"Storing Up Wrath" A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! (Part One of a Deep Dive Into Romans 2:1-16)
"Storing Up Wrath" A New Episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast! (Part One of a Deep Dive Into Romans 2:1-16)

Episode Synopsis:

The church in Rome was predominately Gentile–made up of recent converts from Greco-Roman paganism to Christianity. Such Gentiles knew little if anything about the Old Testament, nor its central figures, Abraham, Moses, and David. They knew that Jewish Christians cared about dietary restrictions, as well as circumcision–a surgical procedure which seemed bizarre to former Gentile pagans. They knew the Jews revered the law of Moses–which they claimed to be the very commandments from God. Gentiles ate things Jews did not. They touched things Jews regarded as unclean. As new Christians, Gentiles were learning about the evils of idolatry and the importance of rejecting the libertine sexual ethics and practices of Roman life in favor of a biblical sexuality. But they were also learning about Moses, Abraham, the law, and the covenants God made with Abraham and Moses.

Paul has been clear in the opening chapter of his letter to Rome. “You Gentiles may not have known who Moses was, nor why the commandments God gave to Israel through him at Mount Sinai were so important, but you do know what is right and what is wrong because God has made it plain to you through the created order, which, until coming to faith in Jesus, you tried to suppress in unrighteousness. You may claim ignorance, but you knew deep down inside that the things you were doing lead to death.“

But Paul is not finished. Even as he exposes Gentile godlessness and the futility of exchanging the truth of God for pagan nonsense, you can almost hear the Jewish Christians in Rome cheering Paul on. Eyewitnesses of bad Gentile behavior and victims of Gentile oppression, Jewish converts, of course, were thrilled to hear Paul “give it to them good.” “About time someone called out the Gentiles for their sinful and immoral practices.”

But as the second chapter of Romans unfolds, Paul shifts gears and raises the uncomfortable reality of Jewish hypocrisy. “Ok, you Jews who criticize the Gentiles, do you do the same things they do?” “How can you judge the Gentiles when you are no better.” The truth is, God is going to judge all people according to their works–Jew and Gentile. The blessing/curse principle will apply to all humanity. Those who do good will receive God’s blessing, while those who do not keep God’s commands will face him on the day of judgment. Yes, Paul has good news to proclaim, but there can be no good news until we realize that we are sinful, law-breakers, and deserving of God’s wrath whether we be Jew or Gentile.

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

Read More
Blessed Hope PodcastKim RiddlebargerRomans 2:1-16, Paul's warning to JewsComment
One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

The following is the edited text of my WSC chapel lecture on the Nicene Creed for their series on the Creed from the Fall of 2025

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

My purpose in this post is to address that section of the Creed which speaks to the attributes of the church: “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Reformed Christians usually emphasize the marks of the church (preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, church discipline, and for some, prayer) before discussing the attributes of the church. When confessing the Nicene Creed the matter of the attributes or characteristics of the church moves to the fore. What are those attributes which must be confessed as necessary in order for the marks of a true church to be present?

There are four classical attributes of the church found in the Creed and embraced in different forms/ways across various Christian traditions: These attributes are 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Reformation churches all confess these same attributes but understand them in fundamentally different ways. There may be less catholicity here than elsewhere. I will cite from several Reformed writers and our confessions to make these differences apparent.

Several Reformed theologians have pointed out the classical attributes confessed in the Creed are not merely descriptive, they are also an exhortation. These are the ideal–the aspirational goal for which the church must strive. When seen in this light, these attributes are both a gift and a mandate. There is an eschatological dimension as well–these attributes tell us what the church is, what it should be, but they direct us ahead to that day when they will all be realized in perfection when the Lord Jesus returns.[1]

Briefly, I will go through the four attributes from this line in the Creed and then wrap up with a look at 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, where all four attributes are explicitly mentioned by Paul.

We Confess that the Church Is “One”

We begin with our confession that the church is “one.” It will come as no surprise that Rome anchors unity in the papacy. Ubi papa ibi ecclesia – “Where the Pope is, there is the church.” And we can add “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[2] In Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, he contends that “the Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[3]

The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. It is not bishops which hold the church together, leading Kallistos Ware to ask, so “what then holds the Church together? [The] Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments. . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of [Christ’s] flock.”[4]

In contrast, the Reformed depart from both Rome and the EOC in terms of how we understand the attributes of Christ’s church. When it comes to unity, we speak in terms of an invisible and a visible church. Invisibly, Christians enjoy a common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love. God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly (in part, but not exclusively, through external organization). Berkhof notes, the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[5]

The Belgic Confession, article 27, speaks of “one single catholic or universal church” and concludes by affirming Christ’s church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”

According to Herman Bavinck,

This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[6]

We might say that unity of organization, of some sort, is one of the things we strive for, but the elements of institutional unity do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Ecclesiology, History and Culture, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerThe Nicene Creed, One Holy Catholic and ApostolicComment
What Would Paul Say to the Prosperity Preachers?
What Would Paul Say to the Prosperity Preachers?

