"You're a good man, Bill Boren!"

She said loudly, "You're a good man, Bill Boren!" These were the last words to which my dad was able to respond.  When Maggie, the speech pathologist at BSA hollered them at my dad, he opened his eyes a little and shrugged his shoulders.  Maggie smiled and said, "Does that mean you already knew that?"  Dad nodded his head, with a bit of a sly grin on his lips.

This happened on Monday morning, May 23rd.  On the previous Friday, about lunch, Mom heard dad fall in the living room, and ran in to find him on the floor, paralyzed and unable to speak.  He'd had what the doctors later called, "A very large stroke."  I was on the road back to Amarillo from some meetings in Albuquerque when she called.  I made it back to Amarillo and BSA hospital just a few minutes before the life-flight helicopter landed with Dad.  He was unconscious, having been sedated by the flight crew for being 'combative.'  I don't doubt it.  He's pretty feisty.  He was a fighter, and continually kept fooling the medical people on his prognoses.

Corporal Bill Boren, ca. 1955

He made some gradual progression in the ER and they moved him up to a regular floor on Saturday morning.  He was able to awaken himself for a few minutes at a time, and by Sunday, was able to stay awake and alert for fifteen to thirty minutes at a time, and could recognize his grandkids and hold their hands.  He also recovered some movement in his right side.  Things were looking positive.

But on Monday, things went downhill.  He could only stay awake for about an hour total on Monday, and was less responsive.  By Tuesday, he was only awake for about 5 minutes total, and even the Doc doing a knuckle-rub on his sternum could not waken him by Tuesday night.  We had been talking about long-term rehab; now we started talking about hospice.  Because of the damage (immediate and residual) from the stroke, he was now functioning at what the doctors called, "a brain-stem level".

We moved him to hospice care on Wednesday evening.  The doctor and nurses at hospice all said they didn't expect him to make it through the night.  I bet them he would, and of course I won.  He just won't give up.  He never has given up on anything in his life.

When he was in high school, he was an outstanding pitcher. He threw nine no-hitters his senior year.  He went off to college at West Texas State College and played both basketball and baseball there, briefly.  He was a math major and had straight As, but decided college wasn't for him and took off for a job.  He met my Mom the next year and married; they bought a piece of land on Saddle Mountain, west of Colorado Springs, Colorado, and settled in to ranching.  He had been hoping to be drafted into Major League Baseball, and actually had scouts from the St. Louis Cardinals at a few of his games, but unfortunately and fortunately (at the same time), Uncle Sam did the drafting before the Cards came calling.

He spent two years in the Army, and was headed for Korea when just a week before the end of basic training, the cease-fire accords were signed at Panmunjom. He did the rest of his tour at Fort Bliss in the anti-aircraft artillery.  He wasn't a slacker in the army, either.  He did so well in basic he was made squad leader, and promoted to Corporal upon graduation.  Instead of one of the mundane jobs that most privates got, he ended up as the driver for a General.

The ranch they bought in Colorado would be worth millions of dollars today had they kept it, but upon being inducted into the US Army, his pay wouldn't allow him to make the payments on the note, and the ranch was sold.  So, he went into farming for himself, eventually ending up on his Dad's land near Kerrick, Texas.  He was still farming as of a few weeks ago, his health notwithstanding.  Not a quitter.  He never considered full retirement...it just wasn't an option.

Dad working his garden, Spring 2000

 As tough as he was, he didn't have enough gas left in the tank to keep fighting the damage from the stroke. He spent most of the week in a terrific struggle just to draw a breath...thirty or forty seconds of Cheyne-Stokes breathing followed by twenty to thirty seconds of apnea.  I don't care how tough you are, that's impossible to sustain for long.  He went on to glory about 7:30 a.m. on Friday, May 27th.  Here's a link to his obituary.

He wanted things simple, and we are keeping to that wish.  We'll have a grave-side service with military honors at the Stratford Cemetery on Tuesday the 31st at 11 a.m.

My kids have been a bit curious why I haven't been emotional and crying and upset and all those things you see on TV when someone dies.  I've tried to use this as a teaching moment.  As I explained to them, I really do believe all those things you hear in church about heaven and grace and faith.  Dad was a believer.  His kids are all believers, and his grandkids are all believers.  He did his job, and did it well.  I have no doubt about where he is now, and the thought of that excites me for him rather than makes me sad.  He's struggled with his health (heart disease, the onset of Alzheimer's, all the stuff that goes with being nearly 80 years old in a body worn out by years of hard work on a farm, etc.) for a long time.  He isn't having to fight that battle now.  He spent the last week expending tremendous amounts of energy just trying to breathe...that's over with as well.  And ever greater (and hard to comprehend), he's no longer struggling with sin.  In the sermon on the mount, Christ told us that, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."  Because of Christ's work on the cross, and his perfect sinless life, imputed to us upon our saving faith in him, we will one day be 'pure in heart', as Dad is now.  That's how he can stand in the presence of the Lamb in glory.  I'm happy for him!

