I just finished reading Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time by Robert Remini. Remini’s style is not quite as compelling as a David McCullough, but he knows his stuff and it shows in his biographies. He has done extensive work in this time period of America, especially Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, and I believe Martin Van Buren, which I have yet to read. I found this biography just as engrossing as his others, although I found Webster a bit more repulsive than that others.
Webster himself was a lawyer. Many politicians went into law as a way to get into politics, but Webster seemed to actually be a lawyer first, politician second. He actually should be better known as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Here are a few of the cases he argued, many of which are still regarded as important today. The Grotius, The St. Lawerence, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Sturges v. Crowninshield, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, Gibbons v. Ogden, Charles River Bridge Case, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, Thurlow v. Massachusetts. Those really are just the important ones mentioned. I believe it was said he argued five cases a year before the high court on average. As one might guess, he won most of his cases in front of the Marshall court, but lost most of his cases in front of Taney court. Webster was a terrific lawyer, and thus was a very rich man. It is said he made enough fortune for a dozen lifetimes, but spent two dozen fortunes during his lifetime.
Webster was also a wonderful orator. His fame actually began because of the wonderful speeches he could make. He was constantly asked to give speeches on July 4th and Bunker Hill day, and that led to speeches in the court room, and finally his claim to fame in the Senate were the powerful speeches he made. In fact, for a person known as one of the five greatest Senators of all time, and the only one of the three to have a statue outside in Washington D.C., he was actually a very poor Senator. He made speeches about Union that still ring through the ages, but he never sponsored or wrote any legislation that had any significance. He authored a few judicial bills, but that was about it. His only task was to argue for or against other people’s bills. He was a disaster at leading parties and playing politics. He single-handedly cost the Whigs the election of 1852. He also refused to serve as the Vice President for William Henry Harrison because he considered himself better than Harrison, and to be second to such a man would be an insult. This was an election they were guaranteed to win. Harrison of course served for President for one month before dying, which means Webster would have been President. He also never outlived the charge of adultery because he was a licentious man without any doubt.
Webster did do some good as Secretary of State in the two terms he served in that position. He opened up trade with China, Japan, and recognized the independence of Hawaii. He also settled the disputed boarder of Maine and Wisconsin, a debate that had lasted 50 years. But he also sold offices to make money for himself and his constant need. He had a few failures his second time around, but some of that could be attributed to his declining health (he resigned and died shortly thereafter). He also did some work on opening up more trade with Latin America.
Yet, Webster was mostly a man without a party. He was a leading figure in both the National Republican Party and the Whig Party, but he was really a Federalist. That party collapsed shortly after he joined Congress leaving Webster as a man without a party for the rest of his life. Webster’s ‘liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable’ ideals cost him national popularity. At first it cost him popularity in the South when he opposed Nullification and State’s Rights, but it would later cost him popularity in the North when he refused to become an abolitionist. It was really the only principle that Webster held onto his entire life.
Webster was a fascinating man with huge flaws. While I think he does not quite deserve the praise heaped upon him by history, one cannot truly understand the period without knowing more about ‘Black Dan’ or the ‘Godlike' Daniel Webster.
This is my personal blog. The main topic shall be theology, but since theology informs every area of life, one can expect a wide range of topics. I hope that all who visit find something they like. I welcome comment and discussion.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
More John 6
Another round of debates has occurred about John 6 at Reformed Catholicism. Paul Owen began the discussion about why most Calvinists miss the Eucharistic point of John 6. I will respond to Dr. Owen, but his post provoked a response from James White, which contained some reasoned points, but far too many personal attacks. Kevnin Johnson defended Dr. Owen and his own comment about reading John 6 through the ‘mind of the church’.
I am going to wade into this debate because I do not believe that John 6 is about the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper if you prefer. However, I do not believe that John 6 is primarily about the decrees of God or predestination either, which is the false dilemma presented by Dr. Owen. I think the sense of the passage is about the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, not about partaking of His meal. It is not about eating his flesh, but that was used to represent belief in Him. As he says in verse 63, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And as Peter rightly answers when asked if they will depart like the others in verse 68-69, The Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the main point of the passage, not the decrees, and not the Supper.
Dr. Owen does make a claim that Jesus is not talking of the eternally predestined in verse 37, and that verse 40 telling us that Jesus will raise them up on the last day is not about eternal glory but rather speaking about church membership and God’s desire to not see anyone perish. He attempts to reference 2 Peter 3:9, but does not show a strong connection. I would be interested in all of the talk about the mind of the church for Dr. Owen to bring someone out that actually made that argument before.
