others. Article Thirteen is, in effect, a summary of Psalm 51—the perfect illustration of what the Canons describe as “a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance,” and to come to know again “his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerAssurance and carelessnessComment
"Not Ashamed of the Gospel" (Romans 1:16-17) A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast!
"Not Ashamed of the Gospel" (Romans 1:16-17) A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast!

Episode Synopsis:

Paul is eager to come to Rome to preach the gospel. These words have long been familiar to Christians, and we understand Paul’s sentiment. Yet, in Paul’s day, preaching the gospel was an absolutely scandalous message. The gospel is centered on the cross of Jesus Christ. For us, a cross is a well-known Christian symbol. But for those in Paul’s day, the cross was a sign of shame and denigration. It was something people abhorred and would not speak about. The noted Roman statesman and orator Cicero spoke of the cross as so horrible that Roman citizens should never be subject to such a thing, and should never even entertain the thought of such a horrible manner of death, much less speak of it. So why would Paul be eager to preach such a message if it was likely to repulse and offend people, rather than draw or attract them?

Paul knows that this gospel—centered in the cross of Jesus Christ—is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. God uses this scandalous message to call his people unto himself, create faith, and grant them eternal life. As Paul tells the Romans, the gospel was first preached to Jews in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and then through recounting the events associated with the messianic mission of Jesus Christ, which culminated in his suffering and death upon a Roman cross. When the crucified Jesus was raised from the dead three days after his crucifixion, God demonstrated his power—which is of a different kind and far greater than all the military might of Rome. Jesus is truly Lord—not Caesar nor any of the Roman gods. So, when Paul says he desires to come to Rome to preach this message, he is trusting the power of God to do what is impossible for sinful humans: to be given new life, the forgiveness of sins, and to be counted as righteous before God.

Paul is also eager to preach the gospel because in it the righteousness of God is revealed. Sinful men and women can be reckoned or credited as righteous by trusting in the crucified and risen Savior proclaimed by Paul. No amount of sorrow or tears, no enlightened teacher or guru, and no amount of good works can grant this righteous status to sinful people. The only proper response to Paul’s gospel is the empty hands of faith—the reception of this free gift of a perfect and faultless righteousness that is found in the gospel. This is why Paul is eager to come to Rome and preach this scandalous message.

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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerRomans 1:16-17, The Righteousness of GodComment
Summer Musings (7/17/2026)
Summer Musings (7/17/2026)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:

  • The mountains are calling. There will be a brief interruption of the Riddleblog and Season Five of the Blessed Hope Podcast on the Book of Romans

Thinking Out Loud:

  • No to Türkiye—it is “Turkey.” No to Mumbai—it is “Bombay.” No to the “Gulf of America.” It is the “Gulf of Mexico”

  • I heard one political commentator make the point that the biggest ideological divide in America today might just be between the political class (those who are super on-line, left and/or right tribalists) and the rest of America who pay little or no attention to political in-fighting until immediately before elections, and even then they usually pay no mind to the political class. The commentator might just be right

  • Why do professional sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL) feel the need to promote Pride night? This certainly generates more public ill-will than ticket sales

  • And why not celebrate Swiss night? The players could all wear lederhosen, and alpenhorns could be used for the national anthem. Stadiums could sell some great cheese and chocolate at the concession stands. Instead of Bobble head dolls, they could sell Swatches with the player’s faces. All the fans would be neutral and could suck on a Riccola cough drop if they get hoarse from celebrating their neutrality. I am an oppressed minority!

  • The late State Department official John Negroponte once made the sarcastic comment after Richard Nixon’s 1972 Christmas bombing campaign in North Vietnam—“We bombed them into accepting our concessions.” I hope Trump’s efforts in Iran don’t end the same way

  • An old friend and I were recently discussing our favorite rock concerts we attended back in the day. We didn’t know each other at the time, but we were both at the Hollywood Palladium in November of 1973 to see Robin Trower and Wishbone Ash. They were meh . . . But the as of then unknown opening band absolutely stole the show—that little ole band from Texas, ZZ Top. Best 45 minutes of blues rock/boogie I ever saw in person

  • We also agreed that the worst concert we ever saw (we both there and still didn’t know each other yet) was Deep Purple in Long Beach in April of 1973. Richie Blackmore was in a snit (what else was new), and someone threw a cherry bomb at the band during their set. When it went off over their heads, the band was furious and stormed off—who can blame them? They came back after a long wait, played three songs half-heartedly, and that was it. Huge disappointment

