The Riddleblog

Eschatological Patience

In an age of economic difficulties, sweeping cultural change, political upheaval and tribalism, along with with the fear generated by nuclear threats coming from Vlad the Invader, people have questions about the end times. Understandably so.

Although we find general signs of the end (i.e., wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine—cf. Matthew 24:3 ff), the Bible does not give us the kind of specifics people often want. One of biggest sources of speculation surrounds a future Antichrist—Who? When?

Here we find helpful words of wisdom from Geerhardus Vos, the father of Reformed amillennialism. As Vos puts it in regard to Antichrist speculation, “2 Thessalonians belongs among the many prophecies, whose final and best exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (Pauline Eschatology, 133)

My Vos to English translation goes like this. “Many of the things we speculate about won’t become clear to us until they happen. We’ll know it when we see it. Until then, we must wait patiently!”

Yes, Jesus Christ will return to bring about the final consummation on the day appointed by God, but not on the day we might wish or expect. In the meantime, we wait and go about our mission of preaching Christ to all the nations (Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20) all the while praying with Paul (1 Corinthians 16:22), “Maranatha, Lord come!”

The Basics: In the Beginning--God

The Bible opens with a remarkable statement in Genesis 1:1– “In the Beginning, God . . .”

This simple assertion is packed with meaning. Some of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith are found in this short declaration, and it is important to give them due consideration.

The first thing this passage tells us is that before anything was created, God was (Psalm 90:2). In fact, God always was, without beginning or end. Since God alone is uncreated, we speak of him as eternal. God exists before time, and is not bound by the succession of moments (time) as are we.

As the creation account unfolds in the subsequent verses of Genesis 1, we learn that the eternal God creates all things. Whatever now exists, exists only because God created it. There is no such thing as eternal matter. There is no eternal realm of mental forms (or ideas) as Plato led us to believe. There is no primordial world with an eternal convulsing of matter–ever expanding, ever contracting–as taught in much of contemporary science. There is only the eternal God who created all things, and who already was in the beginning. This indicates that nothing exists apart from the will of God, and all created things (the heavens and earth, humans as well as angels) are necessarily contingent, and depend upon God for their existence (Amos 5:8, Nehemiah 9:6).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Charles Hodge on the Trinity

I’ve always found this definition from Charles Hodge to be succinct and helpful.

“The Father says I; the Son says I; and Spirit says I. The Father says Thou to the Son, and the Son says Thou to the Father; and in like manner the Father and the Son use the pronouns He and Him in reference to the Spirit. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the Spirit testifies of the Son. The Father, Son and Spirit are severally subject and object. They act and are acted upon, or are objects of action. Nothing is added to these facts when it is said that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent subject who can say I, who can be addressed as Thou, and who can act and be the object of action. The summation of the above facts is expressed in the proposition, The one divine Being subsists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This proposition adds nothing to the facts themselves; for the facts are (1.) That there is one divine Being. (2) The Father, the Son and Spirit are divine. (3.) The Father, Son and Spirit are in the sense just stated, distinct persons. (4.) Attributes being inseparable from substance, the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son and Spirit possess the same attributes, say they are one in substance; and, if the same in substance, they are equal in power and glory”

From Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, I.444

Warfield on Paedobaptism

From Warfield’s essay, “Christian Baptism” (Presbyterian Board of Publication 1920), reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 1, (325-331)

Naturally, therefore, this sign and seal belongs only to those who are the Lord's. Or, to put it rather in the positive form, this sign and seal belongs to all those who are the Lord's. There are no distinctions of race or station, sex or age; there is but one prerequisite -- that we are the Lord's. What it means is just this and nothing else: that we are the Lord's. What it pledges is just this and nothing else: that the Lord will keep us as his own. We need not raise the question, then, whether infants are to be baptized. Of course they are, if infants, too, may be the Lord's. Naturally, as with adults, it is only the infants who are the Lord's who are to be baptized; but equally naturally as with adults, all infants that are the Lord's are to be baptized. Being the Lord's they have a right to the sign that they are the Lord's and to the pledge of the Lord's holy keeping. Circumcision, which held the place in the old covenant that baptism holds in the new, was to be given to all infants born within the covenant. Baptism must follow the same rule. This and this only can determine its conference: Is the recipient a child of the covenant, with a right therefore to the sign and seal of the covenant? We cannot withhold the sign and seal of the covenant from those who are of the covenant.