The crux of the debate seems to be to me whether or not one wants the meaning to be determined by the words of Jesus to his audience there in John 6 or the writing of John to his audience decades later. Dr. Owen and others argue that John’s audience would have been familiar with the Eucharist and would have ‘clearly’ seen the reference being made, and the fact that Jesus spoke these words to an audience prior to the institution of the Eucharist does not matter. Kevin Johnson argues that John had another ‘agenda’ in his gospel, supposedly one about the Eucharist. This idea I find hard to support. John’s gospel describes itself (John 21:31) as arguing for believing in Jesus unto eternal life (which is what I argue is the point of John 6), not some agenda about the Eucharist. If John has an agenda to make reference to the Eucharist, why is John’s the only gospel that does not have the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, John includes the foot washing, but not the Supper. This problem is not discussed in either article.
Both articles including the commentors make a great deal about the history of interpretation. Commentor Mike Spreng on Kevin’s post, states,
I have posted on that before, but people thought John 6 did not refer to the Eucharist long before Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, and Suprgeon (who all think John 6 is not about the Supper). Such early church lights as Basil, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria denied the link between the Supper and John 6. So perhaps the ‘mind of the church’ argument works against viewing John 6 as a Eucharistic reference.
Before departing I want to point out one other thing that needs to be said. Dr. Owen begins his piece by stating:
His sixith point then reads:
Now unless, Dr. Owen means that it is possible to have an ‘anti-sacramental, non-churchly’ interpretation he is contradicting himself. He either thinks that denying the link between John 6 and the Supper is ‘folly’ that betrays a dislike of the church and sacraments, or he thinks it a legitimate possibility for an informed reading of the text. One cannot have it both ways.
I am going to wade into this debate because I do not believe that John 6 is about the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper if you prefer. However, I do not believe that John 6 is primarily about the decrees of God or predestination either, which is the false dilemma presented by Dr. Owen. I think the sense of the passage is about the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, not about partaking of His meal. It is not about eating his flesh, but that was used to represent belief in Him. As he says in verse 63, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And as Peter rightly answers when asked if they will depart like the others in verse 68-69, The Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the main point of the passage, not the decrees, and not the Supper.
Dr. Owen does make a claim that Jesus is not talking of the eternally predestined in verse 37, and that verse 40 telling us that Jesus will raise them up on the last day is not about eternal glory but rather speaking about church membership and God’s desire to not see anyone perish. He attempts to reference 2 Peter 3:9, but does not show a strong connection. I would be interested in all of the talk about the mind of the church for Dr. Owen to bring someone out that actually made that argument before.
The crux of the debate seems to be to me whether or not one wants the meaning to be determined by the words of Jesus to his audience there in John 6 or the writing of John to his audience decades later. Dr. Owen and others argue that John’s audience would have been familiar with the Eucharist and would have ‘clearly’ seen the reference being made, and the fact that Jesus spoke these words to an audience prior to the institution of the Eucharist does not matter. Kevin Johnson argues that John had another ‘agenda’ in his gospel, supposedly one about the Eucharist. This idea I find hard to support. John’s gospel describes itself (John 21:31) as arguing for believing in Jesus unto eternal life (which is what I argue is the point of John 6), not some agenda about the Eucharist. If John has an agenda to make reference to the Eucharist, why is John’s the only gospel that does not have the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, John includes the foot washing, but not the Supper. This problem is not discussed in either article.
Both articles including the commentors make a great deal about the history of interpretation. Commentor Mike Spreng on Kevin’s post, states,
Don’t you just love how he fires those shots without leaving a chance for anyone to comment on his site (not that anyone wants to interact with such a man)? What can be said about guys like this that only go as far back as Spurgeon, or at best Zwingly(sic)?
I have posted on that before, but people thought John 6 did not refer to the Eucharist long before Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, and Suprgeon (who all think John 6 is not about the Supper). Such early church lights as Basil, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria denied the link between the Supper and John 6. So perhaps the ‘mind of the church’ argument works against viewing John 6 as a Eucharistic reference.
Before departing I want to point out one other thing that needs to be said. Dr. Owen begins his piece by stating:
Nowhere do we get a clearer illustration of the folly of anti-sacramental, non-churchly Christianity than in John 6. Calvinists take a clearly Eucharistic passage and turn it into a treatise on predestination. It is not.
His sixith point then reads:
6. Now none of this is to say that this passage in John 6 is incapable of a different interpretation.
Now unless, Dr. Owen means that it is possible to have an ‘anti-sacramental, non-churchly’ interpretation he is contradicting himself. He either thinks that denying the link between John 6 and the Supper is ‘folly’ that betrays a dislike of the church and sacraments, or he thinks it a legitimate possibility for an informed reading of the text. One cannot have it both ways.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The State of the Union is . . . broken
Watching the State of the Union is always painful. Seldom are they oratorical works to be remembered and they usual make me politically sick as well. Thankful this year, I missed most of it because of numerous meetings. After having read through it, I think we can safely end the debates about President Bush forever. He is indeed a liberal. His plans lean more left than right, and his Bush Doctrine is pure liberalism. He also managed to find a way to raise taxes on the rich with his Health Care plans without saying he raised taxes. Why not just let everyone right off their health care?
