Bishop Bill

2002-01-11T07:49:00.000-08:00

I regard N.T.Wright as one of the formative theologians of our day comparable to, say, Karl Barth in the past. He is a prolific author who is in many ways revolutionizing the way we think about Jesus and the Bible (sometimes for good; other times for ill) and leading the theological community in a much more conservative direction. Wright is currently canon theologian at Westminster Abbey in London. London, of course, is in England and England is home to a growing number of Evangelical annihilationists, John Stott being perhaps the most widely known. Where does Wright stand on all of this? I can't speak for him today, but here's what he wrote in his fascinating Tyndale commentary on Colossians:

"Part of the horror of hell is that those who consciously and continually choose sin instead of God become less and less human until all that ennobles them as creatures made in God’s image has, by their own choice, been altogether obliterated, beyond hope or pity.

It is perhaps along these lines that the difficult doctrine of hell may be comprehensively stated today, in opposition to the current notion that hell does not exist, or that if it does it will at the last be untenanted, or that even if some will remain there it is in bad taste to mention the fact. Unless we are to rob human beings of all meaningful responsibility for their actions and to underplay the utter holiness of God, hell must be a possibility. The presence in the world of much dehumanizing evil—dehumanizing to its practitioners even more than to its sufferers—indicates clearly enough how we may understand it. Those who make evil a way of life begin to lose their humanity, begin (in other words) to die, even while they are alive: witness the dead eyes of the miser, the torturer, the prostitute. Paul’s constant emphasis on full, genuine Christian humility casts a clear shadow over non-Christian existence. Those who choose to live without God will one day find that they have forfeited their likeness to him" (136).

2002-01-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

Here are some photos of my grandmother's burial:

The casket is about to be lowered into the ground

At the internment, the family sang "Christ is Risen, Hallelujah" and recited the Apostles' Creed. As they departed, they sang, "Praise God from Whom all Blessings Flow." My grandparents had wanted their children and grandchildren to bury them. In so doing, a seed was planted to be harvested at our Lord's return. Here are my uncles, with spades in hand, preparing to bury my grandmother.

My brother Everett contributes

2002-01-02T13:03:00.000-08:00

This morning my beautiful and loving grandmother went to be with Christ in celestial happiness. She was an extraordinary woman who mothered ten children and grandmothered 56 more. My cousin Reuben wrote a very touching testimony to her selfless love in her dying moments. I've reproduced it below (with minor grammatical changes):

"Last night, in the in the early hours of January 2, I had the opportunity to visit Oma one last time. The sons and daughters of Opa and Oma were taking turns to sit with Oma three hours each through the night. My dad had just left to take his turn and I decided to bring a coffee for him to help keep him awake. It had been a long day, it was 1:00am, and I couldn't sleep now if I tried. With the help of a few nurses, I found my way to the intensive care unit, and to Oma. I passed Opa in the waiting room where he was sleeping. When I arrived at Oma's doorway, dad was sitting next to her. I gave dad his coffee, and he welcomed me quietly.

Just then the nurse came in, introduced herself as Jackie and asked dad and me our names and for a proper pronunciation of Oma's name. Dad told her. My dad told her that we didn't want to wake Oma, but then asked what the lines on the monitor above Oma were reading. She then explained that one line represented Oma's breath, another her pulse and the third measured the level of of oxygen in her blood.

I had a good look at Oma, a little paler now, but still very much my Oma. I began to think about the good times I had had with Oma on Gorton Ave. I used to cut her grass after cousin Hank DeJong sold his landscape business, and I have great memories of that. Oma was very precise about her lawn and garden. And I would often catch her checking my work in the most discreet way she could trying not to let on what she was doing. It made me laugh a little. I knew that if Oma still had the strength, she would love nothing more than cutting her grass on a sunny day. Afterwards, I would come in and have a coffee and a piece of boterkoek with Opa and Oma. I always offered to cut the cake, pour the coffee, and serve it to Oma for once. She always insisted on getting it herself and I, not a quarter her age, would have no option but to sit down, and be served by my Oma.