I'm sure there will be times of nostalgia and memories that will bring tears to my heart, if not my eyes, but those are mostly selfish in that I am impatient to see him again.  But see him again I know I shall, because of the faith that unites us as not only father-and-son, but brother-to-brother.  Wow.

Yes, Bill Boren was a good man.  He was a great dad, a good friend, a wise confidant, and a loving Grandpa.  But now, he's not only posse non peccare, he's non posse peccare, standing in the presence of the Lord and praising Him face-to-face...showing us how relative the term 'good' is.  I always hoped I'd be as good a man as my dad.  Now, he's set the standard pretty high, and the only way I'll ever achieve it is through the righteousness of Christ, because I certainly can't measure up on my own, as if I ever could have in the first place.  This process just completes the picture for us.

I'll close with this verse from a favorite hymn, "Valley of the Shadow"-

For the child of God, resting in Jesus

It's just a journey to a heavenly place;

And the sting of death has been defeated

Through the blood of Jesus and amazing grace!

In the valley of the shadow, death will hold no sting for me,

I'll be resting in the arms of Jesus, and with him I'll ever be;

And with him I'll ever be.


.

Not Much

I haven't been able to post much this month.  Dad is in ICU after having a stroke, and I've spent most of my time there and at work.

His prognosis isn't very good, and I appreciate any prayers anyone can offer.

I Hate It When I Do That!

I thought of a brilliant idea today for a blog post.  It was a witty way to start a serious conversation about something important.  It would have been original, which is unusual in the blog world (which tends to be a giant echo chamber).

I didn't write it down.  As Tom Clancy made famous in one of his books, "If you don't write it down, it never happened."  As I get older, that fact becomes more clear.  I guess I must have forgotten it when I had the thought, or I'd have followed my own advice and written it down.

Oh, well. Maybe I'll think of it later.  (Probably when I'm not near the computer and don't have a pen and paper to write it down.)

This brings to mind another idea- is the fall (as in Genesis, Adam and Eve, etc.) partially or totally responsible for our poor memories?  If so, in what ways?  At least I'll be able to look back at this this blog post to see what I forgot I was to write about later. 

At least, I can if I remember where I wrote it down.

The Microburst

We had our first thunderstorm here since last Fall.  Tuesday night, about 1 am, a storm moved through.  Unfortunately, we got about 0.07" of rain instead of the three or four we needed.  We did get the wind and damage.  Here's the big tree in front of my office.

Sorry about the rotation...no idea how to make the blog editor fix that.

Fortunately, nothing other than the tree itself was broken.  This makes me think of how much damage the Alabama storms did.  According to the weather folks, we had a microburst as one of the thunderstorms was breaking up.  It produced a wind gust of 84 mph.  That's less than half what the EF-4 twister did in Alabama.  Wow.

It's all about perspective.

What We Need (Obscure Lectures)

I just ran across a set of three talks given by Sinclair Ferguson at a Desiring God conference way back in 1990.  It was on universalism, by the way, which is a hot topic right now...probably a lot hotter than it was in 1990.  There was no way to know about these talks other than finding them by chance.

What we need- a web site that lists links to all these 'lost' talks by good folks like Dr. Ferguson, and like Carson/Dever/Piper/Sproul/Chandler/Keller/Tchividjian/Horton/Ortlund/and-so-on.  I almost never get to hear any of these things live, and can usually only find stuff if it's on a particular person's (or his ministry's) web site.  These talks that get put in obscure places are effectively lost except to those who put them there.

Any of you who read this blog (not many, I know!) and can get the word out to the YRR blogger types please do so.  I'd love to have a way to access these hard-to-find talks, sermons, and conference messages.  These messages are too valuable to lose in the vast expanses of the internet.

Wednesday Wackos- Butt Dialing

A little redneck humor about butt-dialing.

We are the Friend of God, but God is Not Our Friend...Huh?

I ran across a line in D. A. Carson's book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God last night that really made me think.  Carson says, "No where in scripture is God or Jesus ever spoken of as our friend."

Now, I immediately had the same reaction you might have when you read the title of my blog post.  You remember, just as I did, that scripture talks about us being friends, right?  Well, go re-read that passage (James 2:23 if you've misplaced it).  It talks about us being the friend of God...but not the other way around.  How is that possible?