To read this excerpt in its entirety, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 24, 2022Warfield on infant baptismComment

My Tabletalk Essay on "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"

The good folks at Tabletalk have been keeping me busy. Here’s my essay from the September 2022 issue.

Tabletalk -- "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"

Biblical Events, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 1, 2022Trichotomy, Body-Soul CompositeComment

"Luther's Psalm" -- A Look at the 46th Psalm

Luther’s Interest in Psalm 46

Most people cannot recite Psalm 46 from memory. But many are so familiar with the words to Martin Luther’s famous hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” that they can sing it without looking at the hymnal. “Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott” is actually Luther’s paraphrase of Psalm 46. This Psalm has several very familiar lines, has been cited by American presidents (most recently by Barak Obama), and portions of it appear in well-known Jewish prayers. Found in Book Two of the Psalter and attributed to the Sons of Korah, it is classified as a “Psalm of Zion.” It contains loud echoes from Psalm 2, where that divine protection promised to the king, is extended to include his capital city (Jerusalem). Charles Spurgeon aptly speaks of the 46th Psalm as “the song of faith in troubled times.”[1] Martin Luther thought this Psalm of such comfort, he put it to verse.

It is important to reflect upon Psalm 46, because we sing this particular Psalm as often as any other–often in the form of Luther’s famous paraphrase. Before we take up the text of the Psalm–where we will find much deep and rich biblical theology–I think it appropriate to consider Luther’s use of this Psalm, then debunk one of the persistent myths surrounding the version of the Psalm which appears in the KJV, and then look at the context in which the Psalm was originally composed. Then, we will look at the text of the Psalm while making various points of application as we go.

As for Luther and “A Mighty Fortress,” although there are many theories about when it was written and for what occasion, Luther’s hymn first appears in a 1531 hymnal which would indicate that Luther wrote it several years earlier, likely in 1527-29. This was ten years or so after his 95 theses were circulated throughout Europe, igniting the theological fire which became the Protestant Reformation. The black plague was especially virulent throughout much of Europe in the winter of 1527, nearly killing Luther’s son. Luther was also a physical wreck during this time (from exhaustion). He began spending much time reading and reflecting upon Psalm 46, especially its promise that God is the bulwark (fortress) who never fails. From Luther’s reflection on that word of comfort, the famous hymn was born.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"Faith Apart from Works Is Dead" -- James 2:14-26 (Part Two)

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part Two)

From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog

_______________________________________________

Part Two

With this important background in mind, we turn to specifics of the text, James 2:14-26.

In this section of chapter 2, James makes a general appeal to his readers that when someone claims to have faith, and there are no accompanying good works, their so-called “faith” can be called into question. James moves on to give an illustration in verses 15-16 drawn from the earlier discussion in chapter 2 about discriminating against the poor and favoring the rich. In verse 17 he offers up the conclusion that faith without works is dead. Then, in verses 18-19 James connects faith and works, as cause and effect–faith produces works. James then appeals to the examples of Abraham and Rahab, sandwiched around his main premise in verse 24–“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” In this section, James makes his main point three different ways. Faith, if not accompanied by works is dead (v. 17). Faith without works is useless (v. 20). Faith without works is not a living (or justifying) faith (v. 26).[1] James’ primary point is simply this–genuine faith leads to the performance of good works. To put it another way, a person who claims to be a Christian (and professes faith in the Lord of glory) will demonstrate that faith to be genuine through the performance of good works.

To read the rest, follow the link below

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” -- James 2:14-26 (Part One)

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part One)

From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog

_______________________________________________

It would be hard to find a passage of Scripture which is more controversial than James 2:14-26.

The reason for the controversy is James’ assertion in verse 24 of chapter two of his epistle that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” On its face, this seems to fly in the face of a number of passages in Paul’s letters where Paul appears to be saying the exact opposite thing. Take, for example, Galatians 2:16. “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Are James and Paul on the same page? Yes, they are as I intend to demonstrate.

Those who believe that the justification of sinners is a process which is not complete until death (Rome), view James’ assertion here as a classic proof-text which supports this view. But those who see justification as an instantaneous declaration made about the sinner because the merits of Christ are imputed to them through the means of faith, seem to stumble all over James’ declaration that works are somehow tied to justification, and that we are not justified by faith alone. But as we will see, James and Paul do not contradict each other. In fact, when James’ assertion is put in its proper context, there is nothing whatsoever in James 2 which conflicts with the doctrine of justification sola fide.