My Oma who, although the pain in her legs was always present, insisted on serving others before herself as she had for 83 years. What an amazing person, an amazing gift, and what a Christ-like example for me. Oma was always genuinely interested in what I told her, and listened intently as I would answer her questions about school, work, and life in general. The word, "others", often comes to mind when thinking about Oma. She never wanted to talk about herself; she would rather speak of others and their well being.

Back to Oma's room at the hospital now. My dad was asking Jackie if they were doing anything to keep Oma's mouth moist. Her breathing sounded very dry. Jackie showed us a little swab wrapped in plastic and told us that the nurses would periodically dip one in water to wet Oma's dry mouth. She then looked at her watch and told us it was that time. She ripped the plastic from the swab and wet it, as she did so, Oma woke. The time was 1:20am and Oma looked around. I assumed that Oma would be a little confused because of her new surroundings. She wasn't, she was completely coherent and alert, unbelievable.

My dad knelt down and she cradled his hand, held him close, smiled, and kissed him. Jackie began to wet her mouth with the swab. I stood a little further back. I was pretty emotional and I didn't want to break out crying when now, I thought, was a time for being strong, holding it in. Oma's familiar eyes found me at the foot of her bed. She said "Reuben" as she stretched out her right hand. Her voice was dry and raspy, but still very familiar and loving. I said a quick prayer to keep me from crying, and I came forward and knelt as I had seen my dad do only moments before. She cradled my hand, smiled and pulled me close and kissed me, and I kissed her cheek. She was very warm.

She said something to me as she held me there but I couldn't quite make it out. I hated to ask her to repeat herself when it sounded painful for her to talk, but I really wanted to answer her as I had all my life. I came in real close and and asked her to repeat herself, she said, "and did you have fun in Australia?" I had been in Australia for three weeks and had returned only the night before and believe me when I say, it was the last thing on my mind as I held my Oma's withering hand.

Others. Oma was on her deathbed, and she wanted to know if I, one of 56 grandchildren, had a good time in Australia. What a person, What a loving person. I then told her that I had had a great time and I had thought about her everyday. She listened, genuinely interested as she has for 83 years. She then clenched my fingers tight, smiled again and was sleeping as quickly as she had woken.

It was 1:25am now, and I couldn't help but cry a little. I kept quiet though, so as not to wake Oma from her well deserved sleep. When I had collected myself, I sat next to Oma and found peace there. I thanked God that I could have Oma to myself for those last five minutes, a little memory that I could keep in myself forever. For in those five minutes, everything I knew about Oma's character was reconfirmed. To Oma it was about others. She would rather spend our last minutes talking about my purposeless trip to Australia rather than herself as she lay on her deathbed, not feeling sorry for herself, but genuinely interested in me, one of 56 grandchildren. What a person, what a blessing, what a Christ-like example for me, a member of the family with the best mother/Oma ever. Praise be to God for Oma and the time we could spent with her."

Thanks Reuben!

2001-12-28T13:36:00.000-08:00

I know, I know. You really don't want to see me. Well, then here's my beautiful wife to whom I have been married for nearly 8 years and with whom I have 3 wonderful children.

2001-12-27T15:58:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder about scholasticism? I'm studying the medieval background to Luther's understanding of justification so I've had to find out for myself. Alister McGrath defines it as “the medieval movement, flourishing in the period 1250-1500, which placed great emphasis upon the rational justification of religious belief.” The early part of scholastic period (1200-1350) was dominated by realism; the later part (1350-1500) by nominalism.

