Some books do not live up to their titles

Andrew Johnson is a President who history has decided was a complete failure. A new book by Howard Means, The Avenger Takes His Place: Andrew Johnson and the 45 Days that Changed the Nation, examines the first part of Johnson’s presidency. A book about Reconstruction and Johnson is long over due. If anyone knows of a good one, let me know. I will tell you now this one is not that book.

I think it suffers most from the subtitle. No where in this book is any sort of day numbering system. What 45 days the subtitle refers to is beyond me. The book bounces from the night Lincoln was murdered to Johnson’s boyhood, to his Reconstruction policy, to his impeachment, all of which takes much longer than 45 days. It also never proves any sort of case that Johnson changed the nation. His reconstruction policy failed, and was outright rejected by Congress, he did not bring about black sufferage, he did not heal the wounds of a war that still divides America to this day, he did not convict Jefferson Davis of treason, he did not even capture John Wilkes Booth alive. Beyond that he tried 8 people for the murder of Lincoln in a military tribunal and hung them all, many of which were probably innocent.

That is not to say the book is all bad. I did learn some things about Andrew Johnson. I do think Mr. Means correctly shows why Andrew Johnson was so insistent on killing the traitors prior to becoming President and so lenient after becoming President. He does a good job to show the difference between Johnson’s Reconstruction Plan and Lincoln’s. He exposes the myth of Abraham Lincoln by quoting Radical Republican leaders who were happy Johnson was now President and Lincoln out of the way. He does not try to hide Johnson’s faults such as his blatant racism, but does try to show his qualities as well.

In the end this book is un-inspiringly written, but well researched. If you buy the book do not think you are going to get anything promised in the sub-title. That may really help your attitude as you read the book.

I was right about the Nuggets

"You've got two guys who are big-time scorers and are used to scoring a lot of points. Both have got to make some sacrifices." - David Thomson, Former Nuggets Superstar

For those of you who still think that the trade for Allen Iverson was a good idea, note the Nuggets record. They are one game below .500. That is pretty impressive considering they have only three wins and six losses with both Carmelo and Allen in the game. While they still look like they will make the playoffs, they are a lot closer to missing them than moving up any spots. The sixth seed is the Houston Rockets, who have played the majority of the season without their star center. The Nuggets play the Rockets tomorrow, the 28th, and need a win desperately.

The two have figured out how to play together and have made sacrifices. Sadly, it is the rest of the team they have decided to sacrifice. The people who are suffering most from this trade, besides the fans, are players like J.R. Smith and Nene. These two guys are the ones who need to score for the Nuggets to advance in the playoffs, but both have little to no role in the new offense that sees Carmelo score 30, Iverson 25, new comer Steve Blake get more shots than he deserves, and the team loses. If this team makes the playoffs, do not fall prey to the hype. They are not better than their record. They may even be worse.

Peter Leithart and Changing the Debate

Peter Leithart has posted a lot of things about the Federal Vision, including recently many attempts to discover the root of the disagreement. Some of his opinions about the reason for the controversy have merit, but his latest attempt is just wrong, in my opinion. It also appears to be another cast the debate on grounds that have nothing to do with theology. Leithart thinks that anti-FV crowd is the institution, and the FV crowd is the underdog, but also with connotations of the disciples(FV) vs. the Pharisees(anti-FV). A popular role to be in for sure.

The problem is that I do not see the anti-FV guys as the establishment or occupying establishment positions. Leithart may have a point that many of those against the Federal Vision have been moderators. And no FV guy has been the moderator. Fine, I give him that one, but it is hardly proof. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary hardly counts as the ‘establishment’. It is a relatively new seminary with less than 100 students. Even fewer than that going full time. It is not the official seminary of any church, and I do not think even of any presbyteries. Westminster West has a much better claim on being the establishment, but again, it is an independent seminary. No establishment credentials there either. Westminster East has the best establishment credentials claim, but it is barely noticeable in this debate. They have not taken a lead in anti-FV propaganda at all. In fact, as Rev. Leithart points out, D.G. Hart wrote a sympathetic book about John Nevin! Nevin’s views permeate the FV. I did not positively react to Hart’s whitewash of Nevin, and I am not sure who did. I will concede that if someone thinks Nevin’s views good and still thinks the FV bad, then perhaps they fall into Leithart’s criticism that the problem is not what is being said, but who is saying it. But, I do not see many PCA endorsements of Nevin.

Now if we really want to talk about establishment, one has to look at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. That is the official PCA seminary. Again, not much is heard coming out of Covenant Seminary except an exchange from Bryan Chapel, president of Covenant, that was not even characterized as anti-FV by FV men like Rich Lusk. You will also find Covenant Seminary professors’ signatures littered in the Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together document, which also contains the majority of FV men. While the document itself is not FV, the signers, promoters, and defenders are. You won’t find a lot of anti-FV signatures on it.

While Leithart also points to the lack of formal education of Doug Wilson as another proof, he fails to mention that other Federal Vision men include James Jordan with a doctorate degree, Norman Shepherd (who at least shares a lot of beliefs with the FV) a former teacher at Westminster East, and the Credenda/Agenda itself, which has a wide readership in the PCA. It should be noted that the anti-FV men do not have any such organ that compares to the C/A magazine.

