Joe Calzaghe: Best of the Era

I posted earlier this year about what a great loss to boxing the retirement of Oscar De Lahoya had been. I have failed to mention the retirement of who I believe was the greatest pound for pound boxer of my time, Joe Calzaghe. He retired in early 2009, but I held out hope he would do what all boxers seem to do: unretire. I have given up hope.

Calzaghe retired undefeated with the vast majority of his wins coming at the Super Middleweight level. And while this is not the level that one typically thinks of when he thinks of great boxers, Calzaghe owned it, nay, dominated it. He retired at a clean 46-0 and this includes winning a unification bout with then undefeated Mikkel Kessler. It is still the only loss on Kessler’s record. This fight, which Calzaghe won comfortably is a perfect example of how great he was. Kessler, who had never been defeated, said this afterward: “his punches weren’t particularly hard but it was confusing when he hit you twenty times.” Calzaghe’s hands were the quickest I have seen for a man his size and that includes Mike Tyson. Calzaghe was amazing. In the Kessler bout, CompuBox registers 1,010 punches thrown by Calzaghe doubling his opponent.

The real shame is that the broader audience never really got to enjoy Calzaghe because it was not until the end of his career did he venture out of his weight class for the big money fights. I remember how much Bernard Hopkins was celebrated when he defended his title 20 times. Calzaghe defended his 21 times. Third highest total in history for any weight class. Oh yeah, Calzaghe beat Hopkins a few years ago as well. Hopkins was dominated by Calzaghe in the middle and late rounds hitting Hopkins (according to CompuBox) more than any other fighter Hopkins had ever faced. Calzaghe never got tired. Never.

Calzaghe ended his career by beating an other big name: Roy Jones Jr. He too was battered by Calzaghe.

Some complain that Calzaghe did not have those mega-fights. But that was because the American superstars would not travel to England, and Calzaghe focused on defending his own title rather than jumping weight classes for pay days. He was stripped of his title (IBF only) when he went for a pay day against Peter Manfedo Jr. I watched that fight and it was a joke. I do think the ref stopped it early and that Manfredo was not real hurt. But even after only two rounds there was no way to justify Manfredo being in the same ring with Calzaghe. Calzaghe beat all the big names that came to him. Not just Hopkins and Jones Jr., but also the ones that were big names until he crushed them. Jeff Lacy was a heavy favorite before he was dispatched. He beat former champions Chris Eubank, Charles Brewer, and Robin Reid, and while an amateur Calzaghe apparently beat Chris Byrd, who would go on to be the World Heavyweight Champion.

Calzaghe was just a great fighter. He threw punches, and then threw more punches, and probably threw some punches you missed because they were that fast. I like Joe, followed his career, and now I am going to miss him. So will boxing.

Venema's Children at the Lord's Table

I have been reading Dr. Venema’s book entitled Children at the Lord’s Table, and I have to say I am quite disappointed. Venema is against them, but I do think he gives away too much, argues for the wrong thing, and therefore loses the debate. I have made no secret that I argue for Confirmation based Communion. Or in other words, communion based on instruction in the faith, understanding of the faith as well as a profession of faith. Venema merely argues for the last part: profession of faith. And in so doing he gives away too much. His opening chapter states that a soft padeocommunion (young children professing faith) is just a slight historic deviation, not something that is wrong. Rev. Wilson actually shows the silliness of this position, in effect it becomes merely an argument over age rather than principle. Thus, he is merely arguing about age with the padeocommunists, and I think Venema stands outside the Reformed tradition and biblical teaching on the point. What makes it worse is that Venema agrees, he just does not seem to notice that he does.

Let me illustrate. His third chapter on the Reformed Confessions states that “they [Reformed Confessions] also insist that such children, prior to their reception to the Table of the Lord, require instruction in the Christian faith in order that they might be prepared to receive properly the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament” (pg.27-28). Terrific! I agree. Admission to the table requires more than a profession of faith, it requires instruction (implied understanding) as well. This must be done before kids can partake. Venema then does a nice job of proving the confessions teach just that. Yet, Venema takes it all back when he states at the end of the chapter. “The purpose of catechetical instruction instruction of children of believing parents is to prepare them to make a credible confession of faith, which, in the traditional practice of Reformed churches, is effected by means of a “public profession of faith”.”(pg.48). No, that is not correct. People can make a credible profession of faith, and still be admitted to the table. Catechism was traditionally done prior to first communion. Calvin did it and Bucer did it (although Venema leaves both of those facts out of his history). Lutherans still do it, as do the churches of the RCUS. Even in history the Roman Catholics required Confirmation before First Communion. Traditionally catechism is not to get a public profession of faith, but to instruct them into a fuller understanding of the faith. Public Profession may have been done, or confirmations may have been done (which might be considered the same thing), but we cannot confuse a profession of faith with an instructed understanding of the faith.