Realism affirmed universal concepts which do not exist in time or space and is represented by two schools, Thomism and Scotism, after Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Nominalism asserted that universal concepts are unnecessary and that the particulars deserve attention.The realists maintained (1) that universals have an existence prior to and apart from the individual object (ante rem) or (2) that universals only existed in particulars (in re). The nominalists maintained that universals are simply names (nomina) which are abstracted from observed particulars (post rem). Two nominal schools are the via moderna (the modern way), which was optimistic about human abilities and somewhat Pelagian and the schola Augustiniana moderna(the modern Augustinian school), which was pessimistic and Augustinian.

[1] Via Moderna. Representatives: William of Ockham, Pierre d’Ailly, Robert Holcot and Gabriel Biel. Schools: Universities at Paris, Heidelberg and Erfurt. This school was theologically pelagian or at least branded such by opponents.The central feature of via moderna soteriology is the covenant between God and humanity. In this covenant, God and man laid down the conditions necessary for justification. God ordained that he would justify an individual upon meeting the conditions (summarized using the Latin tag, facere quod in se est, ‘doing what lies within you’). When the individual met this precondition God was obliged, by means of the covenant, to justify him. A Latin maxim was often used to express this point: facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam, “God will not deny his grace to whoever does what lies within him.” Gabriel Biel, who influenced Luther, explained that ‘doing your best’ mean rejecting evil and trying to do good.

The classic example cited by theologians regarding the relationship between good works and justification is the king and the small lead coin. Most medieval systems used gold and silver coins. Occasionally, kings found themselves in a financial crisis, e.g., through war. They would recall all gold and silver coins and melt them so a war could be financed. But currency was still required. Small leaden coins were issued which bore the same face value as the gold and silver coins. Although their inherent value was negligible, their ascribed or imposed value was considerable. The value of the lead coins resided in the king’s promise to redeem them at their full ascribed value at a later date. The value of gold coins derives from the gold; the value of lead coins from the royal covenant. It's similar today with our paper money. This analogy was used to counter the charge of Pelagianism. Human works are like lead coins, of little inherent value. But God ordained to treat them as if they were of much greater value. Pelagius treated good works as if they were gold.

[2] Schola Augustiniana Moderna.The backlash against the via moderna was initiated in England by Thomas Bradwardine, later the Archbishop of Cantebury. He wrote De causa Dei contra Pelagium, ‘The case of God against Pelagius.’ He returned to the views of Augustine. Bradwardine’s ideas were taken up by Gregory of Rimini at the University of Paris. He had a nominalist view on the question of universals and thus had little time for Aquinas or Scotus (and thus was in line with Robert Holcot and Gabriel Biel). But he developed a soteriology which reflected the influence of Augustine. Emphasis was placed on the need for grace, the fallenness and sinfulness of man, upon the divine initiative in justification and upon predestination. Where the via moderna held that humans could initiate their justification by ‘doing their best’, Gregory insisted that only God could initiate justification. Where the via moderna held that all necessary soteriological resources were located within human nature, Gregory argued that these resources were located exclusively outside human nature. The reformers inherited this basic viewpoint.

2001-12-27T11:09:00.000-08:00

Is John Piper a mystic? I've heard the charge and it's interesting to consider. Mystics are in the business of self-denial and self-resignation (to the degree of being self-absorbed) and will readily forego earthly pleasures, such as food, for the purposes of union with God. In short, mystics are self-less gnostics. The charge of gnosticism sticks to Piper insofar as delighting in material things is either unimportant or secondary in his delighting-in-God motif; the charge of self-resignation does not, at least not in the way mystics conceive of it. The most important criterion of selfless love for mystics is the so-called resignatio in infernum, "being resigned to hell." The mystic is satisfied even if damned because he's interested only in God's good and not his own. Piper would reject this as a category mistake. God's good and our good are one. He is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him. And satisfaction in God for Piper means embracing all that God is for us in Christ. The mystics are guilty of the age-old error of separating God's decrees in eternity from His promises in time. A self-denying allegiance to God for the baptized would never involve the resignation that hell might be their lot when God has explicitly said that heaven is.

