Two-Edged Sword

Princeton - 200 years later

2012-01-15T00:36:00.004-06:00

In case anyone missed it, Princeton Seminary was founded in 1812 - or 200 years ago. Expect a lot of stuff coming up all year about Princeton. And there are lots of things to praise about Princeton. A century of excellence and a legacy of fighting the good fight for orthodoxy. If you want to join in on some celebrating and learning, check out Greenville Theological Seminary's Conference dedicated to Princeton. Blogs are in on the action as well. Expect more remembrances all year long. Even the Young Restless and Reformed Gang at the Gospel Coalition is in on it all year. And so you should expect more rebuttals about that too.

But the question remains, did Princeton get it right? Is it the model we should be following? I expect to get yelled at, but let me venture the answer. No. They didn't. Everyone always points out that no seminary was orthodox longer than Princeton. Most are lucky to make it 50 years, much less 100. And its direct descendant Westminster has made it quite some time as well (with less success). But the fact remains. Princeton went bad. In fact most seminaries go bad. That is just a fact that cannot really be denied. Whether they are church supported like Calvin Seminary or more independent like Knox. They go bad.

Let me just remind everyone that Andover Theological Seminary and Princeton Seminary are two of the first in the nation. Before that people learned in the homes of pastors. Or they stayed extra at Yale or a place like that reading theology before going to take an exam. Princeton was a fundamental shift in how theological education was done. It became modeled after school. Education was done by the professional scholar not the everyday pastor. This is, I believe, Princeton's fundamental flaw. Every seminary today is based on this model mostly because of Princeton (in the Reformed World at least).

Princeton turned out great scholars, and they battled liberalism in print more than anyone else. The Princeton Review was influential and the world renown of the scholars is nothing to sneeze at. But did they win the battle in the pews? Hard to say, but maybe not. Take a look at their most famous students.
Charles Hodge - never pastored a church but went on to a great career training pastors.
Joseph Addison Alexander - never pastored a church, but taught at Princeton.
B.B. Warfield - was a stated supply at a couple of place, but spent the majority of his life as a professor.
Geerhardus Vos - never pastored a church but was the founder of modern Biblical theology at Princeton.
Casper Wistar Hodge Jr. - never pastored a church and was ordained after he became a professor at Princeton.
J. Gresham Machen - never pastored a church, but did serve in the Great War for which he was ordained. Professor most of his life.
Robert Dick Wilson - never pastored and was a professor that went to Westminster
O.T. Allis - never pastored a church, and was a professor that went to Westminster.

Now many professors did pastor. AA Hodge pastored, as did J.A. Alexander, and his brother J.W. Alexander (who actually quit being a professor to go back to pastoring). But with all of these great professors who did not ever serve in the pulpit, one has to wonder how good were they at applying their truths to the daily ministry? Lest you think I am making this up here is a quote from David Calhoun's wonderful history of Princeton:
"Practical theology was Princeton's weakest area. It was difficult to find the scholar-pastor-preacher combination to fill the need, and there was apparently some reluctance on the part of the faculty to develop this department fully, fearing that it would detract from the more academic work." Vol. 2 pg. 216
The students actually complained in 1909, but the faculty viewed that as a just plain lack of intellectual prowess in the students. However, I think that the end shows that perhaps the faculty misunderstood the fundamental nature of preaching and pastoral work.

Now a student studying with a pastor would not get the access to so many brilliant minds in one place. But he does get a heavy does of pastoral reality, a good handle on the practical nature of theology, preaching, and church shepherding. The question becomes is it better for the church as a whole if many get a rigorous academic training for the ministry to become scholar-pastors, or if an entire army is equipped to be preaching-pastors. I at least think the answer to that is up in the air, and that as we celebrate Princeton we be willing to throw out their model altogether.

A new book on Two Kingdoms

2012-01-11T10:47:00.003-06:00

I just found a new book that might give me some insight for those Transformationalists against the Two Kingdoms. As much as I hate giving money to John Frame, I am going to have to get this
book.

Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

2011-12-19T22:55:00.002-06:00

I will get back to the review of Culture Making soon enough. However, this has been on my mind a little bit, and I ran across some old posts and Alpha and Omega Ministries arguing this point. James White seems to have been upset and a little offended by R. Scott Clark not taking the time to notice the difference between covenantal and non-covenantal credobaptists. It seems to have involved Radon Thoughts where you can read some interaction with Clark, and then White has a short follow up. Again this seems to have been two years ago, and Dr. Clark's blog has since been taken down, so I could not read what he wrote originally.

Since I could not read the original blog do not take this as a whole sale defense of R. Scott Clark. That being said, he is right. You cannot be a Credo-Baptist and Reformed. And I think that applies even if I grant everything that James White says. Even if I agree with his take on Acts 2:39 (and he has a point about not quoting the whole verse, although I think quoting the whole thing strengthens the infant baptism position). Even if I agree that a Credo-Baptist can be covenantal in his approach, I don't think that they can be considered Reformed. Why? Because the Reformation defined itself. In the creeds.

Find me one Reformed Creed that allows Credo Baptism only. You can't. You can't because it does not exist. Even the creeds designed to bring people together like the Heidelberg Catechism requires infant baptism. Even the very accepting city of Strassborg penned the Tetrapolitian Confession of 1530 and it requires infant baptism. Radon Thoughts tries to defined Reformed as being covenantal and adherence to the Five Solas, but that is not how the Reformation defined itself. When they drew the boundary lines, they always drew them to exclude Credo Only Baptism. Some the creeds are even what we would consider weak or open on Predestination, but not on infant baptism. It was considered a fundamental to being Reformed.

Randon Thoughts also brings up the 1689 London Confession that is basically the Westminster Confession with a Credo Baptist section on Baptism. But the Reformation is over by this point. The latest date one can place on the Reformation is 1649 when the Peace of Westphalia made the Reformed Faith legal in the German Empire. So this does not count as a Reformational Creed.

James White does claim that such a position as mine is a position of tradition, and thus he would be more in line with the spirit of the Reformation by reconsidering the doctrines according to the Word, and throwing out that which does not fit. However, many have done just that. Arminius believed he did it, and he threw out predestination. Wesley did the same thing. As did George Fox. There have been numerous movements that examined what the Reformation believed and in their opinion it was wrong, so they changed it. But those are all rightly known by other names. The Arminians or Remonstrants, the Methodists, and the Quakers. Why are they not called Reformed? Because they examined the Reformed beliefs, and changed them. Thus they are not Reformed any more! This is what the Baptists did when they made the London Baptist Confession of 1689. They changed it, and today we call them Baptists. Not Reformed Baptists, just Baptists. If you examine a set of beliefs and change some of them because you believe they are wrong, then you don't get to take the name of the set of beliefs you just left behind. It is just how life works.

A Two Kingdoms moment

2011-12-03T00:30:00.002-06:00

I will get back to my review of Culture Making, but I had to write about this. The Christianity Today arrived the other day, and it contained an article that lays bare some of what VanDrunen is complaining about. The article by Chuck Colson was the particular offender, although for the first time I remember Colson had a co-author.

The article was about Public Education and how we as Christians have a duty to support it and fix it. Now this is meddling in areas that VanDrunen would claim a liberty of conscious on for sure, but the imperative nature of the article is what was particularly galling. The term "justice" was used. It was actually claimed that lack of educational opportunities was an injustice that Christians had to address. I just cannot see access to education as a matter of justice. Justice is about breaking the law and getting what you deserve. Education has no place in a discussion about justice. The support for such a claim about education? Well, it was not biblical. It was a piece of information about how well rich kids do in school, a quote from Benjamin Rush, and an appeal to history of church support of schooling. Oh yeah, the Waiting on Superman movie was mentioned.

This was a clear Transformationalist article. An attempt to require Christians to fix public education as if it was somehow a gospel duty. Confusing political action about schooling with the Justice of God is not healthy. It is misleading, and it is wrong. Articles like this one make me want to be a Two Kingdoms guy.

Transformationalism - Culture Making

2011-12-01T00:27:00.002-06:00

So, as I continue to try and digest this Two Kingdom vs. Transformationalism debate, I need to read more than just Dr. Zylstra. It is not really fair to read full books about Two Kingdom Theology and then read only articles about transformationalism. Although finding books directly about Transformationalism is harder than I thought it would be. It is often assumed, but not defended. I know lots of people who are transformationalists, but they don't write directly about it. Those who have are best avoided such as Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and others. Avoided not because I couldn't learn from them, but because it fits too nicely into VanDrunene's thesis that Transformationalism leads to unorthodox thinking with regards to Justification by faith.

So, I tried to find an orthodox source. I settled on Andy Crouch's book: Culture Making. He has a blog by the same name, but I won't be talking about anything on the blog, just the book.

Crouch's first section is actually very good. Crouch begins by just laying the ground work before getting into the Bible and such. So he has a rather good discussion about culture and its nature. Crouch defines culture as making something out of the world. Now that is a little bit different than VanDrunen's rather broad definition. Thus, a comparison might be difficult because of differing views of what culture actually is. For instance, VanDrunen clearly believes marriage part of culture, but does that fit into Crouch's definition? I am not sure. That is a problem for later.

What is so great about Crouch's opening is that he argues rather well that culture has to be made or replaced by something new, rather than simply criticized. He actually criticizes Schaeffer and newer writers such as Nancy Pearcy for simply intellectually taking on culture. He uses an example of Tuesday night Chili night at his house. His boys can whine, complain, critique, and even argue against it; however, none of that will change Tuesday chili night. But if the boys were to make their own food and serve it to the parents every Tuesday before the Chili could be made, that would be well received and would change Chili night. He goes a lot deeper than that, but often uses easy to understand examples. He criticizes other methods of engaging culture including boycotts and sub-cultures and it is really very well done. Crouch is a good writer and a pretty easy read.

It takes a couple of chapters of this introductory stuff before Crouch switches over to Scripture. But he leaves you with the sense that culture is being made, and it cannot be stopped. People must do culture. it is part of being human. He has laid the groundwork for his argument. In the next post I will get into his biblical overview of Christians and Culture.

Zylstra Review - Part 3 - Bible texts

2011-11-11T23:57:00.003-06:00

Dr. Zylstra only mentions four bible verses in support of his Transformationalist position and his critique of Dr. Van Drunen's Two Kingdom view. Let's just look at each one.

John 3:17 is one he mentions. I can only assume that Dr. Zylstra is referencing the idea that Jesus came to save the world, and by the world Zylstra is taking it to mean culture or the physical stuff in the world. if this verse means those two things then it would attack VanDrunen's idea of this world ending and the things of this ending. It is a central point of the Two Kingdom argument. However, it is hard to read John 3:17 that way. "World" appears here to mean "the people of the nations" or "gentiles" as in addition to Jews. This is how most of the commentators take it. I checked Calvin and Hendrickson, and both read "world" as "gentiles and people of all nations." Context would seem to support Calvin and Hendrickson and is against Zylstra.

Colossians 1:17 is his next verse. Here Zylstra is clearly pointing to the idea that "all things consist". Other translations might have the idea of "carry on" which is what Zylstra wants us to see. That and in the fact that "all" things continue "in Christ". However, again it seems a bit of stretch. VanDrunen never denies the Providential hand of Christ, and that is how Calvin and Hendrickson took it. Zylstra needs this verse to say that things of this culture will continue on in Christ Jesus not just in this world, but into the next. I am not sure all of that meaning can be forced into that passage. The idea of all things being in Christ might could be used by Zylstra, but VanDrunen was adamant that a Christian must do all things as a Christian, so again, I think that this verse falls short.

I Corinthians 15:58 gets closer to supporting Zylstra. Here Zylstra is pointing out that our labor is not in vain. With the obvious implication that a Two Kingdom idea that sees no eternal value in cultural labor would be definition make cultural labor "vain". But does a Two Kingdom idea does not necessitate that it would be in vain. God is still glorified. So this verse does not argue for a transformationalist perspective. However, I do believe that I can agree with Zylstra here that it might have been nice for VanDrunen to have explained how it fits in a 2K perspective.

Zechariah 14:20-21 really stands as his best verse. Here Zylstra argues that God is calling us to make all things Holy to the Lord even the bells on horses, and not just the things of the priests. This actually argues for a Transformationalist understanding in opposition to a Two Kingdoms view. If Zylstra is correct then all of life must be Holy to the Lord, or distinctively Christian, not just subjectively but objectively. Yet, again differing interpretations can be found here. Zechariah 14 can be taken as a description of what the New Heavens and New Earth will be like. There all things will be Holy to the Lord as the entire place will be temple and distinctively Christian. In this view then Zechariah is giving a prophecy of the Day of the Lord and His victory and not giving a command of what we ourselves are to achieve or strive to bring about here on this earth. Zylstra's reading is possible, but not the one I personally take of Zechariah. Which brings up a bigger question . . .

Does Transformationalism go hand in hand with a Post Millennial view point. Does Two Kingdoms go only with an Amillennial view point? This seems to fit with the differing ways of reading Zechariah 14. A Post Mil reading would be that this Day of the Lord would be the ultimate triumph of the church, and the church then makes all things Holy to the Lord. The Amil reading would tend more to a description of the Final Day of the Lord where Christ himself finally returns with the New heavens and new earth. I believe it is an interesting discussion that requires further discussion.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Second Article Review

2011-11-03T00:32:00.003-05:00

Zylstra's second article in September was worse. This time Zylstra was reviewing Living In God's Two Kingdoms. Zylstra starts off by pointing that VanDrunen believes it is the Two Kingdoms way or the highway (pg.43). While I think that this is overstating it a bit, especially since he works along side transformationalists at Westminster Seminary, he is correct that VanDrunen believe the Two Kingdoms part of a broader frame work. Yet, Zylstra chose to pick on the line about Transformationlism being "not true to Scripture" (pg.13 of Two Kingdoms), and not the more serious claim of NeoCalivinism/Transformationalism not being consistent with justification by faith (made twice pg. 21 and 58). The first I see as simply saying the Bible does not speak the way the Neo Calvinists say it does, and the second I see as a claim of leading to heresy.
Zylstra again attacks VanDrunen for the football thing in the previous book, but then goes on to claim that VanDrunen supports a wing of the Reformed who think Christian schools as "optional quirkiness at best and un-American separatims at worst" (pg.43). He then immediately admits VanDrunen does no such thing by stating openly VanDrunen does not believe it to be anti-patriotic, and then state on pg.44 that VanDrunen would disagree with this characterization and goes on to admit that VanDrunen has no problem with Christian schooling at all, just a problem with requiring it as the only Christian way to educate. So what is the point of making such odd claims in a paragraph earlier? The only options seem to be incompetence or an attempt to poison the well. I do not believe Dr. Zylstra to be incompetent. The next sentences however are vital and I will quote them in full.

"However, Dr. VanDrunen misses (or dismisses) the point that has driven generations of parents to establish and maintain Christian day schools. The point of these dedicated Christian communities is their conviction that Christian perspective on all of life simply is never optional. Educating a child to look at the world through anything less than scripturally shaped lenses is considered a violation of the parents' responsibility to their child, to the Christian community to whom the child belongds, and to the Kingdom of the Christ in whose name the child was baptized. They have always believed that any pedagogical deficiencies in the school should be corrected and any academic lapses should be made up as the child continues to grow. But to disobey the biblical command to train up a child in the way he or she should go simply never entered their Reformed minds. (44)"

Zylstra here claims that anything less than sending your child to a Christian school is a violation of Ephesians 6 and Proverbs. This means that all people who go to public school are sinning. It means that all people who homeschool, like myself, are sinning. He has to be saying that. VanDrunen never states that it would be okay for a Christian parent to raise their child as a pagan or anything less than the fear and admonition of the Lord. Again he says over and over Christians must always act Christianly, including in parenting. The disagreement comes in how that is practically played out. Can a child raise their child up in the way he should go and still send the child to public school? VanDrunen says plainly on page 183 it is a matter of "Christian liberty". I believe that Zylstra has said here that it is not. This is the disagreement. One that I will come back to along with the three scriptures referenced by Zylstra in this article in a later post.
I find this requirement to send ones kids to Christian schools a little ironic since the problem Dort College had in getting started as a Junior College from the CRC. The CRC wished to require people to come to Calvin and would not allow for even a Junior College to be founded. No monetary relief was allowed and people required to contribute to Calvin. This went on for decades before Dordt was able to get established. Now it is Dordt making the requirement argument. Ironic.
One thing left needs to be said about this second article. Zylstra claims that VanDrunen is poisoning the well by using as his examples for Neo-Calvinism NT Wright and the Emergent church, two "bogeymen" as Zylstra calls them (44). While I can share Zylstra's frustration as it would have been nice and easier for me if he interacted more with orthodox Reformed men, the book is intended for a wider audience than the Reformed world. Andy Crouch has written on Transformationalism, but has any one ever heard of Andy Crouch? Not many. When NT Wright and Scot McKnight, and Brian McLaren write books they are on CNN and the Morning Shows and they get articles about them in Christianity Today. That is why those two groups were chosen. I also could not help but wonder at Zylstra's choice of words "bogeyman". Traditionally "bogeymen" were make-believe bad guys, not actual bad guys. NT Wright and the Emergent Church are actual heretics. I wonder if Zylstra agrees. After all he had a man on staff who was a big fan of Wright. Currently that professor is on sabbatical, but he is not being fired for such beliefs.
This is a debate that is important and needs to be had. However, this is not having a debate. This is pure rhetorical punching with no real substance. Perhaps a magazine is just not the format for such thing. But I believe a better attempt at interaction could easily be made. VanDrunen's books are very well argued, even if you disagree with him. And for the most part, fairly neutral in tone. I do wish VanDrunen would write another book where he fleshes out the connection between Transformationalism and denial of Justification by faith alone. But even those claims are so small that most critics miss them. Zylstra did. They are indeed bombshells, but they are not often quoted.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Article Review

2011-11-03T00:14:00.003-05:00

Okay, so part of my trying to read more and stay up to date has involved the Two Kingdoms debate. I am still trying to work through it, and so I thought I would do so here on my blog. Interaction would be appreciated. This will be a series of blogs.

I have to admit that I was a late comer to this Two Kingdoms debate that seems to rage so hot. And I confess, I am not sure why it is so hot. To me both Neo Calvinist Transformationalism and the Two Kingdoms doctrines are both allowable in at least the Three Forms of Unity bounds, so I don't understand the heat. I understand that their are outliers at both ends that probably do fall outside of confessional bounds, but one cannot define the position through the outliers. So, I will start with the couple of articles critiquing Dr. David VanDrunen in the Pro Rege magazine of Dordt College. Both are by Dr. Carl Zylstra, one from one from June and the other from September.

To be fair, I have met both men. And while I am not sure I fit into a Two Kingdoms mold completely, maybe I am closer to that position. Like I said, I am a late comer to this. It should also be noted for fairness sake that the RCUS has recently defunded Dordt College. That vote has come up I believe 7 times since I have been a member at Synod. I have voted 5 times to continue funding and 2 times to defund. So there you go. Now onto the critique.

Dr. Zylstra's first article sets the tone with the title "Serious Education for Serious Christians". Not exactly a friendly title since the implication is that everyone else is a non-serious Christian. The article is motivated by a reference to Dordt in Dr. VanDrunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. This reference is about Dordt College's football program and an attempt to justify it as part of a Biblical Transformationalist Worldview. It also comes in a footnote, but Dr. Zylstra leaves that part out. What is sad is that Dr. Zylstra really seems to miss the point of the book so bad it makes one wonder if he read it. Zylstra states on page 40:

"And indeed the burden of the book in which he makes his critique of Dordt College is to defend his contention that those of us who believe that every occupation in life and every social activity in which we engage should be governed by explicity biblical principles are ourselves the oddballs who really shouldn't claim to be Reformed at all."

Now that is not actually correct. The goal of the book is to chart the doctrine of Two Kingdoms through church history and along with it the use of Natural Law. VanDrunen states in many of his writings that Christians are Christians all the times and thus are always governed by biblical principles in every area of life. Zylstra's quote leaves the impression that VanDrunen would think it okay for Christians to cheat at football (since that is what started this whole article). Not so. In fact, that is not the point of the Two Kingdoms doctrine as I understand it. I believe VanDrunen would say that Christians ought to participate in football, but realize that it does not advance Christ's kingdom when they take a knee and pray after a touchdown, or when play without holding the defensive line. In fact, historically, the Transformationalists have been the ones who avoided football, which is why it was so controversial when Dordt added the program. Some activites Transformationalist have always said could not be redeemed and thus were to be avoided. Football was one of them. Dancing another less we forget Abraham Kuyper's own words. Dordt allows both now.

Zylstra next does something that I find just boarderline insulting. He inserts a paragraph on page 40 that tries to imply VanDrunen supports slavery. The paragraph not only really interrupts the flow of Zylstra's own argument, it reeks of poisoning the well. Yes, VanDrunen covers the Southern Presbyterians in his book. Yes, the Southern Presbyterians believed in the Spirituality of the Church and the Two Kingdoms. Lest we forget they separated into their own denomination when the Gardner Spring resolution made a requirement for Church membership a loyalty oath to the United States. But remember the point of this book was a historical overview. No where does VanDrunen endorse slavery. No where. Slavery is not really even the the content of much the Southern Presbyterian chapter. Also, Zylstra is just wrong when he claims that the Southerns held to a Two Kingdoms view so they could hold slaves without feeling guilty. Contrary to Zylstra they did feel it could be biblically justified. Go read R.L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia and the South if you don't believe me. Such actions on Zylstra's part are just plain sophistry and not worthy of real debate.

Zylstra makes his first biblical defense of Dordt on page 41 by quoting Zechariah 14:20. Zylstra uses that to claim that not only priests wear bells inscribed Holy to the Lord, but also the farm horses and the draft horses. Everyday activies he claims are now to be considered holy to the Lord. It is a goal. This is the best part of his article by far, and gets to the heart of the disagreement I believe. So, I will speak more of this in another post dealing with the Bible quotes specifically.

This article did not do a good job of anything. I do not feel he showed VanDrunen wrong anywhere, nor did he lay a foundation of Serious Education. He did not really even provide a defense for Dordt as a Christian institution. It also seems he should have waited for the next book by VanDrunen because a historical overview book is just not a good one to interact with. And if you do it should be limited to disagreements about the history, charges of misrepresentation, or other similar things. The next post will look at Zylstra's second article which does aim at the Living in God's Two Kingdoms book.

Happy Birthday Belgic Confession

2011-11-01T13:11:00.002-05:00

Today, November 1, is the 450th Birthday of the Belgic Confession. This is the day recognized as the day Guido De Bres threw copies of the Belgic Confession over the walls of Doornik in the night while he was fleeing for his life. This is important to remember as you read the Belgic Confession. It is De Bres's defense about why he is Reformed. It is his letter to the rulers who were pushing the Spanish Inquisition as to what they were persecuting.

But the Confession is also a call to all who were still in the Roman Catholic Church. Especially Article 29 about the True and False Church. It is a call that persecution is no reason to remain in a church that denies the gospel. Yes, life would have been easier for De Bres if he had just sat in a pew and not believed the bread was turned into the Body of Christ, but it would have been a sin. Read his call to people in the Roman Church:

As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.

These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

The two churches are easily known. There was no excuse. All godly men knew the Inquisition was wrong. De Bres just made it plain for all the world to see in the Belgic.

Of course in 1567, Guido De Bres was caught and died for his faith. The Belgic Confession is his testament.

Book Review: Heaven is for Real

2011-10-07T01:03:00.002-05:00

As I said earlier, I am trying to stay more up to date with what is going on and with what others are reading. To that I have read a lot of good little philosophy books that teach philosophy using modern culture. The Philosophy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Philosophy of the Matrix, of Lost, of Star Trek and of Star Wars. It is a great series that I recommend if you are brushing up on Philosophy. Someone ought to do something similar with theology . . .

But the real reason I am writing is to discuss the popular book Heaven is for Real. If you are unfamiliar with it, it is a book that tells the story of Colton Burpo, a 4 year old (I am not going to double check his age, it is young) who claims to have gone to heaven. Now, it is not a near death experience. He never died or stopped breathing or anything like that. But he was in the hospital after having appendicitis, which burst and poisoned him for 5 days. His father is a pastor in Imperial, NE and writes the book from the view point of he and his wife discovering what Colton experienced through their questioning of him off and on for the next year and a half or so.

The book is well written and anyone with a child will be emotional pulled in as the parent pray for God to spare the life of their child. Seriously that part will make you think about your own kids. Rev. Burpo tries very hard to make Colton's story seem like it would line up with Scripture, and reminds us that there is no way a 4 year old would know this even one who attends Sunday School. At times this will make you think Rev. Burpo should find better Sunday School material, but the point is well taken. At first the claims of Colton do seem to line up with Scripture. But by the end of the book, you can't even pretend that anymore.

Which leads me to a real critique. . . Colton ought to be considered a prophet if you believe everything he says. He speaks to Jesus and the Spirit (who is blue in heaven according to Colton). This book brings up all sorts of canon is closed issues that Rev. Burpo never addresses.

Another point is that Colton says he was in heaven for 3 minutes, but he did a lot of stuff like meet his long dead grandpa, speak with Jesus, learn stuff, pet Jesus's horse, and watch the end of the world battle. He also seems to have some sort of run in with Satan, but maybe that was part of the end of the world battle. Colton always clammed up when they asked him about Satan. Rev. Burpo tries to quote Scripture to make us think that time works differently in heaven, but it is a stretch.

Yet another problem is that a lot of this stuff is extra Scriptural. The dead saints have wings of differing sizes. Colton had them too although Colton was not dead. The final battle included monsters and people, not Jesus coming and winning as Revelation would have it. There are animals in heaven too.

Again, logical problems pop up that Rev. Burpo ignores. Colton says he watched the final battle and it included his father fighting on the side of Christ while women and children watch. My first thought was did Colton see himself fighting on the side of Christ? If not why not? Does Colton dies as a child and therefore has to sit and watch? Well, it is never addressed.

We are supposed to believe Colton's story because he knew things he could not know. He knew that his father was praying and his mom was on the phone while in the operating room. Guessable. But he also knew the dead grandpa, who he rightly identified when he saw a young picture of grandpa. Yes, we all look young in heaven with no glasses. And he also knew about the sister who died in utero before Colton was conceived. He met her in heaven. She did not have a name because the parents never named her. They could not agree on a name.

All of the evidence is emotional, and so is the whole book. I kept coming back to the verses about Lazarus and the rich man in my head. They have Moses and the Prophets, they won't believe a person coming back from the dead. This book will captivate a lot evangelicals, but it will not do a thing for an unbeliever.

Heaven is for real, but don't take Colton's word for it, take God's.

Not the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but another

2011-08-31T20:05:00.003-05:00

I didn't post anything about the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre this year, but I thought I would post other massacre's of protestants by Romanists. Perhaps they were inspired by the French, after all the Pope struck a medal for that event.

This is the Magdeburg Massacre or sometimes called the Sack of Magdeburg. This was during the 30 Years' War. Magdeburg was a primarily Protestant city and the Count Tilly brought his army against it and laid siege. The city bravely held out for 7 months, but this was during the part of the war where Protestant resistance was almost non-existent. The Danish had for the most part been handled and it was before Gustavous brought in Sweeden. So no relief ever came for the Protestants of Magdeburg.

The trouble was not the siege, but what happened after. The city of Magdeburg was either 24,000 or 25,000 depending on where you read the stats. The Romanists went through the city and looted it. After it had been thoroughly looted the army wiped out everyone else. Now some of the city was already burning from the attack, but the Romanist then went about destroying what was left. Women, children, men, it did not matter. They killed them all. 20,000 people were killed leaving only 4 or 5,000 people. The city was in ruins and the surrounding area had been pillaged during the siege. The people of Magdeburg continued to die long after the troops left. Apparently it dipped as low as 450 people. It took the Roman army 14 days to haul all the bodies into the river.

Some say that this massacre helped bring Gustavus into the war, but that probably is a bit of an over reach on how religious Gustavus really was. Still, the massacre was immense and today barely makes the history books.

Kingdom of God Conference

2011-08-03T16:13:00.003-05:00

October 14-15
Saint John's Reformed Church
Lincoln, NE

Speaker Dr. David VanDrunen Professor at Westminster Seminary California.

This is an important topic that is much discussed these days. Come, hear, and learn.
Meal will be provided on the 15th.

