Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources


Living in Light of Two Ages



Who Said That?

question mark.jpg

OK, who said that?

"Sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities [philosophers and human arguments] as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scripture as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church [the theologians] as one that may be properly used, yet merely as probable.  For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical books, and not on any revelations (if there were any) made to other doctors."

This is old hat . . . Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please no google searches!  Who said that?


Who Said That?

question mark.jpg

Who said that?

"In every generation, revival has come as a result of prayer.  For example, powerful prayer preceded America's First Great Awakening, which gave the colonists a unified biblical view of the principles of freedom and helped pave the way for the American Revolution.  The Second Great Awakening which preceded the Civil War, brought a conviction from God the slavery was sin.  It was led by men like Charles Finney, who prayed for hours upon hours and days upon days. 

God still needs men like Howell Harris and Charles Finney, who will give themselves to prayer and then go and do whatever the Holy Spirit tells them."

OK, have fun with this one!  No google searches!  Please leave your guess in the comments section below.


Who Said That?

question mark.jpg

Who said that?

"We have discovered some interesting facts about covenant theology. . . . Its origin was relatively recent.  It was not the doctrinal system of the ancient church.  It did not originate with the Reformers, and actually its present form is a modification of the original covenant idea proposed by Cocceius and the Westminster Confession. . . . The theological covenants on which covenant theology is based are not specifically revealed in Scripture.  Other covenants (such as the Abrahamic and Davidic) are specifically revealed, and in great detail, but the all-embracing covenants of covenant theology are not in the Bible.  The whole covenant system is based on a deduction and not the results of an inductive study of Scripture."

You guys know the rules.  The fun is in the guessing . . . not in google searching and spoiling it for everyone else!  Place your guess in the comments section.


The Joke's on Me!


I've often joked that my book, Man of Sin, is an autobiography.  What happens when one of the sound guys at your church has way too much time on his hands?  He takes you up on the joke and then proves that you were right all along!

I guess I am the man of sin . . . 



Islamic Hip-Hop?


According to the Times Online (UK), Islamic hip-hop artists are taking the call for the Caliphate (Islamic empire) and the Ummah (Islamic state) to the streets (Click here: Islamic hip-hop artists are accused of indoctrinating young against the West - Britain - Times Online).

"HIP-HOP and rap artists are teaching young Muslims the ideology of radical Islamism through songs about the war in Iraq, the oppression of Muslims and the creation of an Islamic state governed by Sharia, or religious law.  Intelligence agencies have identified music as a `tool for indoctrination'. The phenomenon began with an American group called Soldiers of Allah. The group has since disbanded but its music and lyrics remain popular on the internet. Other groups in Britain, France and the US have been identified as giving cause for concern. Many use the derogatory term `kufur' to describe non-Muslims.

Madeleine Gruen, an American intelligence analyst, highlighted the lyrics of a British group called Blakstone as a possible gateway to extremist politics. Ms Gruen has studied how music, internet forums, boardgames and fashion have been used to radicalise youths. She said: `The music is very persuasive because it is giving young people ideas, and those ideas are what might motivate someone to become a jihadi. The material is all in English. It’s spreading a radical message to domestic populations that don’t speak Arabic or Urdu.'

Ms Gruen said that Blakstone’s lyrics echoed the views of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), the Islamist political movement. Blakstone operates from an industrial estate in Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey. The group could not be contacted yesterday. In an interview last year, its founder, Ahmed Ashley Welbeck said that the music was `about the underdog' and offered `a middle way' between Muslim tradition and street culture.

Last night, a spokesman for HuT said that it had no formal links with Blakstone or any other rap groups. He said: `Our message is out there, it is very widespread and it is hardly surprising that groups might pick up on it. HuT is a more traditional political movement. We use conferences, websites and leaflets, but rap music is not one of our things. There is a lot of anger out there, especially about the Iraq war. Our challenge is to channel that frustration and anger into political activism."

Here are some of the lyrics . . .

"Yesterday I was dreaming I dreamt of The State we made, a place with purpose and meaning. I saw my people they were smiling not grieving, I saw our kids they were safe they were breathing . . . And no more talk of war and of bombs to drop, under Allah’s Shade and Shield and fearing not. No more bleeding due scheming dogs on thrones, whom plot with foes to spread woes, the stench of rot. And that’s how it’s supposed to be. I look around and all I see today is poverty and misery from systems ruling over me with blasphemy. Their tool, kufur rule it’s a catastrophe"

From Close 2 Me, by Blakstone

"No Khalifah [Islamic state] Where are we heading? Without Islam we’re stressing, implement Allah’s blessing, that’s what I am addressing. Apart from this kufur scheme. Bring Islam back to the scene. Let’s unite the Ummah [Muslim nation], following only the Koran and the Sunnah. Even if all the kufirs got together, they still couldn’t stop this Ummah. We love Islam More than we love life."

From Bring Back Islam, by Soldiers of Allah


This is yet another wake-up call.  It won't be long before this is an issue in every American city.  Let us pray for confidence in the gospel and boldness in proclaiming it.  The cross always trumps the crescent! 


The Purpose-Driven Middle-East Peace Plan

Warren in Syria.jpgHere's the lastest from Orange County's own Rick Warren.  You won't believe it--well, maybe you will.

According to the Syrian News Agency (notice the headline--Click here: American Priest Says no Peace without Syria SANA , Syria) . . .