Just in case you think I am misrepresenting Venema he states up front what his position is: “the traditional view, which emphasizes the necessity of a public profession of faith prior to the believer’s admission to the Table” (pg.2). All Venema is arguing for in the book is a public profession. It appears as the book goes on that he might want some instruction, but he consistently fails to make it a requirement. Yet, his historical research shows that it was always a central part. The Reformed Confessions argue for instruction prior to the admission to the table. Even the Scriptures argue for the admission being based on a knowledge that is deeper than just a profession of faith. I think I will comment further on this book as I have some theories as to why Venema fails to put the addition of the instruction in his requirements. But let us save that for another post.

Anglican and Rome Merger

If you have not seen this disturbing news, you might want to take a look at it. Apparently Anglicans are actually thinking about taking the Vatican up on their offer. And what makes it depressing is that it is the conservative Anglicans that are thinking about it. If you had not heard, Pope Benedict made some sort of offer to the Anglicans that they could join the Roman fold if they were inclined to leave the Anglican communion, and they would be given a special status such as ruled by Anglican bishops, and able to teach at Anglican seminaries. I don’t know all the details such would they have to accept papal claims, but I assumed the offer was just an attempt to peal away one or two Anglo-Catholics. However, it appears as if it might peal away the African conservative base of the Anglican Church.

It is another potent reminder that the Anglican Reformation was not really the same as the Reformed Reformation and its path since then has also been different. It also should remind us that being right on social issues like abortion and homosexuality does not equal being sound on theology in general or even in the basics of salvation. I am not sure what Bishop Akinola is pondering about this offer. Reject it, hand it back to the Romanist heretic on the papal throne and go on about your day. The mere fact he considers it does not speak well for him.

Growing Hatred for True Christianity

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the world hates Christianity. The attacks upon it grow every day and the attempts to paint Christians as wild eyed crazy people continue as well. Much like the Romans like to portray Christians as the arsonists of Rome or as cannibals to justify their torture and death.

For example, the gay agenda in Hollywood needs no explanation. Last Thursday night the ABC show Grey’s Anatomy put on a full blown homosexual hit piece. They included fun lines to chant at rallies like "You can’t pray away the gay." As well as more subtle clues like the lesbian character feuding with her father who told her she was going to hell. The father quoted OT verses (except one from Romans) which he read off of note cards while the lesbian character quoted Jesus from memory. Most of the quotes were interestingly enough Beattitudes from Matthew 5 including "Blessed are the Pure in Heart" implying homosexual behavior is okay because their motives are pure and "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake" implying two false ideas: that gays are persecuted and that their behavior is righteous. One talk by a patriotic lesbian soon sets the father straight (no pun intended) and he accepts the homosexual behavior. A clear attack on Christianity by the homosexual lobby there.

But even more disturbing than the constant attacks by Hollywood are the ones where people discuss Christianity in the guise of Christianity itself. Jon Meacham, the lefts favorite Christian (although he has yet to argue for Christianity) has helped start an "On Faith" section of the Washington Post Web Site. It takes on the convergence of Faith and Politics and always comes out on the side of anti-Christian hatred even though it supposedly takes in a number of views. Take for example the recent promotion of a Hate Crimes Law the Democrats are likely to push through. The author assures us that there is no reason to fear for a pastor’s right to proclaim homosexuality a sin, despite the mounting evidence of pastors in jail under similar laws in Canada and Europe. The bigger problem is not pastors, but Christians in general. Will they still have the right if they are not protected by a ministerial degree and a pulpit? The even broader question that intersects Faith and Politics is "Can the Government criminalize thought, and also make itself the knower of thoughts and motives?" Is that not something that belongs to God alone? Of course those issues are not brought up because then the Hate Crime bill would be defeated.