But I want to save my true ire for the Senate. They are putting forward a non-binding resolution against the President’s Iraq policy. This is hands down the stupidest thing ever done in the Halls of Congress, and should forever make us remember that the Senate is currently made up of 100 idiots rather than statesman or even ideological leaders. Let me just list a few of the things that anger me about this ‘nonsense’, as my four year old often says.
1. A non-binding resolution means, worthless time spent wasting my money. Non binding is code for political stunt. Don’t these ‘lawmakers’ have some actual work to do, like get a budget ready for the year? Just a suggestion.
2. Could they even pass a binding resolution about the way the Commander-in-Chief does his Constitutional duty? I doubt it.
3. It is the Senate, not the President who put us in this mess in the first place. The Constitution gives the sole power to make war to the Senate. Yes, the Senate! All of this discussion and hand wringing about what can the Senate do to affect the war is pointless because any time America is at war, the Senate put us there. The reason the founders put that in the Constitution so that we could have debates about whether or not this is a good idea before we go to war. But wait, what about the unconstitutional authorization to use force? Yes, that is what the Senate did this time, and every time since WWII. Such authorization is another political code word for ‘worthless cowardly act by 100 people who should all grow a backbone.’ Problems like the one we are in now are completely preventable if the Senate would just follow the Constitution. This is why putting war powers in the hands of one man is a bad idea. Thanks for throwing away 200 years of American wisdom. The power to make war and end war is and always has been in the hands of the Senate.
4. This act can be seen as nothing less than cowardly and designed to gain political points with the people. And for the first time, I think I can see how this act would actually encourage the enemies of this country. 99% of the time President Bush had stated such things, he was wrong. This time, the Federal Government is speaking with its voice that it is ready to fold up and go home. So much for presenting a united front to our enemies. So much for supporting troops as they go over seas.
I hope any Senator who votes for this amazingly wasteful and despicable piece of politics, should be voted out of office if not removed faster. I intend to let my Senator (one is in a coma, so he gets a pass) know about it.
But I want to save my true ire for the Senate. They are putting forward a non-binding resolution against the President’s Iraq policy. This is hands down the stupidest thing ever done in the Halls of Congress, and should forever make us remember that the Senate is currently made up of 100 idiots rather than statesman or even ideological leaders. Let me just list a few of the things that anger me about this ‘nonsense’, as my four year old often says.
1. A non-binding resolution means, worthless time spent wasting my money. Non binding is code for political stunt. Don’t these ‘lawmakers’ have some actual work to do, like get a budget ready for the year? Just a suggestion.
2. Could they even pass a binding resolution about the way the Commander-in-Chief does his Constitutional duty? I doubt it.
3. It is the Senate, not the President who put us in this mess in the first place. The Constitution gives the sole power to make war to the Senate. Yes, the Senate! All of this discussion and hand wringing about what can the Senate do to affect the war is pointless because any time America is at war, the Senate put us there. The reason the founders put that in the Constitution so that we could have debates about whether or not this is a good idea before we go to war. But wait, what about the unconstitutional authorization to use force? Yes, that is what the Senate did this time, and every time since WWII. Such authorization is another political code word for ‘worthless cowardly act by 100 people who should all grow a backbone.’ Problems like the one we are in now are completely preventable if the Senate would just follow the Constitution. This is why putting war powers in the hands of one man is a bad idea. Thanks for throwing away 200 years of American wisdom. The power to make war and end war is and always has been in the hands of the Senate.
4. This act can be seen as nothing less than cowardly and designed to gain political points with the people. And for the first time, I think I can see how this act would actually encourage the enemies of this country. 99% of the time President Bush had stated such things, he was wrong. This time, the Federal Government is speaking with its voice that it is ready to fold up and go home. So much for presenting a united front to our enemies. So much for supporting troops as they go over seas.
I hope any Senator who votes for this amazingly wasteful and despicable piece of politics, should be voted out of office if not removed faster. I intend to let my Senator (one is in a coma, so he gets a pass) know about it.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Heroes
If you are not watching you are missing out. I grew up as a comic book geek, and I love movies and stories about time, so Heroes is right up my alley. My wife enjoys it as well. Last night as we watched she noticed something. Originally when Hiro (the time traveler) went into the future, he saw New York blow up from Isaac’s (the artist who paints the future) apartment. Isaac was dead on the floor as the city blew up. Now when Peter (the person who absorbs powers) sees the future (presumably this is the future), Isaac is alive and downtown as is Hiro. Does this mean that future was successfully changed? Questions, questions, all we have are questions.