So despite the protests that "The debate is not just about what's being said. It's also about who's saying it." It really is about what is being said. And remember anytime that someone tries to distract you from what is being said to some other issue, it means you really ought to pay attention to what is being said.

Federal Vision and the Three Forms of Unity: Faith and Apostasy

Now that we have seen the Federal Vision with its new understanding of Baptism, let us continue to trace the discussion by continuing on to what logically comes next: faith and apostasy. To show the growing difference between the Three Forms and the Federal Vision, we shall continue to posit quotes from both exposing the difference.

Summary of previous subjects: The Federal Vision advocates Baptism engrafts one into Christ, really and truly, while the Three Forms speaks only of being engrafted into the Church.

Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church:

5. Those who have been solemnly admitted to the Church by baptism (WCF 28.1) are bound to receive and rest upon Christ by faith, repenting of their sins, yielding obedience to his commands, making diligent use of the outward means of grace, and thereby persevering by faith to the end of their days. This perseverance is itself a gift of God and not a result of the “willing” or the “running” of the people of God.
7. . . . What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14). Those who “believe for a while” enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by its eventual failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6). By their unbelief they “trample underfoot the Son of God, count the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite to the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29) and thus bring greater condemnation upon themselves.
8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.).
9. Salvation depends upon being united to Christ. Clearly, those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God. There are those, however, who are joined to Him as branches in the vine, but who because of unbelief are barren and fruitless and consequently are cut off from the vine and from salvation. Jesus says these “believe for a while” but do not bear fruit unto salvation. Why God would do this is a mystery, but the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom He adopts into covenant relation, He later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). In such instances God has not changed His decree regarding such people; to the contrary, He carries out His sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion. Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God.

Notice then some points here in these statements. The apostate has faith, but it is faith that does not stay true to Christ. It is true faith, just faith that does not continue long enough. The apostate also is truly engrafted into Christ, truly participates in the blessings of that union, and has the blessings of Christ’s cross applied to him, but those things end when he fails to produce fruit.


Doug Wilson:

In shorthand, he [the apostate] falls away from Christ; he falls from grace (Reformed is Not Enough pg. 132).

Now let us see what the Three Forms of Unity have to say about the subject of apostasy and faith.

Heidelberg Catechism:

18. A. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is freely given unto us for complete redemption and righteousness.

20. Q. Are all men, then, saved by Christ as they have perished in Adam? A. No, only those who by true faith are ingrafted into Him and receive all His benefits.

Here we see the catechism speak of Christ as our complete redeemer. For those engrafted into Him, he has given them complete redemption and righteousness. Only those who have a true faith are engrafted into him and receive all His benefits. This is contradictory to the above claims of Wilkins and Wilson who say those who have faith that fades away were engrafted into Him and received all His benefits. In case any doubt the meaning of the catechism Ursinus after discussing temporary faith states, "Justifying faith, again, differs from all other kinds of faith, in this, that it is by it alone that we obtain righteousness, and a title to the inheritance of the saints. . . Neither is it temporary faith; for Christ rejects this" (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus, pg. 111).

One also could point to the Canons of Dort Fifth Head of Doctrine Rejection of Error #7, which says Justifying faith and temporary faith are different in more ways than just duration. Wilkins and the Auburn Ave. church make room for this in a foot note of their statement, but seem to use a lot of language that implies the difference is ‘believing for a while.’ Since Rev. Wilkins claims temporary faith does unite one to Christ, it seems as if he needs to do more to explain the difference.

Thus, the differing view of baptism has led to a differing view of union with Christ, and outright disagreement on whether or not one can fall out of Christ and of grace. Next we will see the different opinions on the Lord’s Supper and the church.

Eight Ways to Govern the Country

I just finished a great book on politics and governmental philosophies. It is called 8 Ways to Run the Country. I saw it mentioned in World magazine, but it is even better than I had hoped. It is insightful, well written, well documented, and best of all fair to all points of view. Only the barest hints of bias exist outside of the foreword and his conclusion. Even then he does not take sides only warns and gives his view of the future. The book was written prior to the electoral results of 2006, but his analysis of the political landscape were proven right. Shockingly enough he claims the majority of America fall under the Republican tent, and they only lose elections when they get out of control with hubris. A pretty fair assessment of what happened in ‘06.

The premise of the book is that the traditional method of examining the country as left vs. right is insufficient and oversimplified. He demonstrates that left and right can mean either socially or governmentally and being left on one does not mean you have to be left on the other. He speaks of them as ranking/social order (archy) and force (kratos). Thus he creates a grid with the Y-axis being force and X-axis being social order. He then further divides it making a virtual compass, with north being the complete rejection of governmental force, and due east being the acceptance of social rank and order. From due north going clockwise we have Paleolibertarian, Paleoconservative, Theoconservative (east), Neoconservative, Communitarian (south), Progressive, Radical (west), and Individualist. I will endeavor to give a brief overview of each one to whet your appetite for this book.

