Caspar Hedio

This reformer is truly forgotten. Finding discussions on Hedio are like finding diamonds in your back yard. A rare thing indeed. In fact, even his Wikipedia entry is only one sentence long, but it is long enough to tell us he died in 1552. It mentions he was a reformer and a historian who was located in Strassborg. That is all we get from the Encyclopedia. Although the German version of Wiki has a much more detailed entry.

Yet, there is much more to Hedio. He was a reformer, and an early one at that. Hedio studied under Capito at the University of Freiburg and then again at the University of Basel. He followed Capito to Bradenburg where he became the court preacher to the Archbishop after Capito was promoted to a counselor of Albert of Brandenburg. Albert, in case we have forgotten, was one who originally hired Tetzel to sell indulgences in his area. Albert never quite went over to the Reformation, but while Hedio and Capito were there he was quite unwilling to do anything against it. Hedio got a job preaching in Strasborg, which briefly hurt his friendship with Capito who also wanted the job, but the two reconciled. Thus Hedio aided Matthew Zell (who is our next reformer) reforming Strasbourg, and in a few months was joined by Capito (who got a different job in the city). That city boasted three powerfrul exponents of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hedio having preached before in both Basel and Bradenburg was quite a powerful preacher according to all accounts. Not only could he preach, but also he was active in the debates for the Reformation. The Marburg Colloquy had Caspar Hedio in attendance. He was on the side of Zwingli in opposition to the Lutherans. Thus, it is an interesting and rare moment to find a description of Hedio from someone who was opposed to him. Justus Jonas, a Lutheran present at the Colloquy stated that Hedio had “as much liberality as kindness” (pg. 501 D’Aubigne History of the Reformation). This was a compliment just in case anyone was inclined to read it otherwise. Thus, Hedio dealt graciously with those with whom he disagreed.

Hedio was widely regarded and appreciated for his gifts of ministry and preaching. Apparently other cities would often write to Hedio to get his opinion. Baden and even the Palatinate wrote to Hedio for advice, which he freely gave, and at one point Zurich tried to hire him, but Hedio had just accepted the job in Strasbourg and turned them down. Hedio also showed his scholarly side as he made translations into German of important works and wrote history chronicles. Some sources indicate that a work on tithing might also have been published. Hedio’s work is almost all lost to us now. Yet, it can be seen in letters and in his presence that people must have thought very highly of Caspar Hedio. A forgotten Reformer, Hedio was early on the field and obviously important in the establishment of the gospel.

New Calvinism versus Old Calvinism

I want to briefly comment on Marc Driscoll’s blog post about the New Calvinism. Apparently Time Magazine has called the New Calvinsim is the third most powerful engine changing the world. That is exciting news. I am not really writing to pick on the New Calvinism. I just feel I have to pick on Marc Driscoll’s definition of Old Calvinism. I think it shows a real lack of historical understanding, and probably a real lack of self-reflection as well.

He has four points of difference between the New Calvinism and the Old Calvinism. He touts his first difference as Old Calvinism withdrawing from culture while New Calvinism transforms it and is missional. Again, a made up word used to define this new movement does not speak well of transforming the culture or “Culturalizing” (since we are making stuff up). It also hard to believe that the Reformation did not transform the culture. I am not sure what history books Driscoll reads, but they are not the right ones. The Reformation and Old Calvinism changed the world. New Calvinism on the other hand likes to use Twitter during worship services and cuss like sailors and use provocative language to titillate the listener. Hardly transforming, in my opinion.

His second definition has Old Calvinism as fleeing from the cities and New Calvinism flocking to them. I will just give him this one as how “old” Old Calvinism is he attacking? This probably has a little merit to it, so we will give him this one.

His third definition has Old Calvinism as favoring cessationistic with regards to the Holy Spirits miraculous gifts while New Calvinism embraces Continuationism. This is dead on and one major difference. I will not debate how wrong New Calvinism is here, but this is a very major difference.

His fourth point has Old Calvinism as fearful and suspicious while the New Calvinism is loving and open to others. While this is clearly a slanted view, I think he underestimates the value of fear. Bridge building is one thing, but unwilling to denounce is quite another. I also think that this point undercuts his first point. They are not transforming culture, but building bridges to it. If you have not read the book Young Restless and Reformed you probably ought to. That is a good tour of New Calvinism. But in that book we see people trying to minister the gospel in the milieu of the culture. Rap songs speaking Calvinism. Driscoll would no doubt point out that it is bridge building and reaching the young, but is it compromising? New Calvinism is not really dealing with these tough questions just as they ducked them in the book. Fear sometimes protects. Suspicion is often founded on solid ground.

I am not saying New Calvinism is dumb or wrong. I am all for people holding to New Calvinsim, but it is not Reformed. I will not be wearing a Jonathon Edwards is My Homeboy T-Shirts, but I would rather someone wear that than a Che T-Shirt. Still, I believe the main difference is that Old Calvinism is Time tested and allows Biblical Truth to sink to every area of life. New Calvinism is enamoured with the truth of Predestination and Sovereignty, but they have not yet had time to work out the kinks. When they do, they will either be a fad passed away or they will become Old Calvinists too.

Forgotten Reformer: Wolfgang Capito

This reformer is forgotten by most. However, his work was quite influential and the reasons he has been looked over are beyond me. Perhaps it is because his beginning is not quite as praise worthy as Luther’s or Zwingli’s. Not everyone in the Reformation immediately understood the need to publicly break with the Roman Church. Capito was one of those who thought a stealth campaign from within the church might be more effective. Luther regularly denounced him for this, but eventually Capito comes out in the open about his beliefs and becomes a great reformer.

Capito’s birth is unknown, but it is probably in the 1480’s. He attended the University of Ingolstadt in 1501, Heidelberg in 1504, and got his degree from Freiburg as well as a Master of Arts in 1506. He would have known then the Dean of Freiburg, Johann Eck, the famed Roman apologist. Capito himself went on to serve as dean in 1511 showing a great intellect. He did earn a doctorate in 1515. By 1516 Capito is friendly with Erasmus showing that perhaps Capito was brought into the Reformation through the Renaissance. He preached in Basel from around 1515 to 1520, which would have given him ample opportunity to meet and learn from Erasmus. The two became good friends. In Basel we see Capito begin to correspond with Luther. In 1520, Capito went to Brandenburg to serve the Archbishop of Mainz as a court preacher. Here Capito tried to influence Archbishop Albert to favor the Reformation. He succeeded only in getting Albert to take a neutral stance. He brought with him several people including Caspar Hedio (who we will examine next) that were also Reformers although not openly. This shows that by 1520 Capito favors the Reformation, but is not yet willing to publicly break with Rome. In 1522, Capito won a suit in papal court that gave him the possession of the provostship of St. Thomas in Strasborg. It was given to him with the express eye to keep him in the church. It was awarded to him again after an appeal in 1523 that he should not follow the path of Luther now that he had been given this job. Yet, that year Luther published his letters with Capito in order to “out” him as a Reformer and the Papal court reversed its decision. Captio went to Strasborg anyway and took possession of the job and then the divided town council of Strasborg would not remove him from his job. Capito became a Reformer with Matthew Zell in Strasborg in 1523 leading that city down the path of the Reformation.