Suggested donation - $10

For Contact information
402-477-7289

Rob Bell, Blogging, and Responsibility

2011-07-17T21:48:00.004-05:00

I thought I owed everyone a reason the blogging has been almost non-existent. While there are always several factors, one major one sticks out for me. And yes it does involve Rob Bell. I have been absent from blogging to try and catch up on the trends in the culture so I am better prepared to pastor the church. For me, it meant less blog time. I am just not one of those guys who can do both.

Rob Bell is the perfect example. Now everyone should know that I believe in hell, and Rob Bell is clearly a heretic for denying it. When his book came out the blogosphere erupted in criticism, as it should have. But it should have done it 6 years ago or more when Bell admitted "hell was full of forgiven people" in his book Velvet Elvis. Or when he said the "gospel is you" in his Nooma Video series. But instead we waited until he was a huge mega pastor being invited on CNN to discuss his denial of hell that sparked Newsweek, Time, and the Washington Post to declare hell was dead. It is good he was soundly condemned, but it should have happened much earlier. How does this affect me?

Well, it started back in Herreid, SD. I heard of Rob Bell then. No kidding. A town of 488, and I heard about Rob Bell. Someone asked me about him, and I had never really heard of him. I found out he was associated with the Emergent stuff, and I gave the rejection of that. But the people in Herreid are unfamiliar with terms like Emergent, as I bet most are. But they are familiar with names like Rob Bell. I should have known if someone was known in Herreid, I should know about it. Then I came to Lincoln, NE. Here every youth in the high school class already knew of Rob Bell and asked to use his video series in class. Now I knew I had to do something. A pastor in Sutton had the series and a let me see it. Now, I was ready to talk to the people about it. But this is far too late. I need to be on top of things more. The youth also wanted to see more about Francis Chan, and we had to deal with that as well.

It was somewhere in here that I realized I was behind the curve. The people were exposed before I could get on top of new theological trends. I was reactive, not proactive. I have since trying to be more proactive.

My wife aided in this when she told me, "You need to read this." It was a book that was selling thousands of copies without any push from any publishing house. They were selling because her blog was a success. The blog and book is by Ann Voskamp. The book is called 1,000 Gifts. My wife said that all her "mommy bloggers" are reading it and referencing it. Since then Voskamp has been mentioned twice in World Magazine, and has even written a one page article for it. Voskamp is an emotional writer who will bother linear thinkers. She is emotional more than logical. She does not say anything awful, but her teaching comes more from experience with Scripture backing it up than Scripture informing her experience. She is going to display this way of thinking and living life for many. Anyway the point is that I am ahead of the curve rather than behind.

So, this has meant a lot more reading and a lot more discussions with people. I have been trying to catch up, and blogging is what got the ax. Hopefully I can be a little more active on the blog now, but I hope you will all understand the necessity of what I was doing and forgive the absence.

Reformed Scholasticism - a book and a question or two

2011-05-06T18:38:00.002-05:00

I just finished reading a new book by Willem J. Van Asselt, called Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. It is just coming out and has been highly touted by many around the blogosphere including some good friends whom I respect. However, upon reading the book I was highly disappointed.

First, the book does not adequately explain what is not Scholasticism. He defines scholasticism, but never lets us know of anything that is not scholasticism. He does give a few brief titles, but no definitions and not drawing distinctions between the two (or more positions). By not doing so, I felt I did not have a good introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. This is highly ironic when one understands Scholasticism as a method of using dialectics and presenting objections and answering them.

Second, part of the book tried to give a historical progression, but fails in this. He gives examples from each of his three eras. But since he never talked about dissent or the state of scholasticism, one cannot trace any movement or growth in Scholasticism. Disappointing.

I do feel I know more about Reformed Scholasticism than I did going into the book, but I was hoping for a lot more.

What I would rather talk about though is the seeming acceptance of Reformed Scholasticism almost uncritically. It is almost as if Reformed Scholasticism is having a bit of a revival right now. Now, I can agree it was tarred and feathered for too long and unjustly, but that does not mean it is great, or even good or even desirable.

Van Asselt admits up front in the book he holds Reformed Scholasticism in a positive light. His historical treatment begins in 1560, which is late second generation reformation. It is true that in many ways the Reformation was an outright rejection of Scholasticism. The vast majority of the First Reformers were humanists and deliberately rejected Scholasticism. Indeed they were committed humanists and went to the Scripture for their theology. They focused on grammar and linguistic issues as they developed the theology of the Protestant Reformation eschewing the Scholastic argumentation and teaching. Zwingli and the Zurich bunch were humanists and hated Scholasticism, and not just the excess and the theology. They did not use the methodology either. Nor did Oecolampadius in Basel, nor Haller in Bern. Calvin's Institutes looks nothing like the Institutes of Turretin. Because Calvin did use the Scholastic method. Why are we not wondering and looking more closely at the rejection of Scholasticism by the fathers of the Reformation?

Even if we grant that Reformed Scholasticism changed from Romanist Scholasticism so that it was in service to the text of Scripture as Burnett convincingly argues, it does not remove all concern. Does not method affect content?

Let me illustrate. The Heidelberg Catechism (non-Scholastic document. Van Asselt calls it a Synthetic) is vastly different from the Westminster Catechism (more of a Scholastic influenced document). One of the complaints of Reformers about Scholasticism is that it was speculative, and not practical. The Heidelberg starts off by pointing out the end. It starts where it plans to finish, with Christ and him crucified as our only comfort and hope. You can see that point running throughout the document. You will not find discussions of God's nature or man's chief end in the non-scholastic Heidelberg. The Westminster is going to be a much more thorough theologically, touching the points that the Heidelberg just ignores. Is any of that related to the Scholastic influence of many of the Puritans?

Another example this one from Basel. Oecolampadius was the first reformer there. He was a humanist. He wrote a commentary on Daniel where commenting on 3:24-25 (The three in the furnace), he unashamedly claims the fourth figure is Christ himself. This seems to be the point of the text for Oecolampadius although he does mention that the miracle is done by the true God as opposed to false gods of Babylon. Even the application is Christ centered.
John Jacob Grynaeus, a late 1570's head pastor of Basel who brought the town back from Lutheranism, also wrote on Daniel. Grynaeus was much more scholastic in methodology. He rejects the fourth figure as Christ and spends time discussing efficient, secondary, and final causes of the miracle (Aristotle), and unbelievers. Next is Polanus, who was 1599 and thoroughly Scholastic. His discussion on Daniel included long theological discussions of angels, for he too rejected the figure as Christ, broke things into points and sub point on miracles and angels and the like. A trip into what early reformers might have called speculative theology.

I am not saying I am out right against Reformed Scholasticism, but that just maybe we ought to stop and look at this thing a little bit more

450 Years!!!!

2011-05-04T00:54:00.004-05:00

The month of May is the 450 birthday of the Belgic Confession. I will get back to going through the Belgic.

But take the day and read through one of the great Reformation documents.

Looking forward to the church getting at least another 450 years out of the ole Belgic.

Belgic and the French - Defining the Church with Christ

2011-02-10T00:38:00.001-06:00

One of the stark differences between the French Confession and the Belgic is the focus the Belgic Confession puts on the Jesus Christ with regard to the Church. We looked at the difference in the view of Rome in the last post, but note the references to Christ in those same paragraphs.

The French Confession Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

Notice the focus is primarily on the Word of God. They don't receive the Word of God, they banished the Word of God. The body of Christ is mentioned as the church, but that is it. Take a look now at the definition of Church in Article 27.

However, we do believe that we ought to distinguish carefully and prudently between the true and false church, because the word church is very much abused. We say then, according to the Word of God, that the church is an assembly of believers who agree among themselves to follow God's Word, and the pure religion which depends upon it, and who profit by it during their whole life, increasing and confirming themselves in the fear of God, as being persons who daily need a farther progress and advancement in holiness. Yet notwithstanding all their endeavors, they must have recourse to the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins. Nor do we deny but that among the faithful there are some hypocrites or despisers of God or ill-livers; whose wickedness cannot blot out the name of the church.

Again we see here a high focus on the Word of God. Here the church is a band of people following the Word of God upon which true religion depends. Now see the same topics in the Belgic and note the different focus.

The Belgic Article 29.

"We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of god which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. but we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that they body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

"

Here we see that the Belgic makes the mark of the Church include a submission to Jesus Christ as Head. The mark of a Christian as receiving Jesus as the only savior and take refuge in Him. The false Church does indeed lower the Word of God, but also refuses the yoke of Christ seen by not administering the sacraments according to Christ. It relies upon men more than Christ. The focus is much less on the Word and much more on Jesus as Savior. The same can be seen when the Belgic defines the word Church.

Belgic Article 27 (only first paragraph)

We believe and profess one catholic and universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Here the Belgic puts the focus on Christ. A church is a congregation of believers expecting salvation from Jesus and are washed by Him, sealed by the Spirit. The French Confession defined it as believers agreeing to follow God's Word. The Belgic defines the Church by the Savior and the French much more by the Word of God. An interesting difference. One can only guess at the reason. Perhaps it was because the French were still trying to win the Royal family over through argumentation. Thus, they may have wished to stress the Roman church's departure from the Word of God. They may also have had a concern not to alienate to many in the Roman faith by stating or implying that they were not believers in Christ, rather they were simply not following the Word of God. This might explain the inclusion of no need of rebaptism in the French Confession. The Belgic barely address rebaptism in a small phrase at the end of the section on Baptism, but it is addressed to the Anabaptists not to Rome. The Belgic Confession was written during a time of massive persecution by the Spanish, and the Dutch were not trying to win over the royal family. They were not trying to win disputations and colloquies. They may have felt more free to link the persecution of the Reformed Church to a hatred of Jesus Christ himself.

One more place that this can be seen, I believe, is in Article 37 On the Last Judgment. I won't reproduce the whole article, but it is about the return of Jesus Christ. A bodily return. But the main focus of the article is that God will bring punishment on those who "cruelly persecuted, oppressed, and tormented them [elect] in this world." And then the comfort that the judgment brings to elect as the "Son of God will confess their names before God His father and His elect angels". It ends with a call an "ardent desire" to "fully enjoy the promises of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This relates to the church theme because it is Christ's triumphant return to deliver his elect from the persecution of the wicked. Which ought to include the False Church which Article 29 stated "persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God". The French Confession does not have a section on the return of Christ.

Now, I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to say that the French Confession does not promote Jesus Christ. It surely does in beautiful articles 12-19 especially. I am speaking here of a difference in emphasis especially as it relates to the Church. The French Confession has a clear exalted view of Jesus, but it does not have the same focus on Jesus when discussing the Church that the Belgic contains.

Hopefully in the next post we will take one last contrast between the French and the Belgic.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

2011-01-18T15:05:00.003-06:00

Calvin did not think a new Confession needed to be written for the churches in the Low Countries, but he did not oppose or condemn it in anyway. It appears that he simply thought the French Confession of 1559 was good enough for the Low Countries as well. Yet, the ministers in the Low Countries seemed to disagree. Perhaps because the situation had radically changed between 1559 and 1561. Geneva was a relative safe spot for the Reformation and Calvin did not experience there any real persecution from the Romanists. This was not the case in Belgium. Even France, which used Calvin's Confession of 1559, was relatively peaceful in that year. But by 1561 persecution had really broken out across France and the first wars of religion were being fought. In 1559 the Colloquy at Poissy was on the horizon and hope for a peaceful settlement still existed. But in 1561, France had seen the Massacre at Vassy, and the beginning of never ending strife had started. The Low Countries were even worse. The Inquisition was occurring and the ministers in the Low Countries often fled into France for safety telling you something about how unsafe the Low Countries really were for Reformed believers. I think that this attitude can be found in the Belgic Confession. Let us compare the French Confession of Calvin in 1559 to the Belgic and how it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a note, I will be using the French Confession as translated by William Foote in The Huguenots (1870), and the Belgic Confession the Christians Reformed Church 1976 Psalter edition as reprinted in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries Vol. 2 by James Dennison.

The French Confession speaks directly about the Roman Church in Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

I think an interesting difference in tone more than in substance takes place here. Calvin in the French Confession does make sure to point out that certain assemblies in the papacy banish God's Word, and corrupt the sacraments, but he then goes out of his way to speak about a small track of the church in the papacy, and how there is no need for rebaptism in what seems like perhaps a precaution against Anabaptists or other extreme reformed movements.

The Belgic on the other hand seems to speak in harsher terms about the Roman Catholics. Pointing out directly that the church lowers Jesus Christ putting more faith in man than in the Savior. Refusing to submit to Christ they go a step further and "persecute" those who do submit to that yoke of Jesus Christ. The papacy is condemned outright by making a mark of the true church acknowledging Jesus Christ as the lone head of the church. The Belgic puts a contrast forth that the true Church (the Reformed churches) follow Christ in all things, and the Roman Church rejects Christ and puts more faith in man's power and authority. This is the basis for rejecting Rome as a true church. There is no thought of dangers of Anabaptists or other extremists Protestant groups, but rather the Belgic focuses in on the extreme danger of Roman Catholicism.

Note also the call for people to leave the Roman Catholic Church found in the Belgic. In discussing the true church the Belgic states, "from which no man has a right to separate himself". And with the false church of Rome, "The two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other." In other words, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian, you ought to be able to see the difference between the false church of Rome and the true Church, which is persecuted. And there is no reason whatsoever for you not to leave the Roman Church and join the Reformed Church. You can easily know the difference and you have no right to remain separate from a true church. It is true that the French Confession speaks of a polluted conscience if one stays within the Roman Communion, but the French Confession also admits a "small track of a church in the papacy". That is something the persecuted church in the Low Countries does not place in their confession.

The Belgic Confession draws a sharper contrast between Rome and the Reformation and that contrast is based on Christ. One church submits and follows Him, and the other rejects and persecutes Him. This is something that runs throughout the Belgic Confession, as we shall see.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

2011-01-18T15:05:00.001-06:00

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

2011 - 1561 = 450 years of the Belgic Confession

2011-01-01T23:43:00.002-06:00

This year is the 450th anniversary of the writing of the Belgic Confession of Faith (unless my math is wrong, which is always a possibility). So, my plan for this blog this year is to mostly discuss the Belgic Confession (I did say mostly so there will be some other stuff like movie reviews and what nots).

For those not familiar with the Belgic Confession, it was written in 1561 by Guy De Bres sometimes called Guido De Bray. Guido was from modern day Belgium, but at that time was part of Spain and under the control of Charles V. As a Reformed believer, he was an outlaw and he fled to England for a time. There he attended John A Lasco's Stranger's Church in London, but would flee persecution there under Queen Mary. This eventually brought him to Geneva, where he would learn under Calvin. De Bres would re-enter the Low Countries to preach the gospel in about 1559. He wrote the Belgic Confession as an apology for the Reformed Faith. It was primarily his work, but seems to have probably at least gotten feed back by several other area pastors. The Confession would be officially adopted by the church in the Low Countries later, but De Bres would be caught and die a martyrs death under the hand of the Spanish Inquisition.

Today the Belgic Confession might be the most subscribed to Reformed document, and is easily the best known Continental Confession. Oddly enough that was not true in its day. Its modern popularity is in large part because of the devastation of the 30 Years' War. Also the Dutch were a more successful group than the Swiss including at staying orthodox. In its day the Second Helvetic Confession was more widely used, but today that document is almost non-existent in churches. It is the Belgic that rules the day.

The guiding point for my first few looks at the Belgic is the point that really interests me right now. The Belgic Confession is not the Gallic Confession written by Calvin in 1559. Calvin appears to actually have been against writing a new confession for the Low Countries. The Belgic clearly follows the outline of the Gallic Confession, but there are real differences, and those are interesting.

So hope on board for my year long look and celebration of the Belgic Confession of Faith.

Eat, Pray, Love - Movie Review

2010-11-30T00:41:00.003-06:00

Every now and then a movie comes along that just wows you with how good it is. This is NOT that movie. In fact, it sort of wowed me with how horrible it is. Eat, Pray, Love is bad in many ways. The movie is just outright too long. But the acting is well done. If you watch movies just for the acting this one is good. But if you think what the movie is communicating is important, then this movie ought to make you sick. What worries me is that not everyone will see this movie for what it is . . . bad advice and a recipe for despair.

Basically the plot is this. Julia Roberts (I don't even remember the character's name) gets divorced from a marriage she was miserable in. According to the movie because she lost herself, thus, she lost her happiness. Despite a new younger boyfriend, she cannot find happiness. So she breaks up with him. That part of the movie is only about a half hour. The fast part. She then goes to Rome, India, Bali. Each city represents a part of her healing and moving on with her life. Rome is learning that ruin is an important part of change. India is about forgiving yourself. Bali is about finding your own balance, and there the new love is introduced, and we learn that sometimes losing your balance in love is part of finding your balance in life. That is a quote. The movie is not all that subtle. It hits you over the head with most of this stuff. Because this movie is meant to be preachy. Which is why it is so upsetting. I can see a lot of people leaving this movie and feeling moved or thinking it profound. It is not.

The one thing that I think the movie did show that is actually true is the destruction of sin. The divorce leaves people devastated. It was a sinful divorce. No adultery, no wife beating, nothing like that. In fact, he fights the divorce. It wrecks her, and him. You meet some others who are similarly wrecked by sin. Everything else in the movie is a horrible lie.

First, ruin is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes ruin is just ruin. She writes a profound email in Rome about how this one site (burial site of Augustus) was ruined when Rome was sacked, and then it was all these other things, but each time it was destroyed. She found hope in it because the ruin led to adaptability and conforming. In other words the building was ruined many times, no longer used for its original purpose, and now conformed to the world around it, until the world around it would ruin it again. Really, that is not a good message. Ruin is ruin. What is needed in not to be conformed, but to be transformed by the power of Christ. That is exactly what the character in this movie needed, but the movie wanted to push a falsehood about man redeeming himself by loving himself.

Second, forgiving yourself is a joke. They constantly present it as hard work in this movie. But, in the end, she is able to forgive herself for destroying the life of her former husband. She never actually asks for his forgiveness. Never. There is no concept of actual guilt, or even the idea of harming others means dealing with others. You meet a few other souls there in India who did horrible things to other people, even their own children, but they are now trying to forgive themselves. No reconciliation, no approaching other people, no confessing sin to those who were sinned against. None of it. This is not hard work. That is taking the easy way out. And they are not forgiving themselves. Rather they are just learning how to live with their guilt. To bury the truth so they can go on. This part of the movie actually made me angry, and it was surely not meant to do that.

Third, the balance part was equally weird. Balance was achieved by putting love of self at the center. Choosing to be happy. As one person put it in the movie, "Balance is not letting anyone else love you less than you love yourself." That is just stupidity. It is also the opposite of what Christ teaches us about the self. It is not let others love me as I love myself. No it is love your neighbor as you love yourself, which by the way comes after love the Lord your God, with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

Anyway, I just had to write this before I could calm down from the movie. This movie is all about the philosophy in it, and thus this movie deserves a lot of scorn.

Robin Hood - the movie

2010-10-12T19:48:00.003-05:00

I just watched the new Robin Hood movie staring Russel Crow. Frankly, I think it was better than Kevin Cosner version, but overall I have to say I was disappointed.

First the good. This movie has a nice theme of freedom, which has made many liberal critics furious. Robin Hood was the ultimate socialist in previous incarnations, and now he is against tyranny, not the rich. A nice change of pace. Closer to the original. But, they make him the driving force behind the Magna Charta, which is silly. The movie included some other favorite merry men like Alan a Dale, and he is singing. That was all good. The French were the bad guys, and that is always a plus in my movie rating system.

Next the bad. The plot was ridiculous. The Magna Charta? Come on. They used the Robin as a crusader again. It was predictable after that. They set up a sequel, which we can all hope never happens.

Robin Hood is a great stroy, and one of my favorites actually. I enjoy the tales, but the movies seldom follow suit. Robin Hood is more a huckster than a revolutionary. He is in for good times and fun sport, which is usually why he ends up harassing the rich. This movie ruined Little John, showed little of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and continued the amalgamation of Will Stutely and Will Scarlett. Will Scarlett is not Scarlett because of his hair, but was rather because of his dress in the ballads and tales of Robin Hood. The movie also insists on a love interest in Maid Marion, who is not part of the original tales. The love story always feels rushed in a story that is really about Robin and his outlaw ways. What role does a woman have in a band of Merry Men who are robbing people anyway?

In the end, I continue to hold out hope that one day a fun movie of Robin Hood will be made that does justice to the actual source material. But that day has not yet come.

A bevy of book reviews

2010-08-25T20:56:00.003-05:00

A bevy of book reviews

It has been sometime since I posted a book review, so here are a few.

Christless Christianity by Michael Horton
This book is a great read. Horton’s style is one of smooth reading for the most part. Any pastor should not have any trouble at all. Laymen will occassionaly wonder at side tracks where Gnosticism and other such concepts are brought in without a lot of explanation. Still, even with that minor note, the book is great. It is a spot on critique of the American Church. In fact, the book has a wonderful and devastating look at Joel Osteen and many like him. This book profoundly made me stop and look at my own ministry to make sure I was holding up Christ showing I think that Horton does not just critique, but also extols the importance and place of Jesus Christ. He tears down, but he does not fail to build up and offer the only comfort in life and in death, Jesus Christ. I do not agree with absolutely everything in this book. One can see the hobby horses of Westmisnter West if you know what to look for, but mostly this book is just a good solid reminder of our absolute need for Jesus, and our propensity to replace Jesus with something a little more palatable to the Old Man in us all. I recommend this book to all. Get this book.

I will be reviewing the companion volume: Gospel-Driven Life when I finish it.

Martin Bucer the Forgotten Hero of the Reformation by David Lawerence
I hope that you all have heard of Martin Bucer. He is getting a bit of a revival these days. I saw this book on several walls of recommended reading, so I gave it a try. I was more than a little disappointed. Now this review is going to come off as harsh, but mostly because the book violated a few of my pet peeves. I did learn a great deal about Martin Bucer reading this bio. The book spoke not only of his life, but of his theology. The book is well written and a fairly easy read. So, it is not like the book was garbage. But I have these things against it. First, it really did put Bucer on a pedestal and basically played apologist for Bucer. That is not always a good thing. Bucer did some things that are not so good like his support of the divorce of Philip of Hesse. The author clearly believed Bucer’s view on other subjects were far superior to other Reformed views. This is something that also should have just been explained rather than championed. A little cheerleading is understandable, but this much was over the top. It led to occassional attacks on other reformers like Zwingli and Bullinger. Needless and turned me off a great deal. Second, it would off hand throw out things that you would want explained and then not explain them leaving me to wonder if it was just a made up point to try and improve Bucer as a role model. One such example was the assersion of the constant opposition and out right hostile stance of Henry Bullinger. This was never explained nor proved, and it was a piece of information I had never heard before? What caused this feud if it existed? Such details are important. Yet they went unprovided. Perhaps because it was better just to cast Bullinger in a bad light than actual put the two positions side by side. Who knows, but I would have liked to learn more about that point. Third, I think that a little more time on the implications of Bucer’s positions on the rest of the Reformation would have been nice. A lot was made of the Bucer-Calvin connection, and probably rightly so. Yet, a drawing out of this influence and its results could have been nice. The same goes for Bucer’s time in England. What happened to the friends like Cheek and Ridley that were mentioned? Did Bucer’s view play a role in the Puritan trouble of later English history. Also what happened in Strasborg or the other places he helped Reform? Those would have been some nice details.
In the end, I am unaware of a better Bucer biography. They are rare. But that does not mean that this is the be all; end all biography of Bucer. Clearly there is still a market for such a book.

Ten Great Feuds: That changed the World by Colin Evans
This book is good, but don’t go into it with the expectations raised by the secondary title. There is no discussion about how any of these feuds changed the world, and only about two had throw away sentences speaking about a possible world shaping influence. Most of them clearly did not shape the world in anyway whatsoever. So if you don’t have that expectation going into the book, then the book is great. The chapters are not too long, and divided so reading is easy. It is written interestingly making sure you are invested into each person in the feud. Then the feud is unfolded for you. The feuds include the Hatfields and the McCoy’s, Stalin versus Trotsky, and even King Charles versus Parliament. I don’t want to give away all 10, but most of them you probably don’t know all the details about, and they are fun reading. So if you want to bone up on your feuding, then this is the book to get it done. I enjoyed it a great deal. I never realized how much blood was spilled in the Hatfield McCoy feud, but I do now. Nor did I realize what a brat and jerk Robert Kennedy was (LBJ versus Robert Kennedy) What more needs to be said.

A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State by Charles Freeman
Freeman continues his assault on Christianity in his book A.D. 381 (see Closing of the Western Mind: the rise of Faith and the fall of Reason). For those of you who don’t know 381 is the date of the First Council of Constantinople. Basically this council reaffirmed the council of Nicaea and added to the creed a little bit, making sure the divinity of the Holy Spirit was understood as well. Well, Freeman tries to argue that this is the closing of all intellectual debate and free speech and the beginning of an overbearing monotheistic state. A point he fails to make despite his constant misinterpretation and omission of many important historical events. He makes strange statements trying to downplay the importance of Nicaea, and talks of Nicaea’s comeback with Athanasius. But when you do the math the “Comeback” is less than 15 years after the arrival. Add that to the fact that Alexander, the main opponent of Arius, was bishop before that, and it is hard to imagine it went away at all. While it may be true that the state was monotheistic from that point on, it is weird to see how he has such a hostile attitude to it. Arius and those guys wanted a monotheistic state as well, just a heretical one.
In short, Freeman argues that Emperor Theodosius imposed Nicaea on Constantinople and enforced it, and that the church would never have come to that conclusion. The bishops had little to no part in actually coming up with the creed. This led to religion proclaiming “certainties” which destroyed philosophical thought, started the war with science, and a host of other things that are just as stupid as they sound. Of course all church histories are unreliable and all histories written by people who do not believe the bible are better and thus right. It is really sad that this stuff poses as scholarship. It is more screeds and hatred than anything else.

Wilson and his attempt to undermine the URC

2010-08-16T23:30:00.002-05:00

Rev. Doug Wilson is at it again. He has now posted an article trying to explain why there is a Federal Vision (FV) controversy. He comes up with three reasons. Belief of FV men in 6 day creation, power struggle (which Wilson couches as no heirarchy), and creation of a new Christian Culture as shown in Moscow, ID.

Now, before we dismantle these obviously wrong points, we need to recognize what Rev. Wilson is doing. These are not serious points. He does not honestly believe these are the reasons there is a FV controversy. If he did then he would have dealt with them in the Joint Federal Vision Statement. Only the third point comes up in that statement and that only barely. None of the points comes up in say the Knox meeting published as Federal Vision: Pros and Cons. Not a single one of these points is honest. This is really an attack on the Westminster faction in the URC. One can describe this as an attempt to split or at least play on the tensions within the URC now, probably in hopes of increasing the CREC.

Now before anyone accuses me of assuming motives just read his piece again. He mentions creation and links to multiple articles about the disagreement over creation in the URC, both of which point out the Westminster West crowd is Framework. This also cannot be a reason for the FV controversy because despite his linking to the weakness in the PCA, OPC, and the URC, Rev. Wilson has forgotten the other major NAPARC denomination that condemned the FV: The Reformed Church in the United States. Now the RCUS has a crystal clear position on 6 Day creation, yet we passed unanimously the condemnation of the FV views. I won’t go into the opposition in the PCA comes from pro-6 Day creation men like Dr. Joseph Pipa and others. Clearly this is not a real reason. It is however a well aimed attack.

The second reason is also meant to pick at the recent scab of who runs the URC. Many during the CanRC union talks accused Westminster as well as Mid American Reformed Seminary as trying to run the URC and the reason why mergers did not happen. They were accused of the same thing in the Shepherd Controversy. See a recent motion at the last Synod that the 9 points of the URC were not properly before Synod. The accusation was that a group of men pushed heirarchy down the throats of the confederation by considering and passing the 9 Points. Heirarchy is the theme of Rev. Wilson’s second point.

The third point is about the latest controversy on the URC message boards. The two kingdoms theology versus Abraham Kuyper’s Christian culture theology (or at least the Dutch understanding of it). Wilson claims to be the heir apparent of Kuyper, and the two kingdoms approach advocated by Westminster West looked down on. Well, the URC is Dutch and Kuyper is a hero. Already this same debate is coming up in the URC and will probably split that church. Wilson is getting his vote in now so that people will know where to go when the split occurs. It should go without saying that many of Wilson and the FV critics are Kuyperian.

No, these are not Wilson’s thoughts on why there is a FV controversy. These are shots at Westminster West and an attempt to widen the gap that is growing in the URC.