PaleoLibertarian – This group believes the government exists only to enforce contract laws, protect private property, and defend the nation (only in a defensive manner). It respects other institutions such as church, corporations, family, and the like. Thus, it does not strive to upend those institutions, but embraces them and their morality. Believers in the free market and most of all decentralization of government. Trade is the only foreign policy. Examples: H.L. Mencken and Lew Rockwell. He did not use Tucker Carlson, but I think he fits here.

PaleoConservative – This group has a high regard for Christianity and Western culture in general. It is historical in its thinking. It favors small government, but has a larger role than the PaleoLib in that the PaleoConservative is more willing to protect traditional morality by laws, and it is not a pure capitalist group. They can favor tariffs, trust busting, and other governmental activities. Against open borders and globialization. Examples: Pat Buchanan and late Senator Howard Taft of Ohio.

TheoConservatives – The main concern of this group is social issues such as abortion, marriage, ‘under God’ in the Pledge, and so on. They reject feminism, legalized pornography, and other attacks on moral absolutes. This group is willing to use governmental power. They are not against public education, and would actually like to use government education to have prayers and even moral training. Government funding faith based social programs is a TheoConservative idea. Markets, taxes, governmental size and the like are background issues for this group. Examples: Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson, Marvin Olasky, and Ralph Reed.

NeoConservatives: This group is pro-business, nationalistic, and very pro-military. It is accepting of the New Deal as a way of life, and is building from there. Thus, expansion of Medicare is acceptable as long as business can benefit. The government is not a problem, but a good tool to use. Nationalism means more than self-defense but an active imperialism. Examples: President Bush (Sr., and Jr.), Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, National Review, and the majority of Republicans today.

Communitarian: This group is the most pragmatic, and it is centrist. They want to govern by consensus. It wants to do what is best for the community as a whole. Government is the best way to achieve those goals. Any social program is a good idea until it can be proven not to work, and then only after more money was thrown its way. Nationalizing things such as healthcare are big issues for a communitarian. It also favors anti-discrimination policies and equal outcome policies for the less fortunate. Examples: Former Senator Moynihan.

Progressives: This group favors progress, which makes it quite naturally ahistorical. It advocates not only anti-discrimination and equal outcomes, but complete social upheaval of traditional systems. Thus marriage must be redefined, abortion must be on-demand, and religion must be removed from the public square. They use the government heavily to accomplish their goals. Examples: Hillary Clinton, John Dewey, John Stuart Mill.

Radicals: This group opposes all sorts of social rank and authority. It is anti-corporation, anti-free market, anti-religion, and even slightly anti-government in that it feels big business and money corrupt governments. It longs for a day before business raped the land and when people lived in harmony with nature. It can be communistic and even anarchist the further out one goes. Often this group favors pure democracy, and wants it to reach everyone. Examples: Ralph Nader, Green Party.

Individualists: This group is libertarian in its approach to government, but does not share the PaleoLib’s respect for church, family, or even business. They see a slightly bigger role for government in that anti-discrimination laws are usually supported so that every individual has the same opportunity. Moral relativism is what rules the day in this camp. Examples: Ayn Rand, David Boaz (executive VP of the Cato Institute).

I found this book extraordinarily enlightening. I should point out that the book says the bottom three groups (Progressive, Communitarian, and NeoConservative) are pragmatic while the other five are idealistic. Thus, the bottom three usually wins all the elections, control the parties, and set the direction of the country. If you are interested in politics or political theory at all, go out and get this book. I read it in two days.

If it matters, I think I feel into the PaleoConservative category.

Today is the Day . . .

If you are not aware of the significance of today, then allow me to enlighten you. Today Baseball begins. Yes, pitchers and catchers have reported for Spring Training. The only sport that really matters has returned from the cold winter slumber. With it comes the hope of a beautiful spring, a hot summer, and a championship fall. Life is good.

If you are not paying attention to the Pittsburgh Pirates then you should. This is their year to make a playoff run. Now I am not enough of an optimist to think that they will win it all, but I think they have a shot at the NL Central and at least the Wild Card. Yes, the World Series Champion Cardinals are in the central, but they did have a horrible regular season last year. Steroid testing is tougher, so Pujols stats will go down, and pitching hero Jeff Suppan went to play for the Brewers.

But more important than what happened to the other teams in the central is what happened to the Pirates. Last year, for the first time really, the Pirates made good trades for the future. The Pirates now feature NL batting champion Freddy Sanchez and All-Star Jason Bay. This duo will see the addition of Xavier Nady, who came at the end of last year in a trade, and Adam LaRoche, who was acquired in a trade with the Braves in the off-season. . This fills two big holes in right field and first base. It should also add power to the Pirates line-up that sorely needed some last year. Of course do not forget that Ronny Paulino hit over .300 last year in his rookie season for the Pirates. I expect and even better year for Mr. Paulino. Former All-star Jack Wilson rounds out what should be a potent offense and good infield. Ian Snell showed last year he was a top talent, and with Zack Duke the young Pirate pitching staff has a load of options to fill out the rest of the starting rotation. Malhom, Van Benschoten, Burnett, and new additions Tony Armas Jr., and Shawn Chacon might add something as well. The lone sore spot is the bench. The Pirates had one of the worst benches in the majors last year, and I see very little hope to fix it. Ryan Doumit, a young backup catcher, did show some promise, but one bat is not enough. The only ray of hope is the possibility that 29 year old Jody Gerut will be healthy. However, how good he will be even if he is, is still up for some debate.