When Martin Bucer arrives, Bucer assumes a leading role in Strasborg, but Capito was always there. Capito is there at every major event and serving the people of Strasborg constantly with the Word of God. Bucer was the front man, and perhaps the better preacher, but Capito served using his scholarly gifts as well. In 1527, he wrote a catechism for use in the city’s churches. It is Capito who first among the Reformers champions the idea of Sunday, the Lord’s Day, as being the New Testament Sabbath. Capito made sure that Oecolampadius’s Commentaries were published in Strasborg, and made sure that he himself preached on OT books that had been mostly neglected and forgotten by the Roman Catholic Church like Hosea. While Capito worked with Bucer in Bucer’s attempts to unify the Lutherans and the Reformed, Capito held a more Zwinglian view on the Lord’s Supper and his works usually reflect that understanding. Preaching in St. Peter the Younger Church in Strasborg he probably imparted this understanding of the Lord’s Supper to his people.

Capito also advanced the Reformation in the way that we seldom think of: children. It is unclear how many Capito had, but he did have at least one. Capito married the widow of John Oecolampadius, and had a child with her who grew up to be a Reformed pastor himself. In fact, Wolfgang Meyer, the Basel delegate to the Synod of Dort, is the descendant of Wolfgang Capito. And yes, the first name Wolfgang was in honor of Wolfgang Capito. This shows that Capito not only imparted biblical truth from the pulpit, but in his home as well. Such things cannot be underestimated.

Capito was a biblical scholar, a legal scholar, a Reformer, and a good theologian. He is one who needs to be remembered when we think of the Reformers. May he be forgotten no more.

Children as Global Warming Agents

If you ever had any doubt about the culture wars, now is the time to pay attention and see for yourself.

Liberals are often talked about as loving the Culture of Death. They favor Euthenasia, abortion, and embryo stem cell research. Well, add to that now the Chinese one child policy all in the name of Global Warming. That is right, your children put off too much carbon dioxide. They are a danger to the planet. Population control: morally offensive liberal agenda item #387

Forgotten Reformer #3: Berthold Haller

Another forgotten Reformer who languishes in the shadow of John Calvin is the Reformer of Bern: Berthold Haller. Berthold Haller was born in 1492 in Wurttenburg. The man learned at the feet of a professor in Bern who taught the evangelical gospel. Later Haller went onto Pforzheim where he met Melanchthon. He came back from his studies a clear thinking Reformed believer and he taught those truths to his flock in Bern. He was already preaching the evangelical gospel before he ever met Zwingli, which was in 1521. Haller was a key figure in the Baden disputation of 1525, which was officially judged to be won by the Romanists by the Romanist city council of Baden, although the fact Baden declares for the Reformation less than five years later cries of a different winner. Haller also served as a leader at the Bern Disputation the following year in 1526. As the pastor of Bern, it was Haller who wrote the Ten Theses that were debated. Of course the Reformed City Council gave the victory to the Reformers, and then Oecolampadius and Zwingli subscribed to the Ten Theses making it the first consensus Reformed document. Haller should be remembered at least for that contribution.

However, we ought to remember him for even more. Let us not forget that Geneva was a small city state that would not exist without the protection of the Canton of Bern. It was always to the people at Bern that Calvin and Farel had to report. Bern was the authority over Geneva. Bern was in a unique position as the link between the French speaking Reformation and the German speaking Reformation. The majority of Bern spoke German, but the small district of Vaud spoke French. This made Bern a power player in the French side of the Reformed Reformation. Refugees from France poured into Vaud as well as Geneva, and Bern helped make sure that both places were stocked with good Reformed ministers. Now a lot of that happened after the death of Berthold Haller in 1536, but all of the ground work for it was laid by Berthold.

Berthold Haller also ought to be remembered as one of the men who held the Reformation together. For this he gets little to no credit today. The Reformation was not a smooth ride from Zwingli to Calvin as some text books might make you think. The year 1531 was a devastating year for the Reformed Reformation. That year the Romanists crushed the Protestant Swiss in a war and saw the death of Zwingli on the battlefield. An illness killed John Oecolampadius in that same year. The two leading lights of the Reformation were snuffed in one fell swoop not to mention the first military set back had occurred which of course produced a treaty favorable to the Romanists and made the advancement of the Reformation even more difficult. The Synod of Bern in 1532 may well have stemmed the tide of Romanism and reasserted the Reformed Reformation. Bern was characterized by massive strife, mostly over Bern’s unwillingess to aid Zurich in the war, which was lost, and council and church now stood at each others’ throats. The Romanists were using this to gain a foothold in Bern. The late treaty had made it very easy for the Romanists to send Roman evangelists into the area. Haller, with the help of Wolfgang Capito (who we will look at next), saved the church at Bern. Reunion took place and all 300 men in attendance wept at the beautiful sight of a church reunited and the power of forgiveness in Christ. After such a powerful display the Romanists did not stand a chance and soon left. Basel and Zurich were able to set up the successors to Oecolampadius and Zwingli. During that brief time of distress Haller stood forth and served as the leader of the Reformed faith. His display of the power of forgiveness and reconciliation is not often how we think of the Reformation progressing, but it is indeed a witness that cannot be stopped.

This forgotten Reformer is really one of the great heroes of the faith.

More March Cheating

As I pointed out a few years ago, the Sports announcers and the powers that be were upset when the Missouri Valley dominated the tournament and the Sweet Sixteen was one-fourth small conferences as was the Final Four. Last year we sat through ESPN complaining about the six small conference at large bids, historically a fairly low number, and arguing that small conferences should not even have Automatic Bids. Of course the NCAA continues to play up to the money and ESPN and lowered the number of At-Large Bids from 6 to 4. This is ridiculous. Just take a look.