Carson uses this illustration, which I've edited a bit for clarity.  He uses the illustration of a military officer and an enlisted man.  In one case, the officer has known the man's family for years and watched him grow up.  He says, "Jim, go get the Hummer.  I need you to drive me to a meeting at HQ.  While I'm in the meeting, you can use the Hummer to run around or go catch a movie.  Just be back to pick me up at 1600."  No problem then, if the enlisted man goes to a movie in the Colonel's Hummer.

In the other case, the two are not acquainted.  The Colonel says, "Corporal, go get the Hummer.  I need you to drive me to the HQ for a meeting.  I'll be finished at 1600."

The corporal then responds, "Only on one condition, sir.  I want to take the Hummer and catch a movie.  It'll be over by 1630...just wait for me and I'll pick you up when I'm done."  Problem?  I'd say three-hots-and-a-cot is in store for the corporal.

Do you see the difference between the corporal being a friend of the Colonel, and the Colonel being a friend of the corporal?

Why is this relationship with God important?  Well, we've managed to screw it up pretty royally in our churches today, and this sermon jam from Richard Ganz is a pretty good illustration of why it's a problem.

This is another reason why you (who know me) hear me rail against Jesus-is-my-boyfriend music...it is a theological distortion of significant proportion.  I love the line from The Voice's song, WDJD- "...Jesus is not your homeboy, your dog; he is God and will bite you, hard and right through...".

Click that link and download the song and listen to it...there's more depth in it than any hundred Jesus-prom-songs combined.  And get Carson's book.  It only takes about an hour to read the whole thing.  It's an hour well-spent.

A Couple Worth Repeating

I noted a couple of excellent blog posts this weekend, and I'll pass them along.

If you are worried you might be addicted to Facebook, Twitter, et al., this blog from Tim Challies is a must-read (it's worth a read even if you aren't addicted).

Then, this post from Trevin Wax on Humility and Humor was just outstanding.  If you only read one blog a day, read Challies'.  If you read two, read Challies' and Wax's.  (Of course, you can always read mine as well!)

Of course, if you read Challies, you've already seen the next one.  But if not, it is worth looking at.

This is an article on why Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetry, but historical narrative.  (Yes, this is important.)

Good reading!

The Doctrine of Election

I was challenged today with the statement below.  For clarity, I posted the entire statement, then responded to it (with his comments in yellow) underneath.

Here's the original statement-

"I realize I'm going further down a well traveled rabbit trail, and I'm going into a theological gunfight armed with a pen-knife, but I have a real difficulty with an understanding of God as "choosing" some, and not choosing others.  Where's the grace in that?  Or the justice, for that matter?  I have heard the arguments for "grace alone", and I agree that grace initiates, but when we contort ourselves into theological pretzels to ensure that man has NO role in his salvation, we wind up in some positions that I humbly submit put God in a rather awkward stance as well--one that I believe is contrary to his nature.

If God solely predestines some of us to not be saved, what was his purpose in creating us?  How could a loving, just God create a being that he knew no matter what that individual did, was already destined for the fires of Hell?

Yes, I affirm that God initiates the offer of salvation, but if we give NO role to man in accepting that act, then what are we to do?  How can you be sure of your salvation?

Sorry guys, but I walked this twisted path for a major portion of my life, and I have to disagree.  Free will has to be in here somewhere.  And a God who capriciously extends salvation only two a limited number, when "ALL have sinned and fallen short" doesn't sound like a very just God to me (let alone merciful). 

Where do we see a Scriptural basis for God loving some more than others?  If God deliberately does not extend the means (or invitation) to salvation to some, is he confused?  Because both Paul and Peter tell us that God wants all to be saved...how can he want something that he has made impossible?

I submit that God extends the opportunity and invitation to salvation to ALL men.  Every man has his own free will to choose whether to accept that invitation.  The "elect" are those who have (or will in the future) accept that invitation.  I believe that to exclude any role for man makes God into something that he is not."

Here is how I responded-


"" ..."choosing" some, and not choosing others.  Where's the grace in that?"

I guess it all depends on how you define, 'grace'.  Since grace is, 'unmerited favor', I can't see a problem with Him choosing some and not others.  Eph. 1:4-6 makes this pretty clear, and it gives us the reason..."according to the purpose of his will."  2 Tim. 1:9 re-iterates this- "...in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago."

"we wind up in some positions that I humbly submit put God in a rather awkward stance as well--one that I believe is contrary to his nature."

Can you name or describe some of these positions?

"If God solely predestines some of us to not be saved, what was his purpose in creating us?"