"American Protestant Pastor Rick Warren on Monday said there was no peace in the region without Syria, noting that 80 percent of the American people rejected what the US Administration is doing in Iraq and considered the US policy in the Mideast as wrong. 

Syria’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Badr al-Din Hassoun received the American Pastor in Damascus in which he referred to the importance of spreading culture of amity, peace and coexistence instead of the 'clash of civilizations'.

The Mufti called for conveying the real image of Syria, national unity and its call to spread peace, amity and justice to the American people which the US administration has distorted their image before the world.

Pastor Warren expressed admiration of Syria and the coexistence he saw between Muslims and Christians, stressing that he will convey this image to his church and country."

Lets assume that Warren is quoted correctly (he may not have been in an Islamic state-run newspaper).  80% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq?  American foreign policy in the Middle East is wrong?  Syria is a model for Islamic-Christian co-existence? 

Aside from the legitimate differences that American Christians have over the war in Iraq, my question is simply "when did Rick Warren become Secretary of State?"  Or is he acting as Billy Graham's replacement--the "official" evangelical spokesman?  Or (allowing for the obvious confusion of the two kingdoms) is he attempting to be both?

Your thoughts?


Who Said That?

question mark.jpg

Who said that?

"Whoever says in the Spirit, `give me money,' or anything else [like that], do not listen to him."

OK . . . who said this?  Please put your guess in the comments section below.  No google searches please!


A Calvinistically Warped Mind -- B. B. Warfield on John Miley


In light of Gary Johnson's review of Roger Olson's new book on Arminianism (Click here: Pyromaniacs: Arminianism: Semi-Pelagianism?), and because Dr. Olson chose to respond on this blog to my comments about being "dissed" by him (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Dissed by Roger Olson), I thought that it might be useful to post that section from my Ph.D. Dissertation (The Lion of Princeton) which deals with Warfield's review of John Miley's Systematic Theology.

To read "A Calvinistically Warped Mind -- B. B. Warfield on John Miley, click here


Who Said That?

question mark.jpg

Who said this?

"The world religions in order of quality:

1.  Judaism (Reform)  2.  Judaism (conservative)  3.  Unitarianism  4.  Christianity (Mainstream Protestant)  5.  Islam (Muhammad Ali/Ahmad Rashad type)  6.  Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc.  7.  Christianity (Roman Catholic)  8.  Judaism (Orthodox)  9.  Christianity (Fundamentalist)  10.  Islam (Fundamentalist)."

Please, no google searches or cheating.  You gotta guess!  Leave your answer in the comments section.


Dissed by Roger Olson

Roger Olson.jpg

A number of you have asked me about my thoughts on Roger Olson's new book, Arminian Theology:  Myths and Realities (IVP).  I am one of those mean-spirited Calvinists singled out by Olson for supposedly misrepresenting Arminianism and Arminians.  I have not read Olson's book yet, but will certainly get around to it, since it is an important occasion when a noted Arminian theologian, like Olson, enters into direct debate with Reformed theology and its advocates.

According to Dr. Olson, in an article I wrote on Arminianism for Modern Reformation back in 1992 (Vol. 1), I am way over the top when I take Arminianism to task for departing from the evangel, when I state that in Arminianism, God's grace makes people savable, but does not actually save them.  Am I wrong, or is that not what Arminians themselves actually teach? (See, for example, the writings of John Miley, who states that Arminians teach a "genuine conditionality of salvation in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism," Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 169).

Throughout my essay, I quote from B. B. Warfield's "Review" of the just quoted Methodist theologian John Miley's Systematic Theology.  As Warfield was supposedly unfair to Miley (complains Olson), I am also being unfair to Arminians when I make comments to the effect that human freedom is fundamental to Arminianism (Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 98).  Olson then disses me in a footnote on page 40 of his book by writing, "I wonder whether the author [Riddlebarger] ever read Miley or only B. B. Warfield his critic." 

I can assure Dr. Olson that I've read Miley's Systematic Theology several times (with great appreciation for Miley's unabashed commitment to the Arminian system and all its consequences).  In fact, my comment about human freedom being the Arminian fundamentum, is a quote from the very same John Miley, who, supposedly, I did not actually read.

When Olson takes B. B. Warfield to task for misrepresenting Miley and Arminians, I am tempted to take up the pen in Warfield's defense, since I am well-familiar with Warfield's critique of Miley (as I am with Miley himself).  I can tell you that Warfield is anything but mean-spirited to John Miley.  In fact, Warfield is most gracious and deferential to Miley, as one scholar reviews the work of another.  Dr. Olson could learn much from Warfield's graciousness, as could we all. 

However, Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, AZ, beat me to the punch.  Phil Johnson has posted the first of Gary Johnson's three part review of Olson's book over at Pyromanics (Click here: Pyromaniacs: Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry Arminian).  I highly recommend that you check this out.  Gary Johnson does a stellar of job of defending Warfield, while hoisting Olson on his own petard.  It is patently clear to anyone who has read Warfield's "Review" that Warfield is far more charitable to Miley, than Olson is to Warfield.

Don't you just love it when those who complain about "mean-spirited" Calvinists, behave in such a manner?  Olson does not like Calvinism.  That's fine.  But to be so mean-spirited when complaining about people being "mean-spirited," empties Olson's argument of most of its punch.  Calvinists have no excuse for being mean.  But Calvinists often get back far worse than they dish out.  Olson's treatment of Warfield is a prime example.