Basel the Mother Church of the Reformation

2010-08-09T23:58:00.000-05:00

I know that the movement is underway to celebrate the Reformation’s 500th birthday in 2017. This is of course dated from Martin Luther nailing the 95 theses on the door at Wittenburg. The problem is I do not believe that is a good starting point for the Reformation. It is an easy one because it is a day that everyone can point to and say this day it started. But the Reformation was really already under way. It is impossible to point to a spot and say here it began, nor a time and say it started at this minute. But, if I had to give it a shot, I would say Basel 1505-06. Let us look at why.

In Basel in 1505 there were many future reformers. Leo Juda was graduating and about to take his first call in Alsace as a priest. Juda would end up in Zurich as a Reformer. It was probably at this time that he met Ulrich Zwingli who was also in Basel. Zwingli was teaching at a prepatory school in Basel. Yes, Zwingli was suspected of heresy at this time for refusing to condemn some writings that disavowed the use of images and indulgences and even the sign of the cross. Such things show Zwingli already leaning toward the Reformation though it had not yet begun. Also teaching in Basel at that time was Thomas Wittenbach. Wittenbach was teaching Protestant principles like Justification by faith alone. Wittenbach would later break from the church at Rome and become a Reformer. Leo Juda and Zwingli both sat in on his classes and credit him a great deal for his teaching evangelical doctrine.

1515 saw the hiring of Erasmus, which shows that Basel University and thus the town counsel were still fostering a spirit against the Roman church at least. The Cathedral called Wolfgang Capito to Basel, where he served for 4 years. Capito began correspondence with Zwingli during this time as well as Luther. Casper Hedio appears to have been in Basel as well. Both men probably leaned toward the Reformation already at this time. John Oecolampadius also first arrived in Basel in 1515. He would leave before his final return as the leading reformer of the city, but he was there during this time working closely with Erasmus. When Oswald Myconius arrived is a little unsure. He was student at Basel at some point, but he began to teach there in 1514. Myconius would become a gifted educator and great Reformer too. The Spirit of Basel was surely one of Reformation.

The town did not officially accept the Reformation until 1529, although it was inevitable in 1528. Still, the town showed the way for the Reformation in many ways. In 1522, Oecolampadius was back and openly preaching the Protestant Gospel. In 1522, Wilhelm Reublin was kicked out of his pastorate at St. Alban for being Reformed, but another church in town St. Theodore took him showing their acceptance of the Reformation. Marcus Bertschi also held evangelical beliefs and pastored St. Leonhard in town by 1523. In 1524 the town did excommunicate Jacob Immeli for getting married. That is a priest getting married before almost any of the other Reformers with the exception of Martin Bucer. Yes, Immeli was married before Martin Luther. He would be rehired after the Reformation took hold for good.

It should be noted that Basel then had a hand in the Reformation of Bern (Wyttenbach), Zurich (Zwingli and Juda), and Strassborg (Capito and Hedio). Other lesser known men were influential in St. Gall and its Reformation. And we have not even begun to talk of the printing industry in Basel and the effect it had. Basel in a very real sense is the mother church of the Reformation because of its far reaching effects. People networked and learned the true gospel of Jesus Christ while in Basel. It was here that the Reformation was born.

Against Exclusive Psalmody -Scripture

2010-07-22T17:08:00.000-05:00

I am finally getting around to posting the Scriptural argument against Exclusive Psalmody.

Let us just start with Scriptural commands to sing things other than psalms. Remember there is a specific word for psalm. There is debate about whether psalm (the word) means The Psalms always, but we can set that aside for now. Even if we concede it, I think the evidence is on the hymn singing side. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the most famous. Here Christians are commanded to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Granting that psalms here means The Psalms, there seems little possible evidence that hymns and spiritual songs also mean psalms. And as you would expect few Greek scholars even claim they mean the same thing. Not even John Calvin claims that this is in favor of exclusive psalmody. Some want to claim that the use of “kai” (translated and) connects the three making them into three ways of saying one thing. But that argument breaks down as “kai” is not used in Colossians 3:16.
Then of course there is also the command to “sing a new song” (Isaiah 42:10). The word there is “hymn” and not the word “psalm”. The word for psalm exists, but was not used. Thus, here we have a command to sing hymns. The only way to maintain exclusive psalmody is to state that hymns and psalms mean the same thing. They are synonyms. Or that one refers to singing with instruments and one without. That argument is not possible to explain away Deuteronomy 31:19,22 where a non-psalm is required to be memorized and sung. Then there is I Corinthians 14:15,26. There I Corinthians talks of singing with the spirit and singing with understanding. This is further enlarged when Paul in verse 26 says “everyone of you has a psalm”. This use of psalm seems to be a song that is outside of the 150 psalms. The criticism is of those who come with a supposed song from the spirit like those who claim to have tongues and prophecies. Those are both assumed to be new word of prophesy and a new word in tongues. Thus, it ought also to be said that they were bringing new psalms not one of the original 150. This was taking place in Christian worship in Corinth that had been set up by Paul and his companions.

If hymn does not mean psalm then this introduces lots of problems for exclusive psalmists. Christ at after the Lord’s Supper sings a “hymn” not a “psalm”. While we might rightly guess that this hymn is a psalm, we cannot scripturally say he sung a psalm. Scripturally he sang a hymn and that is all we know. The same is true for Paul and his companions in prison in Philippi (Acts 16:25). The word used there is again not “psalm”, but rather “hymn”. One can assume that these songs were from The Psalms, but strictly scripturally speaking one cannot say it is. It is only an assumption. The inerrantly chosen word was “hymn”.

This brings up the point of all the times we see people singing non-psalms in the Bible. We have at least:
Luke 1:46-55 (Mary)
Luke 1:67-79 (Zechariah)
Luke 2:14 (the angels)
Luke 2:28-32 (Simeon)
Revelation 5:9f (hosts of heaven)
Exodus 15 (Moses and Miriam)
Deuteronomy 31-32 (Moses)
Judges 5 (Deborah)
Habbakuk 3 (Habbakuk)

And that list does not count many others that are generally considered to early Christological hymns like Colossians 1:15-20. Nor does it count the Song of Solomon, an entire book of the Bible either. The point is that we have more instances of people singing praises to God without the psalter than we do with the psalter in the Bible itself. Now we know how the Jews worshipped from extra-biblical sources, but again the biblical witness needs to carry some weight here. Non-psalms seem acceptable. Now admittedly Dr. Clark makes it possible to sing these songs as they are considered inspired and can be sung, but that attempt falls flat on the previously mentioned Nature of Words Argument. And it also comes into a problem with exactly where is the command to sing only inspired words.

Which brings me to my last point, the idea that the Bible is or contains an approved hymn books is itself an assumption. The idea that the Psalms is the God ordained hymn book is no where in the Bible itself. The application of the Regulative Principle of Worship to say “the psalms are commanded but there is no other command for hymns” makes an assumption in and of itself. Namely that the Psalms was a hymn book. The Regulative Principle does carry the requirement to have a command to do something. But this test is easily applied and passed when we dispense with the assumption that the Psalter is required because it is there. We see commands like Ephesians and Colossians that state “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” We have the command to “sing unto the Lord a new song” (Isaiah). Add this to the many divinely approved examples of non-psalm singing in worship such as those in Revelation 5, then I am quite confident that the demand of the Regulative Principle of worship is met for hymnody.

Imputation of the Active Obedience and the Heidelberg Catechism

2010-06-26T01:47:00.003-05:00

I grow weary of these endless attempts to cast off the Active Obedience of Christ. I especially weary of the attempts to say that the Heidelberg Catechism does not teach the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ. Question 60 really ought to speak for itself (emphasis mine).

How are thou righteous before God?
Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

Listen to Rev. Mark Horne now try to get out of this clear cut statement.

If this taught the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, it would be a fine statement. And, if this were some sort of committee document, or in some other way obscured authorial intent, I wouldn’t have a problem with the words being taken in this sens(sic). . . the author of the catechism lectured on it and approved a commentary from those notes. Every time I find Ursinus explaining himself he refers to Christ’s sufferings as the merit which is imputed to believers

Rev. Horne then goes on to quote something from Ursinus’s commentary on Question 61 (not 60) for his back up. A reading which I think is highly debatable by the way.
But of course the Heidelberg Catechism was a committee document, a committee of two. Ursinus and Casper Olevianus wrote the Heidelberg so can a commentary by one of the men really be the only place to look for intent? And in that commentary is question 61 the best place to look for answers?

Before we jump to the Commentary perhaps we ought to look at the rest of the Heidelberg Catechism itself. Does the phrase “satisfaction, righteousness and holiness” appear anywhere else other than 60? Why yes it does. Question 61 in fact. This is the one where Horne claims Ursinus means by righteousness only the sufferings of Christ. But does the Catechism bear this out? No of course not. In fact Question 62 is rather important.

But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?
Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God, must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26), but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

It seems from Question 62 the righteousness being spoken off is perfect obedience to the law. Christ’s Active Obedience. Thus righteousness is defined for us by the Catechism. This is the righteousness that is imputed to us in 60 and also in 56.

What do you believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?
That God for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long, but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ that I may never more come into condemnation.

Here we see it again the righteousness of Christ is imputed to me “for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction.” Horne wants us to think that this is only the passion and death of Christ, his “willing suffering”. But let us remember that the Heidelberg defines the suffering of Christ as something that that was “all the time he lived on this earth” (Q&A 37). So when we read of Ursinus talking about “suffering” we ought not assume he is only speaking of the end of Christ’s life and His work on the cross.

But what about Ursinus’s Commentary? Well, we can weed through the quotes used by Rev. Horne, but let us just cut to where Ursinus defines righteousness in his commentary, at question 60 (pg.325 – emphasis mine).

What is righteousness in general? Righteousness is derived from right, which is the law, and is a conformity with the law, as sin or unrighteousness is the transgression of the law. . . . Righteousness, therefore, in general, as far as it has a respect to creatures, consists in fulfilling those laws which pertain to rational creatures; or, it is a conformity on the part of the rational creatures with those laws which have respect to them. Finally, righteousness is the fulfillment of the law, and a conformity with the law is righteousness itself. This must be observed and held fast to, because our justification can only be effected by fulfilling the law. Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, and does not conflict with it in the least. The gospel does not abolish the law, but establishes it. . . . Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, performed, not by us, but by another in our stead, and imputed unto us of God by faith.

Ursinus here claims that Christ fulfilling the law is vital to our justification. And the fulfilling of the law then is not just so Jesus might be the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without spot or blemish. Rather that performing of the law is imputed to us of God by faith. Since the quotation above proceeds the quotation used by Rev. Horne one can now see that Horne is not correct in his assessment.

Yes, Ursinus clearly saw a major link between Christ’s death on the cross and his life. But then who ever argued against that? Rev. Horne seems to be tilting at windmills. No one is really arguing for a separation as if somehow the cross is not imputed, but his Active Obedience to the Law is. They are linked. Ursinus saw them as linked. Everyone sees them as linked. You cannot have one without the other. The problem comes when Horne says, “But neither do I see any way that we must say that one supplements the other or that each does a different job in our salvation. The curse
But neither do I see any way that we must say that one supplements the other or that each does a different job in our salvation.” Clearly Ursinus saw a way that they did jobs and supplemented each other. He went so far as to say that without the fulfilling of the law our justification could not be effected. Christ’s righteousness had to be imputed to us. Listen now to the paragraph right above what Rev. Horne quotes (pg. 327):

To justify is to make the subject of it comformable to the law, either in himself, by a righteousness which is called his own, and which is inherent, infused, and legal; or it is to be made righteous in another which is called imputed because it is not inherent in us, but in Christ. This consists also in conformity with the law; for faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. And such we may remark is our righteousness anad justification; for we now speak of that righteousness with which we as sinners are justified before God in this life;

Now re-read Rev. Horne’s last couple of paragraphs in the second linked post. Does that sound like Ursinus? Ursinus is concerned about us being declared righteous and the law being upheld. Rev. Horne is speaking of blood wiping away the penalty and there is “ nothing left to demand of you”. Ursinus clearly saw a role for the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ that Rev. Horne has missed.

And just so we know that we are not just picking on Rev. Horne, others make similar claims about Ursinus. At least he has the sense to try and claim both Ursinus and Olevianus did not believe in Imputation of Active Obedience. But that of course leaves the puzzling question of why then did they write it into the Catechism. Some of claimed that Ursinus later rejected the Active Obedience but held to it at the time of writing the Catechism (rejection is dated around 1566), but all of this information is based on second hand stuff. Usually it is based on the fact that David Pareus (student of Ursinus) and Johannes Piscator (student of Olevianus) rejected it, but that is a logical fallacy waiting to happen. The truth is the plain reading of the Heidelberg Catechism supports Imputation of Active Obedience, as even Rev. Horne admits, and that neither Olevianus nor Ursinus ever rejected any part of the Heidelberg and they taught it to others for the rest of their lives.

Against Exclusive Psalmody (Nature of Words Argument) and WLC 109

2010-06-07T23:50:00.002-05:00

I earlier spoke of the history of Hymn Singing in the Reformed Church and the question was raised about the Westminster Tradition, especially the Larger Catechism Questions 109-110, and Shorter Catechism Questions 51-52. These all deal with the second commandment.

Specifically question 109 states with regards to the sins forbidden by the second commandment:
"corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever . . ."

Or Shorter Catechism 51
"The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word."

This is what is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. What God does not command is thus forbidden. It is in the Westminster and it is also in the other major confessions. The Heidelberg Catechims has similar wording, although not nearly as detailed as the WLC.

The Genevan Tradition begins with exclusive Psalmody, but it is particularly the Westminster Tradition that codified it. It seems fairly obvious that the Scottish Church held to exclusive Psalmody until at least Isaac Watts in the 18th century. Even then Watts was a scandal for a time. The rest of the Genevan Tradition had abandoned Exclusive Psalmody. The Huguenots were long gone, and the Dutch Church had instituted non-inspired texts like the Apostles’ Creed to music in the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which shows that it was around already. In fact, several other hymns Dort was trying to keep out, but they opened the door. The churches continued with the hymns for the most part, and soon they were accepted. Leaving only a Westminster Tradition as favoring Exclusive Psalmody.

The argument as I understand it is that hymns are customs “invented and taken up of ourselves” which is forbidden. The hymns are human inventions and are thus forbidden.

In responding to WLC 109, I am going to have to give the Nature of Words argument, which had been slated to be third.

Are the words of the hymns of human origin and invented by man? Yes. The answer has to be yes. But so too is much else that even the Scots hold dear but do not cast out of the worship service. One thing that can easily be pointed to are the instruments. The piano is invented by man. And some in the Westminster tradition forbid them. But a better thing to point to is prayer and preaching. The words of prayers are often man-made, not divinely inspired. Yet the Scottish church has a tradition of free prayer. They do not use the Book of Common Prayer, which was made by men anyway. Just as the Bible has songs in the Psalms, so they have a great many prayers. There is the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer at the temple by Solomon, the prayer of Jesus in the Garden or the prayer of Hannah or Jonah in the belly of the whale. And those are just off the top of my head. Yet, no one argues that prayers must be only the words of the Bible. Why not? What is the difference between words made up by man and prayed and the words made up by man and sung?

Preaching too must fall under the same condemnation of WLC 109 if we read that phrase so strictly. The words of the sermon are not Scripture, but rather “invented and taken up of ourselves”. Yet no one argues that only the sermons of Scripture are to be preached. Most scholars believe Hebrews was a sermon, and the epistles of Paul were read as if they were sermons. You have other sermons like the Sermon on the Mount that could also be read as the sermon. Many of the prophets have sermons recorded for us. Why not then just read those as the sermons? What is different about human words in a sermon and human words sung to a tune in hymns? Is there something ontologically different about words when we sing them that makes them unacceptable? If not then human invented hymns have to be allowed. They cannot be deemed unacceptable based on their uninspired origin. If non-inspired words are allowed into a service anywhere, then they have to be acceptable everywhere including in songs. If one wants to keep non-inspired sermons and prayers, but not hymns then it becomes incumbent on them to prove the difference between words spoken and words sung.

This leaves only one ground for Exclusive Psalmody, the broader argument from WSC 51 about hymns not being commanded. This means that the Bible commands psalms to be sung, but nothing else (which rules out the associated argument that only inspired words are allowed, but more than just psalms). This will led us now to the Biblical argument for Hymn Singing.

The argument Against Exclusive Psalmody (or only singing the Inspired Words of Scripture)

2010-05-31T15:48:00.001-05:00

I just wanted to take a minute to defend the practice of singing hymns during worship. This will be done in three sections. First, the Historical Argument. Second, the Biblical Argument. Third, the Nature of Words argument (I am sure there is a better title to this argument, I just don’t know it).

I do want to take a minute to speak about the historical argument. It is often argued that all of the Reformed Churches were originally exclusive psalmists and that is how they understood the Bible and the Regulative Principle of Worship. This is simply untrue. It is true that Calvin, the Huguenots of France, the Scots, the Directory of Public Worship and even Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate desired exclusive psalmody. However there are at least two other earlier Reformed strands that are often ignored.

One strand is the Swiss Strand, which is probably extinct today. If you ever wonder why Zwingli is not referenced in this debate it is because Zwingli and the churches of Zurich did not sing at all. That is right: no congregational singing. That was the way of Zurich. Zwingli did not sing. Bullinger did not sing. Not even during the next head of the church, Simon Gaulther, son-in-law of Zwingli, did they sing. Nor did Bern under the leadership of Berthold Haller. Bern did not sing at all. In fact, Calvin himself seemed to favor this tradition. He was unsure if the people should sing, but he came to the conclusion to sing psalms as it was the safest thing just in case singing was not allowed at all.

The other tradition is the German Reformed tradition. This tradition does not spring from Geneva or Calvin, but from Constance and Strassborg. Constance, a German city reformed by Ambrose Blarer and Johannes Zwick, produced a hymn book that did have psalms, but also had uninspired hymns. It seems it was used during worship, especially on feast days. It contained some of Luther’s hymns. It also contained many hymns written by the Zwick and Blarer brothers. It also even had a hymn by Leo Juda, right hand man in Zurich. Since Zwick and Blarer had a hand in other cities like Augsburg one can assume that this hymnbook was used in more places than just Constance. The earliest copy we have is dated 1540, but it is also clearly a revision. We know they were singing hymns by at least 1533 in Constance.

Constance ended up changing the practice in Strassborg as well. The 1537 Strassborg Psalter included many hymns. Mostly by the Blarer’s and Johannes Zwick. Thus, Strassborg was not an exclusive psalmist city. In fact, it switched away from exclusive psalmnody. The Germans continued with their hymn singing even after the Augsburg Interim put an end to Reformed Services in much of Germany. Heidelberg and the Palatinate started out singing only psalms under Frederick III, but under his son Lewis, they sang hymns. This practice remained as they sang hymns during communion services from that point on. The Palatinate was not the only German church to sing hymns during communion services. So to did the church in Bremen.

Better yet, Brandenburg, which went reformed in about 1613 always sang hymns. The churches in the county of Mark also sang hymns. Mark was part of the Synod of Cleve, Julich, and Mark. Since Mark sang hymns it is fairly clear that the Synod was not against hymns. Thus, the tradition of singing hymns in the Reformed Churches in Germany is well grounded. So, it is completely wrong to suggest that the Reformed tradition sang only psalms. Such a comment is to equate Calvin and those who followed him with the entire Reformed tradition. There are at least two other traditions, which actually predate Calvin’s influence, and one of them is the singing of hymns during worship.

One quick complaint about ESPN

2010-05-29T14:34:00.003-05:00

I have tried to keep my angry sports rants off of this blog. However, my never ending fight ESPN must take another step here on this blog.

ESPN always plays up to the big cities. That is why they hate the SEC (not in LA or NY). They push their people on us and forget reality. The latest example is a piece about how great the Lakers are how smart it was to trade away Shaq. That is just out right foolishness. The premise of the article is that six pieces of the Laker puzzle are linked to Shaq's departure. Included in that list is Lamar Odom, Jordan Farmar, Pau Gasol, Adam Morrison, Shannon Brown, Andrew Bynum, and Derrick Fisher.

I am willing to grant that Odom, who came in the trade, and Farmar, who was drafted with a draft pick received in the trade, are linked to Shaq. The rest is a stretch including Fisher, who was already on the team when Shaq was there, left, and was re-signed.

In fact, I think the facts are the exact opposite of what this guy claims. The Shaq trade was a disaster that sunk the Lakers for a couple of years and they are now still not as good as they were. The Lakers missed the playoffs the next year and then were bounced in the first round for two years in a row while Shaq and the Heat won a title. Let us not forget that the Lakers basically back tracked on their blow up of the Laker team. They re-hired Coach Phil Jackson. They re-hired Derrick Fisher. The re-hiring of Fisher seems to indicate that the drafting of Jordan Farmar was a mistake. Farmar is the back up of Fisher, who is a sub-par point guard. Andrew Bynum is decent enough when he is not injured, but is he really better than Shaq? Maybe this year, but what about those other 4 years? Probably not a victory there. Remember Kobe wanted Bynum traded because he realizes that Bynum is not consistently good. Odom has the same problem. A good 6th man, but not a guy who lives up to potential ever. Other than Gasol, they are all bench players and the bench of the Lakers is their weak spot.

Gasol came to the Lakers in a fire sale going on over in Memphis. The key lynch pin of the Gasol trade was the rights to the younger Gasol, drafted by the Lakers. Add in the two first round draft picks. Was Kwame Brown really that important to the trade. If they had kept Shaq, and never gotten Kwame would that trade not have happened? Sure it would have. The Lakers had the younger Gasol's rights and draft picks to trade.

One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that the Lakers are not really on the top now. Two years ago they lost to the Celtics. Got whipped by the Celtics in fact. Last year the Celtics were the best team in the league again and then Garnett got hurt. The Celtics still took eventual Eastern Conference champs to seven games. Now they have Garnett back, and the Celtics are back in the Finals. Assuming the Lakers make it back, they need to defeat the Celtics to prove that they are back on top. I currently think the Lakers are defending champs because of an injury to Garnett. I bet the Lakers are going to get stomped on by the Celtics in the finals.

Either way, claiming the Shaq trade is the basis for this team is a re-write of history. The Lakers did what Kobe wanted, and they had to undo it by re-hiring their point guard and the coach. Kobe on his own failed. Kobe running the show failed. They had to go out and get Pau Gasol, a big man role that was filled by Shaq. It is true that Shaq is now past his prime and is not going to be a cog in a team. But, look, Shaq was on the team with the best record in the league. He was a role player for LeBron. Could he have done that for the Lakers? Probably. In the years after the trade the Heat were the better team. Shaq has since been traded twice. The Lakers had lots of other opportunities to get rid of Shaq without having to miss the playoffs for one year and lose quickly in the next two.

I just can't stand ESPN's constant playing lap dog to teams like the Lakers. How did that silly article get the top billing?

LOST: The end

2010-05-25T00:26:00.000-05:00

I have to say after some time to reflect that I think LOST is the greatest TV Show of all time (narrowly beating out Cheers). The finale will be talked about and many will complain that it did not live up to the hype, but they will all be wrong. Let me tell you why.

LOST was not about philosophies nor was it about Free Will versus Destiny. No, LOST was about the characters. It was about people. And for the first time in recent memory the characters in the show were real. That is why there was a debate and Free Will versus Destiny. That is why so many philosophies are involved in this show because people act according to their philosophies. It is also why LOST does not tie up a neat ribbon and answer all of the questions.

I have to admit that at first, I was a little disappointed that everything was not answered for me. But, I also know that I liked the ending, and that left me conflicted. However, upon further reflection, I like the fact that the vast majority of questions were not answered. I don’t want some Hollywood guys telling me the answers to life. That was the whole point of the Finale anyway. “No one can tell you why you are here”. And it is a good thing because judging from the Inclusivism in the final chapel scene with icons from all sorts of religious faiths, I would not like the answer these Hollywood guys would try to sell me. They wrapped up each characters’ personal stories and let us all now debate the things that happened. Were the numbers really cursed as Hurley believed? The show does not give the answers because it is not important. Hurley believed they were cursed and it affected the way he lived. That is all that mattered. Was Boone a sacrifice demanded by the island or was it just a death that happened? It doesn’t matter because what was important was that Locke believed it was a sacrifice, and it affected the way he lived.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not arguing for relativism here, nor do I think LOST is. There are right answers to the question of cursed numbers, especially in real life. But the show recognizes that people act on beliefs. What they believe is indeed the most fundamental thing, and it affects all their decisions. This is true in the real world and it is why LOST is a great show.

If you were watching LOST because you thought it was a big mystery that would be put together for you at the end, then you are probably pretty angry right now. Six years is a long time to invest in a mystery that has no real end. But if you were watching because the characters, then you are probably satisfied. They got an ending, and six years is not a problem to invest in the joys and failures of people.

What Obama does not know will hurt us

2010-05-01T16:08:00.001-05:00

President Obama received some honorary degree today as Presidents often do. This one from the uber-liberal University of Michigan. While giving the address he made sure to take a shot at all those who speak poorly of the government. Now, make no mistake about it, usually when the government tells you to stop being "anti-government" it means that they want you to take your medicine like a good little serf. However, I want to deal with a broader point. This quote is what I want to focus on.

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

President Obama could not be more wrong. When people talk of the government being inherently bad it is precisely because the government is us. This is the fundamental problem with liberalism. It fails to recognize that people are inherently bad. And when people gather into a state, nothing changes at all. Christianity calls it Total Depravity. This is why we need government. This is why our Founding Fathers made checks and balances: to restrain the evil within us as much as possible. The more spread out the power the less likely we are to be dominated by an evil tyrant. The fact that the state is evil because it is made up of sinful people is why we cannot “put our trust in princes” as the Bible so constantly warns us. They are sinful and they will either fail us or turn on us. Trust cannot be place in man. And it is because man is inherently sinful. Even the redeemed on this side of paradise struggle with the remnants of sin in us. The only one who was without sin is the eternal Godman, Jesus Christ. Only upon Him can we trust. Only in Him can we find salvation. Only to Him can we 100% submit without worry. Because only King Jesus is without sin, and His rule and His kingdom will be one of righteousness and godliness.

President Obama’s failure to grasp this fundamental point of existence is very dangerous. One who puts his trust in man, in the state, in power, or in himself is doomed to fail, and will probably bring about ruin as he tries to bring about "progress". President Obama is right: the government is us. And that fact is why we know that the government is indeed inherently evil.

More on Recovering the Reformed Confessions

2010-04-21T00:28:00.002-05:00

I want to respond more indepth to Dr. Clark’s book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. I do want to stress some of the book’s positive attributes, but I still think his section against 6-day creation creates in the book a fatal flaw that ends up undercutting his main point.

There are some really great things in this book. First and foremost is the writing. I think Dr. Clark is a clear and accessible writer. He is easy to read, to understand, and the book has an enjoyable tone and pace. This is not easily done.

Second, the premise that we as reformed churches need to recover the wonderful documents that are our heritage is true. We need to not be afraid of speaking confessionally. He puts his finger on a real problem and is right to address the idea. We are children of a heritage, and we ought not be nervous nor afraid of it.

Third, one can tell from reading this book that having a Church History class from Dr. Clark would be a lot of fun. Anyone who quotes from John Thomson is okay in my book, and Dr. Clark does it twice. His view on Illegitimate Religious Experience and his application of that to the Great Awakening is right on target. The PCA would do particularly well to listen to that point of advice.

Fourth, one has to admire his willingness not only to point out problems, but to suggest solutions. Ways to recover the Reformed Confessions and Heritage in this modern culture. I don’t particularly agree with all of them, but it makes a good book that does more than critique, but suggest solutions.

Fifth, the section on Illegitimate Religious Experience is also well done and applicable to us today. In fact, it might actually be more applicable to the modern evangelical situation than the Religious Knowledge. It was helpful for me.

Yet, I still have this against the book. In his section about Illegitimate Religious Knowledge he puts in 6-Day creation. Leave aside the debate about it for a moment. This commits Dr. Clark to saying that those things that are not included in the Reformed Confessions are things one cannot be certain about. Thus, to be certain about extra-confessional material is illegitimate. Fine. If that is what one wishes to hold it is a defendable position. The problem is that Dr. Clark is not consistent to that point throughout the rest of his book.