Monday, January 22, 2007
NFL the anti-history league
I do not care for the NFL, and I rarely watch the games. It is a league that exists primarily for gamblers, and the parity that the NFL loves makes it impossible to get consistently good teams. It is a league designed to follow players not teams. Not my cup of tea. But, I have to admit I watched the end of the Colts v Patriots because I like Peyton Manning. After all who does not like a 6’5” quarterback with a laser, rocket arm.
While I am glad that Peyton Manning finally beat Tom Brady and the Patriots the very idea that these two quarterbacks are considered equals demonstrates what I hate most about the NFL. The NFL has no since of history, fairness, nor does it care about quality in its players. Tom Brady is a star that people compare to Peyton Manning and I do not know why. Everyone says Brady and Manning are both Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Let us look.
Player #1 – Completed 61% of his passes, 53 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 84.4. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #2 – Completed 59% of his passes, 37 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.9. He led the league in completions twice, yards twice, and QB rating four times.
Player #3 – Completed 62% of his passes, 57 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 88.5. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #4 – Completed 52% of his passes, 2 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 70.9. He led the league in touchdown passes twice and yards per attempt twice.
Player #5 – Completed 57% of his passes, 63 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.8. He led the league in yards per attempt twice, and OB rating once.
Player #6 – Completed 64% of his passes, 114 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 93.5. He led the league in attempts once, yards twice, completions twice, yards per attempt once, touchdowns once, and QB rating once.
Now, can you name who these players are? Can you find Tom Brady, who every pundit today says is a sure fire Hall of Famer? I will give you a hint; one person listed is already in the Hall of Fame. Give up. Here you go.
Player #1 – Brad Johnson of the Minnesota Vikings.
Player #2 – Ken Anderson who played for the Bengals in the 80’s.
Player #3 – Tom Brady
Player #4 – Terry Bradshaw who played for the Steelers in the 70’s and 80’s.
Player #5 – Boomer Esiason who played for the Bengals in the 90’s.
Player #6 – Peyton Manning
That is right. Sure fire Hall of Famer Tom Brady has roughly the same statistics as Brad Johnson, a nobody. Brad Johnson even has a Superbowl ring, but he will not make the Hall of Fame. Yet, Brady will be in on the first ballot. Why? Worst yet is the inclusion of Terry Bradshaw as a great quarterback in the Hall of Fame. He has the worst stats in the group. Ken Anderson and Boomer each have comparable stats to Brady, and actually led the league in a quarterback category at least once, and neither is in the Hall of Fame. Why? And then we come to Peyton Manning. His stats blow everyone else away. He is light years ahead of Brady, and everyone else on the list. Other than media attention, why is the worst player on the list make the Hall of Fame and the better players get left out? If anyone can explain this to me, I am willing to listen, but I doubt anyone can make sense of the NFL and their sad lack of history.
While I am glad that Peyton Manning finally beat Tom Brady and the Patriots the very idea that these two quarterbacks are considered equals demonstrates what I hate most about the NFL. The NFL has no since of history, fairness, nor does it care about quality in its players. Tom Brady is a star that people compare to Peyton Manning and I do not know why. Everyone says Brady and Manning are both Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Let us look.
Player #1 – Completed 61% of his passes, 53 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 84.4. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #2 – Completed 59% of his passes, 37 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.9. He led the league in completions twice, yards twice, and QB rating four times.
Player #3 – Completed 62% of his passes, 57 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 88.5. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #4 – Completed 52% of his passes, 2 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 70.9. He led the league in touchdown passes twice and yards per attempt twice.
Player #5 – Completed 57% of his passes, 63 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.8. He led the league in yards per attempt twice, and OB rating once.
Player #6 – Completed 64% of his passes, 114 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 93.5. He led the league in attempts once, yards twice, completions twice, yards per attempt once, touchdowns once, and QB rating once.
Now, can you name who these players are? Can you find Tom Brady, who every pundit today says is a sure fire Hall of Famer? I will give you a hint; one person listed is already in the Hall of Fame. Give up. Here you go.
Player #1 – Brad Johnson of the Minnesota Vikings.
Player #2 – Ken Anderson who played for the Bengals in the 80’s.
Player #3 – Tom Brady
Player #4 – Terry Bradshaw who played for the Steelers in the 70’s and 80’s.
Player #5 – Boomer Esiason who played for the Bengals in the 90’s.
Player #6 – Peyton Manning
That is right. Sure fire Hall of Famer Tom Brady has roughly the same statistics as Brad Johnson, a nobody. Brad Johnson even has a Superbowl ring, but he will not make the Hall of Fame. Yet, Brady will be in on the first ballot. Why? Worst yet is the inclusion of Terry Bradshaw as a great quarterback in the Hall of Fame. He has the worst stats in the group. Ken Anderson and Boomer each have comparable stats to Brady, and actually led the league in a quarterback category at least once, and neither is in the Hall of Fame. Why? And then we come to Peyton Manning. His stats blow everyone else away. He is light years ahead of Brady, and everyone else on the list. Other than media attention, why is the worst player on the list make the Hall of Fame and the better players get left out? If anyone can explain this to me, I am willing to listen, but I doubt anyone can make sense of the NFL and their sad lack of history.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Antichrist and Nevin one more time
Mr. Bonomo has offered a response to my last post. In it he says that I have built a straw man in my caricature of Nevin. He offers two places where I am wrong in my thinking on Nevin. Let us look at them.