The Big 10 sent 7 teams! 63% of this conference is in the tournament. Wisconsin is in without winning 20 games. You do not even have to finish in the top half of the Big 10 to make the tournament. The Pac-10 sent 6 proving the same thing in that league with 60% of the teams in. The Big East sent 7, but that means that just under half of the conference is in the tournament. Exactly half of the Big 12 is in the tournament. This includes Texas A&M who was 9-7 in their conference and lost to Tulsa (small conference) during the season. Texas lost even more than that and they still made the tournament. It is absolutely ridiculous.

The NCAA is also continuing their policy of eliminating these teams by making them play each other as I told you last year. Gonzaga vs. Akron is unnecessary. So is Xavier vs. Portland State. I could fix this without switching seeding. Let Gonzaga play Mississippi St. and Akron play Washington. Then if I can switch one seed, just let Portland St. play Florida State and then drop Wisconsin to play Xavier. Problem solved. But that is not what they want.

Let us also remember the insanity of their reasoning. They think that Small Conference schools cannot compete against the Big Boys, so let more Big Conference teams play. But just examine the results. Last year Memphis was in the Final Game (only bid from their league Conference USA), and Davidson made the Elite Eight (only bid from the Southern Conference). The year before that I believe Memphis made the Elite Eight and Butler (Horizon), UNLV (Mountain West), and Southern Illinois (Missouri Valley) made the 25% of the Sweet Sixteen small schools. 2006 was the year where 31% of the Sweet Sixteen were small conference schools 25% of the Elite Eight and George Mason (one of two schools from the Colonial that year) made the Final Four to make 25% of the Final Four. While 2005 was an off year with only UW-Milwaukee and Utah making the Sweet Sixteen, 2004 had St. Joseph’s(Atlantic 10) in the Elite Eight and UAB (C-USA) to reach the Sweet Sixteen along with Nevada and Xavier (Atlantic 10). Another 25% of the Sweet Sixteen. In 2003, Marquette reached the Final Four after defeating number one ranked Kentucky. Remember at that time Marquette was in Conference USA, a small conference (25% of the Final Four for the math challenged). 2002 small conference schools made up 13% of the Sweet Sixteen (Southern Illinois and Kent St.). 2001 had Temple in the Elite Eight and Gonzaga joining them in the Sweet Sixteen with Cincinnati, which was a small conference school then. That is about 19% of the Sweet Sixteen.

So examining the facts it really appears as if the Small Schools get better and better and fewer and fewer bids. They routinely got at least 5 and sometimes up to seven. Logic would dictate that perhaps 25% of the At-Large bids ought to go to the Small Schools. Instead this year it is around 11%. Despite out performing every year, the small conferences continually get snubbed.

The biggest losers this year are St. Mary’s whose conference has gotten two bids in the past, and San Diego State. Clearly, they both should have gotten in. One day sanity will take over, but until then please join me in routing against every team from the Big Conferences.

Stewart vs. Cramer a comedy of hypocrisy

If you have not been following the John Stewart versus Jim Cramer, then you are a better man than I am. But if you are as sorry and pathetic as I am then you probably witnessed the incredibly hypocritical and mean spirited person interview with John Stewart I do not care so much about who was right on calling the financial crisis. I do not even like Jim Cramer. And I will say that John Stewart has some good points about CNBC needing to be better at reporting the fraud that does occur. However, Stewart said somethings that condemn him more than Jim Cramer. Stewart can pretend he is a comedy show, but he is doing the news for the young crowd and one can tell that he takes it seriously. Just watch the clip if you don’t think so.
Stewart said that the media should not take things at face value. Yet, he does not attack Barak Obama and the media today. Stewart things that the media ought to poke around and find out the truth. Yet, where was the media in such things as the Birth Certificate, or the stimulus bill debate, or Obama’s connection to Ayers or whatever. Stewart mocked those people who wanted Obama to produce a Birth Certificate, and instead to Obama’s word about it despite his own grandmother’s conflicting reports and massive resistance from the Obama camp. Stewart dedicated a long time to mock the people who wanted more time to debate a stimulus bill no one had read. Instead he took Pelosi’s word that it was needed and really stimulus. Stewart mocked the relationship with Ayers during the campaign and took the word of Obama about that relationship. Not just Stewart but the entire media is doing this, yet Cramer was singled out by Stewart. Why? Is it because Cramer was not reporting or is it now because Cramer is critical of the President’s plan? Stewart is little more than a shill for the Democratic Party and he knows it. The change in his program and his partner Stephen Colbert has been palpable. They are clearly out to be attack dogs and protect their President.
The fact that John Stewart can do that interview with the “righteous indignation” that he showed speaks volumes about his hypocrisy. There was a time when John Stewart went on CNN’s Crossfire and said that the constant bickering on that show was part of the problem. Well, now it is time to look in the mirror and realize that John Stewart is now part of the problem.

The Myth of Inclusivity

Several things have me thinking about “being inclusive”. The first is the ranting of Michael Steele, the New Chairman of the Republican National Committee. His desire to attract “one arm midgets” is a sign that he really has no business being the RNC chair. Just like all those who endorsed him such as Shawn Hannity, he does not understand the problem and thus cannot give the answer. The problem is not being inclusive of African-American, or women, or one arm midgets. The problem is not the need to include lots of different groups. The problem is that your message is not believed by enough people. Steele sees the RNC shrinking in Congress and thinks to himself we need to include more groups. When the answer is not to be inclusive but to bring people into your own group. Inclusive Big Tent parties have no union and fall apart to be worse than before. Teaching people the truth of your viewpoint unifies everyone and swells numbers.

But what really gets me is that this is the same mistake the "evangelical" church has been making for years. The problem with shrinking membership roles and declining levels of involvement of young people led many Evangelicals to try and be more inclusive. Some like the PCUSA and the United Methodist along with the United Churches of Christ tried to include women by letting them be elders and ministers and are now trying to include Homosexuals by letting them be members and soon will follow ordination. They could ask the Episcopal Church how that turned out, but they will do it anyway. Other churches that did not wish to compromise their doctrine turned to Seeker Sensitive worship services (pretending that did not change doctrine of course). They wanted to attract people through bands and ditching old hymns in favor of repetitive choruses among other things. They brought in people to the church in some cases, but did they make more Christians? Did they create a unified front with Christian Churches or did they simply sell the heritage of the church for a bowl of porridge. Take a look at the “Mega-Churches” out there today. Right their names down on a piece of paper and come back in ten years. Bill Hybels and the impressively large Willow Creek Church is already in decline, not to mention that a poll showed that something above 60% of their members felt they were not growing at church. Of course not. The church was built to attract people to church, not to actual be a church. People have seen enough and the fads of the culture have moved on. So the church will now decline unless it reinvents itself over and over and over. See the problem is that changing church and worship and doctrine to fit the culture to attract the culture, which is what inclusiveness is, you have one of two problems. One, you miss judged the culture and no one shows up. Or you get it right and you become a slave to the culture and their fads. Willow Creek is a thing of the past, their model for church is already outdated. Now it is the reign of Rick Warren and Saddleback or Joel Osteen in Houston. They are the new Mega-Churches. Ten years from now it will be someone else. Do you really think Saddleback will survive Rick Warren leaving? Or do you think it will still be popular when the Purpose Driven Logo has been put on everything? Does anyone still remember the Crystal Cathedral? That was the Mega-Church before Bill Hybels. It is now bankrupt and the father has fired his own son.

