Why I Aspire to Be a Pastor

Kirk E. Miller 6 Comments

1 Timothy 3:1 says something like, if anyone wants to be a pastor, they desire a noble task.

I aspire to be a pastor. Let me give you a few reasons why.

An introductory comment

As far as many of you are aware, I was currently preparing and planning on entering academia. For some time now, I have wanted to be a professor. However, that has recently changed. I want to be a pastor. Now, in one sense, not a whole lot has changed. Originally I wanted to be a professor and a lay elder (pastor). That is, I wanted to make my living teaching in the university but serve (unpaid) as an assistant pastor of sorts in the church. However, now I desire to be a pastor full-time so to say. This is a change in direction. Maybe not a terribly drastic change. It’s certainly not a abrupt change; this has been developing over a long period of time, even prior to my noticing it. But it’s a change nonetheless.

Continue reading →

Thoughts on Engaging the Creation Debate

Kirk E. Miller 4 Comments

Introductory remarks

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.

Continue reading →

Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

Kirk E. Miller

The following comes from a paper presented for Dr. Scott Manetsch at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for the course Classic Texts in the History of Christianity CH 8100.

* * * * *

In The Bondage of the Will Martin Luther sets out to investigate what ability human freedom possesses and how it relates to God’s grace (II.iii.). For Luther, this theological dispute over human freedom is of utmost importance. He claims it is the fundamental disagreement between himself and the Catholic tradition (II.iii.; VIII.). Because this topic strikes at the heart of soteriology, truths of “eternal consequence” are at stake (II.vi.). To know nothing of these matters is to know nothing of Christianity (II.iii.); the entirety of the Christian faith and the gospel would be ruined by such ignorance (II.v.).

Responding to Desiderius Erasmus’ Discourse on Free Will, Luther asserts that man has no “free-will.” Contrary to Erasmus (IV.i.), men are not autonomous in regards to meriting or even willing salvation (II.x.), but are enslaved, “ever turned in the direction of their own desires, so that they cannot but seek their own” (V.iv.). God’s will is carried out necessarily; no room is left for man’s so called “free-will” (V.vii.).

Continue reading →

What Luther Said Before His 95 Theses

Kirk E. Miller

Almost two months (Sept. 4, 1517) before posting his famous 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church, Luther released a lesser known but even more radical statement called the Disputation against Scholastic Theology.

By “scholastic theology” Luther was referring mainly to the late Medieval nominalism proposed by some Roman Catholic scholars, in particular William Ockham and Gabriel Biel. Nominalism’s motto was Facere quod in se est, or “do the best that lies within you.” In response to doing the best one could (congruent merit), God would grant grace, namely through the sacraments. Through cooperation with this grace, one could perform fully meritorious deeds (condign merit) that could merit/earn salvation. Clearly such teaching is not only unbiblical (i.e., not found in scripture) but even anti-biblical by its complete reworking of the relationship between grace and works (e.g., Rom 4:4-5; 11:16).[1] Nominalism is what Luther had been trained in; and to this errant theology Luther was reacting. It should also be noted that in these statements Luther believed that he was stating “nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church” (final statement in his Disputations).

So, what did Luther have to say before his famous 95 Theses? He had a lot to say, and in fact, he was probably more extreme here than in his more controversial 95 Theses.[2]
Continue reading →

A Study of “Frontlets” (Deuteronomy 6:8)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

As the exegete enters the ancient Biblical world, background information of various sorts (e.g., cultural, social, political, religious, etc.) often plays a key role in understanding and interpreting the text properly. When confronted with foreign material in the Biblical text, the interpreter does well to investigate. One such example of foreign material occurs in Deuteronomy 6:8 and the mention of phylacteries.

CHALOT describes טוֹטָפֹת as a sign placed on one’s hands or arms (123). Here in Deuteronomy 6:8, its location is specified as בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ (“between your eyes”); however, Merrill clarifies that בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ is a way of referring to what one might call the forehead (168). These “phylacteries,” as they were eventually understood,[1] were small boxes containing portions of scripture (e.g., Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; and 11:18) written on small pieces of parchment. These black boxes were fastened to one’s upper left arm and/or forehead by black straps (Achtemeier, 795). Although Merrill understands the instructions of verse 8 as figurative, he describes its literal practice as follows:

“In postbiblical Judaism and to the present day a miniature box containing verses of the Torah (Exod 13:1-10; 13:11-16; Deut 6:4-9; and Deut 11:13-21) were placed inside the four chambers of the box, the whole being known as the tepillin (“prayers”) or phylactery (cf. Matt 23:5).” (168).

Concerning when began the practice of following Deuteronomy 6:8’s instruction literally in terms of these phylacteries, no definitive evidence exists. However, phylacteries found at Qumran, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:5, and mention of phylacteries in rabbinic literature (e.g., Megilla 4:8; Berakot 14b-15a), suggest their prevalence by the Second Temple period (Achtemeier, 795-796). Used only two other times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Ex 13:16; Deut 11:18), in each incident טוֹטָפֹתis used to connote a means of remembering God’s acts or words. On the other hand, Merrill believes that the purpose of binding these words to one’s forehead (not to be interpreted literally in his opinion, however) was to identify oneself with the covenant community (168). Achtmeier notes that, although originally intended for educational purposes, many came to believe that these phylacteries possessed spiritual protective powers (Achtemeier, 795-796).

Whether or not Deuteronomy 6:8’s instruction was intended to be taken literally or not is beyond the scope of this paper. However, many have done so and thus phylacteries have emerged. If nothing else, this practice provides a vivid illustration of the inward intention of this text—a constant awareness of God’s law.

[1] The word “phylactery” is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word טוֹטָפֹת(Craigie, 171).