First, he argues that Nevin accepts religious denominations and confessional distinctions, and argues that confessional distinctions are only ‘evil’ when used by sects. He provides quotes from Nevin to back up his claim. I agree with Nevin that the distinction he draws between sect and denomination is "difficult to explain it clearly in theory, and still more so to apply it practically to existing religious bodies. (pg. 55 found in one of the ellipse of the quote provided by Mr. Bonomo.)" Nevin’s distinctions are fine and perhaps not really existent. Mr. Bonomo provides another quote showing that denominations are justified "in the present state of the world" and that they are "relatively necessary". This is because in the end Nevin holds they will all merge back into one church. Yet, how is this different than what I quoted Nevin as saying about confessional distinctions? Nevin there says they are "relatively good only" because they aid a higher catholicity. This is the same thing he just said about denominations. Is it not logical to assume then that denominations are also "an evil of the most serious magnitude" when considered in their own nature because they "violate the true idea of the Church"? It seems to me that Nevin’s theory is cloudy, which he himself admits, and that in practice he has not drawn a difference between sects and denominations. Further evidence can be found in his identifying markers of sects. For a denomination not to be a sect it must accept the church has the "same divine life . . . originally introduced in the incarnation of Jesus Christ" (pg. 43), which Nevin makes sure includes the idea of divine authority. This basically rules out every Protestant church that holds the Church itself is not the divine authority, but the Bible. He also goes on to endorse a sacramentalism and mediating role rejected by most Protestant churches, including his own during that time period. So while Nevin does give lip service to Mr. Bonomo’s point, even he admits it is fuzzy and even worse in practice. He uses the same terminology for confessional distinctions that he uses for sects, and he uses for denominations. Using then Nevin’s words, his presuppositions it seems impossible to conclude he thought denominations were anything but evil in their very nature and only serving a "relative good" as they open the way to history’s final stage of a reunified church.
Second, he argues that I have misunderstood Nevin when claiming that the spirit of antichrist is a separation from the church rather than a denial of doctrine. Mr. Bonomo tells us that it is ‘not either/or’ but rather ‘both/and’ for Nevin. In some sense I am willing to concede this point in as much as doctrine is involved in all things including a rejection of the church. Perhaps, I should make myself clearer. For Nevin the spirit of the antichrist is not a denial of the incarnation of Jesus, but a rejection and denial of the doctrine about the church being the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is where Nevin’s mystical union theory comes into play. As quoted eariler, Nevin holds that the "if we do not recognize in it [the Church] the continued presence of the same divine life, or new creation, that was originally introduced into the world by the incarnation of Jesus Christ" then we do not believe in "a real Church at all"(pg. 43). Thus, if one does not hold that the church is a continued divine incarnation with an objective efficacy to its sacraments, its worship, its pronouncements, then we are of the spirit of the antichrist. It is a denial of this doctrine about the church and a separation of that church that constitutes antichrist. This is not what John is speaking about when he speaks of denying that Jesus came in the flesh. The doctrine of Christ is not in view in Nevin’s spirit of the antichrist. Instead, it is the doctrine of the Church that makes one of the antichrist. So I do not think it a stretch to say for Nevin and for Mercersburg the spirit of the antichr should really be called antichurch.
First, he argues that Nevin accepts religious denominations and confessional distinctions, and argues that confessional distinctions are only ‘evil’ when used by sects. He provides quotes from Nevin to back up his claim. I agree with Nevin that the distinction he draws between sect and denomination is "difficult to explain it clearly in theory, and still more so to apply it practically to existing religious bodies. (pg. 55 found in one of the ellipse of the quote provided by Mr. Bonomo.)" Nevin’s distinctions are fine and perhaps not really existent. Mr. Bonomo provides another quote showing that denominations are justified "in the present state of the world" and that they are "relatively necessary". This is because in the end Nevin holds they will all merge back into one church. Yet, how is this different than what I quoted Nevin as saying about confessional distinctions? Nevin there says they are "relatively good only" because they aid a higher catholicity. This is the same thing he just said about denominations. Is it not logical to assume then that denominations are also "an evil of the most serious magnitude" when considered in their own nature because they "violate the true idea of the Church"? It seems to me that Nevin’s theory is cloudy, which he himself admits, and that in practice he has not drawn a difference between sects and denominations. Further evidence can be found in his identifying markers of sects. For a denomination not to be a sect it must accept the church has the "same divine life . . . originally introduced in the incarnation of Jesus Christ" (pg. 43), which Nevin makes sure includes the idea of divine authority. This basically rules out every Protestant church that holds the Church itself is not the divine authority, but the Bible. He also goes on to endorse a sacramentalism and mediating role rejected by most Protestant churches, including his own during that time period. So while Nevin does give lip service to Mr. Bonomo’s point, even he admits it is fuzzy and even worse in practice. He uses the same terminology for confessional distinctions that he uses for sects, and he uses for denominations. Using then Nevin’s words, his presuppositions it seems impossible to conclude he thought denominations were anything but evil in their very nature and only serving a "relative good" as they open the way to history’s final stage of a reunified church.