For the Pirates to win the Central they will need a decent year out of Chris Duffy. Duffy is projected to be the starting center field, an area where the Pirates have struggled for some time. Duffy will need to at least be consistent, and manager Jim Tracy will need to let him use his amazing speed by letting him steal bases. Duffy’s back up, Nate McLouth is also fast, but is not as promising. McLouth was one of those ineffective bench players last year that needs to step his performance in pinch hitting situations.

All in all, keep your eye on the exciting young Pirates. The beginning of a dynasty is here. Let the season begin!

Belated Posting Reasons

I probably should have posted this first, but better late than never. One of the reasons I want to examine the Federal Vision vs. the Three Forms of Unity is because too many people seemed perplexed as to why there is actually a debate going on. Some think it is an identity crisis rather than a controversy. Others claim it is a good old boy power play. While still others think it is a non-issue.

There have been plenty of examples of poor practices on the part of those against the Federal Vision (perhaps even by me). They are too often referred to as stupid or theologically inept, they do seem to get a raw deal by people raving against them in public, but refusing to follow through with those actions in church courts. However, FV men are often guilty of the same by trying to make this debate into something that it is not, like a power play by power hungry ministers. The FV men too often make it look like no pastor could have any motivation other than a selfish one in opposing the Federal Vision. There are legitimate concerns that their teaching violates both Scripture and the Confessions. So I want to try and walk through this debate with side by side comparison quotes, and hopefully some good interactions in the comments section.

Federal Vision and the Three Forms of Unity: Baptism

Many have recently wondered why the Federal Vision is such a big controversy in Reformed circles. I admit that the (sometimes) obscure discussions could cause the casual reader to wonder whether or not this debate concerns the essentials of the Christian faith. I believe it does, and this post is my attempt to show where some Federal Vision teaching basically and fundamentally contradicts the Reformed Confessions.

I realize that the ultimate source of truth is not the Confessions, but the Word of God. However, since all sides claim to be faithful to the Confessions, this is a reasonable place to start. Then if anyone would like to argue that the Confessions should be changed, we can get into that discussion. I also will be comparing various Federal Vision positions to the Three Forms of Unity since they are the Confessions with which I am most familiar. I do freely recognize that the majority of the people I will be quoting hold to the Westminster rather than the Three Forms. If anyone wants to argue that there are significant differences between those Reformed Confessions, that might be fun, too. But for the purpose of this post, I will be using the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dordt.

Baptism:
The Heidelberg Catechism teaches:
Q65. The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments. (emphasis mine)
Q.74. Yes, for since they [infants] belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of the Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.
The Belgic Confession reads:
Article 34, " . . . He, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions . . . and serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father."

Federal Vision teaches:
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church (minister Steve Wilkins) states:
4. . . . When someone is united to the Church by baptism, he is incorporated into Christ and into His body; he becomes bone of Christ’s bone and flesh of His flesh (Eph. 5:30). He becomes a member of "the house, family, and kingdom of God" (WCF 25.2). Until and unless that person breaks covenant, he is to be reckoned among God’s elect and regenerate saints.
7. By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Westminster Shorter Catechism #94 states, baptism signifies and seals "our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace." Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14). Those who "believe for a while" enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by its eventual failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6).

Steve Wilkins said in an interview:
It's like a wedding. There is a transformation that takes place because of the ritual. A single man becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, from Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and responsibilities he didn't have before

Doug Wilson says “By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect” (pg. 107 Reformed is Not Enough).

Peter Leithart states, “[Baptism] is not a picture of a man being joined in covenant to Christ it is a man being joined in covenant to Christ” (pg. 85-86 Against Christianity).


Notice the difference. The Three Forms teach confirmation of faith, not the creation of faith, in the act of baptism. Thus baptism it is not the forgiveness of sins, but a confirmation of our forgiven status. The Auburn Avenue Church states baptism engrafts one into Christ and offers all the benefits of Christ, which would include forgiveness. Wilson says it "confers" grace and salvation. The Three Forms declares that one is in covenant, and thus deserves baptism as a sign of that reality, while the Federal Vision men say the person comes into covenant with God at his baptism. In other words, baptism communicates that reality rather than testifies to it. Notice also that the Belgic and Heidelberg state baptism joins one to the Church, while the Federal Vision men says it joins one to Christ and all his benefits.

One must conclude that the definition of baptism according to the Federal Vision greatly departs from that of the Three Forms with regard to Baptism. I think we should stop here for now. We can examine more differences later.

New Pub in Town

You might want to visit a new discussion site run by Andy McIntyre. It is called McIntyre’s Tavern. If you are worried that it might be a little too much like the Boar’s Head Country Club do not worry. At McIntyre’s Tavern everyone is welcome to comment.