Let me give an example. Dr. Clark goes on to argue that our knowledge of God is analogical (staring on page 123). He attempts to argue that this is part of the warp and woof of the confessions embedded within the creator-creature distinction. This point is highly debated most famously in the Clark-Van Til arguments. This indicates (not stated in the book, but one can read between the lines) that Dr. Scott Clark would argue that Dr. Gordon Clark is not confessional at all. Now where is analogical knowledge spelled out in the creeds? How is that not an extra-confessional issue? How is 6-Day creation illegitimate religious certainty and analogical knowledge is okay? Dr. Scott Clark tries to ground analogical knowledge in the confession in WCF 7.1 “distance between God and the creature”, but that is a pretty big stretch. As is the appeal to the phrase “as it were” in the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 27 about the Providence of God. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I am not against analogical knowledge. IN FACT, I think the biblical discussion of analogical knowledge is one of the best in the entire book. It is clear, cogent, and powerful. One does not need to be aquatinted with the debate at all to see the argument and understand what is going on. I just think it makes Clark inconsistent in this particular book because of his stance on 6-Day Creation.

Dr. Clark also argues for exclusive singing of Inspired Words (not quite exclusive psalmnody). His point here is that the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is in the creeds and the RPW requires only the words God inspired. I am going to deal with that more tomorrow, but I have to again ask, how can 6-Day creation be illegitimate to be certain about, but not singing hymns is okay to be certain about? It just does not make sense. The same thing could be said about the second service on Lord’s Day section in this book.

My ultimate point is this: Dr. Clark argues that things outside of the confession cannot be used a boundary markers of Reformed church and then argues for several such boundary markers that are outside the confessions. That is my real problem with the book. When this book goes into a second printing it would be greatly improved in its own internal consistency if it simply removed its discussion about 6-Day creation completely. That way he never forces himself to argue that extra-confessional things are illegitimate to be certain about, and then his suggestions, which are all just as debatable whether or not they are confessional or extra confessional as 6-Day creation, do not conflict with his previous arguments.

McLaren versus the Bible

2010-04-05T23:04:00.000-05:00

You have to pity Brian McLaren. His latest internet push for book sales shows just how little he really understands or how incredibly dishonest he is.

He starts out wondering why people don’t like him, specifically evangelicals. He then goes on to say that evangelicals are trained to punish people who are different. Ignoring the obvious insult for a second, I want to continue with what McLaren is actually arguing for a minute. McLaren claims that his conscious is tormented by a few things that the “religious authorities” teach, and he has the courage to question it. That is why he is hated. He gives a few examples, but if you want them all you need to buy his new book. Clearly one example is that God sends unbelievers to hell. The idea that God sends people to hell torments McLaren and he is question that. Apparently also Global warming, evolution, homosexuality, and women not being allowed as ministers also keeps McLaren questioning those means spirited religious leaders. McLaren makes sure that we know he is a good guy. "I love God, Jesus, the Bible, prayer, worship, serving others -- the whole package." This is where McLaren is either being totally dishonest or just does not get what he is actually saying.

McLaren rejects the idea of hell. Yet, passages from the Bible abound about hell. The “lake of fire” in Revelation for example. Jesus himself tells a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, who is in hell. McLaren thinks homosexuality is okay, but the Bible states clearly that it is unnatural, sinful, and originally a death penalty crime in God’s Judicial Law. McLaren likes evolution despite passages like Romans 5:12f that specifically state that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. That sort of rules out evolution. And I am not even going to go into Genesis 1. So McLaren has only two options.

One, he blames religious leaders for making all of this stuff up despite it all being easily located in the Bible. This means the Bible is not the infallible rule for life, it is his tormented conscious. That puts McLaren in the role of God deciding what is and is not true Christianity.

Two, he is lying when he says that he loves the Bible (at the very least). McLaren’s real problem is not with religious leaders. It is with God’s own Holy Word. He does not like hell. That means he has to not like all of the talk of Jesus about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt 25), and the weeping and nashing of teeth (Matt 22). McLaren likes homosexuality or finds it okay in God’s sight. That means he has to reject and hate Romans 1, Levitcus 19, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Ham in Genesis. He can’t have it both ways. He cannot accept the doctrines condemned in the Bible and still accept the Bible.

Either option he takes, it is not the religious leaders that torment McLaren, it is Jesus of the Bible that torments McLaren.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion Rights?

2010-03-25T22:14:00.002-05:00

According to National Public Radio pro-life people like me are now officially to be called Anti-Abortion Rights while pro-choice people like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson and President Obama will be called Pro-Abortion Rights. This apparently is a move to more neutral language than the inflamatory Pro-Life label that the people use to label themselves.

Remember this is a government funded outfit. Just in case you wonder what the government thinks of you Pro-Lifers and of course what they think of unborn children.

Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

2010-03-16T18:03:00.003-05:00

R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions is a good book, but I do have to take issue with something he said in his second chapter: the chapter about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Basically, Clark’s argument is that where the Confessions are silent it is a point of liberty and those who wish to add (specifically in this case) 6/24 creation as a test of religious orthodoxy are illegitimate. The chapter briefly covers to other things that are extra confessional or anti-confessional: Theonomy and basically the Federal Vision/Shepherdism. The largest section is directed at 6/24 hour day creation proponents. It seems clear to me that the RCUS in particular is in view and indeed we are specifically cited as the only NAPARC denomination to not grant liberty on this point and we appear in a footnote. I will be addressing why Clark is wrong on this point.

Full disclosure moment. Dr. Clark was formerly in the RCUS and left on mostly amicable terms. Dr. Clark now teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary California which is no longer supported by the RCUS mostly for their non-6/24 hour stance on creation.

Points of disagreement

1. Clark starts by stating that proponents of the 6/24 hour day view of creation have always been unable to show a theological reason for holding to this view. He also claims that this stance has "little to do with the Reformed Confessions" (pg. 48). I could not disagree more. This has a lot to do with the Reformed Confessions and theological reasons abound. Creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th day is the foundation of the 4th Commandment. The 4th Commandment is covered in Confessions. What on earth does the Heidelberg mean in Question 92 when it is reciting the law including the basis that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." Surely then the meaning of the word "day" has confessional implications, and is not restricted to Genesis 1 as an extra-confessional debate. What about Question 103 where the catechism states in its explication of the 4th commandment "especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church . . ." Again the troubling word "day" appears. The Westminister also states "within the space of six days". Surely then it is considered a confessional matter. Yet, Clark waves this off as a simple rejection of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, not a pronouncement upon the days. Yet there is more confessional situations at stake here. The articles of the nature of Scripture are at stake. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession requires us to "reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule [Scripture]". Is that arguably what is going on with the statement about creation? Article 7 also speaks of not respecting the writings of men above Scripture no matter how holy they are, which presumably ought to include the writing of scientists as well as theologians. And it states we ought to believe all that it is in the Scripture. What about the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 that states Scripture is clear and even the unlearned can understand it. Is that true of the GapTheory or Framework? Or is the clear teaching of Scripture 6/24 hour days. And what of WCF 1.9 that says Scripture ought to interpret Scripture and the meaning is one. Can the meaning be one but the message from the ministers be four fold as the PCA would have it on creation? Or WCF 1.10 that says Scripture is the supreme judge of all things. Does that not put it over science? Should I not believe the words of God even if science is against me?
2. Clark dismisses the argument of David Hall and others that point to WCF 4.1 and the "in the space of six days" statement as addressing a different question. That was to keep out Instantaneous Creation and thus has no bearing upon Day-Age or Framework theories of the day. Yet, does not this argument work against Clark as well? The divines simply did not say "God did not create instantly." Rather they stated it was six days. A confessional marker. Also, if what question they were answering is important then is the Confession not applicable to any questions that come after them? Evolution is a challenge to the gospel that is well after the confessions. Does it mean we are all at liberty? Or does it meant that it was not specifically rejected in the Confessions because those views are not yet invented? It seems to me this argument could cut either way, Clark just makes it cut his way and ignores the rest.
3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past. He is clearly attempting to draw a parallel between the two. Clark wants to argue that using Scriptrue as a text book for science is bad theology and science. First, no one is saying Scripture is a science book. Second, all people are saying is that where the Bible does speak it must be obeyed. Comparing Genesis 1’s repetition of a 6/24 hour formula for creation to the geocentric world debates is a long stretch. It is more an attempt to smear than a real argument.
4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement (pg.50). If the requirement for things to be considered confessional is that they are exegetically based then we ought to apologize for the Canons of Dort as the Arminians were exegetical. They were just really really bad exegetes of Scripture. And thus they were condemned. Framework and Day Age and Gap Theory are also really really bad exegetical examples. And they are also clearly examples of letting science control the exegesis, which does run into some confessional problems as noted above in point 1.
5. Clark states this is not a debate between "two religions . . . not even between two different hermeneutical principles, but rather a debate over the application of those principles and specific exegetical applications" (pg.61). Clark here makes a good point that it is not two different religions. But does the RCUS say that if you believe in Theistic Evolution or Old Earth that you are not Reformed? No. Is this chapter supposed to be about who is Reformed and who is not? No. The chapter was about Illegitimate Religious Certainity. The question then is can we be certain about 6/24 hour day creation. And to that the RCUS has answered yes. Clark has changed the question a little to make the RCUS seem to be saying something we are not. We are not disagreeing with the theology, piety, and practice of prior men in history who may have held to an Old Earth. We are simply saying that one can understand God’s word and what it teaches in Genesis 1. Science does not have the ability to change the words. I do want to point out that I disagree with Clark that it is not about differing hermenuetical principles. How one can use a Grammatical-Historical approach and come away with anything other than 6/24 hour days is beyond me. I do believe then it is about different hermeutical approaches.

Now I believe what is really motivating Dr. Clark here to try and smack down the RCUS and any other Creationists who stand with us is about protecting men like B.B. Warfield, Machen, and A.A. Hodge as Reformed and true. They would fail this test about 6/24 hour day creation. And fairly clearly Clark thinks any marker that allows in Seventh Day Adventists and keeps out Warfield is Illegitimate (pg.49). Of course no one is trying to let Adventists in as if the Confessions do not exist. It is for Warfield and Princeton that Clark strives. That is why Clark devotes 14 pages to the extra-confessional liberty he believes ought to exist and only 4 to the anti-confessional position of Theonomy and 4 to the Covenant Moralism which he also thinks contradicts the Confessions. I will address this issue in a separate post.

On Faith is at it Again

2010-03-05T11:38:00.002-06:00

On Faith is at it again. They are continuing to pretend to be a real place of discussion about faith, but their consistent lack of actual Christian theology is disturbing. This does not mean they are not getting big name writers. In their recent homosexuality in the military discussion they managed to let Brian McLauren advertise for his latest book. McLauren does not divulge how he reconciles Homosexuality and the Bible, but it is clear that the power of people’s testimonies has made him rethink the idea that being gay is a sin. Thus, we know how McLauren reconciles the Bible and homosexuality: he throws out the Bible. In the actual debate section about gays in the military, only Chuck Colson defends “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and his was a practical not a theological position.

Oh but it gets worse. Not only are they pushing the leftist agenda about the military, they are actually against the idea of Evangelism overseas. The Panel has more against the idea of proselytizing and evangelism than it does for it. The idea that there is truth and people ought to adhere to it is anathema to these guys, unless of course that truth is the greatness of homosexuality or global warming or some other lefty idea.

It gets even worse. Eboo Patel writes an article about how Van Jones (the former Green Czar and avowed Communist) is a “faith hero”. The thrust of the article is Van Jones did not get angry at people like Glenn Beck who exposed his political views until the White House fired him. And then he gave a speech when he was receiving all of these awards apparently for his massive communism where he actually called for living as one country with people like Glenn Beck. There are lots of problems with this article such as mainly focusing on Van Jones’s public responses that come after his elevation back to power. It is a lot easier to be nice in public and after you have been honored for your crazy beliefs. The second big problem is that Eboo ignores the problem of being a Communist and a Christian or a person of any faith at all. Communism views religion as the opiate of the people and an evil. How are these two positions reconciled? Eboo does not care. Van Jones is a faith hero while pushing things that are based on principles fundamentally opposed to faith. That is disturbing for anyone other than Eboo. I won’t even get into the comments.

Eboo Patel is probably not a Christian considering his name and obvious ethnic descent, but I could be wrong. What is clear is that this On Faith is not really an attempt to generate a discussion about Faith in life and in politics, but to make it look like Left Leaning anti-religious Communists are indeed people of faith. Where are the articles that speak of the evil of abortion? Where are the articles that recite the anti-Christian nature of communism? They do not exist. Such a distortion is on purpose.

The Team that Changed Baseball

2010-02-18T21:26:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading The Team that Changed Baseball by Bruce Markusen. It is about the 1971 Pirates and argues that they finished the job of integration started by Jackie Robinson. The book is a nice review of the World Championship run, and taught me quite a few things that I did not know.

However, the book suffers a little from lack of constant focus on his theme. The beginning of the book is great as it shows the unity of the team and its racial mix of blacks, latinos, and whites. It shows how Bill Mazaroski helped teach defense to Dave Cash, which actually costs Maz his job at second base. But as the description of the season wears on Markusen loses sight of trying to prove that the 71 Pirates changed baseball. He does a nice job of discussing the season, and does occassionally mention the outbursts of Clemente or Doc Ellis, and how everyone got along anyway, but if you are reading the book to find out how this team changed baseball you are over two thirds of the way through before Markusen really proves his case. It is in the chapter on September where you see that on September 1, 1971 the Pirates fielded the first all minority line-up in MLB history. All 9 positions were a minority. Here is where the heart of his thesis lies and he discusses how each player reacted and even tries to figure you if the coach, Danny Murtaugh, did it on purpose or not, and whether or not that improves the theory of the book. He talks of the quota system in baseball, and the sterotyping of Latinos as good defensive players and blacks as big hitters being shattered by the Pirates. It is an interesting case and one that probably ought to be discussed more when integration is discussed in baseball.

The book is still good if you are reading to learn more about the Pirates run to the Pennant and World title. One of my favorite little stories in the book is about catcher Manny Sanguillen and pitcher of crucial Game 5 Nellie Briles. Game 5 was the swing game as the series was tied 2-2. Briles was a surprise starter, and had pitched 6 shut out innings when he had a disagreement with Sanguillen. Sanguillen wanted to throw mostly sliders and change ups in the inning to keep Baltimore off balance. Briles wanted to throw fast balls and shorten the game since the Pirates had a 4 run lead. Sanguillen took offense, since Sanguillen called the game to that point and thought they were doing well. He went back to home plate and refused to put down any signs. The two met on the mound again and Sanguillen said, “I no need signs to catch your junk.” And continued to refuse to put down signs. They played the whole inning without the catcher knowing what was coming. The shut out was intact and Sanguillen was able to catch all of Briles’s “junk”. What a remarkable athlete Sanguillen really was.

I recommend the book, but read it for the drama of the 1971 year and series. I think the argument could be made that the 71 Pirates changed baseball, but this book only makes that argument a couple of times and if you are looking for a book to make that argument then this is not the book for you.

Lent - Why Bother - a Response

2010-02-06T16:08:00.002-06:00

I am reading through my Christianity Tody which is surprisingly interesting this month. They had a brief two page article featuring three opinions on the topic of Lent – Why Bother?. I was really disappointed that all three were in favor of Lent. It sort of defeats the purpose of having a viewpoints article if the views are all the same. I was more surprised because one of the view points was from Michael Horton. He favored an "evangelical" celebration of Lent.

Now, I have made my thoughts known in the past about Lent, and why I don’t like it. I also have some dear friends who do celebrate it, and I don’t want to unnecessarily anger anyone. However, the lack of an “anti-Lent” position should be rectified. So I will speak against again here.

Horton admits that the Reformers railed against the connection between the fasting and penance of Lent with works of merit that expiate our sins. Such things are rightly condemned and ought to be by all Protestants. He also quotes the Puritans who taught Lent passed on superstitions, constrained the conscience, and degraded the Lord’s Day. All valid concerns, which are not really addressed by Horton. Horton goes on to suggest an evangelical keeping of the 40 Days of Lent. He does not mention whether or not this includes fasting, but one would assume it does. He makes a big deal of the number 40 in the Bible, which while maybe true does not need to be tied to Lent, which is not mentioned in the Bible. Horton believes Lent is a wonderful time for instruction and following the Life of Christ to prepare for Easter.

While I respect Horton a great deal, I think he is dangerously wrong here. Lent will tend to teach people a meritorious expiation of sin on our part as we suffer along with Christ on the road to Easter. It must be specifically taught against each and every Lent, and probably multiple times during Lent. I would bet the majority of people believe their suffering during Lent is meritorious in some manner or another. It is the default position. They practiced Lent in the Methodist church where I grew up and it was the default position there. It either helps us share in the suffering and thus share in paying for our own sins, or it means we are more holy now than when we began the fast. Both are dangerous positions. If Horton does not think that this is the default position for Protestants practicing Lent he should just look over a few columns to read the viewpoint of Baptist pastor and Professor Steven Harmon. Harmon states that the "dominant paradigm for Christian discipleship this side of heaven is "sharing in his sufferings" (Phil. 3:10.)" Harmon makes giving up of meat or something like that into sharing in the sufferings of Christ, which I think is a bit of a stretch in the first place, but he also says it is the main part of discipleship, which is also wrong in my opinion. Clearly, Lent is a way to share in the sufferings of Christ for Rev. Harmon, a Protestant.

The Reformation began in earnest in Switzerland by breaking this very idea. The rejection of Lent was the first major step taken by Zwingli toward total reformation. The Affair of Sausages was right and good. Now, I have no doubt that Horton does not want people to think that they are actually participating in Christ’s suffering, and really just thinks it is a teachable time, a time to prepare for Easter (something I am not sure is necessary either). But the tool of Lent is so bound up in bad theology that one wonders exactly how beneficial it would be to use it.

Pro-Life Rally Observations

2010-02-01T21:45:00.001-06:00

It really is frustrating to see the media lie as much as it does. And in January every year the media blitzes us with pro-abortion messages. Sadly it is not just is shows like Private Practice, but in the news as well. The March for Life is a good example. I did not go to the one is Washington, but I did go to the one in Lincoln, NE. It was 15 degrees and it had been a bad year for the Pro-Life group in NE. Ben Nelson turned his back on the movement despite having been endorsed by Pro-Life NE (which did generate a change the leaders of Pro Life NE signs) and the regents of the University of Lincoln decided to start murdering babies for their stem cells in the name of science . . . or federal funds it was hard to tell. But thousands of people showed up. I don’t attend many political rallies. I can count the number I have attended on one hand and still have enough fingers left to grip a baseball. And one of those rallies was at the Beacon in Spartanburg, SC, so it is hard to tell if I went to see Ambassador Keyes or the Bacon O Plenty. But, I have a few observations to make.

1. The make up of the Pro Life march was young. There were lots of youth there from youth groups, and not with their parents. The vast majority of the people in attendance were born after Roe v Wade passed. In fact of the main speakers only two were born before Roe v Wade. The Nebraska Speaker of the House and Attorney General were both born after Roe and were good speakers. A few of the other legislators probably were too, or at least they were infants when it passed. The Governor, one Senator, and probably the Regent of University were all born pre-Roe. In the crowd the age group that was missing was the women who were of solid voting age during Roe. Those who were thirty something when Roe passed were almost non-existent at the walk. Any reports to the contrary are just false.
2. There were 8 Pro-Abortion protestors. I think when they biked passed me there may have been 9, but when they lined up at the end of our march I only counted 8. They collectively had at least 25 signs. They must have been up all night making those things. And all in all their signs were mean and disturbing. The nicest one they had was “Sex Ed Saves Lives” and they had several that suggested some bad things about women and coat hangers and one that was a paragraph long insult on my intelligence. The Pro-Lifers did not have any negative signs about pro abortionists. In fact, the meanest signs were about the Pro Life Leadership and their endorsements. There was one that said “Bye Bye Ben”. I guess that counts as negative.
3. Ben Nelson did not even send a letter. He is not running for re-election or he would try to repair that bridge. I expect him to throw Pro-Lifers under the bus this year.
4. The thing that disturbed me the most is that the number of Roman Catholics to Protestants is overwhelming. I think every Catholic Church must have been there. They prayed as they walk for the most part. The Newman Club from the University was there, and the march waited for St. Mary’s Catholic Church to finish its Mass before they started. When it let out it added at least several hundred people to the walk. I did not see one sign for a non-Romanist church. Including my own to admit my own fault although I know I was not the only one from my church there. One has to wonder where the Protestants were. Why is the Pro-Life movement so dominated by Romanists? I think it is a condemnation on how many mainline Protestant churches have folded on this argument. They caved early on and now a whole generation of people has grown up and left the mainline church embracing again the biblical position on life.

In the end, it was a good thing. I probably will go back next year. And maybe next year I will make a church sign to carry.

Apology versus Repentance

2010-01-18T15:31:00.001-06:00

One of the things that the world does not understand is repentance. To repent is to turn away from something and turn to its opposite. In Christian terms it means turning away from your sin and turning to the everlasting arms of Jesus Christ for forgiveness. Now repentance consists of admitting your sin, and then turning to the one who forgives us of our sin and by his power, the power of the Holy Spirit, avoiding such sin in the future.

Our culture does not understand this and it is getting worse. Apologies now are a joke and show us that people do not really understand what apologies are about. Repentance is what is needed not the so-called apologies we so often hear today. Let us just look at a few of the recent ones.

“I wish I had never touched steroids,” McGwire said. “It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.”

Here we see McGwire apologize for playing in the steroid era, not for actually being apart of it. Not for causing the steroid era. Who is to blame in this apology? Not Mark. No, the problem lies with the era in which he played. I can’t reprint the whole thing, but it got worse as he denied actually getting any real benefit from the steroids, which makes one wonder why he is apologizing for them at all.

Adam Lambert, an American Idol loser, who kissed his gay keyboard player on national TV apologized by saying “Maybe that wasn’t the best first impression to make again… or the first second impression.” He also said that it was not obscene. Any apology that includes the word “maybe” is not a real apology, but rather an attempt to deflect the negative consequences for one’s bad behavior.

Tiger Woods put out an apology where he admitted he did not live up to his own principles, and that he was not perfect and had made transgressions. That was actually a rather good apology if he had left it right there. His apology is five paragraphs, but three (the longest three) paragraphs are about the transgressions, not himself, but of the press trying to get the story. Then his last paragraph returns to his own failure and he makes another mistake. “For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.” Not only is it bad to spend most of your apology talking about the evil press, but it is also wrong to apologize only to your “supporters”. If I am not a golf fan or a Tiger fans, was I not offended? Do I get an apology too?

Of course politicians are my favorite. Take a look at Senator Dick Durbin apologizing for calling Guantanamo Bay a “gulag” and Nazi comparisons. In this apology Senator Durbin apologizes for only the negative effects or insinuations from his comments, and never actually the comments themselves. He apologized for any negative light his words might have cast and some believed they were across a line, and to them he apologized. He apologized for pain and grief some took from his words. The words are the bad guys, not Dick Durbin. And for those who had the belief that they were wrong, you guys get an apology. That is not an acknowledgement that what he said was wrong. It is like someone saying, “I am sorry you got upset when I hit you.” Not a real apology. Of course in D.C. this apology was considered honorable.

The Bible of course gives us plenty of examples of real repentance. Psalm 51 is one of the great examples of that. First, we see that David turns to God. Asking God to wash him and forgive him. It is to God we must turn for help and it is against Him that we have sinned. All of the above apologies fail to acknowledge the Lord. David admits his sin in verse 3. He does not duck it, he does not qualify it. He is not apologizing that he got Bathsheba pregnant, but for the sin itself, not just the bad consequences that came from it. Verse 4 is an acknowledgement that God is the one sinned against. No longer do our apologies in this world admit that God is the author of the standard, and it is also to Him we owe an apology. David goes on to fully admit his iniquity and beg for purification and the help of the Lord. This is the admitting of sin and the turning to God for help. David knows that on his own he is nothing, he needs the clean heart from God to avoid such sins in the future. Notice also verse 13. Then after forgiveness David will go forth and teach others about God and how not to sin (by relying on Him). This is not something one sees in apologies much any more. Now they want to apologize and be left alone. They did their apologizing, now they want the subject dropped. Yet, David wants to go and teach others how to avoid sin and teach them the ways of God.

Our culture has rejected Christ as it standard, so it is not surprising to see that apologies today are man-centered and not directed at all to God. But, now the culture is losing the idea of standards altogether. Apologies are no longer really apologies for behavior, but apologies that others did not like what happened. That is not the same thing. Do not make the mistake of thinking that these sort of pseudo-apologies are only for the rich and famous. Oh no, they are making their way down to our youth. Soon, the idea of repentance will altogether be lost. Soon Christians will not only have to teach people to be sorry for their sins, but how to be sorry for their sins. Pray God sends a spirit of repentance upon us all, so that we might rightly confess our sin and our dependence upon Jesus Christ himself.

Review: For God and His People

2010-01-12T00:24:00.002-06:00

I have finished reading Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigne’s biography of Ulrich Zwingli For God and His People. It is excellent and I highly recommend this book. D’Aubigne is a fantastic historian, and he makes sure we get a thorough look at the reformer of Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli. It is loaded with quotes from the time, although not always cited. The portrait of Zwingli is a man who stood for the Bible and salvation in Christ above all things. Much more so than Luther, Zwingli wanted a return to the Bible. His reforming days are shown and his struggles to change not only Zurich, but also all of Switzerland. We are introduced to many of his reforming friends, so it is also a good book to get glimpse of other reformers too. The book does not fall into mindless praise. It does openly criticize when it feels compelled to do so, although the other at one point explains his reluctance to engage the facts too much in a biography. I personally thought D’Aubigne went a bit too far in his rather harsh treatment of Zwingli’s end when Zwingli argued for war. Not this his assessment of Zwingli making a mistake and even sinning was wrong, but I felt he may have brought it up a few too many times. The information he obtained about the Marburg Colloquy was very interesting. I had not seen the Colloquy discussed in such detail before. I did not know that they had actively kept Zwingli and Luther apart on the first day before the formal Colloquy began. The fear of the two men’s tempers was enough to make sure they did not cross each other too early.

One other slight criticism I had was that the book did not always keep the chronological order. The Marburg Colloquy takes a whole chapter, as it should, but the next chapter actually starts prior to the Colloquy. One has to make sure he reads the dates and keeps the dates straight or one will get a few of the events out of sequence. It does not happen often, but it did a couple of times and I thought it worth noting.

Still, I do recommend this book, which is not very long making it enjoyable and easily readable. It is impossible to read this book and come away with the view that Zwingli is an unimportant figure of the Reformation. Rather this book restores Zwingli to his rightful place as the Father of the Reformed Reformation.

Hall of Fame snub

2010-01-06T17:27:00.000-06:00

Hall of Fame votes are in and only Andre Dawson made it in. Bert Blylevin is ripped off again. But he is within 10 votes.

Jayson Stark cast his vote for his Hall of So-So Players, and posted it on-line at ESPN. He voted for 10 guys. All 10 that he was allowed to vote for. That is crazy. I am not sure what Jayson was thinking.

It appears that Stark thinks you just have to be better than the others at your position during your time to make the Hall of Fame (the other guys at ESPN all seem to have the same attitude). Clearly that is his main criteria, which confuses the Hall of Fame with the All Star game. And not surprisingly All Star Games and Silver Slugger awards become the standard Stark uses to put people in the Hall. Alomar is a maybe in my mind, but Larkin should be out. Stark’s big argument for Larkin is Silver Slugger awards. What? So what that only A-Rod has more Silver Slugger awards. They didn’t give out Silver Slugger awards during the days of players like Honus Wagner, who surely would have more. That is a false way to make it look like Larkin compares favorably to those guys in history. McGriff is also a no. Stark admits he misses the numbers that most consider as numbers that put you in the Hall, and fails to mention how long McGriff played to try and get those numbers. The numbers are inflated because of expansion and because of his extra time where people did everything they could to get him those extra 7 home runs to hit 500. But he didn’t, and it does matter that he didn’t. When you think back on the 90’s do you think of McGriff as a dominate first baseman? No. Edgar Martinez is a DH. Plain and simple that means he is out. He gets zero benefit for the field. And as a DH who did not have to go into the field, his hitting numbers should be higher than other HOF candidates. They are not. Thus, he is out. Dale Murphy is on his list again the only reason is that Dale Murphy was a power hitter during his time. Murphy is shy of 400 homeruns and his other numbers are good, but not great. Stark’s defense. “It is the numbers in their time that we are supposed to be looking at.” That is not true. You are supposed to decide if that person is an all time great or not. Dale Murphy was one of the most fearted right fielders of his time. But not of all time. Jack Morris too was good, but not good enough. A career ERA of almost 4 is too high. The only one on his list that belongs is Bert Blyleven and perhaps Andre Dawson. I would like some more time to think about Tim Raines and Roberto Alomar.