Check out the recent list of posts on the the controversy about Swine Flu Vaccine. I will be up front and state that I will not vaccinate my kids because I think the risks are worse than the reward. Why bother for such a non-deadly virus. Still note the supposed diversity of views. Not a single article saying that it is okay to religiously object to vaccines. Even the one that sounds like it favors respecting individual rights and choices contains the idea that society has a right to force you if its wants to do so. The forum also has an article condemning people like me as sinners for not vaccinating. As well as the more disturbing article that argues to put our trust in science. Not to mention the obligatory post that declares Universal Health Care a moral duty.

This shows a great misunderstanding of Christianity and its role in life. What is worse is that these people are usually related to the Christian Church in someway (except the post on Universal Health Care which was written by a wiccan). This is a fairly clear effort by the Washington Post to get liberal pastors to teach a perverted view of Christianity.

Take a look at a more serious topic than vaccines, the recent political protests. Here a Mormon pastor remind us we are the problem, and that shrill and sarcastic language is wrong. Obviously then the mormon church has a problem with Jesus calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers and white washed tombs. The President of Chicago Seminary let us know our anger lies in racism of course as does a UCC pastor and a Baptist pastor says it is not only racism, but unchristian to disagree with the President. That is about as much as I can take. The point is that this forum despite allowing Cal Thomas to occassional participate is set up to attack Christians, and does not provide the majority of Christians with a voice. Only the liberals are allowed in. Why? So that the next generation and the current one can learn that Christianity is only okay if it is liberal and has removed the fundamental point of Christianty: That Jesus is Lord and Savior and we can serve no other. Because if that attitude were allowed onto the On Faith forum, people would actually have to consider that there is a higher authority and maybe just maybe we will have to follow Him, even in calling sin, sin. And even if it means opposing liberal ideas at the political level. Such a Christianity cannot be tolerated, even in a forum dedicated to tolerance.

Rev. Wilson and the Cup

Doug Wilson is at it again. In a recent post about the Lord’s Supper he illustrates what is wrong with his view of the Supper.
First, Matthew 23:25-26 is not talking about the Supper. Thus, to apply this to the supper just because it mentions the word cup seems wrong headed.
Second, this sentence is just plain wrong. "When the Lord’s Supper is observed rightly, what is on the inside of the cup? It is the blood of Christ, the blood that cleanses from all sin."
It is not the blood of Jesus on the inside of the cup. It is wine. Unless one believes in transubstantiation it is always wine on the inside of the cup. The wine symbolizes the blood, but it is still wine. He is right that only the blood cleans us from sin, but he specifically states that if the Supper is rightly observed that the inside of the cup is blood on the body is on the platter. This is Romanism, and after over a thousand years it is still wrong.
Third, he contradicts himself in this next paragraph.
"Cleansing the inside of the cup is not accomplished by introspection. Cleansing the platter is not brought about by self-accusation. Sinners can only be cleansed because Christ their Savior died—and at this meal, we are confronted with that reality. Christ bled. Christ was broken. This broken bread cleanses the platter. This shed blood cleanses the cup. Look to that reality and respond in faith."
Note in this paragraph he says it is only the reality of the death of Christ that makes us clean. And that reality is not in our cup (admitting that the cup is only wine). That is much better, but does contradict what he said in the paragraph right before. He also seems to be confused about the benefit in the meal. He wants to deny it is benefit from mental activity, so he states it is not from introspection. Then he admits the benefit is only found in looking to Jesus, which is not actually in the cup. Thus, benefit can only be derived from a mental activity, the one of faith. "Look to that reality and respond in faith" is what the meal is supposed to do. Remind us the death of Christ. In faith, we can be strengthened through our remembrance of Him. But, the whole point of this post by Wilson is to say what is inside the cup cleans us. That cannot fit with "look to that reality and respond in faith."

Wilson tries to have it both ways in this post. That is part of the problem with Rev. Wilson. He just wants it both ways. But two opposites cannot both be true.

Russia better off Red? A criticism

Newsweek magazine has a throw away page on the back of their most recent issue that just gives stats. The question is posed whether or not Russia was better under communism or not. Clearly the collector of the stats believes Russia was better off under communism. I do not remember all the stats, but they included things like population (higher under Communism), life expectancy (insignificantly higher under Communism), and land in agricultural use as well as forest land (both higher under Communism). It also contained a few more serious stats like number of hospitals, which was almost twice as high under Communism. Reported crimes (lower under Communism) and diseases diagnosed (lower under Communism). I can argue against Russia being better off today based solely on these stats. For instance, I could point out that "reported" crimes are not an actual measure of crimes, and the fact that they are higher may show people trust the police more now than under the Red years. I could argue that fewer hospitals yet higher disease diagnoses probably points to a better health care system. But that misses the point, just like Newsweek always does. The point is this:
Communism is a worldview, a philosophical outlook, not just an economic system.

