The Significance and Relevance of Biblical Theology and Redemptive History (LDBC Recap 1/31/16)

February 4, 2016November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Explanation

On Sunday, January 24th, 2016, I began a Core Seminar on Redemptive History & Biblical Theology at my church, Lake Drive Baptist Church. During the course of this series I’ll be sending out emails recapping lessons and directing recipients to resources for further study.

Rather than just share these recaps with my church family, I’ve decided to share them here on the blog for anyone else who might be interested. I will be posting them occasionally over the next couple of months on a weekly basis or so.

See previous post:

Introducing Biblical Theology and Redemptive History (LDBC Recap 1/24/16)

Recap / review

Yesterday we talked about why redemptive history and Biblical theology matter. In other words, we talked about its significance and relevance.

Caveat

However, a caveat is needed. As noted yesterday, we do this not because somehow we are responsible for determining what in scripture is worthy of our attention. In other words, we are not making note of this study’s relevance in order to somehow justify the importance of this Biblical material. Scripture—and specifically for our purposes, its Biblical theology and account of redemptive history—is important regardless of whether we sense its important.

The goal of scripture (and, by extension, Christianity) is not to meet “felt needs;” but to address needs that ought to be felt. We are not the determiner of what in scripture is worth attending to. We may have our felt needs. And these may be fine—sure. But we must recognize that God knows what we need more than we do.

Continue reading →

Introducing Biblical Theology and Redemptive History (LDBC Recap 1/24)

February 2, 2016November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Explanation

Introduction

First, we talked about how the historical nature of Christianity distinguishes it from other religions. Many other religions are based on what we might call “timeless (better: non-historical) truths” (e.g., a way of reaching Nirvana [Buddhism] or a set of rules about how we might survive God’s judgment [Islam]). In contrast, Christianity stands and falls on historical realities. Salvation in Christianity is not merely about something that happens between me and God, but it is quite importantly about historical events, e.g., Christ’s death and resurrection. For instance, whereas Islam does not stand and fall on the figure of Muhammed (God could have delievered the Koran through anyone, so they believe), Christianity does in fact stand and fall on God acting in history, specifically in the person of Jesus. What makes Christianity so unique is that we actually see God acting in history, not only as creator of it, but also as the one directing it and continually intervening in it to bring about his saving purposes.

Defining terms

Continue reading →

Goodreads Review of Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology by John Hammett

February 1, 2016November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology by John S. Hammett

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Excellent book.

Well-written. Well-researched. Thoughtful. Generally fair to alternative positions.

One of its best strengths — thoroughly Biblical. He engages in critical exegetical and synthetical (or: systematizing) examination of scripture.

Main complaint (and I say this as one who adheres to Baptist distinctives) — I think he overestimates the clarity of scripture’s testimony to what we call “congregationalism” today, especially in his engagement with what is called “elder rule” polity. Furthermore, I think his actual case for congregationalism is weak. A better case can and should be made than the one he offers.

But, to avoid ending on a negative note — a solid book I will definitely recommend to others in the future.

View all my reviews

D.A. Carson Illustrating the Difference Between Arminian and Calvinist Conceptions of Grace

January 28, 2016January 28, 2016Kirk E. Miller

In Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson dismantles an analogy by which Donald Lakes seeks to deny alleged differences between the Arminian and Calvinist understandings of grace. Carson then counters with an example of his own that helpfully exemplifies the difference that is truly at play.

Donald M. Lake, for example, in attempting to argue that grace is no weaker in an Arminian system than in a Reformed system, offers us the analogy of a judge who condemns a guilty criminal and then offers him a pardon. Although the man must accept it, such acceptance, argues Lake, cannot be thought of as a meritorious work, a work that in any sense makes the man deserving of salvation. “Calvin and later Calvinists,” he adds, “never seem to be able to see this fundamental distinction unfortunately!”

But to argue that the role of grace in the two systems is not different, Lake would have to change his analogy. He would need to picture a judge rightly condemning ten criminals, and offering each of them pardon. Five of them accept the pardon, the other five reject it (the relative numbers are not important). But in this model, even though those who accept the pardon do not earn it, and certainly enjoy their new freedom because of the judge’s “grace,” nevertheless they are distinguishable from those who reject the offer solely on the basis of their own decision to accept the pardon. The only thing that separates them from those who are carted off to prison is the wisdom of their own choice. That becomes a legitimate boast. By contrast, in the Calvinistic scheme, the sole determining factor is God’s elective grace. Thus, although both systems appeal to grace, the role and place of grace in the two systems are rather different. Lake fails to see this because he has drawn an inadequate analogy; or, more likely, the inadequacy of his chosen analogy demonstrates he has not understood the issue.

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 121–122.

The Gospel Made Visible in Our Proper Practice of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

December 31, 2015May 6, 2021Kirk E. Miller

The following was a sermon I delivered on November 22, 2015 as a guest preacher at Living Water Community Church in Vancouver, WA. Below you will find a link to the sermon audio as well as my sermon notes.

Podcast link.

Introductory illustration:

We’re aware of the fact that the clothing we wear needs to fit the occasion, event, or activity to which we wear them.

For example, when I was in high school, I worked at a restaurant. And I had to wear a uniform—this ugly purple polo shirt that felt like burlap. Or, when I refereed soccer, I didn’t just wear whatever I wanted; I wore a referee outfit.

Similarly, many of you probably have either a work uniform, a certain dress code that you have to follow, or, if you’re in school, maybe you have a school uniform.

We even have special gowns for graduating (although I’m slightly convinced that whoever invented these wanted to make graduates feel stupid—“Hey, you’re graduating. Congratulations! How ‘bout you wear this black-garbage-bag-looking thing and silly square hat. Oh! And while you’re at it, why don’t you walk across a stage while we take pictures of you? How does that sound?”).

We have these unwritten rules for what we wear and where we wear them: You don’t wear a tuxedo if you’re fixing your plumbing. And you probably don’t want to dress like Richard Simons if you’re going to a formal wedding… Or ever for that matter. And when you go shopping, you don’t wear your pajamas… well, unless, apparently, you’re shopping at Wal-Mart.

You see, there’s this recognized principle (at least among most of us) that what we wear needs to fit the occasion of the thing we’re wearing it to.

Now when it came to the Lord’s Supper for the Corinthian church, they found themselves wearing “the wrong clothes.” Of course, I don’t mean that they were literally wearing the wrong clothes. But think of this idea of clothing as an illustration—the way they practiced the Lord’s Supper did not match the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Their practice was inappropriate for what the Lord’s Supper means. And so they found themselves “wearing the wrong clothes.”

But we too can easily find ourselves “wearing the wrong clothes” in how we practice the Lord’s Supper. We too can lose sight of the full, true, Biblical meaning of the Supper, and, consequently, practice it inappropriately.

Continue reading →