The Riddleblog

"An Established Fact . . ." Herman Bavinck on the True Humanity of Christ in the Incarnation

Promised under the Old Testament as the Messiah who is to come as a descendant of a woman of Abraham, Judah, and David, [Jesus] is conceived in the fullness of time by the Holy Spirit in Mary (Matt. 1:20) and born of her, of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He is her son (Luke 2:7), the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:42), a descendant of David and Israel according to the flesh (Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; 9:5), sharing in our flesh and blood, like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 2:14, 17–18; 4:15; 5:1); a true human, the Son of Man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), growing up as an infant (Luke 2:40, 52), experiencing hunger (Matt. 4:2), thirst (John 19:28), weeping (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), being moved (John 12:27), feeling grief (Matt. 26:38), being furious (John 2:17), suffering, dying. For Scripture it is so much an established fact that Christ came in the flesh that it calls the denial of it anti-Christian (1 John 2:22). And it teaches that Christ assumed not only a true but also a complete human nature.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Events, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerDecember 22, 2022Bavinck on the IncarnationComment

"Why the Incarnation?" Calvin's Explanation

The situation would surely have been hopeless had the very majesty of God not descended to us, since it was not in our power to ascend to him. Hence, it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us “Immanuel, that is, God with us” [Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23], and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us. So great was the disagreement between our uncleanness and God’s perfect purity! Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator. What, then, of man: plunged by his mortal ruin into death and hell, defiled with so many spots, befouled with his own corruption, and overwhelmed with every curse? In undertaking to describe the Mediator, Paul then, with good reason, distinctly reminds us that He is man: “One mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” [1 Tim. 2:5].

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Theology, Biblical Events, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerDecember 21, 2022Christ's IncarnationComment

I Was Recently a Guest on the Renewalcast

On the Renewalcast Discussing the Apostle’s Creed

Riddleblog Update, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerDecember 21, 2022The Apostles' Creed

"For This Purpose . . ." Athanasius on the Reason For the Incarnation

From Athanasius, On the Incarnation, II.8

(8) For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father's Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Athanasius, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerDecember 20, 2022Why the Incarnation? Comments

"Jesus -- The Messianic Heir, the True Adam and Israel" -- Horton on the Person of Christ

Why the Birth of the Savior?

All of God’s covenantal purposes converge in Jesus Christ. The Son is the eternal Mediator of the covenant of redemption which already in eternity rendered him, by anticipation, the one who would become incarnate and give his life for his people (1 Pe 1:20–21; Eph 1:4–5, 11). He is also the Last Adam, who undoes the curse of the first Adam and fulfills the covenant of creation for his elect, thereby winning the right to be not only the risen head but the resurrection-life-giving Lord. Therefore, the covenant of grace of which Christ is the mediatorial head is secured eternally in the covenant of redemption. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Co 1:20).
Although Israel, like Adam, failed to drive the serpent out of God’s holy garden and instead succumbed to the seduction of God’s archenemy, God pledges that he will not utterly destroy Israel but will preserve a remnant from which will emerge the Messiah who will bring an ultimate salvation and an everlasting kingdom of righteousness not only to Jews but to the nations. If the works principle inherent in the Sinai covenant stood alone, neither Israel nor the world would have any hope.
Yet even in its exile, Israel too is given the promise that its coming Shepherd will gather his scattered sheep and bring redemption to the ends of the earth. The enlargement of Jerusalem promised with the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and 32 is anticipated elsewhere, sometimes in passages that even recast the traditional roles of the oppressor (Egypt and Assyria) as the oppressed who are delivered from bondage and taken as God’s own people (Isa 19:18–23). Isaiah 60 sets before us the vision of ships from all over the world entering Israel’s harbor, laden this time not with implements of war but with rich treasures. “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (v. 3). A royal procession of the nations and their kings, into gates that never close (v. 11), echoes the Sabbath enthronement of God in the beginning, with the parade of the creature-kings before the Lord in the day-frames of Genesis 1 and 2. Psalm 2 evokes the courtroom scene, with the creature-kings arrayed before the Sabbath splendor of the Great King and his anointed one (Messiah), but in war rather than tribute, with the Great King laughing at the self-confident posturing of the earth’s rulers who reject the Messiah, yet promising salvation from this coming judgment for “all who take refuge in him.”

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 446-447.