Thomas Cahill Book Review

I just finished reading Thomas Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe. While this is an engaging title, it leaves much to be desired at the end. The author writes well enough. It is written for a popular audience, and he can even be quite witty. Not only that, but his wit often includes some insight worth pondering. For example,

For Romans, liturgy was not a mystical end in intself. What the Greeks called Sacred Liturgy, the Romans called missa (or mass) after the deacon’s last words, “Ite, missa est” (Go, you are dismissed). If that sounds to you as if their main interest was in getting out of church as soon as possible, you wouldn’t be so very far from the truth. Public Prayer is not an end in itself, only part of the Christian life . . .

That passage gives sample of his wit, and how he tries to interweave it with his beliefs about the differences between the ‘Can do’ Romans and the ‘Mystical’ Eastern Orthodox. So I have no real complaints about his writing style, but simply his ability to prove what he desires. He also includes many side bar comments that are both funny and interesting.

He attempts to show the rise of feminism, art, and science from the church by giving us biographical chapters on important individuals. And while he was moderately successful in showing how Abelard and Aquinas brought about a renewed interest in Aristotle, which led to questions about what is reality, which led to alchemy, which was the beginning of science, he fails in his other objects. He does show, through the life of Francis of Assisi, Dante, and Giotto a change in art, it was hardly a rock solid case. And worse was his attempt to show the rise of feminism. He merely gave accounts of two women, Hildegard (a mystic nun) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (Queen of France and later England). While I admit their biographies were interesting, and they may have gone beyond the accomplishments of many women in the field of theology and politics, I failed to see the connection to the Cult of the Virgin Mary he wished the reader to discover. Sadly, that was the beginning of the book as well, so it starts out very disappointing.

Cahill has an entire series on the growth of the modern world from the ancient one. This was the fifth book in the series, but despite more interesting titles like How the Irish Saved Civilzation, I do not think I will be reading the rest of his works. The book is good as long as you do not want him to prove his case laid forth in the sub-title.

I should also note that Cahill takes an evolutionary view of religions, the Bible, and would be in fundamental disagreement with many Christians about the source of their religion. He seems to think that anti-catholicism has distorted our understanding of history, but he would not make a good catholic considering his views on the pope and who wrote the Bible. Do not look for Cahill to be making orthodox arguments about religion in this book.

Rejecting Mariology

It is often claimed the Mary was heralded by the Patristics as a woman full of grace, perhaps sinless, and deserving our veneration above other departed saints as the Mother of the Church. This is not the case. While I do freely admit that the word Patristic can be used to cover a variety of ages, I prefer to use it to the pre-nicaean leaders of the church. Let us start with them, and we can move on from there.

In the Apostolic Fathers, as the first century leaders are often called, one sees little to no mention of Mary at all. Clement of Rome leaves her out of his epistle completely. This is a glaring omission for ‘Mary full of grace’ since Clement’s entire letter is about submission, faith, and peace. Clement uses as examples of Christian living Paul, Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, and several martyrs in addition to Jesus Christ. Beyond that he even uses a few women as examples. Rahab gets the most ink as a wonderful example of faith, two women killed by Nero are mentioned, Esther get a paragraph, as does Judith from the Apocrypha. But no Mary. First century writers seem to view Mary as a good believer, but nothing more, much like Protestants today.

Second century writers turn up the first exaltation references to Mary, but even these are over stated. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all try to draw Mary as the anti-type of Eve as Jesus was of Adam. This leads to some grandiose statements about Mary, but the ancient mind often thought more typologically and allegorically then we do today. These men did not have any allusions about Mary being above sin (original or actual). In fact Irenaeus condemns Mary as a sinner for her role in the Wedding of Cana arguing that Jesus rebukes her for her presumptuous pride. Tertullian along with other second century leaders like Origen and later writers like Basil the Great and Chrysostom (4th century) all ascribe to Mary the sins of maternal vanity, anxiety, and doubt and state that the ‘sword’ that pierces Mary’s soul in Luke 2:35 are these sins. Hardly a high view of Mary despite their typological attempts.

The rise of Mary really follows the rise of Monasticism and the encroachment of Neo-platonism into Christianity. The third and fourth centuries see apocryphal texts like the Gospel of the birth of Mary, which were all condemned by the church as a whole, but eventually the teachings of these books would be folded into the Mariology of the Roman church. The asceticism of the monastic orders arising from their neo-platonic view of the flesh exalted Mary as the ultimate example and claimed for her perpetual virginity. This helped give their life-style a bigger backing as well as giving them a patron saint.

The controversies of the 5th century about Christ led to Mary being the Mother of God as a test of orthodoxy. Mother of God was not meant to convey anything at all about Mary, but rather something about the natures of Jesus. However, it would come to be twisted to elevate Mary into something higher than merely human. The first person to actually advocate Mary did not have any actual or original sin was Pelegius, the free-will opponent of Augustine. During this time also one must remember that Rome was destroyed by the uneducated and pagan barbarians. As the centers of learning were destroyed the educated clergy could no longer restrain phrases like ‘Mother of God’ and Mariology became Marialotry took on a life of its own as the masses carried Mary to extremes she was never meant to reach. By the time of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Mary was installed in her current position for the Roman church. Gregory freely instructed his missionaries to the barbarians not to destroy pagan temples, but rename them and the statues in them. Many pagan temples were to women, and Mary worship was well on its way.