2001-12-24T12:54:00.000-08:00

Yesterday afternoon I preached on the means of grace, of which the preached Word is primary. I argued that hearing the preached Word in church takes priority over personal devotions at home (contra Francis Nigel Lee and others). This is not in any way to disparage personal devotions, but to emphasize the official means by which God imparts his grace and blessing into our lives. Our society is full of individuals who read their Bibles on a daily basis but never attend church. My question for them is, what Bible are you reading? In worship, we ascend into heaven to meet with the Lord Jesus Christ at Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, surrounded by an innumerable company of angels and the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb.12) and to hear the Lord Jesus speaks to us through the Word preached (Rom.10). The privileges and blessings of corporate worship are simply not available at the kitchen table or in the den. So my appeal to Bible-reading non church-goers is not, "stop reading your Bibles," but "start coming to church." In his blog, Jay Horne talks about this too, so I've reproduced the relevant paragraphs below:

Now, the day before I saw this tape, during the small group I lead at our home, someone had asked me to explain if private devotions or hearing the preached word was more important. I had no idea what to say, and then, strangely, I realized the answer was actually very straightforward. I asked the group if there was any one thing that the Bible emphasized as a daily activity with regard to learning/interacting with scripture. The answer is to talk about it (see Deut 6). When you get up, when you go out, when you come in, etc. Talk about it. Was this emphasis simply a result of the fact that Deuteronomy predates the printing press? I doubt it. And that brings us to the public/private distinction.

The input from scripture about scripture tends to put it in a public context. This is not to say there are not private goals (hide it in your heart so you don’t sin), but most of the input is driven at a public context. Know the Word so you can give a ready answer. Talk about it all the time. Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training. And on and on. The gifts given to the church are to drive the public use of scripture (preaching, teaching, etc). This public dynamic is in the context of the church, a community, rather than set against the backdrop of an individual’s quest for personal improvement. The Word is to benefit the body of Christ.

By approaching the topic in this manner, the emphasis on the preached Word begins to make sense. Our goal is not to privately appropriate the scriptures as an individual effort. Rather, the scriptures, just like the one faith and one loaf and one baptism, build a community. The individual, private sanctification takes place in a corporate context. And from a practical level, this makes a lot of sense. Want to form a cult? Just go study the Bible in complete isolation for 10 years and you should be ready.

2001-12-24T11:18:00.000-08:00

My friend John is learning html far too quickly and I simply can't let him know more than I. He stole the blog idea from me, started his after mine and therefore should always know less than I. Yesterday he pulled a fast one. He put a pic on his blog of a movie he saw Saturday night when he should have been preparing to preach. But alas, I can put pictures up on my blog too and bigger ones at that. Eat your heart out John. This one below is one of my all time favorites.

2001-12-21T14:52:00.000-08:00

I'm addicted. I can't stop making submissions. The idea came from Mark Horne and Joel Garver. My reasoning is as follows: Mark and Joel are both extraordinarily bright people. They reached my current level of intelligence when they were only six. If they are smart and have blogs, and I have a blog, then I must be smart too. Thank you Gordon Clark for teaching me about logic. In all seriousness, if you are family or friend looking at my blog, you really should be looking at their's.

2001-12-21T14:42:00.000-08:00

This is too fun! It's far more fun than writing sermons. I always thought I was incompetent when it came to computer technology. But now it turns out that I'm a genius. Ok, not quite. The best thing about this blog is that I'm the only one who knows about it. I can read my insights on a daily basis. I could save all these insights as computer files. . . . But just a minute, I could just save files on my computer without a blog. So it turns out I don't really need a blog. I've made a big mistake. Perhaps it's time to tell the family.

Till next time.

2001-12-21T14:32:00.000-08:00

So, I've started a blog only because I have friends who are doing it and the peer pressure got to me. Will I have anything great to contribute? Probably not. But I can point people to other good blogs on the net.

Well, that's my contribution for today. Blessings to all.