Second, he argues that I have misunderstood Nevin when claiming that the spirit of antichrist is a separation from the church rather than a denial of doctrine. Mr. Bonomo tells us that it is ‘not either/or’ but rather ‘both/and’ for Nevin. In some sense I am willing to concede this point in as much as doctrine is involved in all things including a rejection of the church. Perhaps, I should make myself clearer. For Nevin the spirit of the antichrist is not a denial of the incarnation of Jesus, but a rejection and denial of the doctrine about the church being the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is where Nevin’s mystical union theory comes into play. As quoted eariler, Nevin holds that the "if we do not recognize in it [the Church] the continued presence of the same divine life, or new creation, that was originally introduced into the world by the incarnation of Jesus Christ" then we do not believe in "a real Church at all"(pg. 43). Thus, if one does not hold that the church is a continued divine incarnation with an objective efficacy to its sacraments, its worship, its pronouncements, then we are of the spirit of the antichrist. It is a denial of this doctrine about the church and a separation of that church that constitutes antichrist. This is not what John is speaking about when he speaks of denying that Jesus came in the flesh. The doctrine of Christ is not in view in Nevin’s spirit of the antichrist. Instead, it is the doctrine of the Church that makes one of the antichrist. So I do not think it a stretch to say for Nevin and for Mercersburg the spirit of the antichr should really be called antichurch.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Nevin and the Antichrist
Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.
Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.
I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.
We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.
Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.
Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:
Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.
I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.
In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).
We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.
As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).
Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.
Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.
Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.
I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.
We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.
Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.
Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:
Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.
I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.
In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).
We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.
As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).
Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Attitude of Life
I have been disappointed a lot this year about how many evangelicals have an ingrained wrong attitude about life. South Dakota this year voted down an abortion ban partly because it did not have exceptions for rape and incest. As if the answer to being raped is murdering an innocent, many evangelicals went to the polls and voted against the ban. A local pastor wrote an article encouraging people to vote against the ban. She thought it was a roll back of human rights. Protecting life has now become a rolling back of rights. Embryonic stem cell research is another subject where the attitude seems to be in favor of death rather than life. Some polls suggest as many as two-thirds of Americans support Embryonic stem cell research. I like Michael J. Fox, and I think his acting is great. I also wish he did not suffer from his illness, but what he is advocating is extraordinarily selfish. He is asking the Federal government (that is you and me when it comes to paying bills) to murder hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people so that he might live a little longer and a little better, and maybe make another TV show or two. That is not an attitude of life, yet considering the polls and the election in Missouri some professing believers share his strange vision of the world. But let us not just talk of abortion, the attitude is worse in treatment of senior citizens. How many times do professing believers make the decision to stop medical treatment of their elderly parents? After all why bother getting a doctor’s opinion or assessment when the person is 89! So the elderly parent gets a cold or some other disease that can be treated with penicillin and fluid, and they slowly die because medical treatment is withheld. This is especially true in those who suffered strokes or have Alzheimers because they are ‘suffering so much.’ People in Terri Schiavo’s condition do not have a chance because why bother treating someone who needs food and water to live. It happens disturbingly often. Have we become so influenced by the culture of death that we no longer have a biblical view of life? The oft-quoted verse ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain’ is misused. This is not saying we should end our lives so we can gain. Not at all! This verse is also saying to us, ‘to live is Christ.’ Did Christ live a life free from pain and suffering? No! Our life then we can expect to have suffering and pain and trials and temptations and all sorts of non-pleasant things. Does this make our life worthless because we suffer more at 89 than we do at 29? I would hope all would answer no. It is the same soul, the same person, the same image of God. So why do we sit back and let men and women die from diseases at 89 that we would treat with a shot and rest at 29? The only answer I can come up with is that we do not have an attitude of life. May God send one on me, His church, and this nation.
Hodge Podge
I am finally back home from my long journey. Let me just give a few quick sports thoughts that cannot be ignored.