The problem of declining numbers is not to be answered by appealing to more people. The answer is to re-double efforts to convert people to your view. The RNC has a harder sell that Christianity, but the both have wandered off the path. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. This means go back to what the Bible teaches. Go back to faithful worship and doctrine. Take seriously the things of the bible like training up your children, telling others of Christ, and living a life in conformity to His standards. Trying to "hip-hop" the gospel is not the answer. Living and teaching the gospel. That is the answer.

Forgotten Reformer: John Oecolampadius

It is time to meet another under appreciated Reformer: John Oecolampadius. John Oecolampadius was actually born John Heussgen, but as was a common practice among the educated elite during the Reformation, he took a Greek last name, Oecolampadius meaning "Light of the House". Oecolampadius was a learned man. First he studied law at Heidelberg, but then switched to Theology. He was very knowledgable in Greek and Hebrew. When he arrived as the cathedralpreacher in Basel in 1515, he was known for his skill in the languages. He aided Erasmus with much of his work at the University of Basel and the two were actually good friends.

Yet, Oecolampadius would travel a very different path than Erasmus. He did become Reformed. Basel was Romanist town when he arrived although a few ministers leaned towards the new doctrines. One had gotten married and had been thrown out of his pulpit by the Senate. Oecolampadius centered his sermons on the Atonement, and he began to draw large crowds. He overcame the opposition through public disputations and through occassional lectures at the University. The Senate then began to hire other men who favored the Reformed Gospel and now Oecolampadius had the upper hand. His teaching and preaching had changed the hearts of a city. His refusal to participate in festivals he considered unbiblical and his unparralleled skill in debate proved too much for the Romanists. Basel was basically reformed by 1525, even the married minister was re-hired thanks to Oecolampadius, but the town council delayed hoping to avoid trouble. The city would not officially declare for the Reformation until 1529 although all hirings done by the Senate met with the approval of Oecolampadius and were all of men who favored the Reformation.

Oecolampadius moved quickly to set up a Classis of ministers in Basel. The city itself had at least four major pulpits and several country pulpits were under the jursidiction and protection of Basel. Oecolampadius made sure that they met every year together to discuss the problems, encourage one another, and make sure that all who were preachers were up to the task. They had exams for the new comers and this helped elevate the educational level of the preahcers in the city. Oecolampadius was placed on the faculty of the University of Basel, and from there he taught the next generation of pastors of that city and others. Oecolampadius went with Zwingli to the Colloquy at Marburg where he defended Zwingli's view of the Lord's Supper against the view of Luther.

Sadly, the life of Oecolampadius ended in 1531. Basel would never again have someone of the quality of Oecolampadius, but it also never left the Reformation. That is how solidly Oecolampadius glued the feet of the city to the Rock that is Christ.

Newsweek: Attack on Christianity

Newsweek Magazine is easily the worst magazine ever written. Jon Meachem’s scholarship is laughable. His refusal to ever really engage arguments against his position makes him dishonest, discredited, and an all around shill for liberalism. That made the December issue of Newsweek interesting because it was supposed to take head-on the Biblical position against Homosexual Marriage. Meachem’s introductory letter shows that he can only dismiss and not refute. I won’t get into that as Christianity Today actually does a good job of showing the lack of logic in Meacham. Yet, one could still hold out hope for the cover story to really get into the meat of things. Well, let’s just say the people working for Meachem have patterned themselves after their fearful leader.

Lisa Miller, the religion editor no less, shows that she has no idea what the Bible teaches or where it teaches it. That is not good for a religion editor. She starts off her pro-gay marriage piece by pretending the Bible only teaches polygamy or is indifferent to marriage all together. She finds no direct teaching that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Seriously. She cannot find Genesis 2:21-24 which includes this: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh." The creation story is not hard to find, and you don’t even have to read very far into the Bible to find the story. God thought it was not good Adam was alone, so he made Eve and God brings Eve to Adam and creates marriage between one man and one woman. Newsweek mentions this verse somewhere in the middle, but dismisses it by saying that the Bible was written by men, not God. Maybe Newsweek should just have written a magazine on something they understood better. Instead, they focus on a few examples in the Bible of what they believe is the Bible teaching non-traditional marriage.

Miller quotes Abraham sleeping with Hagar as a poor example of marriage. Yet, Miller apparently forgets that Abraham is rebuked for his failure in his marriage, and his sexual SIN with Hagar started centuries of violence and hatred between the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs) and Isaac (Jews). A rather important point. She quotes David, but forgets he was rebuked in 2 Samuel 12 and never commits the sin of polygamy again after it. She quotes Solomon but forgets that he is led astray because of his wives and it was clearly a sin. She quotes Jacob, but forgets he was tricked into marring Leah, and it still is sin. Miller is able to avoid all of that because she refuses to acknowledge the standard set in the second chapter of the whole Bible. She takes historical narrative and refuses to apply the standards in place to that narrative. 2 Samuel assumes that you are familiar with the 10 Commandments, which are listed in previous books. But that does not aid Miller’s argument so she ignores it. She then goes on to claim that Jesus was indifferent to earthly attachments especially family. That whopper must have taken years of imagination to invent. Sure, Jesus preaches that we ought to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and the things above, but does this mean that all earthly things are indifferent or worse? Of course not. Jesus shows great family attachment even on the cross by making sure someone takes care of his mother. Jesus did not get married, but does that prove anything? No, of course not. Jesus had no problem healing Peter’s mother-in-law, which can only happen by marriage. He had no problem attending a wedding at Cana. He said the kingdom of heaven belonged to little children, which can only come through marriage. A point Jesus was very clear on. Such biblical ignorance from Miller is enough to disturb, not to mention undermine her point.

However, in fairness, she really rests her case on something else entirely. Love. Of course Miller has no idea of Biblical Love because she completely refuses to let the Bible define the term. Is homosexual activity really loving? The Bible does not think so. God says it is not. Some of you are probably wondering what Newsweek does with all the verses condemning homosexuality. Well, they are thrown out the door with the idea of modern progress.

Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

First, these are not the only places where homosexuality is condemned contrary to Miller’s assertion. Second, we cannot throw out the law that easily. Reformed Confessions for centuries have talked about moral laws, ceremonial laws, and judicial laws, but such understanding is brushed aside by Miller as pointless. We can just ignore that part of the Bible. Why? Because Miller wants to have things her way and not God’s way. She even goes so far as to quote Miss Manners as a better authority than God.
Miller goes on to use the love and inclusiveness argument to push for gay marriage.

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage.

Here we see that Miller again misses the point. Jesus is not arguing for inclusion. He is arguing for repentance. Yes, Christians are to reach out to the outcasts, the depraved, and even homosexuals. But the message Christ reaches out to them with is not “You are okay, come be a part of the community”, the message is "Repent and believe." Thus, the inclusion is based on the unity of repentance and belief in Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. This rules out the idea of staying homosexual since that is a sin that needs to be repented of, despite the throwing away of bible verses done earlier in the article.

This whole article is an example of what "liberal Christianity" really is: a complete and total rejection of the Bible. The people at Newsweek have trouble seeing that some people really believe their Bible. That is a laughable suggestion to the people at this horrible magazine, but it is what we Bible Believers should start expecting. To be called names, mocked, and yes even persecuted. Following the Good Book is not easy. It is not going to get us in good with Sean Penn and the Academy Awards, and Newsweek will hate you, but the pleasure of the King of Kings is all that should matter.

Something interesting to ponder

Why on earth is this not being reported? Obama returns Churchill bust.

This sounds like a fairly newsworthy development. Only in the UK is it actually making the news. Another commentary on the sad state of our news industry.

Presidential Rankings by C-Span

C-Span has put out another ranking of Presidents by 65 Historians. I always enjoy looking at these and wondering how bad our educational system has become. This list is not that different than other lists. Lincoln is first, which alone is enough to make me sick. Washington did beat out FDR for second, but the list is a joke. George W. Bush is 36 and his father rankings 18th. Hard to believe in either case. What makes it worse is that U. S. Grant is ranked 23rd! Are you kidding me? Buchanan comes in last with Andrew Johnson just in front of him.

The answer to these ridiculous rankings is seen when we look at two factors. The voters and the qualifications.

When I first looked at the list of participants I got a little excited as such historians as H.W. Brands and Edward Crapol participated. But a closer look unveils two major problems. For every early American specialist like Willard Sterne Randall there are at least two Civil War historians like Brooks Simpson (former Wofford Professor!!!) and Debra Goodrich, not to mention Andrew Ferguson and James McPherson. In other words, one can expect a high ranking for the Civil War guys and a downgrading of the Founders of America. The other major problem is the addition of Larry Sabato. C-Span must think he is either the greatest man in America or they think we are all idiots. Sabato is Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. He is not a historian. And he is extraordinarily biased. I admit that all people are biased, but a guy who writes books entitled The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency, Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election and also writes a political newsletter, not to mention that he worked for Democratic politicians before becoming a professor is clearly over the line. This list then will be completely slanted by Sabato’s liberal left-wing agenda.

The second problem is the areas in which these presidents are ranked. We see things like Moral Authority, Administrative Skills, Vision, and International Relations, which I guess are legitmate. We see the Performance withint the Context of Their Times, which is kind of weird, but I can let it go. Public Persuasion is easier in modern times, but I will give that one a pass as well. Crisis Leadership is going to benefit those who were in a crisis. This may explain why George H.W. Bush gets so high, but this category does little to help poor Millard Fillmore who did not have a crisis to deal with. Then there are couple of categories that are outright biased. Pursued Equal Justice for All is going to slight every President before the Civil War. Economic Management is going to favor liberals and hurt early American Presidents who thought Economic Management to be unconstitutional. Then of course we have the Relations with Congress category. Andrew Johnson is dead last in this category, but is it bad that he fought the Radical Republicans? Sometimes an adversarial relationship with Congress is a sign of a good President not a bad one. Then of course we can wonder why Fidelity to the Constitution is not one of the categories.

Thus when we see the internal bias in the poll, we can understand why the results are so obviously wrong. We can see why FDR (3rd) is so high because people give him credit (wrongfully I might add) for the economy and for crisis management because of WWII. Kennedy (6th) and LBJ (12th) get artificial bumps for Pursuing Justice for All while Jefferson (7th) and Washington (2nd) take hits on that same category. Both of those men are outside the top ten in that particular category. Bill Clinton (15th) in fact is ranked higher than Washington in the Justice For All Category and in the Economic Management he comes in third. It is hard to take seriously a survey that puts Grant and Clinton two of the most corrupt politicians in the top 25 but consigns the only other President even close to as corrupt, Warren Harding, at 38. Clinton is 37th in the Moral Authority beating out Harding, but Grant manages to remain in the top 25. Can you imagine how high Clinton would be if Moral Authority were not a category?

A truly bizarre list. Worthy of noting and then tossing in the trash can.

Pirates in 09

On Friday the Pitchers and Catchers are required to be in camp for the Pittsburgh Pirates in what ought to be an encouraging year for the club. Now, I do think that they will miss out on the playoffs this year unless they can grab a wildcard on account of other teams folding up with injuries, but it should be a year where they can reach .500 winning percentage. Next year will be the year they win the World Series or at least the NL. The first of a long line of championship seasons.

The thing to watch in camp is the pitchers. Only one starting rotation spot is set with Paul Malholm having that spot. Ian Snell, Tom Grozelanny, Zack Duke, Ross Ohlendorf, Jeff Karstens, Daniel McCutchen, and Phil Dumatrait competing for the remaining four spots. Dumatrait was the best of that group in 2007 before he missed the rest of the season with an injury. Word is that he will probably even start this season on the DL rather than in the bullpen. He will probably take a second spot once he recovers. Ian Snell has not been promised a spot on the rotation, but he is making more money than the others, so I think he is likely in as well. If he would throw inside, he could be a great pitcher. The new pitching coach ought to be able to help Ian out and getting him back to top of the rotation status. This year’s success in my mind is attached to Ian Snell. If he has a bounce back year the Pirates are in good shape. If not, then they are going to be off to another slow start and the gloom will set in. Zack Duke is also making over a million dollars this season so it is hard to imagine him in Triple A, but his performance for years has been sub-par. I think he will be the message sent to players this year. If he does not earn it in camp, I think he will be sent down. McCutchen is too young, they won’t take a chance on him. Ohlendorf and Karstens are the two wild cards. They have great talent and if they can live up to part of that this year, then the Pirates will do well. Tom Grozelanny needs to regain his 14 win form in order to make the club. Another person to watch. I am not sure he will make it back.