Thus, I do not think Protestantism needs a Mariology at all. Mary is a wonderful example of saintly piety and faith as are many people in the Bible. She should not be avoided for she is the mother of our Lord. But we must remember, as I believe the Reformed tradition does, she is simply one of his disciples no better than any other believer in Christ. This is, after all, exactly what our Lord teaches in Matthew 12:47-50.

‘Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.’

Roman Degradation of Mary

In a perfect storm of events, books, and blogs, I have been recently thinking on the subject of Mary and her place in the Reformed Church. Mr. Bonomo of Reformed Catholicism has posted his thoughts on Mary. His post is provocatively entitled, ‘The Protestant Degradation of Mary.’ The question obviously becomes do Protestants degrade Mary or do Romanists elevate her to a status she does not deserve?

Mr. Bonomo admits up front in his post that the Scholastics went too far. He rejects Mary’s Immaculate Conception and any idea of Mary as co-meidator (which I believe includes prayers to her). In this we agree. So far Rome has gone too far. What then does he reject in Protestantism? He asserts that the Reformed church does not go far enough in her praise perhaps by even refusing to call her blessed. But do Protestants and Reformed Protestants actually refuse to call her blessed? The Scripture itself calls her blessed, and what person would actually think that Mary was not blessed when God chose her to birth the savior? Mr. Bonomo admits that her blessedness derives itself from the savior in her womb, what Protestant church disagrees with that? The Reformed Churches and confessions all accept the third and fourth ecumenical councils that describe Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer), so where has she been degraded?

The only real difference then between Protestants or at least Reformed Protestants and Mr. Bonomo’s position is the latter’s choice to remain silent or accept the supposed Patristic evidence for a Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the question of actual sin in Mary. Mr. Bonomo would rather not impute sin to her because it is not expressly stated in the Bible she sinned. Mary’s own words proclaim God as her ‘savior’ (Luke 1:47) expressing a sinful state that would need salvation, and that would seem to be enough for me to impute sin to her. The argument is made in the comment section that such a salvation could be for original sin rather than actual sin. But, then who is tainted with original sin, but does not ever actually sin? Would that not create quite a slippery slope theologically? Plus, the bible has no problem imputing sin to all mankind in such statements as ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). I think these Scriptural statements enough for me to rest assured she sinned as the rest of us do.

The Perpetual Virginity is a more troubling idea. The Bible does clearly state Jesus to have brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:55 names his brothers, and Matthew 2:46-50 makes clear it is his mother and his brothers. I see no compelling reason to think that ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’ in Matthew 27:55 is anything than another name for the blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joses. This along with the idea that it would have been sinful for Mary to withhold herself from Joseph for their entire marriage is enough to put to rest her perpetual virginity. The troubling aspect of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is why it was so important to Medieval Theologians. It was important because virginity was important. That sexual love was somehow wrong, sinful, or at least a lesser way. Mary was the embodiment of holiness; thus, she must have never partaken of such a sinful thing as sexual love with her husband. This theology is embedded in Romanism still today. Vows of celibacy are still required showing that somehow virginity is a higher holier road. The Roman Church needs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because if she had relations with Joseph then she is no longer ‘Mary full of grace’, but rather ‘Mary just like the rest of us’.

Kevin Johnson of Reformed Catholicism makes the accusation that lip service may be paid to Mary, but devotion to her does not show up in Reformed churches. Again, I argue that Mary shows up enough. Nothing is denied her that Scriptures give her. I preached from the Magnificat this year, and I heard a Reformed sermon on the radio about Mary this Christmas. Are we really being called to task because not all Reformed Churches think Mother’s Day sermons are appropriate? If we are all agreed that icons of her are forbidden, prayers to her are forbidden, the extra-biblical miracles about her are wrong, then where is the disagreement? What activities exactly are the Reformed Churches not doing for Mary that need to be done? We know for a fact that Enoch was a prophet, a righteous man, did not die and was taken to heaven, but no one ever raises the charge that churches are not devoted enough to him and his life. So what is the difference?

It is my belief that Protestant churches get a bad wrap about Mary. She is given every laud given to her in Holy Writ. Most Reformed churches preach unashamedly through Luke, Matthew and John, all of which necessitate sermons on Mary. The Biblical evidence has to viewed as against her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, plus both are necessary props for the modern Roman dogmas, which these gentlemen appear to reject. The Marioloty of Rome is an actual threat to the gospel by making her a co-redeemer and mediator, but it is the Reformed who seemed to get lectured about Mary more often than not. I believe it is the Protestants who defend Mary, and the Romanist who degrade her by making her into something she is not, one who does not bare the savior, but is a savior.

Daniel Webster

I just finished reading Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time by Robert Remini. Remini’s style is not quite as compelling as a David McCullough, but he knows his stuff and it shows in his biographies. He has done extensive work in this time period of America, especially Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, and I believe Martin Van Buren, which I have yet to read. I found this biography just as engrossing as his others, although I found Webster a bit more repulsive than that others.