Since I have in-laws in Ohio, I took special pleasure in watching Ohio State lose badly to Flordia. However, I became annoyed at that talk radio and ESPN jibber-jabber that followed the game. Why are not the sports talking heads arguing for a Boise State national championship? Florida has one loss, Ohio State has one loss, and Louisville has one loss, but Boise State has zero losses. It really seems like a no brainer to me. What is clear is that the BCS will only reward those conferences in the BCS system. Utah went undefeated a few years ago and got nothing. They won their BCS game, but were only one of three teams that went undefeated. Boise State won their BCS game, were the only undefeated team in college football, yet they will not even get a share of the national title. Four years ago USC won their BCS game so that multiple teams had one loss, and they got a share of the title. If the mid-major conferences were smart, they would just pick up and start their own Bowl system, crowning their own national champs. There is no room for them the BCS. Everyone argues that the smaller conferences are not as good as the big conferences, and that may be true, but the fact remains only two mid-major schools have ever been invited to the BCS bowl games and they are 2-0. Hard to argue against that.
I hope that everyone can see now the prejudice against southern sports that goes on at ESPN and the other major networks. People spent three weeks complaining about Florida getting the shot at OSU instead of Michigan. People were actually arguing that the national title should be a rematch of the Big Ten title. Well, it turns out the Big Ten champs were no match, not even close, for the SEC champs. Not only that, but the LSU Tigers, who finished a distant fourth or fifth in the SEC wiped the floor with overrated Notre Dame as well. All this while Michigan lost embarrassingly to Southern California as well. I would hope that in the future Southern teams would be ranked higher, but they will not be, so do not hold your breath. This bias goes all the way back to the Heisman trophy disaster where Charles Woodson won the Heisman as a corner back. He did not lead the nation in interceptions, touch down returns, or any stat at all. His only qualification for the award was that he was from Michigan and he was not Peyton Manning. Yes, Peyton Manning and Randy Moss both lost to a nobody from the north for no other reason than he was from the north. If you are not convinced here is more proof. ESPN often uses initials to represent schools. For example UT and USC. Now, which schools are UT and USC. ESPN always means University of Texas (UT) and University of Southern California (USC). Yet, UT could mean University of Tennessee and USC mean University of South Carolina. Both Tennessee and South Carolina use those initials for themselves and if you grew up around them your first thought is always about those schools. Both Tennessee and South Carolina are older institutions and thus have prior claims on the initials, but ESPN refuses to use the initials. Can anyone find a rational reason for this? Barring one, one must assume it is part of the anti-southern bias.
I must also here comment on the train wreck that is the NFL. The Cincinnati Bengals missed the playoffs because they cannot make and extra point or kick a field goal. If they could have done either, they would be in the playoffs right now. Yet, at 8-8, they still should have made the playoffs. The NFL does not keep a balanced schedule. Teams that did well the year before get harder schedules. So the Bengals had the toughest or one of the toughest schedules as a division winner last year. The Jets had the weakest schedule, and the Jets made the playoffs because of it. It is a stupid rule that gave us the Jets losing and looking bad doing it in the playoffs.
I cannot stop from rejoicing at Mark McGwire missing the baseball Hall of Fame. EPSN is on a crusade to let steroid users into the Hall, but so far smarter heads have prevailed. I just watched a Sportscenter bit where the question was seriously asked ‘if Dead Ball era players get into the Hall of Fame why not steroid era players?’. The ESPN analyst could not come up with a reason, and seemed perplexed. Someone should tell him steroids are cheating while the dead ball was a condition of the baseball. Breaking the law to pad stats is different than playing in a time of large stadiums and loosely wound balls. It is not rocket science.
Since I have in-laws in Ohio, I took special pleasure in watching Ohio State lose badly to Flordia. However, I became annoyed at that talk radio and ESPN jibber-jabber that followed the game. Why are not the sports talking heads arguing for a Boise State national championship? Florida has one loss, Ohio State has one loss, and Louisville has one loss, but Boise State has zero losses. It really seems like a no brainer to me. What is clear is that the BCS will only reward those conferences in the BCS system. Utah went undefeated a few years ago and got nothing. They won their BCS game, but were only one of three teams that went undefeated. Boise State won their BCS game, were the only undefeated team in college football, yet they will not even get a share of the national title. Four years ago USC won their BCS game so that multiple teams had one loss, and they got a share of the title. If the mid-major conferences were smart, they would just pick up and start their own Bowl system, crowning their own national champs. There is no room for them the BCS. Everyone argues that the smaller conferences are not as good as the big conferences, and that may be true, but the fact remains only two mid-major schools have ever been invited to the BCS bowl games and they are 2-0. Hard to argue against that.