Let us just look at one major example of how Stark’s view of best in his own time backfires (other than it requires people to get in the Hall from every position for every generation) and is not good. We will use his favorite: Barry Larkin.

Let us look at Larkin compared to Ernie Banks. Both played 19 seasons, but Banks played almost 400 more games than Larkin. Which brings up a legitimate concern about Larkin, he was constantly hurt. Larkin has a higher AVG than Banks and a higher OBP, but a lower OPS. How can that be? Well, as much as Stark wants us to think that Larkin’s power and Silver Slugger awards changed the position, he did not garner nearly as many bases as Banks. Thus, why not say that Banks changed the position? His 500 HRs are why he is in the Hall. Larkin for all his slugger awards only hit 198.

But Stark wants us to examine Larkin only in regards to his own age. So let us do just that. Without names of course.

Player 1 = 1963 hits, 195 homeruns, 1123 runs, 860 RBIs, .265 AVG, .330 OBP, .759 OPS
Player 2 = 2340 hits, 198 homeruns, 1329 runs, 960 RBIs, .295 AVG, .371 OBP, .815 OPS
Player 3 = 2365 hits, 185 homeruns, 1231 runs, 1003 RBIs, .285 AVG, .352 OBP, .767 OPS
Player 4 = 2586 hits, 173 homeruns, 1285 runs, 1194 RBIs, .298 AVG, .365 OBP, .782 OPS

Which one is the sure fire Hall of Famer that Stark wants in? Can we find Larkin? Does he stand out from this group of contemporaries? Player 1 is Jay Bell who played fewer games and seasons than Larkin. Player 2 is Larkin himself. Player 3 is Alan Trammell and Player 4 is Julio Franco. Larkin does not really stand above any of them. Not a one of these players deserves the HOF. They were all good and did good work. They were all above average, but they are not HOFers. Add to that the fact that Trammell, Bell, and Franco all led the league in a category at least once in their careers even if that category was sacrifice hits. Larkin never led in any category ever. Not even sacrifices. Larkin fails even by Starks standards. Hall of Fame Players are supposed to be great, not just a little better than the other guys during his life span.

Bert is great. 60 shutouts is amazing. 6th all time in strikeouts is clearly Hall material. Add low ERA and two World titles, and what more do you need?

Bowl Game recap

2010-01-06T11:15:00.002-06:00

I know the bowl season is not over. Tonight there is still show down between the MAC and the Sun Belt conference and the so-called title game between the SEC and the Big 12 where each conference will be battling to stay above .500 in the bowl season, but it is enough to talk about the sesson anyway.

If you look at this year’s bowl results, one thing should jump out at you. The smaller conferences are just as good as the so called BCS conferences. The Mountain West Conference went 4-1 in the bowl season. Their only loss was TCU to Boise State. Wyoming, Air Force, BYU, and Utah all won their games. Boise State by the way beat the Pac 10 champion during the regular season and the Mountain West Champion in the Bowl Game. What more do they need to prove before they are considered for the National Title?

The real problem with the BCS is that it claims to give us a national champion. That is why there is only two solutions to this problem. One is go back to the bowls the way they used to be, or go to a tournament where only conference champions get in. Once you allow "at-large" bids in then it is no longer a true national championship tournament, but a subjective way to make sure large schools win.

Did you know that only two teams have gone undefeated twice including a BCS bowl game win during the BCS era? Can you name them? No, not USC. They only did it once. They did it the year they won the one and only BCS title, and there were two other undefeated teams with BCS bowl victories that year. No, it is not Florida. They did it once, but the other national title year they had one loss to Ole Miss during the regular season. The two teams are Utah and now Boise State. That is right. The two most consistent programs in the country are Utah and Boise State. Their seasons ended with wins in BCS bowl games including Utah beating the stuffing out of Alabama last year. These teams deserve a shot to play for the national title.

We have to get rid of the BCS in the long run. It is a system based on two subjective polls, which should be your first warning sign. Then they add in the computers, which are supposedly not subjective. But if you have ever looked at the computer rankings they are awful. They ruined the BCS this year. The final computer ranking had Ohio State behind Iowa despite the fact that Ohio State beat Iowa head to head. It had TCU very far down so much so that it cost TCU the third spot in the ranking. Yes, if Texas had lost to Nebraska it would not have helped TCU play for the national title. The computers by the way also did not have Nebraska ranked in the top 25 either before or after their close game with Texas. The computer has to go.

I vote put it back like it was. Let the AP vote a champ and the coaches vote a champ and leave it be.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T11:52:00.001-06:00

Let me wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. A remember that we celebrate because the Word was made flesh so that we might be saved from our sins. Has there ever been a better reason to feast than that?

One Child Policy in America?

2009-12-12T21:12:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the EPA everyone is now officially a polluter. CO2, Carbon Dioxide, the stuff we all exhale, is officially a pollutant. Yes, the stuff that helps plants stay green is actually bad for the environment, that is if you believe the government.

The question is why? Since it is becoming clearer and clearer that Global Warming is a hoax and no real science supports carbon dioxide warming the planet, why the EPA decision. Well, I believe the reason is two fold. One, so that even if the Congress fails to pass the Cap and Trade the EPA will just impose it. But I think the other reason is the real one.

Two, this is about population control and forcing people to abort or not have children. Yes, the policy that is currently in place in China is the goal of environmentalists who are communists in the end anyway. Think I am crazy? Take a read of a Canadian journalist who believes the government killing machine in China is a great idea. Global warming can only be stopped if fewer humans exist. Because humans are the enemy. That has always been the real point. People are bad. And now they want to control population in order to achieve their goals. Global warming is just the latest reason to promote their love of death.

You might be saying, "That is just one wacko in Canada". But wait, it is also CNN and apparently a lot of their viewers. Jack Cafferty thinks that if we keep having children their will not be enough stuff and that the problem is “religious fundamentalists” like me. That is right. The reason emerges. These people promote one child per family despite the obvious math dilemma, despite no science to support them, and despite the disastrous effects in China, they still argue for aborting or preventing all children after your first. Why? I believe the answer is in the laying the blame at the feet of fundamentalist. They hate God. Man is in the image of God, and thus, anti-religious people hate man too. They will prevent him from being born if they can. Those who hate God love death. And death is what they hope to deal out when they are promoting this one child policy.

Keep an eye on this subject. It is not over. It will come up for debate again and again. The war on Christians and their families has just begun.

The Conference to watch in Basketball

2009-12-12T14:32:00.002-06:00

The College Basketball season has started, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone is watching the right conference. Keep your eye on the Missouri Valley Conference.

Currently only Drake and Creighton are below .500, and Creighton (3-5) has beaten Nebraska, who beat USC and TCU earlier this year. They also have two undefeated teams. Missouri State (8-0) with wins over Auburn, Tulsa, and Eastern Michigan to name a few. Illinois State (7-0) is also undefeated, but with a weak schedule so far with the only win of any note being over Illinois Chicago. Wichita State (8-1) and Northern Iowa (6-1) have only one loss and are a bit stronger than Illinois State. Witchita State destroyed Iowa at Iowa and played Pitt close. Northern Iowa beat Iowa and Iowa St. in addition to Boston College on the road and East Carolina at home. Their only loss is to Depaul. The Conference has an overall winning record on the road and even Bradley (5-2) has beaten Illinois, who was ranked in the Top 25 at the time.

So just make sure you keep an eye on this conference. They are loaded with teams that have potential. It will be an exciting season and perhaps a multiple bid year for this confernce.

Intellectual or Anti-Intellectual: Does truth matter?

2009-12-03T00:39:00.000-06:00

Intellectuals are not ever really held to standards anymore. At least with how the term is usually used. People are intellectual because they are, or because they work at a university or something like that. Those who come along and buck the system are not intellectuals, they are stupid and ignorant, or at least they are until their team wins and then they are the party line and now intellectual. Which leads me to this question? Does truth matter when we are considering someone to be intellectual?

Take this recent bru-ha-ha about Global Warming. Some scientists, who were all considered intellectual and some of them at least had shared in a Nobel Prize, were all faking their data and making things up. The truth stared them in the face, and they went in the opposite direction despite the truth. Surely we can now recognize that these people are not intellectuals, but rather silly liars despite the Nobel Prizes and degrees hanging on their walls.

But do we have to wait for proof of out right fraud before we apply the truth to discerning whether people are intellectuals or not? Take Karl Marx for example. He still has millions of followers, but all of the Communistic countries like the USSR have been placed firmly on the “ash heap of history” or at least have altered their economic system to allow capitalism. Does Marx rate as an intellectual? What about the next step in John Maynard Keynes. His system does not appear to work, but still has devoted followers, at least politically. Milton Friedman led a critical movement of Keynes and for almost a generation economists agreed that his theories did not work. Is Keynes an intellectual? More importantly can both Keynes and Friedman be intellectuals? One of them has to be right and the other wrong? Is the one who is wrong still an intellectual despite being completely wrong? What role does truth play in who is and who is not an intellectual?

Let me get one step closer to a point. What about Charles Darwin or Jay Gould (inventor of Punctuated Evolution)? Are these men intellectuals? Darwin had a scientific theory. He proposed what he considered evidence, and even admitted the lack of fossil records, but assumed they would be found soon enough (they have not by the way). It is not really a testable theory as we cannot re-create the beginning of the world in a test tube. Gould’s ideas are even less testable as he makes the lack of evidence a sign of evidence for his theory, convoluting the whole thing even more. But the untestable point goes both ways, as there is no way to actually prove evolution either. Yet, these men are considered intellectuals. But, if they are completely and totally wrong then should they be?

The Bible tells us that the fool says in his hear there is no God, and the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Can one be both an intellectual and a fool? Maybe depending on the definition, I guess. But the point is that it seems odd to me that today we throw around terms of intellectual and anti-intellectual (or worse terms such as liars and skeptics)without regard for truth.

Forgotten Reformer: Oswald Myconius

2009-11-24T00:50:00.002-06:00

Forgotten Refomer: Oswald Myconius

Okay, so I am not yet done with this series. I have time for (at least) one more. This one is Oswald Myconius. Born in 1488 as Oswald Geisshussler in Lucerne Switzerland. He was a good student and during his studies in Rothwyl he met Berthold Haller. Oswald went to Basle in 1514 to be a teacher. It was probably Erasums who called him Oswald Myconius, which he then took to himself. Many scholars changed their names during this time. Making their name Greek apparently is some sort of status symbol or something. He became a teacher in the city and there he made the acquaintance of Ulrich Zwingli. It is with Zwingli that Myconius becomes life long friends. Myconius married while in Basle as well. During this stay in Basle, Myconius also became friends with Oecolampadius and Wolfgang Capito. Yet, Myconius would not stay in Basle forever. He went to take a teaching position in Zurich in 1516. There is some evidence to show that Myconius was already teaching some Reformational truths during his time in Zurich including claiming that the pope was not to be followed if he contradicted the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, Myconius is in Zurich before Zwingli and laying some ground work for the Reformation there. Although it is to be remembered he is only the head teacher at the Cathedral School, and not yet a pastor. But in 1518, it is Myconius who convinces the Cathedral chapter to extend the call to Ulrich Zwingli to be the pastor. Together Zwingli and Myconius begin to spread Reformational truth to the people of Zurich. Yet, the partnership was only to be for a year as Myconius then went back to Lucerne with hopes of spreading the Reformation to Lucerne. He was often attacked and was ultimately unsuccessful in Lucerne. But in 1522, Myconius took a position as pastor of Einsleden, where Zwingli had preached from 1516-1518 and Leo Juda from 1518-1522. Thus, there he stood in a line of Reformational preachers, and did not have to endure the attacks upon the gospel and the false slanders of his character. He did not stay long as by the end of 1523 he is in Zurich teaching the school there again. He returns to the pulpit in 1531 upon the death of John Oecolampadius as the head pastor of Basle. It is there that he aids in the editing and publication of the First Confession of Basle. He stays there laboring until his death in 1552.

Myconius was an early convert to the Reformation and worked for it everywhere he went. He was not able to reform Lucerne, but he was the school teacher there. He did aid in the reformation of Zurich. In fact, he played a large role in getting the people to call Zwingli to the pulpit and then returning again in 1523 as the battle reached its climax. He filled an important slot upon the death of John Oecolampadius as the head pastor of Basle. In doing so he helped keep Switzerland on track in the Reformation despite losing Zwingli and Oecolampadius in one year. His election to the post in Basle shows how highly regarded he was by his contemporaries as Basle usually promoted from within, but they went out of the city to get Myconius. With the publication of the First Confession of Basle, he helped usher in the age of Confessions, and he helped in the formation of the First Helvetic Confession, which united all of Reformed Switzerland in 1536. Myconius along with Grynaeus were responsible for the Latin publication of the confession.

Myconius was Zwinglian in his view of the Supper. A view he defended from all detractors. But he was not a robot merely regurgitating the views of his friend Zwingli. Myconius held that Christ really did descend into hell, a view not commonly held by many reformers, and Myconius was eager to find common ground with the Lutherans. Much more so than the rest of the Swiss Reformers. But Myconius was never able to find that common ground. Nevertheless, he did not stop trying.

Oswald was also apparently a little bit of a hot head. Once he came home in Zurich to find that his house had been ransacked and his wife and child were very shaken by the experience. Oswald tracked the man, who was a Swiss mercenary soldier, and confronted him in the street. This of course ended badly for Oswald, who would recover from his injuries. In Basle he would also yell back at people who occasionally heckled him from the congregation. I guess times were a little different back then.

Myconius is forgotten because of his largely secondary role in the Reformation, never being the one who actually reformed any town (although neither did Calvin). Still, Myconius was a member of that original cabal or Swiss reformers. For that reason alone we ought to remember Oswald Myconius, an original reformer.

Anti-Intellectualism or Intellectualism: Palin, N.T. Wright, and other thoughts

2009-11-17T14:06:00.001-06:00

Yes, I think I will link these things together in this blog.

I have been extremely impressed by the blitzkreg of media opposition to Gov. Sarah Palin’s book. I have not read it, nor do I intend to, but people like David Brooks are attacking her as an anti-intellectual joke? Is she really a popular idiot or is perhaps David Brooks confused on what it actually means to be intellectual just like he is confused as to what it means to be conservative? I cannot answer for sure whether Gov. Palin is intellectual, but I can say for sure that David Brooks gets the definition wrong, but he is not the only one.

Take a look at Dr. James Jordan, famed Federal Vision pastor, in his article Closing of the Calvinistic Mind. In this article he tries to explain to us that there used to be Reformed Intellectuals, but no more. His list includes people like R.J. Rushdoony, father of Theonomy, and Herman Dooeyweerd, Christian Philosopher also involved in the movement. These are a sampling of the Christian Intellectuals Jordan refers to in his article. Evan Runner, Cornelius Van Til, also draw mention, and are also in some way associated with Theonomy or the Amsterdam School of Philosophy. Klaas Schilder garners a mention, Schilder has much in common with modern day Federal Vision. He seems to honor Bishop N.T Wright as an intellectual thinker in today’s world in other articles. The same question can be posed to Dr. Jordan as David Brooks, what makes an intellectual anyway?

It seems clear to me that the definition of both Brooks and Jordan of an intellectual is someone who broaches new ground and is an original thinker. Such a definition is probably largely accepted, but is it right? Should the church constantly be broaching new ground? Should we be rethinking justification by faith alone? How is this definition of an intellectual compatible with foundational established truths? And the answer comes back, it is not. Intellectualism then is anti-thetical to established truth. Do we really need Bishop Wright to re-think the incarnation and justification, or is that act of intellecutalism an act of denying truth? Do we need someone to re-think conservatism in politics or is re-thinking conservatism an inherently un-conservative act?

There is no doubt that David Brooks believes intellectualism involves coming up with new ideas and new solutions rather than spouting the same old cut tax formula. This is why Brooks believes the era of Reagan is dead and supports candidates like John McCain and supported Barak Obama. For Brooks supporting a major liberal like Barak Obama does not negate his self proclaimed “conservatism”. It is intellectual to support these other intellectuals and conservatism is redefined into Barak Obama’s liberalism. The same is true for the Federal Vision and N.T. Wright. They follow the intellectualism and end up redefining Justification and Election until it is really something closer to Romanism that Protestantism. That is what a good intellectual does in their system. Re-think, which means re-define.

I wish to suggest a different definition of an intellectual. A true intellectual is someone who can take difficult concepts and present them to the masses so that they are easily understood. Such an ability is indeed rare, but it shows great intellectual ability. To be able to explain things so that all can understand takes total grasp of the subject and a knowledge of language and others that ought to be what defines an intellectual. Ronald Reagan is a great example. He could communicate the truths of economics and politics in a manner that was memorable and easily understood. Let me give another example by citing someone who is oddly left off of Dr. Jordan’s list. Francis Schaeffer was at the height of his popularity in the 1970’s, the same time frame spoken of by Jordan, and he was also a conservative Presbyterian. Yet, Jordan leaves him off of the list of intellectuals? Why? Schaeffer had a larger following than Dooeyweerd and Rushdoony combined. But what Schaeffer did not do was break new ground. He did not promote the new idea of Theonomy, but rather communicated the basic truths of a Christian worldview so that many could understand.

Jordan calls people that fit my definition of intellectual "popularizers". They simply make a message popular, but they do not rethink the message or come up with a new message. And I surely agree that "popularizers" exist. But, should we be rethinking the gospel of Jesus Christ, should we be changing it? I think not.

Next installment: Anti-intellectual or intellectual: Does truth matter any more?

Forgotten Reformers: The City of Basel

2009-11-11T00:04:00.002-06:00

The 500th Anniversary of Calvin’s birth is almost over, but since it is not yet, I will continue on with the Forgotten Reformer path. But today I would just like to do something a little different. Calvin and Geneva are exalted, and they should be remembered fondly. However, other cities had just as much influence if not more. So today I would like to discuss the forgotten city of Basel.

Basel in my opinion ought to be remembered as a major center and birthplace of the Reformation. Let me just go through some of the things that happened in Basel and their influence over the Reformed Reformation.

Basel before the Reformation had such Romanist teachers as Wessel, Wittenbach, and Erasmus who helped foster a spirit of reform at the University of Basel. Wittenbach even taught the truth about salvation of Jesus Christ. Look at a list of the people that came to Basel. Ulrich Zwingli was there in 1496 for a year, but he returned again in 1502 until 1506. Also there during that time frame, were Leo Juda, future Reformer in Zurich, and Wolfgang Capito, future Reformer of Strassborg. The trio met and became good friends, and would continue to communicate for the rest of their lives. Casper Hedio was there as well receiving a doctorate in 1520. Oswald Myconius was educated at Basel, and was teaching there in 1514. Myconius left for Zurich before being recalled to replace Oecolampadius after his death in 1531.
John Oecolampadius was there in 1515 preaching in the Cathedral, and helping Erasmus with his Greek NT. He did briefly leave to join a monastery, but was back by 1522 to stay. Konrad Pelikan was there as a member and priest of the Fransiscan Order in Basel from at least 1519 to 1526.

Basel was a large printing center that was printing the works of Luther by 1518. It was Basel that published the Greek NT of Erasmus in 1516. They would of course be publishing works from the Swiss Reformers as well. These were able to be distributed in both Switzerland and Germany thanks to Basel’s unique local and history (it had only been a part of Switzerland for a few decades prior to the Reformation). Of course it would be in Basel that Calvin printed his first edition of the Institutes of Christian Religion. Not only was the printing business pushing the reformation, but so too was the famous painter, Hans Hlbein the Younger, who worked in Basel until 1526. It was in Basel he became Reformed. His brother Ambosius also lived in Basel.

Basel also gave respite to the fleeing Calvin in 1536 and before that the young Guillermo Farel after he was chased out of France. Some English Protestants would end up in Basel during the reign of Bloody Mary as well. Basel was a safe haven for Reformers.

Basel also helped kick off the Confessional movement in the Reformed Churches when in 1534 they put out the First Confession of Basel, which Oecolampadius had written before his death. This led to the First Helvetic Confession in 1536 that united all of Reformed Switzerland. The leaders of Basel at the time, Myconius and Simon Grynaeus, were contributers, and the confession was drawn up and printed in Basel.

Basel also stayed true to the Reformation (despite a brief period of Lutheranizing), and sent two delegates to Dort: Sebastian Beck and Wolfgang Meyer.

Thus, if we look at Basel we see a place where the Reformers all got their first taste of the Reformation. Where they were able to interconnect and "network" if you will. Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Capito, Hedio, Juda, Myconius, all got to know one another at Basel. Then they spread out and Reformed Switzerland and South Germany. It was a leading city of the Reformation in many ways, and it is so often forgotten today. If we had but a few Basel’s in America today, the Reformation would again turn into a fire that could consume an entire continent. Let us not forget the great work of the Reformation in Basel.

History of the Iconoclastic Controversy

2009-11-05T15:45:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, and it is a very good book. It is not all straight history as he stops to examine the arguments from each side at each period in the conflict, of which he believes there are three. The author, Dr. Edward Martin, clearly favors the Iconophils (lovers of images), but overall is a fairly balanced view and is willing to admit when arguments are good or bad or unanswered. Obviously as someone who is against icons I have some quibbles with some of his review of the argumentation, but still the book is good. I learned a lot of history that I did not before, and Martin makes some excellent points about the increasing dependence of the iconophils on tradition as their authority. Martin even seems to argue that this reliance on tradition is what helps end theological thought in the Eastern Orthodox Church. And by comparing the arguments in the first round with the arguments of the last round, he makes a pretty good case.

The major failure of the book in my opinion is Martin’s removal of what was going on in the western church to the last two chapters of the book as if they were completely divorced, which is what he argues. I think he fails in his understanding of the Carolingian Church and its disregard of icons. He dismisses most of the rejection of the Second Council of Nicaea by the Franks as politically motivated, and I think that is fairly narrow. He also is too dismissive of Claudius of Turin, who he admits is basically a Protestant Reformer a few hundred years out of place. The fairly low rate reaction to Claudius needed to be explored more, and if he had put the goings on in the Western Church side by side with the Eastern Church, then it would have made a different picture. In fact, it probably would have made a picture of the church in the 8th and 9th century that had a majority of its members rejecting icons. Something that is not really taught in church history courses.

Still, that complaint aside, I think the book is good. It is well researched and a pretty easy read. I enjoyed the book and might look for more works by the Dr. Martin.

Election Results

2009-11-04T08:50:00.002-06:00

Election results of 2009 are in, and it is hard to read them as good for anyone. So some Republicans won governor's races. That is good for them, but NY23 does show that the Republican Party as a whole does not yet understand that conservatism is the way to go.

The real result to pay attention to is the election in Maine. A pro-marriage law passed by the legislature was overturned. That is good news, but only about 53% voted to overturn the law. The Homosexual agenda has gained a lot of ground. They are still having to force their "marriages" on people via courts, but this is not the sound rejection it used to be. This is a real message for the church. Without Christianity as a basis, marriage will fall.

We need to see what is going on. I commented a few posts ago about the homosexual show on Grey's Anatomy, but they also had shows on Heroes as well as Flash Forward at least. These shows probably put this in the shows probably to help influence the vote in Maine. There is no doubt that the homosexual agenda will win if Christianity does not step up.

Of course it may actually be a hate crime to vote against it now. This post may be a hate crime. But one has to obey God rather than men.

Joe Calzaghe: Best of the Era

2009-10-30T00:18:00.002-05:00

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

2009-10-26T15:47:00.002-05:00

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

2009-10-21T23:18:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-19T11:46:00.003-05:00

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

2009-10-13T17:05:00.001-05:00

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

2009-10-10T00:49:00.002-05:00

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

2009-10-06T18:04:00.001-05:00

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

Asking the Right Questions

2009-09-25T00:55:00.002-05:00

Sometimes it is all about asking the right questions.

I read the Newsweek article about Is Your Baby Racist (I read the print version I don’t know if the on-line one is different). Since Newsweek is the worst magazine of all time, I fully expected to hate this article and get cranky about it. However, after reading it I thought to myself "People did not know this already?" The answer to the question is "Yes, your baby is racist". That fits perfectly with a Biblical worldview. So, I am not sure why the fuss from conservatives. Children are born sinners and guess what, they are born selfish. The article talks of one study where kids are randomly given different color shirts. They play together with out caring about the shirt color but at the end of the day they are asked which shirt color has smarter people and looks better and the like. Guess what? They think their own color shirt was better! Racism is nothing more than a way to make yourself look good. It is a way to proclaim yourself better and superior. Selfishness and self-centeredness. Kids are born that way. One should expect it. Yet, this Newsweek guy was floored by such findings. He seemed even more floored by the idea that a diverse classroom did not fix the problem. Kids need to be taught by their parents. Parents need to tell kids that all are equal. I have a hard time believing that is a shocker, but it apparently is.

The problem is not in the article or its findings or it solution to discuss racism in the family. The problem in the article was that the guy asked all the wrong questions? Apparently these studies show that a diverse class room does not help kids get over racism. But did the article ask or discuss this fatal blow to Affirmative Action, which often argues a diverse college or classroom is beneficial? Of course not. More importantly, the Newsweek reported is amazed that so many parents do not want to discuss race and dropped out of the study because they were in the group that had to ask follow-up questions about race. Did he ask why race is such a touchy topic in America? No. Not at all.

The Huffington Post displayed the same sort of ignorance when they had an article about NBC Nightly News growing in viewership. The article starts, "While the conventional wisdom says the evening news is dying, "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams" actually grew year-over-year.” The article then goes to give the numbers. NBC apparently added 88,000 viewers while CBS lost 103,000 and ABC lost 363,000. The article is short but clearly praising NBC. However, when the math is done conventional wisdom is right, the news is dying. It lost almost 400,000 viewers in one year. Does the article ask why CBS and ABC lost viewers? No. Does anyone say that maybe the decline in CBS viewers is because they have a female anchor? ABC has announced one as well? Is it discussed? Of course not. People are not asking any questions and just deciding what they want to decide. Honest thinking is gone.

But asking the wrong question is what man does best. Reading the last week of Jesus’s life in Mark (beginning in chapter 11) one cannot help but see all of the wrong headed questions asked by all sorts of people. After 3 years of Jesus healing and preaching and teaching the Pharisees run up and ask "By what authority are you doing these things" (verse 28)? They had missed the greater point. They had missed that Jesus was the Messiah. They are still asking their attack questions. So Jesus asks a question back and they do not like either answer so they just confess ignorance. Jesus tells them a parable that they can see is about them, but they fail to ask questions like "How can we repent?" Or "How can we avoid rejecting the stone?" Instead they try to arrest Him. The Sadducees are next and they try to ask a trick question to trap Jesus about the resurrection, but Jesus rebukes them. A lawyer asks about which is the greatest commandment, a question that is missing the point completely. Although this one has a happy ending as in 12:32 the lawyer comes around and sees Jesus is right and that his own question was wrong. You can see this same epidemic of wrong headed questions no matter which gospel you read. John has Pilate asking questions that miss everything, and most of these same stories are related in Matthew and Luke too.

The Huffington Post’s inability to do basic math and Newsweek’s inability to ask the questions brought up on the opening page of the article are just minor examples. Society is missing the deeper questions. If racism is a problem that we would like to see erased, how can we show our kids racism is wrong? What basis can we give for our equality? Do you see the deeper question now? Do you see the deeper problem that society has made for itself. Evolution cannot be a basis for equality. In fact, evolution has historically been the basis for genocide. There is only one basis for equality and that is that we are all created by God and made in His image. That is after all what the Declaration of Independence says. "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights." No creator, no equality, and no rights. This basic truth stands at the heart of the questions that should have been asked in the Newsweek article. And the answer has been taught to little kids in church for decades. "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

When you ask the right questions, the answers are easy. When you ask the wrong questions, then the answers will always be wrong too.

An Epidemic of Selfishness

2009-09-14T16:51:00.003-05:00

This will be a blog about serious issues and not sports, but bare with me. Also watch the videos. It will help.

There has been a rash lately of out of control actions. Everything from the "You Lie" yell during a Presidential speech to shouting matches at Town Hall meetings. But it is hardly contained within the political realm. This out of control behavior is everywhere. Just look at the world of sports. I will only use things that have happened in the last month. Remember most kids look up to sports heroes and watch sports center.

After a tough loss to Boise State, more than a little unsportsman like conduct occurred. A Boise Player taunted after the game and was then decked with a quick jab.