For his sovereign good pleasure and for his glory.  You didn't think the story about Pharoah was only a historical narrative, did you?  Paul didn't...see Romans 9.  In reprobation, God doesn't need to predestine anyone to hell...we take care of that on our own.  He simply chooses to pass over those he has not chosen for salvation.  This is a difficult teaching, and one I am not comfortable with, but I am trusting in both the justice and grace of God.  Jude 4 alludes to this doctrine.  So do Romans 11:7 and 1 Pet. 2:8. Romans 9:17-22 makes it explicit, but that still doesn't make it easy.

"How could a loving, just God create a being that he knew no matter what that individual did, was already destined for the fires of Hell? "

He couldn't.  The problem isn't with the nature of God, or with a particular system of theological interpretation of God, but with the premise of the question.  It assumes that some will be sinless, or at least choose God, without his intervention.  Jesus said that can't happen.  God created ALL OF US knowing we were destined to the fires of hell, not just some of us.  

He didn't look down the corridors of time and see which of us would choose him...He looked down the corridors of time and saw that, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

"if we give NO role to man in accepting that act, then what are we to do?"

Oh, we have a role...we must believe.  Really believe.  The notitia/assensus/fiducia kind of believe.  But we can't even do that without God's intervention (Eph. 2:1-10; John 6:44).

"Free will has to be in here somewhere."

It is.  We all have free will (liberium arbitrium), whether saved or lost, and we all choose what we want.  The problem lies in what, exactly, we want.  What we do not have, if we are unregenerate, is the will to choose God or righteousness (libertas).  In other words, as Paul clearly states in Romans 3, and Jesus clearly indicates in John 3:3 and John 6:44 and 6:65, we will never choose God.  Scripture never speaks of free will in any other context than God's free will to do what he sovereignly wishes.  It clearly states that all of what is necessary for us to seek after God occurs at the hand of God (Ezek. 36:26-7).  Acts 16:14 is an example of this, and 1 Cor. 2:14 is an explanation of how it manifests itself in the unregenerate.

"And a God who capriciously extends salvation"

Be careful.  Do not blaspheme a holy God who has extended salvation to YOU.  It is on the basis of grace that we have been saved, not capriciousness.

"Where do we see a Scriptural basis for God loving some more than others?"

It's a theme found throughout scripture, both the OT and the NT.  The clearest picture of it is in Romans 9- "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." It is also seen clearly in Deut. 7:7-8, with all the accoutrements that surround that idea.  In the old covenant, God had a chosen people that he divinely loved and protected, even though they were just as sinful as the nations surrounding them.  In the new covenant, he has the same.  Jesus died for the elect (Eph. 5:25, Rom. 8:32-4; Jn. 6:37-9; Jn. 17:9; 2 Cor 5:21, etc.).  The fact that there is an elect is logical proof that God loves some in a different way than he loves others.

"both Paul and Peter tell us that God wants all to be saved...how can he want something that he has made impossible? "

You need to clarify who, 'all' means in the context of those verses.  Just because the word, 'all' is used does not mean it intends to be a human universal.  Can we all agree on that? (humor)  Look at Romans 8:32.  It says, "..he gave up his son for us all."  Then in v. 33, he says who 'all' is- "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?"

Secondly, you need to make a distinction between the necessary will (Ex. 3:14) and the free will of God.  Do you think God 'wanted' evil to exist?  Yet he made it possible.  This mystery is found to some degree in Acts 2:23, where Peter speaks of the crucifixion as being both, "...according to the definite plan...of God" and, "...crucified and killed at the hands of lawless men."  God doesn't will something he makes impossible.  Scripture is clear that with man, things are impossible, but with God, anything is possible.  Instead, God makes possible something he wills (salvation for a hopelessly lost person, like me).

"Every man has his own free will to choose whether to accept that invitation"

In one sense, this is correct.  But in the sense I think you intend, then you have made the will of man sovereign over the will of God.  To give man a role in his own salvation is to negate the entire concept of grace.  After all, grace is not grace if it is merited.  When Jesus said, "Flesh profits nothing," he didn't mean, "a little something."  He meant what he said.  The only freedom of will we have to accept Christ is the freedom of being regenerate (John 3:3).  Without that, we cannot choose to accept it, because we can't even SEE it.  If faith brings about regeneration, the faith is a WORK.  But if regeneration brings about faith, then what Jesus told Nicodemus makes sense, and what Paul said in Ephesians 2 make sense, and God gets all the glory for our salvation, rather than sharing his glory with another (us).

I hope this is constructive.  

How could I have better answered the comments?


.