I hope that everyone can see now the prejudice against southern sports that goes on at ESPN and the other major networks. People spent three weeks complaining about Florida getting the shot at OSU instead of Michigan. People were actually arguing that the national title should be a rematch of the Big Ten title. Well, it turns out the Big Ten champs were no match, not even close, for the SEC champs. Not only that, but the LSU Tigers, who finished a distant fourth or fifth in the SEC wiped the floor with overrated Notre Dame as well. All this while Michigan lost embarrassingly to Southern California as well. I would hope that in the future Southern teams would be ranked higher, but they will not be, so do not hold your breath. This bias goes all the way back to the Heisman trophy disaster where Charles Woodson won the Heisman as a corner back. He did not lead the nation in interceptions, touch down returns, or any stat at all. His only qualification for the award was that he was from Michigan and he was not Peyton Manning. Yes, Peyton Manning and Randy Moss both lost to a nobody from the north for no other reason than he was from the north. If you are not convinced here is more proof. ESPN often uses initials to represent schools. For example UT and USC. Now, which schools are UT and USC. ESPN always means University of Texas (UT) and University of Southern California (USC). Yet, UT could mean University of Tennessee and USC mean University of South Carolina. Both Tennessee and South Carolina use those initials for themselves and if you grew up around them your first thought is always about those schools. Both Tennessee and South Carolina are older institutions and thus have prior claims on the initials, but ESPN refuses to use the initials. Can anyone find a rational reason for this? Barring one, one must assume it is part of the anti-southern bias.
I must also here comment on the train wreck that is the NFL. The Cincinnati Bengals missed the playoffs because they cannot make and extra point or kick a field goal. If they could have done either, they would be in the playoffs right now. Yet, at 8-8, they still should have made the playoffs. The NFL does not keep a balanced schedule. Teams that did well the year before get harder schedules. So the Bengals had the toughest or one of the toughest schedules as a division winner last year. The Jets had the weakest schedule, and the Jets made the playoffs because of it. It is a stupid rule that gave us the Jets losing and looking bad doing it in the playoffs.
I cannot stop from rejoicing at Mark McGwire missing the baseball Hall of Fame. EPSN is on a crusade to let steroid users into the Hall, but so far smarter heads have prevailed. I just watched a Sportscenter bit where the question was seriously asked ‘if Dead Ball era players get into the Hall of Fame why not steroid era players?’. The ESPN analyst could not come up with a reason, and seemed perplexed. Someone should tell him steroids are cheating while the dead ball was a condition of the baseball. Breaking the law to pad stats is different than playing in a time of large stadiums and loosely wound balls. It is not rocket science.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Harsh words
I am still not back in town, but I have a minute to make a quick post about some recent rumblings.
A recent controversy has arisen over some remarks made by Rev. R. Scott Clark about the Federal Vision adherents. This provoked a renewed challenge by Rev. Doug Wilson to a debate. I do not want to defend the sad choice of words by Rev. Clark, nor do I want to defend Clark's decision not to debate. He should go and debate. However, Rev. Wilson ought to let anyone debate him in print or in person rather than picking and choosing his opponents. Rather I want to address the line of thinking that has arisen claiming open and honest discussion cannot include harsh words. That these differences should just be worked out at the local pub as if they are really just make-believe differences. Some have taken to calling it evil and flaming accusations. Have we forgotten the days of Calvin calling those who thought infants should take communion 'crack brains' or Augustus Toplady saying that Wesley was 'the worst enemy of the gospel' Britain had ever seen. Were these men wrong to speak with such words? Were they wrong at all? They were convinced of their position, and they spoke honestly. Would it be better if they made nice and pretended they did not disagree? Perhaps the only thing we need is honest tough words. The only bad thing that I can see is that people disagree with strong words, but will not debate the issue in person. The Federal Vision and Traditional Reformed Theology are different gospels, and they should not get along. They should not be allowed in the same denominations, and they ought to tangle whenever they meet. I wish they met in open battle a little more often and on the actual points rather than the round about ways they meet today.
A recent controversy has arisen over some remarks made by Rev. R. Scott Clark about the Federal Vision adherents. This provoked a renewed challenge by Rev. Doug Wilson to a debate. I do not want to defend the sad choice of words by Rev. Clark, nor do I want to defend Clark's decision not to debate. He should go and debate. However, Rev. Wilson ought to let anyone debate him in print or in person rather than picking and choosing his opponents. Rather I want to address the line of thinking that has arisen claiming open and honest discussion cannot include harsh words. That these differences should just be worked out at the local pub as if they are really just make-believe differences. Some have taken to calling it evil and flaming accusations. Have we forgotten the days of Calvin calling those who thought infants should take communion 'crack brains' or Augustus Toplady saying that Wesley was 'the worst enemy of the gospel' Britain had ever seen. Were these men wrong to speak with such words? Were they wrong at all? They were convinced of their position, and they spoke honestly. Would it be better if they made nice and pretended they did not disagree? Perhaps the only thing we need is honest tough words. The only bad thing that I can see is that people disagree with strong words, but will not debate the issue in person. The Federal Vision and Traditional Reformed Theology are different gospels, and they should not get along. They should not be allowed in the same denominations, and they ought to tangle whenever they meet. I wish they met in open battle a little more often and on the actual points rather than the round about ways they meet today.