The Name That Is Above Every Name -- An Exposition of Philippians 2:1-11

“The Name That Is Above Every Name”

One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but rather, to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi also speaks directly to modern Americans by reminding us that the self-centered narcism of American culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Theology, Biblical EventsKim RiddlebargerDecember 14, 2022Philippians 2:1-11, The carmen ChristiComment

The Psalm of Moses -- "YHWH, Our Dwelling Place" An Exposition of Psalm 90

Life in a Fallen Word Is Nasty, Brutish, and Short

Life is fleeting. The average life span of an American is 78.2 years (75.6 for men, 80.8 for women). That seems like a long time until we consider that the last veteran of World War One (1914-1918) is long since dead and World War 2 ended seventy plus years ago. My high school class is holding its fiftieth reunion this year. 9-1-1 occurred more than two decades ago. When viewed in that light, an average life span of nearly 80 years is not all that long. Yet, time keeps marching on. As each and every day goes by we struggle with our sins, we face suffering and calamity, we wonder what tomorrow holds (given the mysterious providence of God), and we worry about facing the wrath of God when we die. In Psalm 90, Moses speaks to this struggle of daily life as he exhorts us to number our days and to live this life in light of eternity.

When you study the Psalter, you find select Psalms associated with various authors (David, the sons of Korah, etc.) and Psalms with different content and purposes (royal Psalms, wisdom Psalms, Psalms used in worship in the Jerusalem temple), and so on. In this exposition, we will look at the historical background to the composition of Psalm 90, then we will work our way though the text of the Psalm, and finally, we will look at the application of this Psalm to the Christian life.

The Only Psalm Written By Moses

Psalm 90 is the only Psalm written by Moses, which likely makes Psalm 90 the oldest Psalm in the Psalter. As for the historical background to this Psalm, recall that Moses lived about 1500 BC, and David about 1000 BC., so the origin of this Psalm goes back to that time described in the closing chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy when the people of Israel arrived on the plains of Moab, just across the Jordan River from the promised land of Canaan before they crossed the Jordan and conquered Jericho. This puts the composition of Psalm 90 about 500 years before the temple was built in Jerusalem, and well before Israel’s kingdom extended all the way from Damascus to Egypt (under David and Solomon). This is why Psalm 90 has such a different feel than the other Psalms.

Psalm 90 is the first Psalm in Book Four of the Psalter (i.e., Psalms 90-106). Most of the Psalms in Book Four are anonymous (the so-called “orphan Psalms”), except Psalm 90 which was written by Moses, and several Psalms which are attributed to David. The Psalms in Book Four tend to deal with difficult questions about human frailty and the meaning of life, the nature of justice and God’s faithfulness, and the difficult question of why it is that God does not immediately punish the wicked. These difficult questions about life in a fallen world were raised in Psalm 89 (which closes out Book Three of the Psalter, and which is a Psalm of lament because of Israel’s sin). These questions are addressed, in part, throughout the various Psalms found in Book Four.[1]

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Jews Back in their Ancient Land? That Isn’t Gonna Happen! Sometimes Our Best Guys Get It Wrong

Every eschatological position has sharp edges which don’t seem to fit neatly within the system. I am of the conviction that Reformed amillennialism (AKA the “Dutch school”) has the fewest and least consequential of these “sharp edges.” One of these sharp edges associated with amillennialism is the binding of Satan—how can you claim Satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world? This can be readily explained—see my essay, The Binding of Satan.

But the presence of Israel as a nation living back in their ancient homeland is always the pink elephant in the room whenever amillennarians discuss eschatology with dispensationalists. This is a sharp edge for amillennialism for several reasons. One is that the Reformed are not in full agreement among themselves about the role and place of national Israel in the new covenant era, especially in the days before the Lord’s return. Another reason is that the hermeneutic (the operating assumptions) underlying the various millennial positions assigns widely varying roles to a future nation of Israel in redemptive history. Dispensationalists assert that Israel’s return to the land of Palestine in 1947 is the fulfillment of the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-8), and is therefore thought to be a fatal weakness of amilliennialism.

I recall receiving an email claiming that Reformed amillennarians get the question of a future for Israel terribly wrong—embarrassingly so. In fact, two of our stalwart theologians both dismissed premillennialism largely on the grounds of the expectation of a return of the Jews to Palestine. The author of the email cited two well-known Reformed theologians, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, both of whom did dismiss the very possibility of such a thing, yet such a thing did happen. Oops . . . On the basis of UN Resolution 181, Israel became a nation in 1947, Jews returned to their ancient homeland, survived three major wars, which in anyone’s estimation is a monumental event that dispensationalists have always expected, and which they say commences the events associated with the time of the end.

To read the rest, follow the link below

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