The bullpen is also in flux, which is why I think they will miss the playoffs. Matt Cappas is the closer. Tyler Yates and John Grabow are the right and left hand short guys. I assume also that Sean Burrnett will make the team as lefties only hit .171 against him last year. That gives them another lefty in the pen and a middle distance kind of guy. The rest is up in the air. They picked up Donald Veal from the Cubs in a Rule 5 draft, which means they have to put him on the team or the Cubs could take him back. They did this last year with Evan Meek and put him on the team despite his obviously not being ready. I think they will do the same with Veal. Meek could make the team again. Craig Hansen was traded for, but really showed he was not so good. If he does not make the team, he is out of options, which means he will go on waviers. That would fill the roster, but I doubt Meek will make the team, so at least one more spot is open. Also Hansen could be one of those examples because he was really, really, bad last year.

The starting line up actually looks really good. The Pirates have Doumit and McClouth returning from great seasons. They still have Jack Wilson who can .300 as can a now healthy Freddy Sanchez. Nyjer Morgan looks ready for the Big Leagues and other outfielder Brandon Moss hit well from them last year after coming over from the Red Sox. The two LaRoche brothers at 1st and 3rd are the question marks. Will Adam continue starting slower than a car out of gas? Will Adam’s off-season swing change help him actually be able to hit the ball? Those are big questions. Thankfully, both have answers beneath them in the organization. The Pirates did sign Eric Hinske in the off season, and he can play either of those positions along with corner outfield. He will also add power from the bench, which has been missing. Neil Walker will be waiting in Triple A at 3rd and Steven Pierce will be a possible back up at 1st and the corner outfield spot from either Triple A or on the bench. It will be interesting where they put him. Back up catcher has a back log of talent. They got Jason Jaramillo in an off season trade for Ronnie Paulino, not to mention the star catcher from Triple A last year and the trade after the deadline that sent Jose Bautista to Toronto last year. Three catchers and one spot is a good problem to have.

In the end, the Pirates have the offense to compete. And they have the talent in the starting rotation, the question is will they put it together. Each year the start from the previous year has collapsed under the weight of being the ace. First it was Duke, then it was Snell, last year Grozelanny did not even stay with the big leagues he stunk it up so bad. This year it is Malholm. He has to respond. And one of the previous fallen aces has to return to form. They have plenty of other guys waiting with talent, but shuffling people around to find out who is going to perform is a recipe for a bad year. They need to get it right in Spring Training. The bullpen will fail them this year as well. They are putting together some arms down there, but they are not there yet. Too many Rule 5 picks to fill holes in the pen. That is a bad sign.

This year the Pirates have to find out who is big league material on their pitching staff. If they can do that this year, then next year the sky is the limit.

Obama against the Religion

We have now seen how President Obama views faith. We can put aside the idea that he is a new kind of candidate and a Democrat with religious values. All that has been proven to be false now. The President’s stimulus bill contains a provision to forbid the money going to any school that allows "religious worship" or contains a "divinity school". The point of the bill for me is not about discrimination. It is about trying to drive Christianity out of education. It is about giving people and incentive to get rid of ‘religious’ views.

This of course ties back in perfectly with what Candidate Obama said on the campaign trail. We no know exactly what he meant when he said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religious-specific, values." What he meant was that religious specific language and teaching would not be tolerated in a Democracy.

Thus, I was right earlier about his new language just being a new attempt to keep religion out of politics. I did fail to see that he wants to keep religion out of everything. Now I know.

Roe v Wade Death Toll

Yesterday was the anniversary of Roe v Wade. According to statistics over 49,500,000 people have been aborted, or killed since Roe. That of course is a lot more than the Nazi’s or even Stalin, but yet abortion remains legal and protected while Hitler and Stalin are treated like the evil murderous villains they are. It is odd to think of your own country as being worse than Nazi Germany, but the facts don’t lie. We have perfected genocide in this country and we decided to call it abortion.

Evaluating Presidents

Now that President Bush is out of office and President Obama is in, now would be a good time to take stock of the two.

First, lots of people think that Bush is one of the worst Presidents in history. You do not have even go to Comedy Central to hear that kind of talk. It is everywhere. Why do they think he is the worst? They do not give reasons. Disastrous policies seem to be the overwhelming reason of choice, but then again when Obama keeps wire tapping or reauthorize the Patriot Act they will not complain about those same policies. If Obama gives any bailouts then the liberals will be unable to hold that against him either. It really is a mystery to me why he is so hated. But, then some are going to far in defending him as well. What really is there to defend? Sure we have not been attacked since 9/11 but can that really be tied to something Bush did? How long did it take them to attack American soil in-between the two Trade Center attacks? One would assume that we should wait at least that long before we declare we have done anything good. He did capture Sadam, but didn’t the world actually get more dangerous with Kim Jong Il getting nukes and Iran getting close enough that we probably will not be able to stop them? What exactly are they applauding?

Which leads me to my point, we have no idea how to evaluate Presidents. It is ridiculous that we have this high office that we do not understand in the least. I have a suggestion. Maybe we should start evaluating Presidents based on the vow they take to defend and uphold the Constitution. This of course means that President Bush was a disaster. His gross increasing of the Federal Government stands against him, especially in Education and his inability to fix Social Security not to mention adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare. All of it totally unconstitutional. His two wars were “authorized” but never done according to the Constitution. Again then failures. Do not even get me started on the bailouts. Nothing he did will haunt him like the bailouts. For that alone he deserves to be paned as a President. I would vote for Franklin Pierce a thousand times before I vote for Bush. Yet, despite his enormous sins against the Contitution, he cannot be considered the worst ever. FDR and LBJ ignored the Constitution altogether. Woodrow Wilson tried to make America subservient to the League of Nations. That cannot look good for someone who swore to uphold America and her sovereignty. And then Bush never got caught doing something truly corrupt unlike Grant and Harding. Those guys were pretty corrupt.

Second, we need to hold Obama to the same standard. All indications are that following or acknowledging that the Constitution exists are way above Obama’s pay grade. Obama wants to make FDR look like a penny pincher. Nationalizing health care was a top agenda item during the campaign. The appointment of radical Tom Daschale shows that Obama does favor the single payer system, and that America should brace for the worst health care in the world. Soon we will be booking flights to Haiti for dental work. Obama also has shown that he will redistribute wealth. The Founders would all have heart attacks at hearing a President express such notions. And the worst offense at all is his plan to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which will abolish state laws concerning abortion so that mass murder that would make the Nazis envious will be the norm in America. In addition to moral revulsion at such as suggestion, the Constitution also cries out against such usurpation of power. So, things are not looking good for President 44.