You cannot have the economic system without the accompanying worldview. This is why America stood against Communism for so long. It was not that we thought some guys in Russia ought to be able to hold their own farms. No. It is that Communism is a dangerous, deadly worldview that seeks to turn the world upside down in all areas, not just economics. Does anyone really think that Eisenhower added the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance because he favored the Free Market? Clearly it is because he knew Communism was against all that is good and holy in the world, including the existence of God. With religion as an "opiate" and God as non-existent, a new basis for order must be found. Evil was not violating God’s law (in communism), but evil becomes materialism. Material goods shape ideas is a basic point of Marx. Thus, the removal of materialism is the way to promote good and eliminate evil. Only the state has the ability to do this and stop this materialism since any individual with material goods (means of production or wealth) is necessarily corrupted by them. Even in the Declaration of Independence our individual rights are linked to our Creator. Communism removes the creator, the individual rights follow the Creator and are removed. And with no measure of good or evil accept materialism and utilitarianism it is no surprise that blood revolution is promoted as an acceptable means to achieve these goals. It is not a surprise then that "to make an omlete you have to break a few eggs" or "one death is a tragedy but 10,000 is a statistic." The economics of collectivism is simply the result of the broader worldview. One that led to the slaughter of countless thousands if not millions.

Newsweek may have found that people on average live less than half a year longer. But does that really mean Russia was better off when a word spoken against the state could lead to one "disappearing" and never returning. Does Newsweek really think the mass murder committed by Stalin and others is better than what they have now? Such an argument is a moral outrage. Our country was founded on Christian belief whether Meacham likes it or not. Our country is founded on "Give me liberty or Give me death." But Newsweek apparently would trade a lifetime of liberty for a few more months to live. And that is just an outright shame.

Children at the Table but Not at the Baptistry

I wanted to read Dr. Venema’s book Children at the Lord’s Table. So I went on Interlibrary Loan and typed in the title of the book. Silly me, I did realize that there were multiple books by the same title. I ended up getting the same titled book, but by a Disciples of Christ minister named John T. Hinant. And while I still plan to read Dr. Venema’s book, I am glad that I made the mistake. Hinant’s book was fascinating for several reasons even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Hinant is in favor of infants and children at the table despite the fact that the Disciples of Christ is an ‘adult only baptism’ church. I had no idea how far spread this movement had become until I read this book. Hinant argues that the right order of events is communion-confirmation-baptism. Hinant’s book is also interesting because it grew out of a poll by mail he conducted about the subject. Apparently communing unbaptized children is a fairly regular practice despite the fact that it is not supposed to be in the Disciples churches. Hinant also briefly touches on one major fact that I think is missing from the Presbyterian-Reformed debate and that is the confirmation aspect.

I do think that Hinant overstates the historical evidence for Paedo-Communion (PC). He fails to note the seeming objections of Origen, Clement of Alexandria as well as the Didascalia. He then also just sweeps out of hand the idea that Cyprian’s adherence to the practice might not be universal. Most of the rest of his historical proof is about young children, but clearly not infants. He then admits that as Confirmation was moved away from the moment of baptism so too did the taking of communion move away from baptism. Confirmation was necessary. Hinant called this a problem for Protestants who did not want to make Confirmation a sacrament since it barred access to a sacrament.

One other point that seemed to be the case in some of the quotes about infant communion is that they were linked to a reading of John 6 that required the eating of the flesh to be saved. Infant communion is inextricably linked to the idea that communion is necessary for salvation. Clearly the ancients who did adhere to this idea viewed it as necessary for eternal life that is why infants are argued for then and it is still the reason now. Sacramentalism is a prerequisite for the PC position.

Some of the quotes made me wonder if they administered the sacrament once to infants to get them “saved”, but was the communing continued? It was hard to tell from a lot of the quotes.

It was an educational book to see adult baptism only denominations allowing young children and infants to the Table. I still disagree with his book, but it was interesting to