To see the review, links, and video, follow the link below

Read More
MusingsKim RiddlebargerHorton Smith IV Hart, Allen Guelzo on Western Civ, Big Boy, ZZ Top and Deep Purple Comment
Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Two) -- Union With The "Absolute"
Warfield on the Mysticism of Evelyn Underhill (Part Two) -- Union With The "Absolute"

In Part One, I set forth the background to Warfield’s stinging review of four books written by the then popular mystic Evelyn Underhill. Although Warfield’s “Review” was written in 1914, Underhill’s variety of mysticism (now called “spirituality”) is still very much alive today. As I noted in Part One, a subjective/mystical experience which she and others champion, “provides common ground for those seeking theological justification for religious `diversity and inclusion.’” It is often claimed that doctrine divides, but spirituality—such as a “conversion experience”—unites a broad segment of Americans, which includes many professing evangelicals. Those who are doctrinally ignorant, indifferent, or even hostile to a concrete set of beliefs, can find common ground through a vague and ill-defined “spirituality,” aligning with those with similar experiences. This revival of Underhill’s mysticism is what Michael Horton has identified as the “spiritual but not religious” phenomenon which is now widespread in America.

Warfield, whose job description at Princeton Theological Seminary (Professor of Polemic and Didactic Theology) requires him to pounce upon all perceived doctrinal error, acknowledges Underhill’s skill as a writer. She is good at what she does, which is why Warfield felt so compelled to devote significant attention to her work. He writes . . .

This volume is brilliantly written. All the resources of a trained literary art are expended upon it, and its pages are not only illuminated with numerous well-chosen extracts from the Mystical writers who are thus permitted to tell in their own quaint and often singularly impressive language exactly what they are, but are also gemmed with vivid phrases caught from the Mystics and used by Miss Underhill in her own composition with exquisite skill. Above all it is written with a verve and enthusiasm which impart to it an élan (as Miss Underhill would call it) that sweeps the reader well-nigh off his feet. (337)

Early on in his “Review,” Warfield points out that a definition of terms is very important—especially with an ill-defined subject (Mysticism) grounded in subjective religious experience. Here is where the trouble begins.

Formal definition of the term begins for us already in the Preface. “Broadly speaking,” we read there (p. x.), “I understand it to be the expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order; whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood.” This is “broadly speaking” indeed. By the final clause, Mysticism is at once separated from all “positive religions” whatever; and (as we are immediately told) it is made matter of indifference to the experience of “mystic union” in which it “attains its end,” whether that union is conceived to be with “the God of Christianity, the World-Soul of Pantheism, the Absolute of Philosophy” (p. x.). “Attempts to limit mystical truth—the direct apprehension of the Divine Substance—to the formulae of any one religion,” we are accordingly told later (p. 115), “are as futile as the attempt to identify a precious metal with the die which converts it into current coin.”

Mysticism of the sort advocated by Ms. Underhill cannot be limited to any formulas of “positive religion” (presumably one with any sort of authoritative doctrine). The image given us by Isaiah (in 6:1-13) of one such moment of “direct apprehension of the Divine substance” is vastly different from the type of mystical union spelled out by Underhill. She might find “union and harmony” when encountering what she assumes is “the divine substance,” but Isaiah was immediately overcome by the awareness of his sinfulness. This is but one of the things missing from Underhill’s supposed encounter with the divine.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerEvelyn Underhill, MysticismComment
The Gospel, Calling, and a Light to the Nations
The Gospel, Calling, and a Light to the Nations

From Episode Four of Season Five of the Blessed Hope Podcast series on the Book of Romans

Paul’s doctrine of calling Gentiles—those apart from membership in Israel—to trust in Israel’s Messiah grows out of the messianic expectations of the Old Testament. In Isaiah 49:1–7, the prophet speaks of a future time in which the gospel will go out to the ends of the earth and bring great blessings to the nations.

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. . . . I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: “Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.

According to Isaiah, the coming of the Messiah is connected to those Gentile nations that formerly oppressed God’s people and are now being called to join Israel as worshipers of YHWH. Jesus Christ, who is the true servant of YHWH spoken of by Isaiah, is the light to the Gentiles (cf. Isaiah 42:6; 52:10; 60:3), a theme fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus when he declares, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Jesus will call his chosen ones to faith. His messianic kingdom will crush empires and convert princes. Therefore, when Paul reminds the church in Rome that the sovereign God has called them to faith in Israel’s Messiah through the gospel, Paul is bearing witness to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Let us not miss the irony here—the capital of the world’s greatest pagan empire is now home to a Christian church full of former pagans from distant lands who worship Israel’s God. Isaiah’s prophecy is being fulfilled—the church in Rome is proof.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Pauline Studies, Blessed Hope Podcast, The Book of RomansKim RiddlebargerRomans 1:6-15, Calling, Isaiah 49:1-7Comment
“If We Walk in the Light” The Second in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 1:5-2:2)
“If We Walk in the Light” The Second in an Exposition of John’s Epistles (1 John 1:5-2:2)

