The following was originally formulated in partial fulfillment for the requirements of an independent study course on Reformed Baptist heritage for completion of the M.Div. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, November 2014.
Download Statement of Faith here.
You should keep in mind that as I write this post, I am not taking a specific position on issues such as evolution, God and science, nor the meaning of Genesis 1-2. In this post I simply seek to share some thoughts I have on these matters. At times and in various circles, creation debates can be very heated. I understand that. But sometimes I think the result is that things get a little blown out of proportion. I’m not suggesting we compromise on vital truth. But I guess I’m calling us to examine what constitutes as that vital truth. In class last year, Dr. Carson reminded us of the words of Francis Schaeffer: something like, “what is the least Genesis 1-2 must be saying for the rest of the Bible to be true.” Secondary truths are not by nature unimportant truths. And I don’t want to downplay their importance. But they must be distinguished from primary doctrines. And either way, no context excludes the necessity of charitableness.
I’m white–really white.
And no, my preferred musical genre is not hip hop or rap.
But yes, I am recommending Shai Linne‘s newest album The Attributes of God which was released on 11.1.11.
As of today I have not read G.K. Chesterton‘s book Orthodoxy. In fact, I have never actually read any full piece written by the man. (I suppose he has not made it near the top of my “most urgent to read” list; however, most books and authors don’t). But, in my opinion, Chesterton is kind of like Catholicism’s C.S. Lewis–both are fantastic writers, creative thinkers, and excellent thought provokers. (And actually, interestingly enough, I think more evangelicals read and like Chesterton than Catholics; but that’s besides my point). Consequently, he’s one of those guys that just gets quoted left and right.
In fact, not too long ago I was flipping channels at work and noticed that PBS was doing a mock “ask Chesterton” show. Of course it was all scripted, but one by one audience members would ask a man who was dressed up as Chesterton a question that promoted this mock Chesterton to recite the appropriate quote that he had seemingly memorized before the show. It was straight up bizarre but oddly interesting.
The following is an excerpt (modified slightly to a “blog post” format) from my paper, “God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9.1-23” (see post; see paper). It comes from an excursus in the paper titled, “Esau I Hated” based on the language in Romans 9:13.
For many Christians, the three simple words “Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13) form one of the most puzzling statements in their Bible. Is this actually saying that God literally hated Esau? Many respond negatively by pointing out that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election. Consequently, “Jacob I loved” means “Jacob I elected” while “Esau I hated” means “Esau I rejected.”[1] Given that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election, this interpretation is without a doubt what Paul is teaching as he quotes Malachi 1:2-3. This fact also helps distinguish between God’s action in election and His attitude towards the non-elect. In other words, if “hate” simply refers to God’s attitude towards individuals due to their sin, Rom 9:13 would say, “I hated both Jacob and Esau,” for both are equally depraved. But the text shocks the reader with “Jacob I loved” indicating that behind “love” is the act of election and therefore behind “hate” is the reality of rejection.
Kirk E. Miller 