Serena Williams threw a temper tantrum during her loss that including threats of physical violence toward the officials. Not pictured is where she returns to yell again and losses the match on a point penalty. It was a penalty and not a warning because she had already been warned when she smashed her racket at the end of the first set.

LeBron James refuses to shake hands (by the way pay no attention to the word bubbles it was the only video I could find) after a loss. Not only that but what is worse is that he continues to defend the act till this day.

And just to show it is not all about sports, take a look at Kanye West interrupting an award to someone else (Talyor Swift I think). This is something I have never even heard of before. But it happened.

These are just a few examples. I list them because they get video taped. They are a nice insight into our culture today. We are a selfish people. Things don’t go our way, we now just act out, sort of like a three year old throwing a tantrum. This is not going to go away. In fact we ought to expect it to grow. Selfishness is rampant and will dominate lots of things from now on.

Why now? Well, it is hard to admit it, but I think we have to face the fact that society is breaking down from a moral standpoint. Selfishness is no longer a vice, but rather it is a virtue in many circles. Gone are the days when other people could be valued or have decent points. Now if you disagree with the Republicans you are a socialist and if you disagree with the Democrats you are a racist. Gone are the days when people shake hands after losing and say good game, go the press conference later and say, "They beat us." Now is the time of excuses. Nothing can shatter our image of ourselves as the best and the most important.

This is the climate that the church now faces. Christianity of course carries a message that is not about self, has little tolerance for self-image, and condemns selfishness as a sin. You might can imagine the reaction that the church will be getting. We are seeing seeds of it now in the reception of Proposition 8 in California and in movies like Religulous with Bill Maher.

As a society I am not sure we cannot ignore the rising tide of selfish blowups, but the society as a whole will not be able to solve the problem. This is because the answer is only found the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"You Lie" Was it right or wrong?

2009-09-10T15:54:00.002-05:00

Last nights Presidential speech was the most entertaining in sometime. I have to admit I am glad I watched it. It is not everyday that a Congressman shouts "You lie" at the President. Of course the media is full of condemnation for Congressman Wilson’s outburst. And it is a sign that our nation is breaking down as hostilities build up between liberals and conservatives. But was his outburst wrong?

Clearly, it is a break in protocol. It is not normal to yell during someone else’s speech. But that protocol has a history of being violated as well. It is not like a whole gaggle of Democrats did not do the same thing to President Bush when he wanted to reform Social Security. But maybe you are thinking that yelling “no” and hissing and booing is not the same thing as saying "you lie", and it is the words that make a big problem. Well, then I hope you are condemning President Obama as well. He had just finished calling everyone who had ever argued that death panels existed liars, in what was pretty clearly a reference to Sarah Palin. But it was also broad enough to encompass everyone who ever thought death panels are in the bill and covering of illegal aliens. He would go on to attack people who think that abortion is in the bill.

Here is the real problem. President Obama started the name calling and frankly was lying to the American public or at least refusing to engage in discussion while shaking his fingers at others for not engaging. Gov. Palin’s article makes a decent case that death panels are in the bill and does so by quoting President Obama himself and the bill before Congress. The Democrats also defeated amendments to the bill that would have required proof of citizenship to get the benefits of the bill. The only reason to defeat the amendments is to cover illegal aliens. It is like laying a table full of cookies before young kids and telling them not to eat and then walking off. You can say the kids aren’t eating the cookies, but you really have no way to stop them. So, President Obama was lying or has no idea what he is talking about.

And just so the President is clear, abortion is in the bill. The Democrats are refusing to attach the Hyde Amendment to the bill that prohibits federal funds from going to abortions. This has been documented as well

So, the question becomes does Congress have to sit an listen to a President tell lies? Do they have to sit an listen to a President tell them that they are liars while he does nothing but lie? Are there times in a nation’s history where such outbursts might actually be the best thing for the country? I am not sure I would have done it, but I don’t actually have much of a problem with it. Hard times call for hard words.

And even those it is a fictional portrayal, someone really needs to say this stuff to the President. This video made me laugh..

Notice

2009-09-08T16:34:00.004-05:00

Since there have been some complaints about my spending too much time on sports, I have decided to make a blog for my rambling thoughts on the Pittsburgh Pirates. It is up and running. Feel free to take a look. And for those of you who do not care about the Pirates:
a) shame on you
b) you can now expect more regular material here on this blog

Hope you enjoy.

Jon Meacham rates Kennedy third?!?

2009-09-06T20:22:00.002-05:00

Long time readers of this blog know that I have an intense dislike for Newsweek. Their liberal bias is annoying of course, but most of the dislike comes from Jon Meacham, who is somehow respected as an expert. His ignorance and distortion is appalling.

Recently on the Charlie Rose show, Jon Meacham said that Ted Kennedy was in the top three senators of all time. Specifically, Meacham said:

One of the two or three senators who will be remembered forever. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Ted Kennedy. I think that it gets -- there's quite a drop-off there, quite a falling-off there, as Hamlet would say.

Now, usually Clay and Webster are counted as two of the three best of all time. John C. Calhoun is the other member of the legendary Trio. According to Meacham, Calhoun will not be remembered and is a far drop off from Ted Kennedy. Now even if you disagree with Calhoun's take on Nullification, it really ought to be admitted as a powerful force in American history for that alone. Disregarding all of that Calhoun still helped bring an end to the crisis in South Carolina averting a Civil War in 1830. Calhoun did a great many things as a Senator that put him far above Ted Kennedy. Speeches that are forever remembered. In fact, Webster would probably not be remembered if it were not for his sparing with Calhoun.

What does Meacham think of other great senators like Stephen Douglas? Surely the Lincoln-Douglas debates ought to be remembered in our nations history? Douglas by the way won those if you count who won the actual senate seat. Douglas was tied to Popular Sovereignty, which again directed the country's future. Douglas helped Clay come up with the Compromise of 1850, which put off the Civil War for another decade and got California into the Union as a Free State, helped New Mexico become a state with all of its current territory, and a few other things too.

And what about William Seward? He was considered the front runner for the Republican Nomination for President in 1860 because of his long time work against slavery in the Senate. Or Thomas Hart Benton, who was leading man during his time, and even had a gun drawn on him during debate in the Senate once? Charles Sumner and Benjamin Wade led the Radical Republicans in the Senate. Surely their influence on the history of America ought to have some sway over Meacham's choices. Are they really such a far drop off to the author of the Minimum Wage Bill and the disastrous No Child Left Behind Policy?

Maybe Meacham thinks that bringing down a Supreme Court Nominee like Robert Bork with that memorable speech about Bork's America puts him up in the upper crust of Senators. But then would that not make John Randolph even higher since his "Black Dan" speech helped bring down a President.

Kennedy was around for some monumental legislation. I think he was in for the end of the Civil Rights stuff, but he was hardly a leader in that cause. Heck, even Gerald Ford was more beloved as a Senator than Kennedy. So much so the Senate almost asked him to be the VP for Nixon.

Such a bold statement by Meacham demands defense . . . or more likely scorn for the stupidity that it is.

Presidential Speech to Schools

2009-09-05T17:04:00.002-05:00

This controversy surrounding President Obama speaking to the children at school through an address directed at them has greatly disappointed me. This ought to have been a very valuable discussion about the very nature of education and the proper role of the federal government in it, but it has only resulted in more anger on both sides. I do believe a controversy ought to have occurred because legitimate issues are at stake. Let us take a look at a few of the things that ought to have been discussed, but have not been.

1. Education what is it? Is it indoctrination? I actually think it is. The liberals pretend it is not, but they know it is. And some conservatives think it is not, but do not seem to know what it is. Many are mad because Obama is trying to indoctrinate their children. Liberals are enjoying throwing out the “Just Say No” campaign launched by Nancy Reagan. They ask was that indoctrination, and the conservatives do not answer. Clearly just from the name it is indoctrination. People should not be ashamed of it. The answer the conservative should have given was yes it was, but both sides of the aisle agreed on it. It was agreed upon indoctrination. It is clear that not everyone believes education is really indoctrination, but this is part of the discussion we ought to be having. Is education indoctrination? Is it stuff facts into kids? What exactly is it? Once that question has been answered then we have more a basis to move forward with whether or not Presidents ought to participate in it.
2. Parents have a right to believe something inappropriate is going to happen. After all, President Obama is a politician. When was the last time they kept even 40% of their campaign promises? He can promise all he wants that he will just say "stay in school", but only a fool should believe him. This is the same party that just used Ted Kennedy’s funeral to have children pray for universal health care. Inappropriate is the only thing these people know.
3. Legal issues. No one is really objecting to the speech on legal grounds, but they probably ought to. It should at least be covered. Is using tax payer dollars from the Department of Education to speak to the kids legal? Is it ethical? Is this paid political advertising and are there not equal time rules that might apply if it is? The Democrats thought so when President George H. W. Bush did this same thing.
4. Who controls education? This is another factor that needs to be discussed. Is it the parents or the government? Right now it is technically the parents. Courts have consistently ruled parents have rights over their children, common law supports it, and the fact local school boards run school districts reinforces it. The feds have no real rights here. But that is not how the liberals see it. They are using this as a time to attack parents and parents know it. Just listen to John Harwood. He thinks parents are too stupid to do it right. But notice also the implied point in his argument. "Of course the President ought to be allowed to speak to the kids, he is the President of the United States?" That is a fundamental error. The President of the United States does not have rights over children in that country. Parents do. But President Obama is not asking. He is not even allowing a permission slip option. If the Democrats had come to the speech with that mindset, I think a lot of this would have been avoided. People can inherently sense the challenge to parental authority in the tact being taken by the Dems on this one.
5. Ignorance. Really if one believes that the giving out of facts is what makes education then President Obama should not be anywhere near a school. I mean his misunderstanding of economics, lack of adherence or knowledge of the Constitution aside (VP Biden does not even know where the VP is mentioned in the Constitution – see his debate performance), it still has to be admitted that President Obama thinks Islamic nations invented the compass. This is so provable false that it makes my head hurt. That is just one of the blatant factual inaccuracies in his Cario Speech. For those who think education is about facts, then these should cause extreme worry.
6. Obvious Self-Centered behavior in the past. When the material had something in it about helping the President, and not about serving the country people had a right to get angry. It is not like President Obama does not have a long history of having people Pledge Allegience to him rather than the country.

In the end, this country could benefit a lot from a frank discussion about the nature of education. Instead it is just a name calling festival. Nothing good will come of this. And that is the real shame here.

Pirate Call Ups

2009-08-31T00:23:00.002-05:00

The September Call ups for baseball are upon us. Usually it is a time for losing teams to get a glimpse of next year, but not so this year with the Pirates. The reason appears to be the current try-outs they have going on at the Major League Level. Primarily Lastings Milledge as well as Andy LaRoche and Steve Pierce. Charlie Morton pitching may also be trying out for the future.

The Pirates have only announced that they are calling up pitcher Daniel McCutchen, who will be starting on Sunday, and recent trade aquisition Jeff Clement. It is also known that the Pirates will also bring back Donnie Veal from the DL at that time as well. He is a Rule 5 pitcher who cannot go to the minors without the Pirates losing rights to him. One can also assume that if Jeff Karstens is able to get off the DL he will also return to the major league team. The other players one can only speculate at this time.

What we do know is who you are not going to see. You will not see Jose Tabata, who will be in the Arizona Fall League this year. You will not see Pedro Alvarez, which basically assures he will start off next year in Triple A. You will not see Brad Lincoln as a pitcher. These three guys have the potential to have a huge impact on next year's team although all three may start off in Triple A.

The only other players you are likely to see in Pittsburgh are Robinson Diaz, who filled in nicely while Doumit was hurt, and a few pitchers. Jose Ascino will probably get a call up, and maybe one or two more pitchers to help out in the pen. Virgil Vasquez, Jeff Suez, and Jon Meloan are the nominees. However, they will not all come and it is possible that none of them will come. The only real hope is that Neil Walker, the long expected Third baseman might get a call up. He had another lack luster year at Triple A, but is on a massive hot streak right now.

So Pirate fans will have to watch Jeff Clement as the only call up with a future for the Pirates. How well he does these last few weeks will determine whether he heads into the off season with the first base job or whether Steve Pierce is able to hold on to it. Milledge is improving at the big league level, but will he be able to hold off Jose Tabata for a starting spot in next years outfield? The Pirates are going to give him every plate appearance they can to judge him. Andy LaRoche too is on a ticker. Alvarez will probably follow the path of Andrew McCutchen. He will be ready right out of spring training, but will play Triple A for a few months to get his confidence high and maybe allow the Pirates to work a trade. This does not mean LaRoche is done in Pittsburgh. His glove has impressed, and a move to second could be in his future. How he hits in the next few weeks will impact their thinking on that one. As well as how Neil Walker plays if he is on the team. Neil could be the back up third baseman since he has more power than Andy.

Even the bullpen is not going to be the same next year. Dumatrait will probably get some starts down the stretch, which could be interesting. Expect Veal and Ascino to be in Triple A next year trying to make it as starters. Daniel McCutchen will be fighitng for the two open starter positions. So will Dumatrait. I guess since we are talking about Morton is fighting for one of those spots as well. Anyone else the Pirates bring up might have an outside shot at making next year's bullpen, but it will be an outside shot.

I guess in the end I am worried about whether the Pirate management is going to play to win next year. They have the talent in the organization now (with the exception of the pen) to make a push for at least an NL Central Title. I am just afraid they are going to stick it all in Triple A until it is too late.

Ted betrayed the Kennedy family values

2009-08-28T13:21:00.003-05:00

I think it should be noted that Ted Kennedy is the Kennedy that the liberal media idolizes the most. When they talk about the Kennedys they are talking about Ted and his ilk. The people of the country mostly think of John Kennedy, the President, and Robert, the younger brother. Ted is the liberal that the media adores. President Kennedy and Robert are both modern day embarrassments to the Liberal agenda. Sure they are still trotted out as Democrats from time to time, but they would be run out of the modern Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy betrayed most of what his family stood for.

Ted was a wildly liberal man. His legislation has been disastrous. A few years after his minimum wage hike we have high unemployment, just as the detractors of his bill said would happen. No Child Left Behind is a disaster of epic proportions. I think he may have helped out on the AMBER Alert system, but other than that, just about everything he has done has blown up. He is a model liberal because it is his hate that now fuels politics. Before Ted Kennedy’s attacks on Robert Bork the atmosphere in Washington was different. Ted’s attacks from the floor were often just as weird and hate filled, but more often than not they were stumbling ramblings. Ted was not a thinker, and that too is often a trait of the modern liberal. Action is more important than outcome and intentions are better than logic.

John and Robert were by no means conservative, and liked a bigger government to be sure, but they were not like Ted in the least. John cut taxes, and unthinkable thing for liberals. John and Robert were both stridently anti-communism. John invaded Cuba because Cuba was Communist and was willing to go to war against the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Robert worked for Senator McCarthur during the Age of McCarthism. John did not vote to censure McCarthy and Robert once walked out of an event where McCathy was being attacked. Ted on the other hand tried to transform America into what his brothers hated, a Communist Country. Ted loved tax hikes and is against military action whenever possible.

As we remember Ted Kennedy let us not forget the lesson of Chappaquiddick: Ted believed he was more important than anything else. He left Mary Jo to die in an air bubble in the back of the car where she probably suffocated rather than drowned. He did not contact the police, left the scene of an accident, slept off his booze before calling his lawyer. If anyone else in the country would have done that they would have been in jail. Ask Congressman and Governor Janklow. Yet, Ted was let off and continued his term in the Senate. The strange people of Massachusetts re-elected him over and over.

The left today thinks of Chappaquiddick and is sad because it ruined Ted’s political hopes of becoming President. We ought to think of Chappaquick and think of how it ended one girls life and ruined people’s faith in the justice system.

I just find all of this media coverage of the Kennedy family legacy as interesting. Ted did not stand in the tradition of the Kennedy’s. His pro-communism, pro-abortion, and pro-taxes stance puts him at odds with John, Robert, and Eunice Shriver who are the reason there is a Kennedy legacy. Why on earth are people not reporting on that angle of this story.

Calvin on Ecumenical Unity

2009-08-19T17:45:00.003-05:00

John Armstrong is arguing on his blog that modern day Presbyterian and Reformed believers are too schismatic and not looking to the whole body of Christ enough. In one respect he is right. We all have tendencies to make mistakes and to think too much of ourselves. To deny that this is a bent to sin among the Presbyterian and Reformed would be foolish. But that does not mean that Rev. Armstrong is right. In fact, he is provably wrong in his recent series of posts.

What has Rev. Armstrong so upset is that a Presbyterian or Reformed pastor wrote a letter to man who had left the Protestant church for an Eastern Orthodox church and in that letter stated that the man had left the Christian Faith. This would indicate that Rev. Armstrong believes the Eastern Orthodox Church part of the Body of Christ and the Christian Faith. Whatever Armstrong believes the essentials of the Christian Faith, the EO church has them. Armstrong then goes on in his next post to make the claim that John Calvin was on his side. The third post, after noting Calvin’s desire to be unified despite disagreement on non-essentials, goes on to note that Calvin tried to get meetings with a goal of unity with Lutherans and even have a meeting with Romanists in Poissy in 1561, after Trent. For some reason Armstrong believes these facts make his case. Let me show the obvious as to why the do not.

I agree that Calvin thinks only essentials should divide the Christian Church. In non-essentials liberty. Fair enough. Now, Calvin tried to hold talks with even Romanists to seek unity. A grant the point. But that should make it clear that Calvin clearly thought that Lutheranism and Romanism were not worthy to unify with now. Calvin left the Romanist church after all. And if he had thought he could unify with the Lutherans, he probably would have done it. Why need to have talks to work things out if nothing stands in the way. Which means Calvin clearly thought them deficient in some “essential” of the Christian faith. The same can be said of the Anabaptists. Calvin thought them truly deficient or he would have unified with them.

What is the real difference between the Romanist that Calvin so clearly thought were outside of the Christian pale and deficient in essentials? The Eastern Orthodox do not submit to the Pope and reject that the Holy Spirit comes from Christ. It is highly likely that Calvin would have also rejected union with them and viewed them as deficient in essentials. After all, Calvin must have known of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and yet he did not join them. He rejected union with them as well. So, Armstrong seems to have proven the letter stating that the Eastern Orthodox convert had "left the Christian Faith" is exactly what Calvin would have written.

I am sure that Armstrong is not quite done, but I am waiting for him to make an argument that helps his cause. It will be interesting to see what exactly the "essentials" of the Faith are.

Book Reviews

2009-08-17T14:51:00.003-05:00

Supreme Conflict by Jan Greenburg is an excellent book. It is a great look at all the major events in the life of the Supreme Court from the Reagan Administration to the appointment of Samuel Alito. Greenburg has a lot of inside information that really gives one an inside look. I highly recommend this book if you are interested with one word of caution. You will probably lose a lot of respect for the Supreme Court.

Greenburg keeps her personal views out of this book, which is a nice change of pace. But if I were guessing I think she favors those on the court who moderate it, and as she describes it "have no overarching judicial philosophy." Those include O'Conner, Kennedy, and Souter. The book really makes O'Conner look awful, but clearly it was on accident. The book starts with a glowing account of O'Conner, but it is later revealed that she voted conservative the first few years because Justice Blackman upset her with a caustic remark during conference. Then she began to vote liberal when Scalia was too rough on her during a written dissent. Of course this does not bode well for the first female on the court, but that is never brought up. O'Conner's hypocrisy is not mentioned either as she actually mentioned Justice Thomas by name over a dozen times in one opinion from the court. That was the sort of behavior that she found unacceptable if it was directed at her. The insights this book gives into the thinking of each justice and the work of the court is great, but you will soon realize the court is not such a great place after all.

Holy War by Karen Armstrong, author of A History of God, is absolutely awful. Avoid it at all costs. Armstrong starts off the book by thoroughly demonstrating she knows nothing about Christainity, Islam, or Judaism. Armstrong breaks her own back trying to make Islam into religion of peace. A few examples are worth noting. Armstrong thinks that Mohammed led an unarmed group of people from Medina to Mecca because their "swords were sheathed". Who cares a sword that is not sheathed and does that not make them armed? Of course Jihad is written off as something that Islam abandoned until the Crusades made them have to take it up again. She does admit however that Islam always had a "few token Jihads". What on earth is a "token" Jihad, and why does that not count? The battle of Tours where the Islamic invasion of Europe is written off as "raids" rather than an actual attempt to takeover Europe or France. The source for this claim . . . the fact that Islamic historical records do not discuss it much and because many Islamic people had not liked the climate of Europe. Really this book is that bad.

Forgotten Reformer: Leo Juda

2009-08-11T11:18:00.002-05:00

Leo Juda is another of the forgotten Reformers, although he was also one of the first. If he is remembered at all it is the Robin to Zwingli's Batman. But contemporary views of Juda put him as a first class scholar and a beloved individual.

Leo was born in 1482 to a priest in Alsace, which makes Leo sort of a living embodiment for why a Reformation was needed. He went to Basel to study, first medicine, and then theology. It was here in Basel that Leo probably became converted to the Reformation. He studied under Wittembach, who did teach justification by faith alone. It was during his time of listening to Wittembach that Juda became good friends with Zwingli. This was probably around 1505. Juda graduated and left to be a priest in Alsace in the church of St. Pilt. Juda would replace Zwingli at Einseideln in 1518. This shows that he was clearly reformed by this time. He served there for four years. Juda left to take a job in Zurich and Oswald Myconius replaced Juda at Einseideln (making Einseideln an early training ground for Reformed ministers).

Juda took a church in Zurich and quickly helped Zwingli purge out the Roman Catholic elements in the city. It was Juda who took on a traveling Romanist friar who was teaching salvation by works. The uproar resulting from that helped tip the city permanently toward the Reformation. Juda was one of the main teachers at the Prophezei school opened in Zurich in 1525. Thus, Juda had a great impact on the students of the next generation of the Reformation.

Juda was also the driving force behind the Zurich Bible. Juda was skilled in the languages and while it is impossible to tell how much of the translation was done by Juda, most seem to think he did the lion's share of the work. He would also go on to make a Latin Translation of the Old Testament. Juda understood that the word of God is what changes people's lives, and that needed to be able to read it. Thus, the Zurich Bible put the Word of God in the popular language of the day in order that all would have the opportunity to hear and understand.

Juda appears as a name in many of the debates of the day. Juda took part in the Zurich debates and several others although he seldom gets credit for being a leading Reformer. What is most remarkable is how loved Juda was by all. He is stated to be the "most loved" of all Zwingli's friends. Despite his diminutive size (he must have been rather short), his heart appears to have been large. He was not a front man, a spokesman, or one destined for long term fame. But Juda did the behind the scenes pastoral work that made the Reformation so successful in Switzerland. We too often get caught up in thinking the Reformation was a large scale intellectual movement, but it was a pastoral movement as well. Juda trained young men at the Prophezei school, put the word of God in the hands of the people, pastored churches, and loved with a forgiving heart. In these ways the Reformation grew. May we remember Leo Juda for his work as a Reformer.

Trade Deadline Winners and Losers

2009-08-09T00:13:00.002-05:00

I will do a post in the next day or so on another forgotten reformer, but I have to post about the winners and losers of the MLB Trade Deadline. I have been amazed at ESPN's continued fantasy about Boston. Most of their radio hosts have claimed Boston was the big winner just edging out Philadelphia. That is completely wrong. Philly is the big winner because they got the best Pitcher available: Cliff Lee. They did not have to sell the farm system like they would have to get Roy Halladay, but they still got a pitcher to make them battle ready in the post season. Boston got Victor Martinez who does make them better. He will be able to make Boston injury proof at several positions and help management give Ortiz and Veritek "days off" so they can get someone who can actually hit in the line up. However, this was Boston's last big chance to win. They needed more pitching to do it. Dice K is awful and Smoltz is no longer starter material. A few young guys and Josh Beckett are not enough to pull off a title, or maybe even a trip to the post season this year. Boston tried to get both Lee and Martinez in one deal, but could not. Thus, Boston is the big loser. Note they are still dropping in the AL East. Plus, they did have to give away some young guys, and it only further depletes the Boston farm system. Their team is old. Ortiz is done. Veritek is done. Lowell is done. Their offense is not what it used to be. Beckett is having a good year this year, which means next year he will be a .500 pitcher. Add in the fact that their first title was basically proven to be on the back of massive steroid use, and you see the desperate need for a title this year.

The only other option for biggest loser is the St. Louis Cardinals or the Minnesota Twins who both failed to improve their club. The Twins have pulled off a post deadline deal, but it may not be enough. Seattle also made some trades where they gave up some young talent, and got almost nothing in return. They may well be a loser too.

The biggest winner has to be the Phils, who proved they are thinking about the post season match ups in a seven game series now. They needed another dominate pitcher to be comfortable against the Dodgers and they got that. I still think that they will disappear and miserably fail, but they have a much better shot at actually pulling it off now.

The real biggest winners are Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toronto. Pittsburgh because of the sheer number of people they have added to their farm system. They now have five of the top 75 prospects in baseball. That is pretty good. Cleveland got a bevy of young guys as well. Toronto also is a winner because they got to keep Halladay. He gets one more year with the Blue Jays and they can add their young guys to him and maybe get a free agent to help out. It is a long shot because of the division they play in, but it is still a good thing for the fans of the Blue Jays. They still have the best in baseball.

Pirates are officially reloaded

2009-07-31T16:42:00.003-05:00

The new look Pirates make their debut tonight. They have officially given up on this season with the trades they have made. People who started the year on the Pirates roster and are no longer with them include: Sean Burrnett, Erik Henskie, Adam LaRoche, Ian Snell, Nyjer Morgan, Jon Grabow, Jack Wilson, and Freddy Sanchez. Only the last three are missed. Also gone is the ace of last years staff Tom Gorzelanny, who did not start the year on the team, but did pitch from the bullpen some this year.

However the trades, with the possible exception of Morgan and Burnett to the Nationals, have all improved the long term prospects for the Pirates. The trades this year have also continued to build the Pirates in waves. The Pirates got some people who are going to be on the team right now and make a huge impact including pitcher Kevin Hart from the Cubs. I also expect you will see Jeff Clement at first base before the September call ups, but at least then. He will have a huge impact. Lastings Milledge will be up in September as well and his try out for the team will begin. I suppose we ought to count Ronny Cedeno here as well. He is the place holder at short stop. It is better than having to try Brian Bixler again at short, but he is just a place holder considering two short stops were drafted in the first four rounds last year. They also received a lot of people who will make their arrival next year including Jose Ascino from the Cubs (pitcher), Tim Alderson (pitcher for Sanchez) and Argentis Diaz (short stop for LaRoche) who will probably make a debut with the club sometime next year. Then a ton more prospects will show up after that including Aaron Pribonic (pitcher), Brett Lorin (pitcher), and Nathan Hadcock (pitcher), Casey Erickson (pitcher for Henskie), and Eric Flyer (outfielder/catcher for Henskie). This was a terrific year for trades for the Pirates and I am not sure I included all of the prospects we received.

I think the future of the Pirates looks very bright now. I have predicted that they will win the World Series next year, and I might have to lower that to simply win the NL. The reason is the bullpen. I am not sure what the Pirates will do next year for left handed bullpen support. They got rid of their two best this year leaving only Donald Veal, who is improving, and possible Phil Dumatrait assuming he does not win a starting job next year. That may hurt them, but they ought to have an amazing rotation next year. They will have a great increase in power with the addition of Pedro Alvarez (who I think will join mid season), and Jeff Clement at first. Let us assume that Garret Jones continues his power and is on the the team next year giving one more year for Tabata to mature, that will keep his power, and if Milledge takes the other corner spot then that is more power than Dwelven Young. The hole at first will be filled by Clement. The hole at third is filled by Alvarez. The hole at short created by Jack Wilson can be filled by Argentis Diaz, or perhaps Brian Friday. The hole at second is the biggest problem. It can be filled by Jim Negyrich (.272 in AA but season ended with a non-basbeball surgery) or Shelby Ford (hitting below .200 at AAA) or maybe moving Cedeno to second or Bixler (.262 at AAA but below .200 in several major league stints). One might could hope that they try to move Andy LaRoche to a new infield spot, but we are not going to get our hopes up for that one. Perhaps the idea that the Pirates will go with is to move Dwelven Young from outfield to second base. He played second once already this year and pulled off an amazing catch and he is hitting above .300. The Pirates management has hinted that will give this a try, and that would open up a spot for Milledge or Tabata to start in the outfield. If they do this, then they will have a real shot at winning the NL and perhaps the world series. Of course they need a healthy Ryan Doumit behind the plate, but they will not need him as much next year. He is the RBI guy and the power guy and without him this year we could not get the big hit when we needed it. Next year adding power with Alvarez and Clement along side the surprising Jones and a healthy Doumit should give us a lot of guys to fear with the bat. Put McCutchen at the top of the line up, and they will have lots of chances to drive in runs.