To read the rest, follow the link below

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul Confronts Peter in Antioch--Why It Matters to Us

From the Blessed Hope Podcast (Episode Four, Galatians 2:11-21)

The Success of the Gentile Mission Raised Questions

As new churches were established in Gentile areas north of Palestine, one pressing question needed to be addressed. How were Jews and Gentiles to get along with one another in these new churches? This was especially the case in Asia Minor where Jews lived in many cities among large Gentile populations. Jewish Christians remained steeped in Jewish life and culture. No doubt, they struggled with the fact that recent Gentile converts had different sexual mores, ate things Jews did not, and who, when pressed about matters of the law may have asked, “who is this Moses fellow you keep talking about?” How would close fellowship between Jewish believers and “unclean” Gentiles in Galatia and Antioch be seen back in Jerusalem? The dicey relationship between Jew and Gentile meant that a collision between the weak-willed Peter and the iron-willed Paul was at some point inevitable. In verses 11-14, Paul demonstrates that even apostles must have their doctrine and conduct checked in the light of Scripture, specifically the revelation of Jesus about the gospel.

Moving on from recounting his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul tells the Galatians how he was forced to confront Peter to his face when the latter had caved in to pressure from messengers from James possibly claiming they were sent by the Jerusalem church. This confrontation likely occurred not long after Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their prior visit to Jerusalem. As N. T. Wright points out, it is easy to overlook the fact that the reason why this seems so vivid in Paul’s account is because these events had taken place quite recently [1].

There is a noticeable progression in Paul’s recounting of his relationship with Peter, especially in light of the burgeoning Gentile mission undertaken by Paul, Barnabas, and others. Paul describes being Peter’s guest for fifteen days during his first trip to Jerusalem post-conversion (Galatians 1:18-20). Then, he speaks of Peter as a fellow apostle when recounting his second trip to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10), before, finally, describing a confrontation with Peter when the latter falls into serious doctrinal error (Galatians 2:11-14).[2] While it is difficult to know how much of this is a word for word account of what Paul said to Peter and how much is a summation, what follows amounts to a major confrontation between the two men over the ground and meaning of the doctrine of justification.

To read the rest, follow the Link Below

"Straight from the Laboratory of John Wesley" -- B. B. Warfield Reviews Lewis Sperry Chafer's "He That Is Spiritual" (Part Two)

Part Two of Three

Having introduced Chafer’s book, He That Is Spiritual, and exposed the glaring theological contradiction championed by its author, Warfield turns his attention to Chafer’s use of several biblical passages marshaled in support of his notion of a bifurcated Christian life—a lower or “carnal” level and a higher or “spiritual” level of Christian experience.

Mr. Chafer opens his book with an exposition of the closing verses of the second and the opening verses of the third chapters of 1 Corinthians. Here he finds three classes of men contrasted, the “natural” or unregenerated man, and the “carnal” and “spiritual” men, both of whom are regenerated, but the latter of whom lives on a higher plane. “There are two great spiritual changes which are possible to human experience,” he writes (p. 8),—“the change from the ‘natural’ man to the saved man and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the ‘spiritual’ man. The former is divinely accomplished when there is a real faith in Christ; the latter is accomplished when there is a real adjustment to the Spirit. The ‘spiritual’ man is the divine ideal in life and ministry, in power with God and man, in unbroken fellowship and blessing.”

Upon close inspection, Warfield realizes that Chafer’s system includes three levels of human experience, not two. The biblical data, supposedly, reveals potential movement in several self-determined stages; first from an unregenerate state (the natural man), to a second entry-level rung on the Christian ladder. This is the so-called “carnal Christian” who, after becoming a Christian, remains content not to advance up the ladder and achieve victory over sin despite the availability of sufficient divine power to do so. Any Christian who truly desires to move up to the higher level of Christian experience can do so by making an “adjustment to the Spirit.” Upon reaching this higher level, the so-called “spiritual man,” can live in unbroken fellowship with God and blessing from others. Chafer identifies this as “the divine ideal (i.e., God’s will).

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerJune 30, 2022Chafer on the higher lifeComment

The Binding of Satan

The Binding of Satan — Background and Introduction to the Controversy

In Revelation 20:1-3, John is given a remarkable vision:

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” In verse 7, John adds, “and when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison.”