Natural Theology, Aquinas, Augustine, and Muslim Philosophy

As an answer to a discussion question in my Historical Theology class, I posted the following-

As a trained scientist I've paid a bit of attention to this topic.  I won't even try to be brief.

--------------------
The Bible simply assumes the existence of God, without making any attempt to prove it.  So why should we look outside the Bible for reasons for His existence?  Is this attempt trying to lift nature higher than scripture?  What is the relationship between nature and grace; reason and faith?

First, we should define 'natural theology'.  The simplest definition I know is from RC Sproul- a knowledge of God that is gained from nature.

There are many different views of what natural theology is and means, which explains some of the controversy around the concept. It is based on 'general revelation', but is not the same thing.  General revelation refers to something God does, but natural theology is something we do.  Natural theology comes out of general revelation.

The audience to general revelation is universal.  Not everybody has access to special revelation (at least, not yet).

The content of general revelation is also general, not specific. We can learn general characteristics of God, but not specifics, such as the nature of the trinity, and so forth.

In general revelation, we have two kinds- mediate and immediate general revelation.  Mediate is that revelation that God gives to all people through some medium.  It is indirect.  "The heavens declare the glory of God..." is the psalmist saying that by looking at nature, we see that though the stars are not God, they display some of the glory of their maker.  Immediate is the revelation that God gives to all people directly, without an intervening media.  Romans tells us that God has written his law on our hearts...this is immediate and directly from God.  It is not a deduction from nature. We get this inscription by virtue of being human. Calvin called this the sensus divinitatus.

Natural theology is of course most associated with Thomas Aquinas...as a result, protestants tend to view natural theology as a strictly Roman Catholic process, and thus shy away from it. Francis Schaeffer, for example, claimed that Aquinas separated nature from grace.  As much as I like Schaeffer, I don't think he understood Aquinas completely enough to make these distinctions without destroying the union between nature and grace that Aquinas developed. 

To understand what Aquinas was trying to do, we need to see him in his context. What problem was Aquinas trying to solve?  The answer was Islam.  Islam was the greatest threat to the church at this time...and was supported by powerful Muslim philosophers.  They argued something called, 'Integral Aristotelianism'. (Say that fast three times!)  This was a synthesis between Muslim theology on the one hand and Aristotle on the other.  Their central thesis was the 'double-truth' theory.  This theory stated that something could be true in philosophy and false in religion at the same time (i.e., true in science, false in theology).

[This sounds remarkably like contemporary arguments for the co-existence of evolution and theism by Biologos, by the way; and is a philosophical stance that I held in my own life for a number of years as a neo-Darwinist before God's grace revealed the falsehood of the idea.]

St. Thomas developed his ideas of natural theology in response to this double-truth theory from Islamic philosophy.  He said we can and must distinguish between nature and grace.  What he meant was, there are certain things we can learn from nature that we don't learn from special revelation.  The bible doesn't teach us anything about nuclear physics, or molecular biology, even though the study of these things is made possible by the common grace of God on man.  And while these things are to be distinguished, one cannot be true in one arena and false in the other.  This would violate the law of non-contradiction.

Thomas added a third category- the articulus mixtus (mixed articles).  These are things that can be learned from either the Bible or from the study of nature.  Chief among these things is the existence of God (RE Paul in Romans 1). Thus, the reason the Bible does not argue the existence of God is, from the beginning, God has proven his existence beyond any doubt in nature.  So Aquinas argues that the existence of God is proven both by nature and by scripture. He doesn't separate these two things, he makes distinctions.

Thomas stood on Augustine's shoulders. Augustine taught his students that they should learn as much as they could learn about whatever they could, because all truth was God's truth and would reveal God. Augustine's natural theology was based on Paul, of course.

In Rom. 1, Paul goes back to show why the gospel is necessary, and this is based in general revelation.  People aren't condemned because of rejecting the Jesus they've never heard of, but because of what they've done with the knowledge of God that they DO have.  This 'suppression of the truth of God' is the primary sin of fallen humanity.  As Paul says, God has made the truth about himself (that may be known) manifest (phaneros/manifestum); yet we have rejected it.

The general revelation Paul speaks of produces a natural theology in us.  This natural theology clearly gives us enough knowledge to condemn us. It does not give enough to save us. For that we need special revelation.

One other point is important:  If God reveals himself in nature and in scripture, and the primary textbook of the scientist is nature, and the primary textbook of the theologian is the Bible, why is there conflict between science and theology?  Because we live in a fallen world, we don't have complete understanding of either nature or God.  Both the scientific community can correct the church (as we probed earlier in the term), and the church can correct the scientific community.  But both nature and scripture reveal God, limited as our understanding in both arenas may be.



Reference- Sproul RC. Defending your faith.