For people who love the American Constitution and the American system, there has not been much to cheer about in the last 8 years. But then again, today is nothing to cheer about either.

Forgotten Reformer #1: Ulrich Zwingli

I will just start this out by talking about Ulrich Zwingli. Now Zwingli is hardly a forgotten Reformer, but he is one that serves more as a punching bag today than how he ought to be treated: as the man who started the Reformation.

Now, I know that Luther is generally considered the guy who started the Reformation, and that in 1517 he posted those 95 Theses and kicked off the Reformation. However, Reformed histories spend way too much time on Luther. Go read the 95 Theses. They are not really even reformed. There were thousands of Romanists who thought indulgences were bad. Luther just wanted to improve the morality, but the Pope saw it as a challenge and the rest is history. That document is only implicitly Protestant and there is good evidence that Luther himself did not yet realize the direction he had set. Zwingli on the other hand knew exactly what he was doing. One of the reasons he does not the get the credit he deserves is because there is not one big event like the Theses you can point to as a jump start. Usually it is pointed out that Zwingli started preaching straight through the Bible and abandoned the Romanist method of preaching in 1519 or the Affair of Sausages in 1522 where he rejected Lenten fasting. However, Zwingli was Reformed before he ever reached Zurich. In 1516 he was preaching in a town called Einsiedeln. This town had a Shrine to Mary to which people made pilgrimages. It was therefore a great economic support to the town. Yet, Zwingli preached against pilgrimages and “Judaizing ceremonies” of the Romish church. He preached Christ was the only mediator and probably other evangelical doctrines making Zwingli the first Reformer. Unlike Luther, Zwingli started out going to the heart of the matter, not puttering around the edges with indulgences.

Zwingli also reformed not just the town of Zurich, but the entire canton. He did this in several ways. First, he instituted a preaching service on market day so that the farmers could also hear the word of God. Second, he hired good men to staff the Zurich Academy and help him preach in the town’s four churches. Men like Leo Juda and Casper Hedio were among his first helpers in Zurich. Third, they together translated the Bible into German so that everyone could have the Word of God. Of course the Zurich Bible was completed five years before Luther finished his. Fourth, Zwingli put good young men into the country churches. Men like Henrich Bullinger started out in the small towns in the canton of Zurich. Bullinger started in the town of Kappel, later famous for the battles and treaties signed there. In this way, Zwingli spread the Reformation to all. Zurich became the leading light of the Reformation. When the other cantons tried to reform they turned to Zurich for help.

Zwingli today is best known for his view of the sacraments. Except the problem is that his view is mangled and misrepresented. Zwinglianism is basically a synonym for Memorialism today. Yet, Zwingli did not hold to Memorialism. Zwingli clearly disagreed with Luther and would not go that far, but he was not a mere memorialist. He held the sacraments truly aided our faith when partaken rightly. Don’t forget that Calvin went to Zurich when he was thinking over the sacraments. It was to Bullinger that Calvin wrote to gain clarity on the subject. It was Bullinger who drew up the Consensus Tigurinus, which both Zurich and Geneva signed. Bullinger’s views were not that different from his mentors. If they had been the signing of that document would have caused an uproar in Zurich. It can be assumed that Zwingli’s views were faithfully represented in that document.

Zwingli is not a “forgotten” or “unknown” reformer, but he is one that does not receive the credit that is due his name. This is not to say that Zwingli is perfect. He clearly made a better pastor than politician, and his rush to arms cost him his life. Yet, Zwingli gets very little attention. Take for example the book, The Reformation Era by Harold Grimm. This book gives 155 pages to Luther, and at least 47 to Calvin by himself. Zwingli merits 13. He garners six more if you give Zwingli credit for the Marburg Colloquy with Luther. This sort of treatment of Zwingli is normal perhaps even better than normal. It is high time we start seeing Zwingli in a better light and acknowledge him as the starter of the Reformed Reformation.

Calvin vs. the Forgotten Reformers

This is the 500 anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. A lot of things will be done this year to celebrate the occasion. In fact for those who are interested at least one month of the Reformed Herald will be dedicated to Calvin if my memory serves me correctly. I am sure the blogosphere will likewise be filled with tributes and things to Calvin, who was without a doubt a great man with a lasting influence.

However, I will be taking the opposite tact. I will be discussing the “Unknown Reformers” and occasionally talking about why Calvin gets too much credit. Now to be clear and up front, I like John Calvin. He is magnificent. His Institutes are a must read. So let no man say that I am opposed to Calvin. I simply think that the Reformed church as a whole is hurt by not knowing more of the founding fathers of the Reformation, many of which I believe play a more significant role than Calvin.

I will of course be trying to back this up as the year continues in several posts, but let me start by showing the need to see more than just Calvin in the Reformation. First, think of the Reformers. Who do you think of first? Luther? Calvin? Knox? Well, those are all bad answers. The Reformation Wall in France has large statues of Luther, Farel, Calvin, and Knox. Now, Luther should not be considered as part of the Reformed Reformation. He was after all Lutheran and in his own words thought the Reformers were “off a different spirit”. I agree with that assertion. Knox did a lot to Reform Scotland, but also did a lot to hinder England. And in the end, his reformation of Scotland was incomplete and Episcopal in nature. It had to be completed by Andrew Melville later. Farel, I could grant as he did a lot as the Barnabas of the Reformation, but in the end, his home was with the Waldenseans and other than that he was run out of a lot of places, including Geneva. And Calvin, well that is a longer subject, but it is always important to remember that while the Reformation was doing the hard work of getting started, he was yet to even write his work on Seneca much less his works on God.

I will write some posts on why we ought to revere Zwingli more and the others whose names are forgotten. Do we even know who John Oecomlampadius is? We should. What of Matthew Zell or Wolfgang Capito? We might know Henry Bullinger but we ought to hold him in higher view. And we would be remiss if we left off Jan Laski, whose influence stretches far and wide; from Poland to England.

In the end, it is important to remember that Calvin did not actually introduce the Reformation anywhere. Geneva was already convinced Romanism was wrong by the time Farel forced Calvin to stay. France was reforming long before Calvin, and Switzerland as a whole protected Geneva so that Calvin could do his work. They protected Geneva because they were already a generation into their Reformation. Do we even know who brought the Reformation to Geneva? Farel did as did Antione Fremont. When was the last time you heard anything about Fremont? Then they got Pierre Viret. Do you remember Viret? Did you know that Geneva paid Viret more than they paid Calvin? Apparently Viret was a better preacher. He was in Geneva before Calvin as well.