The binding of Satan as depicted in this passage raises several obvious questions, especially in light of the on-going debate between amillennarians and premillennarians about the timing and character of the millennial age. This is the only biblical text which specifically mentions a thousand year period of time in which Satan’s power and activity are curtailed (the millennial age). The two most obvious questions raised by John’s vision are, “what does it mean for Satan to be bound in such a manner?” and “are the thousand years a present or a future period of time?” Amillennarians and premillennarians take quite different approaches to this passage and offer conflicting answers to these questions.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Speaking of Paul, What Did He Look Like?

Of course, we have no idea what Paul looked like—the varied paintings and historic mosaics bear this out. The Bible is not concerned with such things, and there is no known description of Paul from his lifetime.

But there is one physical description of Paul, written about 160 A.D. It is found in an apocryphal writing, known as the Acts of Paul. Its veracity is a matter of some debate. Often, there is just enough truth in such accounts that they gain acceptance. Here is what we have:

And he (Onesiphorus) proceed along the royal highway to Lystra and stood expecting him, and according to the information of Titus, he inspected them that came. And he saw Paul coming, a man small in stature, bald-headed, crooked in legs, healthy, with eyebrows joining, nose rather long [lit. somewhat hooked], full of grace; for sometimes he appeared like a man, but sometimes he had the face of an angel.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Did Paul Ever See Jesus During Our Lord's Earthly Ministry?

Although most New Testament scholars simply assume that Paul had never seen Jesus prior to Paul’s Damascus Road experience, Stanley Porter raises the fascinating possibility that Paul and Jesus had indeed crossed paths before Paul’s conversion. The argument can be found in summary form in: Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought and Letters (Eerdmans, 2016), 33-38. A more extensive (and expensive) version can be found here: When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Porter’s case is based upon several lines of evidence.

First, Jesus spent much of his time in Galilee, but went to Jerusalem on several occasions. Jesus also spent the last part of his messianic mission in the city. Given the fact that Paul too spent significant time in Jerusalem as a teen studying under Gamaliel, and that Jesus was a very well-known and controversial figure within Pharisaical circles, Paul likely knew of Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem, even if he had not seen him personally. But given Jesus’ controversial ministry among Jews in the city, a zealous young rabbinical student like Paul very likely would have been quite interested in evaluating Jesus for himself, possibly on one or more occasions. Paul and Jesus were in the same place at the same time so it is very plausible that Paul would have been curious enough to go and see Jesus for himself.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Three Takeaways from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

There are a number of important points made by Luke in Acts 15, but three stand out for brief mention here, especially when considered in light of Paul’s recently written Letter to The Galatians (which I take to be written in A.D. 48, a year or so before the Jerusalem Council convened). Paul, Barnabas, along the with apostles (James and Peter) and the elders of the Jerusalem church (including Judas called Barsabbas and Silas) were present to debate the matter of whether circumcision was required of Gentile converts to Christianity, if they were to be saved (Acts 15:1-2).

First, despite the ethnic and cultural differences between Jew and Gentile, both groups were equal and full members in the Israel of God which is Christ’s church (cf. Galatians 6:16). As Paul made clear in his Galatian letter, the gospel is not based upon human obedience to the Law of Moses or submission to circumcision (“works of the law”—Galatians 2:16), which supposedly made the Jew superior to Gentiles. It is clear that the gospel is the preaching of Christ crucified, through which, God in his grace, calls his elect to faith in Jesus Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Do People Die or Do They "Pass Away"?

Those who know me well are probably aware of my dislike of the phrase, "passed away" as a euphemism for death. The phrase originated in 15th century England in reference to superstitious notions surrounding the dead person’s soul during the wake or funeral. It was thought that the soul of the departed remained present to witness the mourning process until the funeral services were over. After that, the soul departed to heaven or hell, by “passing away.” Over time, it has become increasingly common to refer death as a “passing away.”

My long-time friend and colleague, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, makes a compelling case that the phrase “passed away” is better suited to Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science than Christianity which sees death as a consequence of Adam’s fall. Convinced by Rod’s observation way back when, I too now urge Christians to cease using the phrase “passed away” and instead speak of “death.” As an avid reader of the local obituaries, since they reveal much about the current religious/theological spirit of the age, it is clear to me that for Christians the phrase "passed away” has replaced the grim reality of the curse; “so and so died.” The use of “pass away” is an evasion of the real issue--that death is brutal, ugly, and stems from human sin. Death is called “the curse,” and our last enemy. There is much wisdom in the biblical acknowledgement that there is indeed a time to weep, and the last thing I want to do when someone I know and loved dies, is “celebrate.” That is much better done at birthdays, graduations, weddings, etc.