The rotation could be anything, which means if someone is failing they can do something about it. Brad Lincoln is ready as is Daniel McCutchen from AAA. Virgil Vasquez and Charlie Morton are showing good things at the major league level, Phil Dumatrait will be back from his injury. Zack Duke made the All Star team, Ross Ohlendorf has shown flashes and Jeff Karstens will compete for a place. Add in the can't miss prospect of Tim Alderson just received along with Jose Ascino not to mention Kevin Hart who showed he could win starts and pitch great with the Cubs, and the Pirates have an over abundance right now.

I am looking forward to all of these trades finally paying off.

Forgotten Reformers: Italian Reformers

2009-07-27T22:19:00.000-05:00

Now I hope that we all took time to remember John Calvin on his 500th birthday. But it is time to return to remembering those other reformers who are so often overlooked. The Italian Reformers as a whole come to mind. The reformation in Italy was unsuccessful because of the local power of the Pope and the vicious nature of the Inquisition. Throw in constant political turmoil and wars for northern Italy between France and Spain and little of the Reformation took permanent hold. Still, the Reformation did happen in Italy, we have just forgotten them.

Some of us could probably remember Peter Martyr Vermigli who did reform a small town before being forced to flee. We might even come up with Bernard Ochino, whose renoun as a preacher affected many. But he too had to take flight. The very brightest among us might have heard the name of Juan de Valdes, a Spanish man who came to Italy in 1530 as a humanist and critic of the Roman Church. He continued such things in Italy and eventual in Rome itself. He never officially broke with Rome always hoping to Reform the church from within, but did apparently hold to Justification by faith alone. His death in 1541 was felt by most of the Reformers in Italy because they all had drawn hope and inspiration from him. But the work of Reformation was not really done by Valdes as he did not break with the church.

The Reformers we have forgotten include men like Celio Secundo Curioni. Celio was born in 1503 and became reformed while reading Melancthon and Zwingli. He was arrested for trying to led a group of men into Germany to attend their universities. Rome tried to woo him back by sending him to local universities that were under the thumb of the Romish Church. Celio responded by stealing the relics that were hauled out for parades. They were bones of some saint. Celio replaced the relics with the Bible and a note. When the parade came around the monks hauled out the relics to discover the Bible. Celio had fled and would live on the run for most of the rest of his life. The monks never forgot the insult. He continued to teach the doctrine of the Reformation as he traveled around. He was arrested again and put in chains on his legs. His feet began to swell and the captors allowed him to have one foot free at a time. He created a false leg from his surroundings, and then asked the guards to switch the legs. They did so and now he was unchained and the false leg was left behind in the chains. He would escape arrest once more when he got up to be taken in by the authorities. He forgot to put down his eating knife and the men were frightened. He then was able to flee. Eventually Celio ended up in Basle where he lived out his life in safety. He died in 1569.

Then there is Pietro Carnesecchi. Carnesecchi was the personal secretary of Pope Clement VII. But, he was ousted from that position when the next pope took over and Carnesecchi began to see the abuse of power that came with being a pope. He then also became convinced of the truth of Justification by faith. This was while he was listening to Juan de Valdes teach the Scripture. He was absolved of heresy once, probably because of his former high spot in the church allowed him powerful friends. He spent some time in France among the Reformed there before returning to Vience to teach the evangelical truth. He was summoned to Rome, but refused to go. He was excommunicated and then arrested. He was martyred by the Inquisition somewhere around October of 1567.

Aonio Paleario was also martyred for his faith. Paleario was a lawyer by trade and was able to successfully defend himself against heresy charges. But suspicision of heresy often prevented him from holding down jobs for long. Finally he was able to hold a professorship in Milan for several years. This job was secured for him with the help of Cardinal Saldeto. Yes, the same Saldeto who was rebuked in Calvin’s famous letter. It turns out Saldeto was a liberal Romanist who desired to see the reformation of the papacy and the church as a whole. He was quite helpful to many of the Reformed in Italy. His last letter to Aonio Paleario encouraged him in his work, but chided him for reading too many Germany Reformers. Paleario would finally be brought up on charges that he could not escape. He died a martyr in 1570 for believing in Justification by faith and rejecting purgatory. Paleario’s great contribution to the Reformation was a book published anonymously entitled the The Benefit of Christ’s Death. This book was printed all over Italy including 60,000 times in 6 years. It made its way to England through Caridnal Pole, who was for a time thought to be its author. Many people including Carnesecchi were put to death for being Protestant and one of their charges was that they had copies of The Benefit of Christ’s Death. Copies with notes in the margins by Edward VI have been found. The book is mostly forgotten today but had a wide impact during the late 1500’s.

It has been reprinted in a book entitled The Italian Reformer, which is a book about the life of Paleario. May these reformers be forgotten no more.

Pirates First Half Analysis

2009-07-15T21:29:00.002-05:00

The Pirates have had a disappointing first half. They really faltered right before the All Star break, and their inability to beat in division opponents is not a good thing. They can still make the .500 mark, but it will take a much better second half.

With that said, the Pirates have had some really encouraging things happen this year. McCutchen appears to be as advertized. Some young bullpen guys have developed like Evan Meek and Jesse Chavez. Yet a slump prone offense has been their undoing along with Ian Snell, who was demoted to the minors far too late to help the team.

What the Pirates really need is a Carrier. By that I mean someone who can carry the team when it hits those inevitable slumps. The great teams have more than one, but the Pirates do not have any. They have some guys hitting really well this year like Freddy Sanchez (.316) and Dwelven Young (.311). McCutchen (.292) and Robinson Diaz (.295) have done well but only have appeared in just over 30 games a piece. Garret Jones is also hitting .310 in 11 games. These guys are doing great, but these guys are all singles hitters with the possible exception of Garrett Jones. But it is too early to anoint Jones as anything. A Carrier needs to be someone who hits for extra bases. He does not necessarily have to be a big time homerun hitter, but someone who can and who gets lots of doubles. A Carrier can come to the plate and hit a homerun to give a slumping offense instant runs, or hit a double to put someone in scoring position immediately, or even double in the guy who is standing on first because of a walk. A Carrier also needs to be good in the clutch, so that he gets the RBI no matter how he does it. The Pirates do not have such a guy. I believe the Pirates were hoping that Ryan Doumit would be that guy, but he got hurt. If the Pirates are going to make a run at .500 Doumit has to be a Carrier for the second half of the season. The Pirates would have liked Adam LaRoche to be a Carrier, but he has flopped for years now. He is having a great year by LaRoche standards this year, but look at his stats. Adam has over a third of his hits go for extra bases. He is second on the team in doubles and first in home runs. A good sign for someone to be a Carrier, yet he barely ever gets hits. His average is .250. He has 39 RBI's five more than Freddy Sanchez and his brother Andy LaRoche. Freddy hits second in the line up and Andy hits sixth (he has moved around some). Jack Wilson the 8th hitter is only 8 RBI's behind Adam. Adam hits in the clean up spot and he has to come up with more RBI's. I fully expect him to be traded.

All in all I am excited to see the new look Pirates continue their play. Charlie Morton pitching is something I am interested in. The impact of a soon returning Ryan Doumit should have a positive effect. I also am hopefull that when the September call ups come we will get to see Jose Tabata. These are things that should keep Pirate fans coming to see the team. If only baseball went all year long.

Forgotten Reformer: Simon Grynaeus

2009-06-30T16:56:00.000-05:00

Since the Calvin 500 push is on, it seems a decent time for me to return to the task of remembering the Forgotten Reformers. Simon Grynaeus is today’s forgotten reformer.

Grynaeus seems to have come to a Reformed understanding apart from most contemporary influences. He was a biblical scholar who came to Biblical beliefs. Thus, it is hard to pinpoint his departure from the Roman church because he was not a part of a particular movement. Simon was born in German (1493) and in accordance with what a lot of Renaissance scholars, changed his last name to Grynaeus. He had already been suspected by the Dominicans of non-catholic beliefs prior to his appointment to the chair of Greek at Heidelberg in 1524. Heidelberg was still under Roman control at this point, and so Simon must still have been at least outwardly apart of the Roman church. However, his views of the Lord’s Supper rejected Transubstantiation and took a Zwinglian approach. This led him into a correspondance with John Oecolampadius in 1526. In 1529 he went to Basel to replace Erasmus, which means that by this time Grynaeus must have been fairly open about his Reformed beliefs. In 1531 he toured England with letters of introduction that helped him be received by men such as Thomas More, and he furthered his education there. He did return to Basel in time to be at the death bed of Oecolampadius.

Grynaeus was more than just an academic. He did active reforming as well helping with the Reformation in Wurttenburg in 1534 and the work in Tubingen. He was a primary editor of the First Helvetic Confession with Oswald Myconius in 1536 (the confession was primarily written by the late Oecolampadius). He represented all of Switzerland at the Worms Conference in 1540. He died the next year in an outbreak of the plague which seems to have happened often in Basel.

He also aided the church through his children. His son Samuel became a professor of law. Simon was related to the future head pastor of Basel, John Jakob Grynaeus. Simon’s descendant Simon (of 1725-1799) made a modern German translation of the Bible and worked for the Reformation.

Grynaeus was a teacher of the Reformation and did just that for most of his life. He taught in Universities where he raised up the next generation of pastors. It is to be remembered that John Calvin went to study under Simon Grynaeus in 1534 to more fully master Hebrew. It is men like this that are forgotten because he did not write much or at least not much that has survived, but his legacy is important nonetheless.

Pirates News UPDATED

2009-06-30T12:05:00.002-05:00

The Pirates are on the move again. They are only six games out of first place, which for most teams would mean they are in the race. Of course no one thinks the Pirates are in the race, but the next 13 games will tell if they are still in it. If they can stay within five games or so of first place at the All Star break, I think the Pirates would avoid off loading most of their team this year.

That said, they are going to make some moves no matter what. For example the recent trade of Eric Hinske Hinske was the obligatory off season free agent signed by the Pirates. He played mostly outfield with some third and first mixed in. He was not doing very well, and not giving them the power off of the bench they wished. So, they traded him. After calling up Steven Pierce, who can also play first and outfield, the need for Hinske was gone. They got two Single A prospects for him. The Yankees must be out of their minds. This can only be seen as a good deal. It gives Brandon Moss and Steven Pierce more playing time, and gives them two prospects. Garret Jones, who is generally not considered a part of the future of the Pirates but is hitting .307 with 12 homers in Triple A, has been called up to take Hinske’s place.

What should Pirate fans expect? I think they should expect one more deal no matter what. Garrett Jones is a full time outfielder and a left handed one at that. Steven Pierce is on the team right now as well, and supposedly was told he was going to play outfield. Pierce is a natural first baseman who for the past two years has been learning outfield. This year in Triple A they told him to go back to first base and was only told last week when he was called up to the majors, to play the outfield. I expect that along with the addition of Jones to the outfield this week means that Adam LaRoche will be dealt even if the Pirates remain in contention. Pierce will then become the full time first baseman. Adam is hitting better than normal and is a free agent in the off season. He is the best power hitter the Pirates can offer and is not a part of the future of this team. Expect Adam to go no matter what.

If the Pirates do fall out of contention in the next two weeks, you might could Jack Wilson go, although I am wondering if the Pirates would do this without a short stop who is big league ready right now. If they got the right offer, I think they would. The other possible trade is John Grabow, the lefty out of the bullpen. He would probably garner some interest, and could get a prospect or two in return. Now if the Pirates are still in contention, I think they keep both of those guys. If the Pirates are playing to win this year, you will know by the fate of Grabow and Wilson.

UPDATE: The Pirates have just traded Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett to the Washington Nationals for Lastings Milledge and a right handed pitcher named Hanarhan. It is a pretty bad trade for the Pirates. It is a major gamble that Milledge will be better than he ever has been before and that he will grow into the player people hope he will be. If that falls through this is a major mistake. I do think it might be an attempt to compete this year and not an indication of a large scale sell off. Morgan is a leadoff hitter, which the Pirates already have in McCutchen, and with Tyler Yates down with an injure the Pirates need a right handed power reliever. So, that is the logic I guess. Bad trade. First bad one of the new ownership in my mind.

A required post on the NBA draft

2009-06-25T11:56:00.001-05:00

Look, I think we all know that I dislike the NBA. And if I am forced to pick an NBA team, I cheer for the Nuggets. However, I am really interested in what the Minnesota Timberwolves do in this year’s draft. They have four first round picks, plus the 15th pick in the Second Round in a draft that most agree is a deep draft. I have long thought that the best way to rebuild a team in the current NBA is not through free agents, but just trading everyone to get draft picks. This is what the Timberwolves have apparently done. They traded away their best player to get another draft and some other frontline guys to the Wizards just a few days ago. The Timberwolves were a lottery team last year, but ought to be a playoff team this next year.

Since the Timberwolves are drafting both 5th and 6th they ought to have at least two impact players. They seem to have a decent front court with Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, and Cory Brewer. Add in Sheldon Williams and Ryan Gomes just to name the young guys, and the front court seems okay. That is why I hope the Timberwolves do not trade up to get Hashem Thabeet. He will not be as good in the NBA, and they need back court help. They ought to be able to get Stephen Curry (of Davidson) and Tyreke Evans (Memphis). Either could play shooting guard or point guard. At 15 they can probably pick either Tyler Hansbrough or DeJuan Blair. I think Blair is the better pick, but both ought to be there. That gives them some more front line strength. They pick again at 28 where they can pick whatever overseas guy they like the best or they could pick Patty Mills from Saint Marys. That kid can shoot the lights out. Darren Collison from UCLA should also be there. Then take pick 45 and just get the best guy remaining on the board, probably an overseas guy, and you should be set for an exciting year.

If I were the Timberwolves, I would take Curry, Evans, Blair, and Mills. You would have three guys that can shoot the lights out, and one tough inside guy who could give some quality off the bench minutes as he develops into an NBA player. The starting line up for Minnesota in 2010 would be Evans, Curry, Brewer, Love, and Jefferson. Add in Blair and whatever European you got in round two to come off the bench with Gomes and Williams and the team has its rotation. The three guys they got from the Wizards are all pointless with only Songaila having any chance at playing. I hope they keep all the picks, and I hope they take Mills with their late pick. If they do, they could shoot their way to a Playoff appearance.

The Emergent Conversation Dead?

2009-06-24T12:31:00.002-05:00

The Emergent Church movement or conversation is in real trouble. There has been a large swell of disappointment and the change in leadership or stepping aside of leadership has not really helped. A small look at some of this is helpful. Nick, the Hopeful Skeptic appears to have touched off the latest round of trouble with his blog about his disappointment in the movement. What is left of the Emergent Village is trying to get back to basics and link up like minded churches with a nice map of where such churches can be found. One interesting note about the map is the Mark Driscoll and his Seattle church do not appear to be listed. Of course the map drew some scathing comments from former Emergent types such as Remonstrans This was too much for former National Coordinator, Tony Jones. Jones unleashes a bitter diatribe at those who think the movement has lost heart or soldout and points to the emergence of women and minorities in the movement. Josh Brown declared the movement dead while the other extreme was represented by Jonathon Brink who wants everyone to partake of his enthusiasm. Of course Team Pyro and Phil Johnson were there to offer their thoughts on the death of the Emergent Church with a warning that the underlying problems that lead to Emergent Church still exist.

But I think this debate about the death of the Emergent Church and their response is enlightening. I do believe that this movement is dead for several reasons.

1. The movement was based on Post Modernism. That is about the only thing that joined the group together, and that led to much of its problems. They could not even agree on what Emergent meant, much less define any standard beliefs. Nick the Skeptic thought it was a movement that was organizing into something more, but Tony Jones hated the idea of a revolution despite the fact that Brian McLaren was writing his books and promoting the idea that “everything must change”. Josh Brown thinks it failed because it became a church or at least an organization. Showing again that for two to walk together they must be agreed. Post Modernism does not make a firm enough basis to stand together upon since it is naturally a individualistic theology/philosophy.

2. Emergent Church was primarily a protest. It was a protest against many things. The mixing of politics and church, the traditional way of worship, the current fads in Evangelicalism (too unauthentic), and for many the theological truths especially inerrancy. The point is that protest movements are hard to keep together because not everyone is protesting the same thing. Some may not be against a more traditional theology. Those people were run out of the movement early on. See Mark Driscoll. Others may not be so against traditional styles of worship or completely in favor of liberalism. Some might feel the need for some politics, and others might just be against conservative politics. After initial success the differences emerge and are very hard to keep together. I think this is part of the problem with the Emergent Movement.

3. Emergent Church was never really divorced from politics. This is going to be a bit contoversial, but I believe it is true. When one reads the works of Emergents, anger toward the Religious Right and Politics is top on their list. Notice that almost every one of the above linked articles has references to politics. Nick referenced Obama through a quote. Tony Jones cannot help but mention Fawell and Dobson. Remonstrans mentions the social gospel at the end of his post that fits into a Liberal Democratic Agenda. The Emergent Church and Liberal Politics were always intertwined. The Liberals won the election that always cools a movement. Plus, President Obama is not turning out to be the Messiah as Nick alludes too. That will also hurt the movement. This of course passes over the fact that Doug Pagitt has stepped down from leadership of the Emergent Village and moved into politics as he is running for the Minnesota Legislature. I think it is a glimpse of where the priorities of the movement lie.

4. Emergent Church is built on social action, not theology, and that is always doomed to disappointment. This fits nicely with the above point as Emergent types come to understand that the state is a quicker engine to accomplish goals such as "ending poverty, war, and environmental destruction" (From the end of Remonstrans blog). There will always be poor with us as Jesus told us and wars and rumors of wars are not going anywhere either. Environmental destruction is debatable as to whether or not it is even occurring. Thus, a movement focused on these things is destined to lose members, focus, and eventually run out of gas. It happened in the 60’s and 70’s so that the 80’s was an era of Yuppies not Hippies. Social activism is not wrong in and of itself, but when it is taken by itself apart from theology, it will be a failure and exhausting to those in the crusade. This has happened in the Emergent Conversation/Movement/Denomination/Organization.

In conclusion, I think that the entire Conversation of Emergent is doomed. I do not believe that it will be able to revive itself. Thus, while I understand what the Pyromaniacs are talking about when they think the underlying problems still exist, I think this particular manifestation is dead.

2009-06-22T16:21:00.000-05:00

I watched Marley and Me yesterday. It is a hard movie to review. Owen Wilson is impressive in his acting. He does a good job at being more than just a comedian, but he does not lose his comedic touch in this movie either. Jennifer Aniston does what you expect. Her girl next door look and style fits perfect with this movie. There is a nice contrast made between the main character and his best friend. It is movie of self-discovery. It is a movie that does an amazing job of showing real life reactions and real life troubles. That translates into a movie that is very understandable, and gives the audience a deep connection with the family on screen. It is surprisingly free from pointless scenes and carries a fairly family friendly rating. The best movie to compare it with is Old Yeller. In fact, Marley and Me is this generations Old Yeller. I felt the same after watching Marley and Me as I did after Old Yeller. I said to myself, "That was a good movie. But I would rather poke my own eyes out than have to watch that dog die again."

Forgotten Reformer: Pierre Viret

2009-06-09T10:04:00.001-05:00

Pierre Viret is another forgotten Reformer, but one who did and suffered so much for the Reformation that it is almost a crime that we neglect this man. Viret was born in Orbe Switzerland in 1511. He attended university in France where he became a Protestant. He was convinced to be a minister of the gospel by Guillermo Farel. Farel convinced him to minister in the country of Lausanne. Here Viret became the Reformer of this little place, which I believe today is a part of France, but then was free. It is Viret who invited Theodore Beza to teach at the University of Lausanne. There the duo had a tremendous impact on the reformation in France as many Frenchmen came to be trained in Lausanne, and then went back to France. Viret would also help reform Geneva with Farel and Calvin, but his heart was in France. While in Geneva Viret was fed poison by a Romanist sympathizer. It did not kill him, but he did suffer problems from it for the rest of his life. Soon, Viret journeyed back to France. There he served and preached in many different congregations from Paris to Orleans. Eventually he settled down in Montpellier where the region became Reformed mainly through his preaching. In 1565, Viret was warned in an anonymous note to flee, and he did so just before the Romanist army took over his area. Viret then served for a short time in Navarre where he had taken refuge. He would not be able to avoid capture forever, and he was taken in by the Romanists with 11 other ministers. Seven of those ministers were executed, but so many Romanists came forward to speak of the love and kindness showed by Viret that the magistrate let him live. He continued preaching for the Reformation, but in 1571 he died as his body finally gave out.

Viret may well have been the most popular preacher in all of the Reformation. He Reformed Lausanne, and had a major role in Reforming Vaud and Geneva. He also of course played a very important role in France even being elected President of the National Synod of the French Reformed Church. Thousands followed his preaching. Riots broke out sometimes as people tried to disrupt his preaching. He was poisoned. He lost two wives and multiple kids to the plague, but nothing shattered his devotion to the cause of Christ. He preached it everywhere he went. Viret is sometimes associated with Calvin since they worked together in Geneva, but Viret was not someone Calvin trained. Viret in fact had a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper, and was more beloved than Calvin in Geneva. I read somewhere (but I cannot find it now) that Viret was paid more than Calvin despite Calvin being the head pastor in Geneva. Viret is truly an example of someone on the front lines of the Reformation. He felt the call to be a missionary preacher, and that is what he did his entire life. Let us not forget the work of this brave man, nor his legacy of undaunted courage for Christ.

President Obama and the Cairo Speech

2009-06-08T00:40:00.002-05:00

We have had plenty of time now to see who our new President is. This Cairo Speech is a beautiful example of President Obama, his methodology, and his fundamental flaws. Of course members of the main stream media think that this speech puts Obama on par with God . . .really he compared Obama to God. But that is what it takes to get a job at Newsweek. When that magazine folds, I will take my family out to a nice dinner to celebrate.

President Obama’s methodology should be noted first. He loves the "on one hand . . . but on the other hand" construction. He uses it all the time, and uses it again in this speech. I believe it is because Presdient Obama believes that looking at a problem from all the angles will solve it. But is also because he believes that there is never a problem where you either have to chose the one hand or the other. There is never a black and white situation for President Obama. There is never a situation where the two positions are contradictory. It has to be admitted the other major method used by President Obama is lying. I don’t see much other way around it. "Islam has a proud tradition of religious tolerance." It is hard to imagine that is anything other than a lie. And when you sight Indonesia as your example it is hard to take it seriously. Obama was attempting to lie to get on their good side. Even the United States Council on Religious Freedom counts Indonesia as a country that allows persecution of Christians by Muslims. Not exactly a good tolerance rating there. Just because the government does not officially sponsor persecution as it does in many Middle Eastern countries does not mean that Islam is being tolerant of Christianity in Indonesia.

President Obama himself is on display in major speeches like this. There is much that he needs to be criticized for in this speech. One can wrangle about whether or not it is right to apologize for the Iraq war, as he basically did in this speech. One can argue whether or not he should have spoken of terrorism and the sponsorship of it. It is a policy debate when you are discussing Israel. They have no fundamental right to expect our support. But, it is a clear shift in policy by demanding Israel come to a two-state solution and stop settlements. President Obama is clearly pro-Palastinian in this speech. It is clear the biggest thing in the speech is this statement.

For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That is a rejection that the job of the President of the United States is to look out for the good of the United States. Now he may just be talking about sujugation, a physical oppression, but that part is not repeated. He appears to be saying the mere elevation of your interest is now a bad thing. His view of being our President is to NOT serve our own interests. He considers such things as failures. Such a statement is astronomical. Unbelievable. And it is not really being reported on.

Obama also needs to be corrected on fundamental facts. After claiming to be a “student of history” he messes up every single statement on history in his speech. According to President Obama part of the debt of civilization to Islam is the compass. Now there is a debate about who invented the compass. Some think it was the Olmec, a native tribe in South America. This is not held by many. Most think it was the Chinese. Others think it was invented independently in Europe and first used as navigation there. I have not seen anyone, other than the President, argue the Islamic world invented the compass. The argument for the invention of the compass by the Islamic world would have to be based on the fact that they had it, and we just have not yet discovered the proof for it. The Compass is mentioned in France almost 100 years prior to seeing any evidence of it in the Islamic world, and that does not get the Islamic world ahead of China. Algebra is universally attributed to the ancient Babylonians. While Babylon is roughly modern day Iraq, Babylon pre-dates Islam by 1,000 years. Only the grossest of ignorance can claim Islam gave us Algebra. I think the printing press is so well documented that to pretend the mastery of printing came from Islam is an insult.

This leads me to my point. President Obama can extend the olive branch all he wants, but he is living in a world of delusion and lies. Islam has not contributed to civilization, at least not very much. They may have kept many manuscripts alive that we later used in the Renaissance, but the question needs to be asked, why did they not have a Renaissance? If when we discovered the old texts kept in libraries in Muslim countries, we had a rush back to the sources and learned and grew and had a period of intellectual revival, what is it in Islam that prevented that from happening? Is keeping a book on a shelf keeping learning alive or is it simply storing something for others? Islam no matter how much we pretend is not a religion of peace, and their effect on countries is obvious to the naked eye. President Obama can put Judaism, Islam, and Christianity on a par as he did in the speech, but it is a falsehood to try and live by it. Like I tell my kids, it is one thing to pretend you are Superman, but it is another to live like you are Superman. The first is in good fun, the second is dangerous and deadly. Just to drive home the point. President Obama quoted from the Koran when he stated that "if one murdered anyone in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people", but the next verse is the important distinction found in the Koran. That verse goes on to state: "The punishment for those who strive against Allah and His Messenger [Mohammed] . . . is execution . . ." A verse about peace is followed by a verse that demands the death of all those who do not follow Mohammed.

In the end, this speech is a useless exercise in egotism. There are fundamental differences found in the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity that will not allow them to exist side by side as if they are the same. One has a view of civilization that is about bloodshed, hatred, subjection of women, and has holy war as one of the great virtues. The other has a view that is about forgiveness, salvation, and love. They are not both the same.

Seeing the Pirates and Joe Mauer

2009-06-02T14:32:00.000-05:00

The NBA is nothing compared to Major League Baseball. If you watched the conference finals, you will now understand that the NBA is rigged or at least it is attempted. LeBron got every call he could possibly get and the Lakers did as well. That along with the Puppet Kobe and Puppet LeBron commercials should tell you who the NBA tried to put in the finals. The Nuggets beat LA in Game 1, 3, 4, and 5. Thanks to poor officiating they were only able to win Game 4. Oddly LA won Game 2, but the refs gave that one to the Nuggets. If the NBA is not rigged then the refs are the single most incompetent group of people on the planet. No reason to ever watch the NBA again.

But the main point of the post is to talk about the Pittsburgh Pirates. I will have the pleasure of seeing them in action this year as they come to Minnesota, and I am going to attend a game. This means I will also probably get to see the greatest player in the game today, Joe Mauer, catcher for the Twins. Mauer missed most of April with an injury, but hit .414 in May with 11 homers and 32 RBIs (.500 OBA and .848 Slug for those interested). He was the first catcher to ever lead the American League in Batting Average a couple of years ago and quietly last year he did it again. I have little doubt that he will win another batting title this year.

But the Pirates are still the main attraction. They are my pick to win back to back World Series titles starting next year. They will break .500 this year. They are five games below .500 right now, but I am not worried. They have spent all but a few games without their biggest bat, Ryan Doumit. They have also had their closer miss a few games and are still without their 8th inning guy, Tyler Yates. But the main reason to be excited about the future of the Pittsburgh Pirates is Greg Smith. Who is Greg Smith? Well, he is the front office guy in charge of the Pirates Draft. They Pirates had the best draft in the majors last year. They picked Pedro Alvarez and managed to sign him despite lots of dirty tricks by his agent. They signed 6 of their top 10 picks. Including the steal of the draft, Robbie Grossman, a high school outfielder in the 6th round. Grossman was a top two or three round talent that people avoided because he had committed to Texas and seemed adamant. The Pirates drafted him anyway and then gave him a one million dollar signing bonus, which is unheard of for a 6th round pick and for the Pirates who are notoriously cheap. Grossman is now playing for the Class A West Virginia Power. He has a .710 OPS and is 16 out of 18 in the stolen base department. Not bad for a kid right out of high school. The Pirates draft fourth in this year’s draft and get a complementary pick because they failed to sign their second round pick last year.

