Christ

Athanasius’ On the Incarnation

Kirk E. Miller

I previously wrote a review On the Incarnation by Athanasius (c. 297-373). Well, I read the book again and wrote another review that I thought I’d share with you here. Hopefully this second review, which covers a lot of the same things as the first one, has greater insight and clarity. Enjoy!

* * * * *

In his work, On the Incarnation, Athanasius seeks to present “a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of His Godhead to us” (IX.56). Acknowledging that “such and so many are the Savior’s achievements that follow from His incarnation” (X.54) such that one is unable to present them satisfactorily, he nonetheless determines to set forth his understanding of “why it is that the Word of the Father . . . has been made manifest in bodily form” (I.1); his answer in short: “for the salvation of us men” (I.1). What follows is less a systematic doctrinal treatise and more an explanation and defense of the incarnation against its 4th century misconceptions and critiques.

Athanasius begins his account with creation and the fall. Of all His creatures, God bestowed upon mankind a special grace, the Image of God. For Athanasius this Image means a sharing in the divine being (“though in a limited degree”; I.3; III.11) and a unique incorruptibility because of this intimate knowledge of and union with the Incorruptible One (I.4-5; II.6-7; III.13). In such a state, man would have continued forever (I.3). But by “turning from eternal things to things corruptible” man embraced corruption—death—by forsaking union with the eternal (I.5; cf. I.4). Such is the setting for “the divine dilemma and its solution in the incarnation” (II).

Continue reading →

The New Testament’s Interpretation of the Old Testament–Hermeneutical Model or Inspired “Answer Key”

Kirk E. Miller 4 Comments

Edmund Clowney

In a lecture on Biblical theology,[1] Dr. Edmund Clowney states the following,

Now…I was taught that…you can’t find any type in the New Testament that’s not identified as a type in the New Testament. But…that’s certainly safe. You know, it’s like you got a book of math or something; and you can’t solve any problem if it’s not given in the back of the book. I mean, you know the answer’s right ’cause it’s in the back of the book; but you say [conclude], “you can’t work any of the problems yourself; you can only look in the back of the book.” It’s kind of a confession of hermeneutical bankruptcy from one perspective. It’s saying, “the New Testament writers can interpret these things; but we don’t have a clue on how they did it. If we knew how they did it, we could do it. But we don’t know how they did it, so we can’t do it. So to play safe, we won’t identify anything as a type if it’s not already identified as a type.” And see, my argument is that they [the New Testament authors] have taught us a lot by the way they identify types.

Continue reading →

The God Worthy to Be Praised (Psalm 145)

Kirk E. Miller 1 Comment

The God Worthy to Be Praised (Psalm 145)
Lake Drive Baptist Church
Sunday School

Podcast link.

 

The following is a concise composition of portions from this exposition.

The Psalms provide us with an inspired model about how to reflect upon and respond to God, not only with our thoughts, but also significantly with our emotions. They teach us not only how to think rightly about God but also how to feel rightly towards God. For example, this particular psalm, Psalm 145, is a psalm of praise. You might say that the psalm’s structure even testifies to the praiseworthiness of God from “A” to “Z,” as each verse in this psalm begins with a subsequent letter from the Hebrew alphabet.

As we move through this Psalm section by section, we will identify and meditate on specific aspects of God that motivate us to worship Him.

Continue reading →

The Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler and Jared Wilson

Kirk E. Miller

Matt Chandler, with the help of Jared Wilson, has published his first book–The Explicit Gospel.

The Purpose

Summary

This book’s purpose is a negative one–to get its readers to the point of not assuming the Gospel. As Chandler states towards the end of his book,

Unless the gospel is made explicit, unless we clearly articulate that our righteousness is imputed to us by Jesus Christ, that on the cross he absorbed the wrath of God aimed at us and washed us clean–even if we preach biblical words on obeying God–people will believe that Jesus’ message is that he has come to condemn the world, not to save it.

But the problem is deeper than that and more pervasive. If we don’t make sure the gospel is explicit, if we don’t put up the cross and the perfect life of Jesus Christ as our hope, then people can get confused and say, “Yes, I believe in Jesus. I want to be saved. I want to be justified by God,” but then begin attempting to earn his salvation [pg. 208-209].

Continue reading →

Are “Authorial Intent” and “Christ-Centered” Mutually Exclusive?

Kirk E. Miller 2 Comments

As interpreters, teachers, and preachers of God’s word we desire to be faithful to the Biblical text. We know that this entails interpreting Scripture according to the Biblical authors’ original intent, historical context, and literary context, among other things. We don’t want to be guilty of eisegesis–reading our own thoughts and ideas into the text rather than getting our conclusions from out of the text (exegesis).

But at the same time, we know that Christ said the entirety of Scripture speaks of Him (Luke 24:25-27; cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12; Rom 1:2). And so as Paul, we would love to say that even in our expositional preaching “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2).

But what about the majority of texts where Christ is not mentioned? How do we preach Christ then? Do we preach the authorial intent and then sort of arbitrarily jump to Christ at the end, tack on an altar call or two with some repeated “Just as I am” choruses?

We want to avoid moralism; so we want to preach Christ. We don’t simply want to draw conclusions like, “don’t be like Saul,” “don’t be like the Israelites,” or “be more like David,” as if this alternative is somehow more honest to the authorial intent. But how do we preach Christ-centered in passages that have seemingly little to do with Christ at all?

I think you get my drift.

Continue reading →