Webster himself was a lawyer. Many politicians went into law as a way to get into politics, but Webster seemed to actually be a lawyer first, politician second. He actually should be better known as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Here are a few of the cases he argued, many of which are still regarded as important today. The Grotius, The St. Lawerence, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Sturges v. Crowninshield, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, Gibbons v. Ogden, Charles River Bridge Case, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, Thurlow v. Massachusetts. Those really are just the important ones mentioned. I believe it was said he argued five cases a year before the high court on average. As one might guess, he won most of his cases in front of the Marshall court, but lost most of his cases in front of Taney court. Webster was a terrific lawyer, and thus was a very rich man. It is said he made enough fortune for a dozen lifetimes, but spent two dozen fortunes during his lifetime.

Webster was also a wonderful orator. His fame actually began because of the wonderful speeches he could make. He was constantly asked to give speeches on July 4th and Bunker Hill day, and that led to speeches in the court room, and finally his claim to fame in the Senate were the powerful speeches he made. In fact, for a person known as one of the five greatest Senators of all time, and the only one of the three to have a statue outside in Washington D.C., he was actually a very poor Senator. He made speeches about Union that still ring through the ages, but he never sponsored or wrote any legislation that had any significance. He authored a few judicial bills, but that was about it. His only task was to argue for or against other people’s bills. He was a disaster at leading parties and playing politics. He single-handedly cost the Whigs the election of 1852. He also refused to serve as the Vice President for William Henry Harrison because he considered himself better than Harrison, and to be second to such a man would be an insult. This was an election they were guaranteed to win. Harrison of course served for President for one month before dying, which means Webster would have been President. He also never outlived the charge of adultery because he was a licentious man without any doubt.

Webster did do some good as Secretary of State in the two terms he served in that position. He opened up trade with China, Japan, and recognized the independence of Hawaii. He also settled the disputed boarder of Maine and Wisconsin, a debate that had lasted 50 years. But he also sold offices to make money for himself and his constant need. He had a few failures his second time around, but some of that could be attributed to his declining health (he resigned and died shortly thereafter). He also did some work on opening up more trade with Latin America.

Yet, Webster was mostly a man without a party. He was a leading figure in both the National Republican Party and the Whig Party, but he was really a Federalist. That party collapsed shortly after he joined Congress leaving Webster as a man without a party for the rest of his life. Webster’s ‘liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable’ ideals cost him national popularity. At first it cost him popularity in the South when he opposed Nullification and State’s Rights, but it would later cost him popularity in the North when he refused to become an abolitionist. It was really the only principle that Webster held onto his entire life.

Webster was a fascinating man with huge flaws. While I think he does not quite deserve the praise heaped upon him by history, one cannot truly understand the period without knowing more about ‘Black Dan’ or the ‘Godlike' Daniel Webster.

More John 6

Another round of debates has occurred about John 6 at Reformed Catholicism. Paul Owen began the discussion about why most Calvinists miss the Eucharistic point of John 6. I will respond to Dr. Owen, but his post provoked a response from James White, which contained some reasoned points, but far too many personal attacks. Kevnin Johnson defended Dr. Owen and his own comment about reading John 6 through the ‘mind of the church’.

I am going to wade into this debate because I do not believe that John 6 is about the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper if you prefer. However, I do not believe that John 6 is primarily about the decrees of God or predestination either, which is the false dilemma presented by Dr. Owen. I think the sense of the passage is about the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, not about partaking of His meal. It is not about eating his flesh, but that was used to represent belief in Him. As he says in verse 63, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And as Peter rightly answers when asked if they will depart like the others in verse 68-69, The Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the main point of the passage, not the decrees, and not the Supper.

Dr. Owen does make a claim that Jesus is not talking of the eternally predestined in verse 37, and that verse 40 telling us that Jesus will raise them up on the last day is not about eternal glory but rather speaking about church membership and God’s desire to not see anyone perish. He attempts to reference 2 Peter 3:9, but does not show a strong connection. I would be interested in all of the talk about the mind of the church for Dr. Owen to bring someone out that actually made that argument before.

The crux of the debate seems to be to me whether or not one wants the meaning to be determined by the words of Jesus to his audience there in John 6 or the writing of John to his audience decades later. Dr. Owen and others argue that John’s audience would have been familiar with the Eucharist and would have ‘clearly’ seen the reference being made, and the fact that Jesus spoke these words to an audience prior to the institution of the Eucharist does not matter. Kevin Johnson argues that John had another ‘agenda’ in his gospel, supposedly one about the Eucharist. This idea I find hard to support. John’s gospel describes itself (John 21:31) as arguing for believing in Jesus unto eternal life (which is what I argue is the point of John 6), not some agenda about the Eucharist. If John has an agenda to make reference to the Eucharist, why is John’s the only gospel that does not have the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, John includes the foot washing, but not the Supper. This problem is not discussed in either article.

Both articles including the commentors make a great deal about the history of interpretation. Commentor Mike Spreng on Kevin’s post, states,

Don’t you just love how he fires those shots without leaving a chance for anyone to comment on his site (not that anyone wants to interact with such a man)? What can be said about guys like this that only go as far back as Spurgeon, or at best Zwingly(sic)?