We put Calvin on this high pedestal, but I think it clouds our historical view. Calvin did great things. His commentaries are great, his Institutes are great. His work shows his faith. Yet, there were other men of similar great faith and who had many great works, but we forget them. So I am going to take this 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth to highlight those that laid the foundation and paved the road upon which Calvin trod.

Sports Lessons from 2008

A few things we should have learned from this past year of sports. Lessons that I hope we will not soon forget.

1. The smaller conferences should pull out of the BCS. They have fielded the only undefeated team and were not allowed to play for a national title. They won their bowl game and will not be given the national title. Why stay? Let us also not forget that they had a second undefeated team during the regular season and that team was left out of the BCS altogether in favor of two loss Ohio State. Come on.

2. Brad Childress is the worst coach in the NFL. I will not call for him to be fired because I hate that. However, it cannot be denied that he has the best running back in the NFL, a serviceable quarterback, and a defense that is average, and the team stinks. He should never have benched Tavaris Jackson. And he should run a few roll-out plays when Jackson is in the game. The last possession of the first half in the play off game says it all. There is just under a minute left. They could have taken knees and gone into the half, and no one could complain. They could have made a few attempts to get a first down or two with their two remaining time outs and no one would complain. But Coach Childress runs on first down and the other team takes a time out. He throws incomplete on second down and then runs on third down. The other team takes their last time out and gets the ball back with a full 20 seconds left. That is unacceptable. That is the worst coach in the NFL.

3. The Yankees will continue to fail and will continue to do so spending giant amounts of money. I will go ahead and go on record. They will lose the American League East this year. They will add all sorts of new players, and they will still find ways to mess this up. That is the Yankee tradition. Since they have gone Free Agent crazy they have not won the World Series. They did win it when they relied on their own home grown talent like Jeter, Rivera, and Bernie Williams plus a few random old timers. Since they pay the big bucks for A-Rod and whoever else is on the market they stink.

4. MLB most valuable player awards are a joke. This year in the American League they gave the award to Dustin Pedroia. Why? Because he is from Boston. That is the only good reason. I think Justin Morneau had a better year and Josh Hamilton from Texas makes a better story. However, the guy who deserved the award led the league in Average. He is the only catcher to ever do it. Now he has done it twice. I am talking about Joe Mauer. This guy is the best in baseball. He took the Twins to heights no one thought they would be this year losing out on the playoffs on a tie-breaker game, #163 for the year. Mauer has gold glove quality defense and was leading a bunch of rookies on the mound. Glen Perkins, Nate Blackwell, and Kevin Slowey. He also had two second year players in Scot Baker and Nelson Lirano. That is a resume that screams MVP. I don’t care that Pedroia hit in four different spots in the line up. That is pointless. If you can hit in one you can hit in them all. Mauer could do that too, but his coach is not that dumb.

5. Tom Brady is the most overrated quarterback of all time. The debate about whether he is better than Peyton Manning is now over. Manning wins. Brady is worth about six wins more than a high school quarterback, maybe. Is Brady a system quarterback that thrived on being in the worst division in the history of the National Football League last year? Absolutely. Just as he took his job via injury, he has now lost it for good. So long Tom, it was nice knowing you.

6. I was right that the Nuggets were better off without “Ball Hog” Alan Iverson. They actually have a chance to do something good this year now that their big man is uninjured and they have a point guard. This is perfect. J.R. Smith can now play shooting guard, Melo at the wing and a champion point guard who knows how to play defense can anchor the point. If the NBA were not a league of thugs and pointlessness, I would be excited to watch the Nuggets this year.

Feel free to add your own lessons learns in this past year of sports. Although China being a nation of cheaters is not allowed because we have know that communism cheats in the Olympics for many, many years.

Modern Scholarship: Change for Change's sake?

I have a friend who is very knowledgeable about modern scholarship and has many, many commentaries. I dare say he is easily the most well-read man on commentaries that I have ever met. He often lets me borrow some to aid my small library and I greatly appreciate it. I have some of the old standards like Calvin and Kistemaker, so I always borrow the newer guys. I have noticed a few things while going through the Epistles of Peter, and I thought I would simply share my thoughts here.

What I have noticed is a trend in modern scholarship to move away from older readings, often time in my opinion with very little reason to do so, or at least shaky reasons. I wish I had written all the examples down from I Peter, but I didn’t. Needless to say the controversial passages such as I Peter 3:18-22 is one where you will not find many modern commentators defending the Augustinian view of that passage or even the Medieval Roman view about descending into hell. They have a new explanation. But I am not just talking about confusing and disputed passages, I am talking about passages where no real disagreement existed before.

Take II Peter 1:1 “To those who have received like precious faith with us . . .”

Now you look at Kistemaker and Calvin and even William Barclay the liberal they all agree that “faith” in this passage is the subjective personal faith, the trusting in the Lord Jesus for salvation. Of these only Kistemaker says that there are multiple possibilities in reading the word faith. He defends his choice of the subjective faith rather than objective faith (ie. a body of teaching) in one paragraph consisting of 10 lines where he defines both terms. He takes two sentences to explain why the context makes it subjective.

Now newer commentaries like Gene L. Green’s commentary published this year takes a subjective stance on faith. It is the same doctrinal teaching, not the same receiving and trusting of God. So does Peter Davids who is published in 2006. Both take the objective meaning of faith. Why this departure? Surprisingly little time is devoted to it. David’s mentions that some have read it a different way, but merely states that it fits the context better despite his admission that the more normal usage of the word is subjective.

Now I would not bother posting here if this did not continue. Take II Peter 1:5 “add to your faith, virtue . .” Here again the older commentators all take faith to be the subjective trusting and believing in Christ. But the newer guys all reject that reading. Here, however, both Davids and Green take faith to mean “faithfulness”. Their defense? It means this most often in non-biblical virtue lists. That seems more than a little flimsy to me.

So my question is about modern scholarship in general. Do modern scholars look to disagree with the past? I can see how no one would want to buy a commentary that said nothing new. Do modern scholars prefer newer readings because we believe that as moderns we have more insights? Am I alone in seeing trends like this? Could it be that I have just made a big deal about nothing? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Oh and for disclosure sake, J.N.D Kelly who is newer than Barclay and Calvin, but slightly older than Kistemaker and older than the other new guys splits the difference by taking an objective view of the first faith, but stays with the older crowd by taking a subjective view of the second faith.