Theology

Tongues | Introduction and Defining Terms

Kirk E. Miller 3 Comments

The following belongs to a series on the continuation or cessation of the miraculous phenomena of tongues-speaking. Read the previous post here.

__________

Introduction

In a world of Christianity that is becoming more and more accepting of tongues-speaking, the importance of determining whether tongues still exists and whether or not believers should practice tongues-speaking seems to go without saying. If scripture is the believer’s authority of faith and practice, which it is, then believers ought to observe what the Bible teaches. So, since those churches which practice tongues and those which do not cannot both be right, one must ask, what does the Bible have to say about the existence of tongues today? It is the goal of this series to answer that very question. This series will show that a broad analysis of scripture evidences the cessation of the miraculous phenomena of tongues-speaking with the closing of the canon.

Continue reading →

“Esau I Hated”–Does God Hate Sinners?

Kirk E. Miller 2 Comments

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.

“Esau I Hated”

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.

Continue reading →

Meet Mr. Complementary Hermeneutic: A Glance at Israel, the Church, and the New Covenant

Kirk E. Miller 8 Comments

The New Covenant–Old Testament

A huge theme that pervades all of scripture is the theme of promise and fulfillment. In the Old Testament, many promises were made to the nation of Israel that anticipated future fulfillment. One very significant example would be the promise and provisions of the New Covenant (i.e., Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-36).

Now the Old Testament, without any exceptions, explicitly affirms that the parties of this covenant will be God and Israel (i.e., Jeremiah 31:33). That’s key to our discussion, so allow me to state it again. The Old Testament promises that the New Covenant will be made between God and Israel.

The New Covenant–New Testament

But a normal, simple, natural, and literal reading of various texts in the New Testament reveals that the Church participates in the New Covenant. For example, the Lord’s Super, an ordinance of the Church, refers to the to cup of the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-21; Matthew 26:27-28; Mark 14:24; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) and minister of the mystery of the Church (Ephesians 3:6-8), called himself a minister of the New Covenant (presently), saw the New Covenant as having presently superseded the Old Covenant, and spoke of the New Covenant ministry of the Spirit as a present reality (2 Corinthians 3). And the author of Hebrews is explicit about the present reality of the New Covenant and Christ’s present ministry as the mediator of this New and better Covenant (for a brief sampling see Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 8:6-13; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 10:16-17; Hebrews 12:24).

Continue reading →

God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9:1-23

Kirk E. Miller 1 Comment

The following is a paper I wrote on the topics of reprobation, double predestination, hardening, and the like, based on an in depth study of Paul’s words in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Below you will find links to my Romans 9 translation/diagram as well as a download of the entire paper in PDF format.

Downloads:

My Romans 9.1-2 translation and diagram which I used throughout this paper.

The paper: God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9 – An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9.1-23

Why Faith, and Not Something Else, is the Means of Salvation

Kirk E. Miller

Ephesians 2:8 states that one is saved by grace through faith. Now, this is a relatively well known verse. And the concept of salvation by means of faith in Christ and His saving work alone is also relatively well known, at least among evangelicalism.

Maybe your familiar with this truth. I hope you are. But have you ever thought to yourself, “why faith? Why is it that faith saves as opposed to something else like good deeds, joy, sorrow, gladness, or a sense of surreal peace?” Obviously it was God who determined faith to be the means of man’s salvation; it’s not as if this was some external law or obligation that was imposed on Him. So, why faith? Why is God’s plan of saving people by His grace through faith. Why does He count those with faith as righteous (Rom 4:3; cf. Gen 15:6)?

Continue reading →