One writer, Brian Jay Stanley, nails it as to why the phrase “passed away” fails to capture the reality of death:

The word "death" is a strong and solid word that does not blush or flinch, calling life's terminus by its first name, without apology. But most people euphemize death with the softer phrase "passed away". To pass away suggests a gentle and painless transition from one state to another, like chilled water passing imperceptibly into ice. Thereby words conceal from thoughts the horrors of violent accidents and the wracking agonies of terminal illness, as if everyone, instead of only a lucky few, died peacefully in his sleep. And where we peacefully pass is "away", a nebulous word that does not suggest a termination, but neither specifies a destination. It is a kind of leaving off, a gesture of open-endedness, an ellipsis at sentence's end. It is, accordingly, the perfect word for the skeptical yet sentimental modern mind, which cannot accept annihilation, nor easily believe in immortality. "Passed away" allows vague hope without dogma, as if to say, "He has gone somewhere else, please don't ask for details."
From aphorisms and paradoxes

People die, they do not “pass away.”

Who Is to Blame for Tragedy? A Look at Jesus’ Answer in Luke 13:1-5 and John 9:1-3

Almost every culture–whether ancient or modern–seems to possess a superstitious belief that whenever anything bad happens to someone, it must be because the person has done something which brought the tragic event about. People seem wired to ask themselves, or inquire of others, what the victim did which brought calamity down upon their heads. What did they do to provoke God to anger? The underlying assumption is correct–bad things happen to bad people. We do live in a fallen world after all, so we expect tragedy and disaster. But the conclusion often reached when we seek an answer as to “why?” these things happen is incorrect–that there is an immutable cause and effect relationship between specific sins and immediate bad consequences. What is often overlooked is that the one questioning why something bad happened to someone else, is as guilty before God as is the person they are speculating about.

In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus speaks about two tragic events which occurred in first century Israel which produced just this sort of speculation. The first of these is mentioned in verse 1, when we read of those “who told [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We do not know exactly to what historical event this was referring (we have no known record of it), but the implication seems to be that Pilate ordered certain Galilean Jews to be killed at the time of the Passover sacrifices, in effect “mixing blood.”

The question is an important one because based upon Old Testament texts such as Job 4:7 (“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?) the Pharisees commonly taught that bad things happened to people as a consequence of personal sin. But the assumption that the Galilean’s blood was mixed with their sacrifices because of a particular sin is addressed directly by Jesus in the form of a rhetorical question. In verse 2, Jesus asks those asking about this, “do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?” In a second example, Jesus mentions another disaster apparently well-known to his audience. “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?” (v. 4).

To read the rest, follow the link below

One People or Two? The Challenge Raised to Dispensationalism by Ephesians 2:11-22

It was the famed New York Yankees’ catcher turned philosopher, Yogi Berra, who once said, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it!” Paul’s discussion in Ephesians 2:11-22, addresses the relationship between Jew and Gentile in Christ’s church. It is a passage which requires us to ask a “fork in the road” sort of question. “In the new covenant era, does God have one people (the church), or two peoples (Jew and Gentile) each assigned different redemptive purposes?” Reformed amillennarians and dispensationalists take quite different directions when coming to this important Pauline “fork in the road.”

Dispensationalists struggle to understand and explain Ephesians 2:11-22 because Paul assets something much different than the standard dispensational claim that although there is but one gospel, nevertheless, God has two distinct redemptive purposes, one for national Israel and another for Gentiles.

To illustrate the problem faced by dispensationalists, it is useful to survey the way in which traditional dispensational writers have approached this passage. J. Dwight Pentecost, writes that this passage describes God’s purpose for the present age (where there is a visible unity), but does not describe his purpose for the millennial age when the two peoples (Jew and Gentiles) are again distinct groups. Pentecost is so bold as to state, “Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people Israel and that for the church.”[1]

John Walvoord understands the passage as referring to the “new program” for the church which, he claims, was a mystery in the Old Testament. In the New Testament dispensation, a living union is formed so that Jew and Gentile are brought together with all racial tensions eliminated [2]. Like Pentecost, Walvoord argues that such unity is only temporary and in the millennial age the historic and ethnic differences between Jew and Gentile re-emerge.