The Blessing of Light

Imagine stumbling through life in complete darkness, not knowing where you are going, and unable to avoid danger or disaster. For the apostle John, walking in darkness is a powerful metaphor depicting the fate of those apart from Christ–forced to live as slaves to sin, in complete ignorance to the things of God, and at the mercy of false teachers who claimed to be “enlightened,” but who are completely in the dark about the things of the Lord. As John opens this epistle, he reminds us that God is light, and because we have eternal life, we walk in the light of God’s revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the word of life made manifest in the flesh.

The three epistles we know as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John were written by the apostle John, who is also the author of the Gospel bearing his name. We know this to be the case based upon the grammar and style of these epistles, which repeatedly allude to, or are dependent upon, the Gospel of John. It is highly probably that these epistles were written after John had completed his gospel. Christian tradition tells us that John had fled Jerusalem at some point before the destruction of the city in 70 CE, eventually relocating to Ephesus, where it is believed that he lived well into old age, dying during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan. Since I spent a fair amount of time on background material in the first installment in this series, you can read prior exposition to better understand the situation in which these epistles were written.

A Brief Recap

Since we are covering new ground, it is important to briefly recap John’s purpose in writing before we work through our text. Based upon the content of these epistles it is reasonable to conclude that they were written for the purpose of explaining and elaborating upon themes within John’s gospel, as well as to correct the errors of various false teachers who were distorting things John had stated earlier. This will become clear shortly when we come to verses 1:6-2:1, in which John responds to a series of errors being taught by those who departed from the faith.

Like the Book of James, John’s first epistle is probably a sermon in which John proclaims to us that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, who came to earth to bring the word of life. At many points, John simply sets out the truth regarding the person and work of Christ in full confidence that the truth will cast out all error. At the heart of this truth is the fact that Jesus is God manifest in human flesh who came to save us from our sins. This is the light of the gospel, and those who know and understand Christ’s person and work will walk in that light. Walking in the light means repenting of our sins, loving our brothers and sisters, and living confidently in the hope of eternal life.

The Presence of Apostates/Heretics

But John also must deal with those whom he says “went out from us” (1 John 2:19), men who were now denying what John had taught them–that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Thus in 1 John 4:1-3, the apostle warns his reader,

beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Not only have false prophets gone out (from the church, having become apostates), but their message is very straight-forward. They deny that Jesus is God in the flesh–an error with catastrophic consequences. Believers are therefore to test everyone’s teaching in light of John’s revelation that Jesus Christ is God come to earth in human flesh. To deny the incarnation of Christ is to embrace the spirit of antichrist.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
John's EpistlesKim Riddlebarger1 John 1:5-2:2, Confession of sin, PropititationComment
“An Incentive to Godliness” -- Article Twelve, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“An Incentive to Godliness” -- Article Twelve, The Fifth Point of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 12: This Assurance as an Incentive to Godliness

This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

__________________________________________

The charge that God’s sovereign grace removes all motives for good works is a longstanding canard raised by those who would base the motives for godly living in the fear of punishment and hope of reward. This matter was addressed in previous heads of doctrine (CD 1.12-13; and CD 3-4.15-17) because it is such a common objection raised by opponents of the Reformed understanding of salvation as monergistic. To put it simply—God does all the saving, of which our repentance and good works are the effects of prior salvation and not the basis for it. And if God does all the saving, and it is purely by grace, the challange arises, “what motivation remains for doing good works?”

The authors of the Canons point out the obvious. Assurance of salvation is the root of true humility, not a basis for boasting. Semi-Pelagian schemes (most notably Roman Catholic and Arminian) which understand salvation as a cooperative act (synergism—God makes his grace available to all who want it) ought to consider the fact that their scheme of salvation actually creates the very boasting they accuse the Reformed of teaching.

If we cannot save ourselves, and if any good we do is the fruit of prior grace and salvation (monergistic), then there is no basis whatsoever for boasting. What do we have to boast about? Nothing. But if grace is merely potential (as semi-Pelagians tell us is the case), then those who come to faith did something about which they can boast—they are the ones who realized that they had it within themselves to act in such a way that they could force God to respond favorably. They can boast that they saved themselves, with God’s help, of course.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerAssuance and good worksComment