Another reason is the great trades the Pirates pulled off last year. They did have to lose Xavier Nady and Jason Bay plus some relievers, but they got back Jose Tabata from the Yankees, who will probably arrive in the Pittsburgh outfield in 2011 giving the Pirates great options with future Free Agents like Nate McClouth. Add to that Brian Morris who was the center piece of the Bay-Rameriez deal. Morris ought to be in the rotation by 2011. And after all of the draft day busts from past years, these sorts of deals are important. The previous front office guys drafted lots of pitchers who almost all failed. Everyone from Kris Benson to VanBenschoten to 2007’s Daniel Moskos (who might be an alright closer, but does not look so good as a started). This would explain why Greg Smith got the reigns of the draft last year and he looks good at it. Add to that the amazing re-emergence of Brad Lincoln (2006 first round draft pick who had Tommy John surgery the minute he pitched for the Pirates in the minors). Lincoln is on track to be part of the 2011 rotation as well.

This is all good news for the Pirates. By the end of this year we will get a glimpse of Andrew McCutchen, which will give the Pirates an amazing outfield. Steven Pierce will probably be a September call up for even more depth there or to replace a hopefully traded Adam LaRoche at first. By the end of 2010 we will see Pedro Alvarez at third and maybe Brad Lincoln in the rotation. That will help us fill the hole at third and get rid of Ian Snell, who is now officially in my doghouse for his inability to get anyone out in the first two innings and refusal to throw inside. 2011 will bring Morris and Tabata and the Pirates are looking good to be competitive for years to come.

History of Conservatism: How every party has abandoned the conservative

2009-05-28T23:08:00.003-05:00

The first thing one must do in an undertaking of this nature is define his terms. What exactly is a conservative? The Free Online Dictionary defines conservative as “favoring traditional views and values:; tending to oppose change.” This is a fair enough definition, but what exactly does it mean to have a traditional view of government since we are talking about conservatives in government? There are two main philosophies of government. One is Natural Law, which is the idea that the people get their rights from their Creator or nature and the government is there to protect those rights and follow the Natural Law. The second view is Positivism, which states that the government gives you your rights. I do not think it necessary to prove the Natural Law view is the one that is the traditional view. The Magna Charta was a Natural Law document so what the American Colonists were fighting for in the American Revolution was their Natural Rights. This is exactly what the opening of the Declaration of Independence teaches us. We have inalienable rights from our creator. Thus, the American Revolution was about the protection of Natural Rights. So the traditional view in American government and politics is Natural Law. The tending to oppose change part of conservatism is easy enough in America. A conservative is one then who wishes to stick to the constitution and not change it or the ways we govern. Thus, the people that are so often called ‘strict constructionists’ and ‘originalists’ in their view of the constitution then are conservatives. However, one might notice from the definition of conservative that they can be slow to act. They tend to oppose change and thus are better at opposing plans and action than actually coming up with a positive plan on how to proceed. This will be easily seen as we trace the history of conservatism in America and how often it is used and then betrayed by the political parties.

It should be noted up front as well that the Conservatives are the majority. I think the historical survey will bear that out in full. But seeing as this will be a highly debated point, I will return to it in a later chapter.

This history of the Conservative movement in America then is one riddled with failure, but they bring only success to the party they support. This may seem like a contradiction, but I assure it is not. Conservatives themselves fail more often than not to stop the growth of government, and the invention of new ways to govern outside of the Constitution. They have failed to keep Natural Law as the basis for our society, and they have failed to control the organs of government for all, but extremely short periods of time. Yet, the support and the votes of the conservatives have brought success to the party that currently woos the conservative vote. Again the historical survey will bring this more the forefront, but it needs to be said now. It needs to be said now because we need to understand that the Conservative movement is not attached to a particular party. Conservative and Republican are not synonyms. In fact the Republican Party was founded to be against the Conservatives in America. The Conservatives spent a long time in the Democratic Party, but again, the Democratic Party was founded ton the back of a man who was only slightly conservative, and thus it was not a party for the Conservatives.

Why then do the Conservatives win their party elections, but not ever control the parties themselves? This fundamental question is answered again in the definition of conservative. Conservatives do not want power, they want stability. Political parties are founded to get and keep power, and dare I say it, even grow their own power. Conservatives do not wish to see a growth in power and are not willing to do whatever it takes to get the power. Thus, they cannot control a political party. They will not be able take the reigns of power and keep them because their message is usually “no”. It is hard to win people over to “no”. But it is easy to win people over to “I will give you money if you are poor” or “I will give you money not to grow corn.” That is a much easier sell. Add in the fact that Conservatives argue for and believe in Natural Law, and their goose is cooked. Believing in natural law means their ethical standards are fixed. They cannot change. The non-conservatives whether we call them liberals or progressives or whatever are not bound by traditional morals. Sure, some believe in them and follow them, but the party or group that holds to Postivism is by definition not bound by morals. They are able to change morality in order to serve their needs. A good example of this is all of the lying that is now so common in politics. How often does someone come out and say “I did not have sex with that woman” and it turns out they did. Or say “I was not briefed on that issue”, and they were. Lying is a means to an end, not a violation of a moral code. That is why so many people in power have no problem with cheating on taxes because they do not believe in moral codes, they believe in changing codes. Which also means they believe that ethical standards do not apply to them. Only governmental standards apply to them, and sometimes those do not apply either because those standards can be changed.

The goal of this endeavor is to show that Conservatism is a major force in America, indeed a necessary force. But also to show the flaws in the Conservative movement and it current way of operating. Historical awareness is important in anything, and judging from how loosely the word "conservative" is thrown around these days, a good dose of historical awareness is necessary. This I hope to accomplish in upcoming posts.

Seven Pounds Movie Review

2009-05-26T00:06:00.001-05:00

I just finished watching Seven Pounds with Will Smith. It is a good movie. It is yet another Will Smith movie with very Christological references and themes. It is not quite as good as I am Legend with Will Smith, but mainly because I thought some of the early filmography of Seven Pounds was a little weak and/or confusing. But, other than that minor complaint, the movie is excellent. I don’t want to give too much away, but even the trailers let you know that it is a movie about a man giving gifts to others. Christ also gives gifts to men. How the gifts are given is important and the three main people focused on in this movie are all very biblically explained. One receives a new life. That phraseology is even used in the movie. Sight is also given to the blind. Scriptural references find their way into that exchange as well including one very obvious “slow to anger” comment. The third receives a new heart, and it is hard to imagine a more scriptural picture than that. I highly recommend this movie. Like I said, the beginning is a little slow because of the filming, but stick with it. It is a gripping movie that has a good message. Well done art that can be enjoyed by all above the age of 13.

Did you know

2009-05-19T10:05:00.000-05:00

Here is something you didn’t hear on the news. Many pro-lifers were arrested for peacefully protesting Notre Dame’s awarding an honorary doctorate to President Obama. Among those arrested was a Mrs. Norma McCorvey, better known as “Roe” from Roe v Wade. She was arrested as an anti-abortion protester.

Forgotten Reformer: Jan Laski

2009-05-18T12:58:00.003-05:00

I just returned from the RCUS Synod where we heard Rev. Eric Kayayan give a few talks about Calvin in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth. He did a good job talking about Calvin’s life and how that contributed to his life and work. However, it reminded me of my year long task to speak more of the forgotten reformers. Calvin was a great reformer, but he was primarily a ‘man of letters’ as they were called back then. He did preach the gospel without a doubt, and he organized Geneva, but his main influence is through his written work. He was not a foot solider of the reformation. Again, I have nothing against Calvin, I just think some of the other guys need to get more publicity.

One of those men is Jan Laski. Laski was a polish man borin in 1499. Laski was a Romanist priest, who converted to the Reformed faith. When that happened is not easy to tell, but it was clearly before 1542. It probably happened while he was in Basel. He went there in 1523 where he met Erasmus, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli. He became a pastor in Emden in 1542 clearly at this point preaching the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. He became the first superintendent of the Reformed Church in East Friesland in 1545. Persecution from the Holy Roman Empire and some Lutherans would chase him from Emden to England, where he pastored at the famous Stranger’s Church in London. This church had enormous influence on the Puritan movement as this church was outside of the rules of the Church of England. Laski supported Hooper in his refusal to wear the Vestiments. Bloody Mary would take the English throne and Laski was on the move again. He went to Brandenburg for a time, but would return to try and help reform his homeland of Poland. Laski was considered a heretic and was wanted for heresy, but he traveled back to Poland anyway. It was in Poland in 1560 that he died.

Laski’s influence cannot be overstated. Laski was a follower of Zwingli’s view of the supper, not Calvin’s view. Laski is a major influence in Puritanism, one that is often overlooked today. Just as a way of proof that Laski was more influential than Calvin with the faction that would become known as Puritans is the incident at Wesel. Wesel was a German town that had an exile church during the reign of Mary. The church had both French and English members. Many of the English wished to follow the Church of England, and the Church of England told the Wesel church that if they simply accepted a couple of the vestments they would be allowed to worship unmolested. The church wrote to both Laski and Calvin for advice. Calvin advised that they keep the vestments since they were indifferent theologically (for Calvin at least), and then the church would not split. Laski advised the church to reject the vestments and suffer the consequences. The church took Laski’s advice and all non-conformist, including the French, were kicked out of the church. Laski had great influence.

Laski helped form the ideas of church government that still impact the Presbyterian church today, namely that elders and ministers are the same except that ministers are able to preach and give the sacraments. Laski influenced the Heidelberg Catechism with some of his own early catechisms. Laski helped introduce the Reformation in Emden, England, Netherlands, and Poland at least. His contemporaries held him in high regard. Jerome Zanchy, Italian Reformer who taught at Heidelberg, held that Laski’s name should always be mentioned in the same breath with Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli.

The Rev. Eric Kayayan spoke beautifully about Calvin, and rightly so. He spoke of the great influence of Calvin, and again, rightly so. Rev. Kayayan mentioned all the people to whom Calvin wrote letters, such as the people in England, the exile churches, and even King Sigismund of Poland. It hit me then that Calvin was able to write to these people because of the labors of others, such as Laski. Would Calvin have been able to write to Sigismund if Laski had not done such good work? Would Calvin have had any influence in England if it had not been for Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski? Probably not. That is why Jan Laski needs to be remembered. He is a man who was a true foot soldier of the Reformation.

Forgotten Reformer: Ambrose Blarer

2009-04-27T18:16:00.000-05:00

Ambrose Blarer is a forgotten reformer although he has contributed a great deal to modern churches and should be remembered by those who appreciate hymnody. Ambrose was born in 1492 to a wealthy family of Constance (sometimes spelled Konstanz). He probably became Reformed in his university days. He studied at Tubingen where he met Philip Melanchthon. Ambrose’s brother, Thomas, studied at Wittenburg under Luther himself, so Ambrose would clearly have been acquainted with Reformation thought. Despite all of the Lutheran contact, Ambrose became reformed and favored Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper. Ambrose became a monk, but his reformed thought got him kicked out sometime between 1520 and 1523. By 1525 Ambrose was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in its purity to the people of the southern Germany city of Constance. His brother Thomas was on the city council, which helped give political support to the new preaching. Constance was the seat of a bishop, so it was no small feat when the city declared for the Reformation. Blarer had a great deal of help from his cousins, Johannes Zwick (a pastor) and Conrad Zwick (another politician).

Blarer would not be content to free just the city of Constance from the grip of Rome and the papal anti-christ. He would also serve as the main Reformer for the cities of Ulm and Memmingen. Blarer also aided in the reformation of other towns such as Montebeliard, and countless others through his correspondence. Some of the work would be undone during the Augsburg Interim imposed after the victory of Emperor Charles. Blarer refused to sign the Augsburg Confession and fled to Switzerland in 1548. There he continued to preach in Swiss towns and give out advice to whoever sought it. He died in 1564.

His impact however was greater than this. When the Reformation took cities over they did not always come to the same conclusions regarding music. For example, the people of Zurich did not participate in singing at all at first. It actually took some time before the people took up their voices in song. The people under Bucer, Zell, and Capito, sang only psalms in the beginning. But the people of Constance wrote and sang hymns. By 1533, the Blarers and Zwicks had written a Constance Hymn Book. It was half psalms and half hymns. Ambrose wrote several hymns and he collected hymns from others. He did include many of the Lutheran hymns, and he also got several other Protestant Reformers to contribute hymns like Leo Juda of Zurich. Ambrose wrote catechical hymns, he wrote evening and morning hymns, and he wrote festal hymns. It took less than five years before Strassborg changed their worship style to include these new hymns flowing out of Constance. In 1540, Blarer collected more and published a new edition and had his friend Johannes Zwick write a defense of hymnody for the preface. These Reformers gave us the great tradition of hymns and adding hymns to our services. This is no small accomplishment. These men not only preached the gospel, but loved to sing the praises of their God and Savior. Blarer took a lead in that, and for that alone he deserves to be remembered.

MLB predictions

2009-04-27T12:42:00.002-05:00

I have not made my predictions for this year's major league baseball, but better late than never.

First, let me say the Pirates are going to finish above .500. Yes, they are only 1.5 games out right now. That is amazing. If they can stay within 3 games of St. Louis during this stretch where Jack Wilson (hitting over .300) and Ryan Doumit (RBI leader last year) are on the disabled list and Nate McClouth (last year's all star) is missing a few games then the Pirates are going to compete for a Wild Card and perhaps the NL Central Title. This is a great start for them and they still have last year's bright spot Phil Dumatrait to add to the bullpen or rotation where ever he is needed as soon as Phil gets off the DL.

But the team to watch, and my pick to win the World Series is the Minnesota Twins. Right now they are under .500, but only 1.5 games out of first in their division. They are doing this without the person who should have won the MVP last year, Joe Mauer. Mauer led the AL in batting average last year, and when he gets back, the Twins will take off again. They have the best manager in baseball and a really good pitching staff. Expect the Twins to be in the post season this year.

As for the NL, I think you have to say that the Dodgers are going to win the NL. I hate to admit that, but I think Joe Torre is the second best manager in baseball, and they do not have a lot of competition out in the NL West. The Mets are going to fold down the stretch as always and leave the Dodgers without serious competition. I do not think that Pujols can keep the Cardinals in the running by himself and Chirs Carpenter is already hurt. The rest of the Cardinals are on steroids so you never know what you are going to get from them. The Cubs made a giant mistake in the offseason with Milton Bradley, and their pitching is not good enough. So, there you have it. My 2009 picks.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation: Part 2

2009-04-26T00:15:00.002-05:00

I just want to take a brief glance at the history of Paedocommunion in the Church. Venema apparently does this in his book and comes to the conclusion that some churches may have practiced it and others probably did not. I agree with this assessment. In fact some of my thoughts can be found in the comment thread on this post. You can find some arguments that Paedocommunion is the historical practice by Tommy Lee on the web.

The Reformers rejected the practice and Wolfgang Musculus is the only one with any sympathy toward it at all. But even he rejects it in the end. The Roman Catholic Church had long since rejected the practice and Eastern Orthodox Church kept the practice. If you read the articles in favor of Paedocommunion you will see that many scholars think the Roman Catholic Church did not practice infant communion in the first and second century. I will not undertake a refutation of their refutation at this point as that would be tedious. However, I simply want to point out the fact that scholars are not as agreed as they would have you think. But more importantly I want to draw attention to their reasoning as to why the Roman Church dropped the practice. Mr. Lee writes:

If paedocommunion was the common practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today? Keidel asserts that infants and children were forbidden from the Lord's Supper because of "the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine of concomitance (i.e., that Christ is present entirely under either kind)... The fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance."49 Actually, it was not only the infants and children who ceased drinking the "transubstantiated" wine. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries all of the laity (in the West), adults included, began to back away from the cup. 50

Yet, I see this as a blatant attempt to spin the historical debate in their favor. If the only reason to forbid the Table to infants was a heresy, then we should give it back right? There are several things that make it obvious that this reason is not the best, if one at all. First, Transubstantiation was not official, but was the primary understanding as early as the beginning of the Eleventh century as Pope Leo X had condemned views opposing Transubstantiation by 1050. That is a few centuries earlier than most of these people admit that infants no longer took the Supper, and it seems likely that Transubstantiation must have been around prior to that in an accepted way for Leo to be able to make such a decision. Second, people withdrew from the cup at different times in the history of the church. Pinning down one reason is difficult. In footnote 49 Mr. Lee does admit a growing demand for intelligent reception. Then he also has this important toss away phrase.

Other contributing factors may include the separation of confirmation from the time of baptism (made necessary because Christianity grew rapidly while the number of bishops did not) which encouraged a break down in the three part rite of initiation into the church (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) and the development of the idea of childhood.

Note the dismissive italics. Yet, it is clear that this separation is important. Confirmation used to be handled right after baptism and then the Supper was placed in their mouth. All three signs of being a member of the church crammed into one ceremony. Interestingly you will note that the Eastern Orthodox Church still does all three at once, and the Roman Church does not. Do you think this has any bearing on the fact that the Eastern Orthodox still communes infants and the Romans do not? Probably. The rite of confirmation moved, and with it communion.

Confirmation has already moved by the time of Charlemagne as Ratramnus of Corbie defended the removal of Confirmation from baptism by declaring it the ordination of the laity. In other words they were called into true service of God now at Confirmation, declared of age to participate in the fight. It should be noted for the theory above that Ratramnus rejected Transubstantiation. Confirmation prepared people for the fight of Spiritual Warfare, which necessitated maturity. This language can be seen with regards to confirmation as early as the fifth century in France. We also see that Confirmation for the Welch in Great Britain was not done until they were seven as early as the 9th century. Egbert Archbishop of York in the early part of the 8th century makes it clear that in England (at that point still separate from the Welch) a seven year old is confirmed and then they receive Communion. The Council of Lambeth (1281) made it clear that no child should partake of Communion until after Confirmation. They were not introducing a new idea, but strengthening the neglected rite of Confirmation. Pope Leo XIII in 1897 stated that the practice of the ancient church was to confirm children before their first communion, and that practice should be maintained. I will just assume the Pope has access to more ancient documents than I do, but I do realize that trusting a pope is not a good idea.

The point being here is that Confirmation has always played an important role. Even in the churches that did give the bread and wine to infants, they were almost always confirmed first. Now, I am clearly not arguing for a Roman Catholic doctrine of Confirmation, but I am saying that it is something that cannot be left out of the discussion.

And in fact when the Reformers re-examined everything they of course did not believe Confirmation a sacrament, but they did find it a useful rite of the church. One based now on catechism, instruction, and knowledge. And it served as a wonderful way to make sure children were ready to take the Lord’s Supper. Bucer introduced catechism based Confirmation into the churches of Germany and the churches of England. This of course rubbed off on the German speaking Swiss cantons. The French speaking cantons followed the lead of Calvin, who also performed catechism based Confirmation usually at about age 10. The historic Reformed position then is pretty clear. It is not just allowing people with a profession of faith to the Table at a certain age, it is allowing people to the Table after Confirmation, which involves instruction from the church.

And that in the end, is what I am arguing for. I am not arguing for some random age. I am arguing for participation in the Lord’s Supper to be after a church based examination that involves more than just a profession of faith, but an actual in-depth time of study and knowledge before being allowed to the Table. I shall call it Confirmation Based Communion. I think it is biblical, historical, and the proper thing to do. I hope to expand some basic Exegetical arguments in the next posts.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation

2009-04-24T23:23:00.002-05:00

I am afraid that the paedo-communion discussion has been lost by the reformed side of the debate. I don’t wade into this lightly because I have some friends who are adamant about the issue, but I fear they are losing. Why? Because it has already been accepted in principle, now all that is left is to haggle over the age. The serious problems of paedo-communion are too often left out of the discussion, or worse, assumed to be true.

Let me give some examples. Steve Hays at Triablogue asks this question.

I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?

Now I admit Hays is not arguing for either side just looking for some clarification, but you would be really surprised to see how often this argument comes up. Hays does not comment on the incipient sacramentalism in the thought. If the baby in the uterus partakes of communion through the mother then clearly we have the transmission of a spiritual blessing through a physical act: the act of eating. Which by the way is exactly what they say. Wilson calls it "eating grace" (Reformed is Not Enough. Pg. 93).

Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Lane Keister are currently blogging through a book by Rev. Cornelius Venema about the issue of paedocommunion. I have great hopes that this will still end up in a strong rejection of paedocommunion as carrying with it a latent sacramentalism. However, Rev. Keister informs us that the book will make a difference between the "strict" view of anyone capable of eating coming to the table and the “soft” view which accepts young professions of faith. Rev. Wilson rightly called this a major flaw. More to the point Rev. Wilson informs us that the book considers the "soft" view a mere modification of the historic reformed view. Things get worse when we see that Rev. Keister admit he is a soft paedocommunionist. This debate is now between a "Strict Paedocommunist", a "Soft Paedocommunist", and a book that thinks "Soft Paedocommunism" is acceptable.

This is why I fear the debate is lost. The practice of allowing children and people in general to the table has been very lax in America for generations. The entrance to the table for most people is merely a Conversion Narrative (an invention of the New Side Presbyterians in the First Great Awakening). If you can tell people when you were saved or that Jesus is your savior, and the Session/Consistory believes you then you are allowed to the Table. Is that the historic Reformed Practice? More importantly, is that the Biblical practice?

In the next several posts I would like to examine this question as thoroughly as my meager efforts can. You will notice the title of the post involves the issue of Confirmation. I think that Confirmation is left out of the discussion far too often, and perhaps is the reason that all the important ground has already been ceded to the Paedocommunists. Few churches practice this rite of the church that was fully endorsed by the Reformation and a prerequisite to the Table.

Tax Day Protest Thoughts

2009-04-18T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Tax Day Tea Parties illustrated several major things that ought to scare everyone of us.

The first is a point that cannot be stressed enough. There are some people out there that actually think Keith Olbermann is a journalist. That is astounding and proof that some people will believe anything. Self-Delusion of course is the greatest and Keith himself may actually think his sexual joking about the Tea Parties was real journalism. There is no doubt in my mind that as big a liberal as Edward Murrow was that Murrow would be horrified that Olbermann was on TV and using his catch phrase. I think Murrow would slap Olbermann and tell him a few choice words.

Second, the media as a whole is completely biased. Journalism is dead. It will never come back and it will be hard to maintain a free country and be informed since TV stations are tools of the political parties now. MSNBC was disgraceful in its coverage as was CNN. Fox News went the opposite rout and tried to act as if they were are a part of the Tax Day Tea Parties, which is just as unjournalistic. Not good.

Third, people do not understand taxes. This is what worries me the most. This CNN reporter shows her complete hatred of the protestors, but also her complete ignorance of taxes in this clip that is a must watch. Notice how her response to the man’s complaint about his liberty is to cut him off. In the reporter’s mind taxes and liberty are unrelated. Then she goes even further when the man speaks directly to his taxes been too high, she states that his state is getting a lot of Money from the Federal Government, as if that makes taxes okay. She clearly thinks taxing people in order to give the money to other people is a great idea and does not understand why this guy is not on board. She clearly did not do a lot of listening to the people while she was out there.

The flaw that not only this reporter, but just about all 500 plus representatives in Congress make is that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” as was noted by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v Maryland. That was of course an undisputed point because that is exactly what Maryland wanted to do the Bank of the US, destroy it. Maybe now it will be clearer to all why liberty is at state when we discuss taxes. If you tax it, you can destroy it, and you will at one point if the people do not keep vigilance. The Federal Government now taxes your phone calls, your gas, and most importantly your income. They have the power to destroy your income. That is why people go to the streets and fear for their liberty. That is why the original Boston Tea Party also. If Parliament had the power to tax anything and everything then there was no liberty. They were slaves of Parliament, slaves to the will of Parliament.

Every civilization before America understood this. Taxes are not Patriot as liberal Democrats want you to believe. They are a necessary, but they are far from patriotic. More revolts are about taxes than about anything else. You can even look in the Bible to see a tax revolt under Rehoboam. It is not because people are selfish and want their money, it is because taxes destroy. They destroy their liberty, their freedom, and cannot be tolerated at certain levels. Either the people end up revolting, the government listens and lowers taxes, or the nation collapses on itself. This is just fact. Sadly a fact that no one notices today.

Oscar De La Hoya: A Sports Legend

2009-04-15T21:33:00.002-05:00

You may not have heard, but Oscar De La Hoya retired the other day from boxing, and it could be very well be the end of boxing.

De La Hoya was overall 39-6 and sadly is most remembered for losing 4 of his last 7 fights. Yet, it needs to be remembered that he lost to undefeated Floyd Mayweather Jr., boxing legend Bernard Hopkins, Sugar Shane Mosely twice one of which he admitted to using steroids, and Manny Pacquio who is the best pound for pound fighter in the world right now. His other loss was to Felix Trinidad, which was such a bad decision that an investigation was actually launched into the decision, but then again De La Hoya won a decision against Pernell 'Sweet Pea' Whitiker that was equally as bad.

But the important thing to remember about Oscar De La Hoya is his impact on the sport. He has single handed kept boxing a float in the past decade. He has not avoided the big time boxers. He fought and won titles in four different weight classes. He fought Mayweather and set records for PPV. He had previously set records with his bout against Felix Trinidad. He has also promoted several fights, such as the Mayweather bout, that have done great things for the sport. Yet, without De La Hoya boxing will probably die. Mayweather retired and then tried to come back versus Ricky Hatton, but that was not the success that boxing needed. Now Mayweather is back in retirement. Hopkins has retired, and Pacquio has no one of worth to fight plus he is not a draw in America. And the heavyweight division is destroyed and worthless.

The sport of boxing has always been of interest to me, but now it is being surpassed as it is full of drug users, violent criminals, and bad actors. It is a shame that the days of Sugar Ray and Marvolous Marvin Hagglar are all gone. It is a sad thing.

Two-Edged Sword

Princeton - 200 years later

A new book on Two Kingdoms

Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

A Two Kingdoms moment

Transformationalism - Culture Making

Zylstra Review - Part 3 - Bible texts

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Second Article Review

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Article Review

Happy Birthday Belgic Confession

Book Review: Heaven is for Real

Not the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but another

Kingdom of God Conference

Rob Bell, Blogging, and Responsibility

Reformed Scholasticism - a book and a question or two

450 Years!!!!

Belgic and the French - Defining the Church with Christ

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

2011 - 1561 = 450 years of the Belgic Confession

Eat, Pray, Love - Movie Review

Robin Hood - the movie

A bevy of book reviews

Wilson and his attempt to undermine the URC

Basel the Mother Church of the Reformation

Against Exclusive Psalmody -Scripture

Imputation of the Active Obedience and the Heidelberg Catechism

Against Exclusive Psalmody (Nature of Words Argument) and WLC 109

The argument Against Exclusive Psalmody (or only singing the Inspired Words of Scripture)

One quick complaint about ESPN

LOST: The end

What Obama does not know will hurt us

More on Recovering the Reformed Confessions

McLaren versus the Bible

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion Rights?

Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

On Faith is at it Again

The Team that Changed Baseball

Lent - Why Bother - a Response

Pro-Life Rally Observations

Apology versus Repentance

Review: For God and His People

Hall of Fame snub

Bowl Game recap

Top Stories of 2009

Merry Christmas!

One Child Policy in America?

The Conference to watch in Basketball

Intellectual or Anti-Intellectual: Does truth matter?

Forgotten Reformer: Oswald Myconius

Anti-Intellectualism or Intellectualism: Palin, N.T. Wright, and other thoughts

Forgotten Reformers: The City of Basel

History of the Iconoclastic Controversy

Election Results

Joe Calzaghe: Best of the Era

Venema's Children at the Lord's Table

Anglican and Rome Merger

Growing Hatred for True Christianity

Rev. Wilson and the Cup

Russia better off Red? A criticism

Children at the Table but Not at the Baptistry

Asking the Right Questions

An Epidemic of Selfishness

"You Lie" Was it right or wrong?

Notice

Jon Meacham rates Kennedy third?!?

Presidential Speech to Schools

Pirate Call Ups

Ted betrayed the Kennedy family values

Calvin on Ecumenical Unity

Book Reviews

Forgotten Reformer: Leo Juda

Trade Deadline Winners and Losers

Pirates are officially reloaded

Forgotten Reformers: Italian Reformers

Pirates First Half Analysis

Forgotten Reformer: Simon Grynaeus

Pirates News UPDATED

A required post on the NBA draft

The Emergent Conversation Dead?