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem? A Look at Ezekiel's Vision in Chapters 40-48

In light of periodic calls to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (Time to Rebuild the Temple?), the matter of whether or not this will come to pass is part and parcel of the on-going debate about events associated with the end times and the return of Jesus Christ. The very possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple raises a number of serious theological questions which ought to be addressed, especially in light of the dispensational expectation of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the dawn of the supposed seven-year tribulation period, which then functions as a center of worship during the millennial age.

As for the possibility of the temple actually being rebuilt, I am one who says “never say never” about future world events. I have no idea what will happen over the long run in Jerusalem and Israel. That said, I do not think such a thing is even remotely likely, given the current tensions in Jerusalem over control and access to the Temple Mount, much less the long-term political circumstances of doing so. Should Israel develop the religious and political will to occupy the Temple Mount (something unforeseeable at this point in time) and eventually take the steps necessary to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the third holiest site in Islam), the Jewish state would face the wrath of the entire Islamic world as well as that of much of the secular West. Since dispensationalists often connect the rebuilding of the temple to the geo-political tensions necessary to foster the appearance of the Antichrist, who, they claim, will make a peace treaty with Israel before betraying the nation leading to a final end-times catastrophe, such upheaval is not beyond the realm of possibility. Dispensationalists expect the Jerusalem Temple to be rebuilt and fervently hope for it.

To read the rest follow the link below

When We Confess the Church to be Apostolic

When We confess the Church to Be Apostolic

I know that this might come as a shock to my fellow baby-boomers, but the Christian church wasn’t founded by the Jesus people in the 1960’s—although their own congregation might have been. Americans often think about the church as though it was founded by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening. It was not. Nor was the church established by Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening. The church was already fifteen centuries old when Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to reform it at the time of the Reformation. There is even a sense in which the church is as old as Adam and Eve and the first family. And Calvin was absolutely correct to affirm that the church existed in its infancy in the midst of Israel before the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Christian church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ when he called his apostles to follow him, and is then given a significant Spirit-filled role in redemptive history after Pentecost. When we consider that the church of Jesus Christ is apostolic, this is where we begin.

It is fashionable in those circles dominated by critical biblical scholarship to think of the church as a worshiping community in need of a Messiah–the first Christians supposedly elevated an itinerant apocalyptic prophet (Jesus of Nazareth) to his messianic status and then put pithy “Jesus sayings” back in his mouth. The church was not the fruit of the organizational genius of a group of followers who came to believe that Jesus had risen in their hearts (the so-called “Easter experience”) as they tried to cope with the disappointment they felt once Jesus was put to death by the Romans and his glorious kingdom did not manifest itself as promised. Rather, the biblical record tells us that the church was founded by a Risen Savior who left behind an empty tomb and then appeared to a number of his chosen witnesses the first Easter, confirming that his death on Good Friday was the ultimate triumph over human sin. The church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ, victorious over sin, death, and the grave.

to read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Events, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerApril 22, 2022The church as apostolicComment

"The Triple Cure: Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King" -- Some Reflections on the Three Offices of Christ

Jesus Christ - Our Prophet, Priest and King

The diagnosis is not very good: we are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt.

As a litany of biblical texts reveals, we find ourselves as fallen sinners ravaged by this threefold consequence of our sins. Our foolish hearts are darkened (Romans 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Genesis 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant of the things of God (Ephesians 4:17-18), although in our folly we often boast about our supposed knowledge and great wisdom. Paul tells us that we have exchanged God’s truth for a lie (Romans 1:25). Our minds are “blinded by the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Like a blind man pitifully groping his way through life, so our sin has blinded us to the truth of God. Intoxicated by our own self-righteousness, like boastful drunkards we stumble through life seeking to justify ourselves before God.

We labor under the tremendous weight of guilt–the penalty for our many infractions of the law of God. While many of us are quite adept at ignoring God's just verdict against them, many others feel like they will buckle under the weight of God's heavy hand. Not only are we guilty for our own individual violations of God’s law in thought, word, and deed, but we are also rendered guilty for our participation in the sin of Adam, whose own guilt has been imputed to all of us as his biological and federal children (Romans 5:12, 18-19). While we may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only, David knew that this was not true. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,” (Psalm 51:4). Because of our guilt, there is no way we can dare stand in the presence of God. “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Psalm 130:3). He does keep such a record and we cannot stand.

To read the rest, follow the link below