In 2 Corinthians 9, Paul discusses the proper motives behind Christian charity.  He does away with the tithe and reminds his readers that Christians are to give as much as they can–if they can do so freely and joyfully.  He tells the Corinthians that Christians do not “give to get”–no prosperity gospel here.  Rather they are to give what they can when there is a genuine need.  The model for such giving is God’s grace as manifest in the cross of Jesus Christ, the proof that God loves us and cares for us.  Christian giving does not appease an angry god (as the pagans taught), it does not ensure that we’ll prosper financially or regain health (as the prosperity gospelers claim), and giving is always to be done simply because it is good to give–especially to those in need.  While there is a spiritual blessing for the cheerful giver, the Christian offering is but an act of gratitude in response to the inexpressible gift God has given to us in the person of his son. 

To listen to the the Blessed Hope discussion of this from 2 Corinthians 9, here’s the link: “The Inexpressible Gift” Season Four/Episode 12 (2 Corinthians 9:1-15)

Read More
Kim Riddlebarger
Musings — Late Summer Edition (8/24/2026)
Musings — Late Summer Edition (8/24/2026)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Updates:

  • Note the new musings photo—nowhere else does the muse come upon me as when I am here—Lake Mary in Mammoth

  • Don’t forget the Blessed Hope Podcast series on Romans is well underway. Thanks for all the great feedback! Such a wonderful and powerful book

  • I am also going through the Epistles of John in the blog

Thinking Out Loud:

  • Goodbye Meghan and Harry—don’t let the door hit you on the way out

  • The City Council of McKinney, Texas (where my son and his family now live), heard five hours of pleas from 120 citizens not to approve a 32,000 sq.ft. Mosque. The council voted 7-0 to approve the site plan. Of course, their minds were already made up and like city councils everywhere, they went through the ritual of hearing citizen complaints, feigning interest while trying not to yawn, but knowing all along what they were going to do before the meeting even got under way. The solution when city councils do this—recall the lot of them

  • The WNBA just keeps hitting new lows. Caitlin Clark is the best female basketball player I have seen (perhaps Cheryl Miller excepted). Sophie Cunningham is the paradigm “all-American” girl. Because of the two of them, the WNBA has drawn a bunch of new fans, sold a ton of merch, has new media contracts, and is on the verge of sound financial footing for the first time in the league’s history. But the league’s LGBTQ crowd, along with the league’s refs and coaches, treat Clark and Cunningham like they are in the UFC. These two women—the victims of pure jealousy, racism, and spite—deserve much, much better

  • Why does President Trump feel compelled to issue an executive order to scrap electromagnetic catapults on aircraft carriers in favor of the old steam catapults? He knows nothing whatsoever about the technology and to convert an under construction carrier from electromagnetic catapults back to steam, will cost billions and delay construction by years. Good grief

  • I used to hear a garage band or two occasionally playing Saturday afternoons in the neighborhood. Not so much any more. My guess is they’ve moved from the garage to playing as “worship bands” in local churches. This way they get to practice once a week before an appreciative audience

  • Alexis de Tocqueville once mused in his Recollections, “a dwarf on the summit of a great wave is able to scale a high cliff which a giant placed on dry ground at the base would not be able to climb.” The quote was a reference to Napoleon III (Louis-Napoléon), but it certainly applies to a number of contemporary politicians, podcasters, and social media mavens

  • The famous Roman orator Seneca described how in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was common to drown or discard unwanted babies (infanticide). Oh wait, he was speaking of the Romans, not a progressive American governor (Maura Healy) who signed a law last week allowing abortion up to the moment of birth

  • I got a kick out of the Abounding Grace Radio’s AI picture of me—especially on an episode devoted to the Antichrist. Besides, I would never wear that tie with that shirt

  • I forgot to complain about it in the last musings, but endnotes are a tool of the devil and part of his plot to deceive the world by keeping people in darkness

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
MusingsKim RiddlebargerAugustine, new mosques, WNBA, The Holy Land, flock camerasComment
“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