I have posted on that before, but people thought John 6 did not refer to the Eucharist long before Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, and Suprgeon (who all think John 6 is not about the Supper). Such early church lights as Basil, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria denied the link between the Supper and John 6. So perhaps the ‘mind of the church’ argument works against viewing John 6 as a Eucharistic reference.

Before departing I want to point out one other thing that needs to be said. Dr. Owen begins his piece by stating:

Nowhere do we get a clearer illustration of the folly of anti-sacramental, non-churchly Christianity than in John 6. Calvinists take a clearly Eucharistic passage and turn it into a treatise on predestination. It is not.

His sixith point then reads:

6. Now none of this is to say that this passage in John 6 is incapable of a different interpretation.

Now unless, Dr. Owen means that it is possible to have an ‘anti-sacramental, non-churchly’ interpretation he is contradicting himself. He either thinks that denying the link between John 6 and the Supper is ‘folly’ that betrays a dislike of the church and sacraments, or he thinks it a legitimate possibility for an informed reading of the text. One cannot have it both ways.

The State of the Union is . . . broken

Watching the State of the Union is always painful. Seldom are they oratorical works to be remembered and they usual make me politically sick as well. Thankful this year, I missed most of it because of numerous meetings. After having read through it, I think we can safely end the debates about President Bush forever. He is indeed a liberal. His plans lean more left than right, and his Bush Doctrine is pure liberalism. He also managed to find a way to raise taxes on the rich with his Health Care plans without saying he raised taxes. Why not just let everyone right off their health care?

But I want to save my true ire for the Senate. They are putting forward a non-binding resolution against the President’s Iraq policy. This is hands down the stupidest thing ever done in the Halls of Congress, and should forever make us remember that the Senate is currently made up of 100 idiots rather than statesman or even ideological leaders. Let me just list a few of the things that anger me about this ‘nonsense’, as my four year old often says.

1. A non-binding resolution means, worthless time spent wasting my money. Non binding is code for political stunt. Don’t these ‘lawmakers’ have some actual work to do, like get a budget ready for the year? Just a suggestion.
2. Could they even pass a binding resolution about the way the Commander-in-Chief does his Constitutional duty? I doubt it.
3. It is the Senate, not the President who put us in this mess in the first place. The Constitution gives the sole power to make war to the Senate. Yes, the Senate! All of this discussion and hand wringing about what can the Senate do to affect the war is pointless because any time America is at war, the Senate put us there. The reason the founders put that in the Constitution so that we could have debates about whether or not this is a good idea before we go to war. But wait, what about the unconstitutional authorization to use force? Yes, that is what the Senate did this time, and every time since WWII. Such authorization is another political code word for ‘worthless cowardly act by 100 people who should all grow a backbone.’ Problems like the one we are in now are completely preventable if the Senate would just follow the Constitution. This is why putting war powers in the hands of one man is a bad idea. Thanks for throwing away 200 years of American wisdom. The power to make war and end war is and always has been in the hands of the Senate.
4. This act can be seen as nothing less than cowardly and designed to gain political points with the people. And for the first time, I think I can see how this act would actually encourage the enemies of this country. 99% of the time President Bush had stated such things, he was wrong. This time, the Federal Government is speaking with its voice that it is ready to fold up and go home. So much for presenting a united front to our enemies. So much for supporting troops as they go over seas.

I hope any Senator who votes for this amazingly wasteful and despicable piece of politics, should be voted out of office if not removed faster. I intend to let my Senator (one is in a coma, so he gets a pass) know about it.

Heroes

If you are not watching you are missing out. I grew up as a comic book geek, and I love movies and stories about time, so Heroes is right up my alley. My wife enjoys it as well. Last night as we watched she noticed something. Originally when Hiro (the time traveler) went into the future, he saw New York blow up from Isaac’s (the artist who paints the future) apartment. Isaac was dead on the floor as the city blew up. Now when Peter (the person who absorbs powers) sees the future (presumably this is the future), Isaac is alive and downtown as is Hiro. Does this mean that future was successfully changed? Questions, questions, all we have are questions.

NFL the anti-history league

I do not care for the NFL, and I rarely watch the games. It is a league that exists primarily for gamblers, and the parity that the NFL loves makes it impossible to get consistently good teams. It is a league designed to follow players not teams. Not my cup of tea. But, I have to admit I watched the end of the Colts v Patriots because I like Peyton Manning. After all who does not like a 6’5” quarterback with a laser, rocket arm.
While I am glad that Peyton Manning finally beat Tom Brady and the Patriots the very idea that these two quarterbacks are considered equals demonstrates what I hate most about the NFL. The NFL has no since of history, fairness, nor does it care about quality in its players. Tom Brady is a star that people compare to Peyton Manning and I do not know why. Everyone says Brady and Manning are both Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Let us look.

Player #1 – Completed 61% of his passes, 53 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 84.4. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #2 – Completed 59% of his passes, 37 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.9. He led the league in completions twice, yards twice, and QB rating four times.
Player #3 – Completed 62% of his passes, 57 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 88.5. He never led the league in any statistical category.
Player #4 – Completed 52% of his passes, 2 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 70.9. He led the league in touchdown passes twice and yards per attempt twice.
Player #5 – Completed 57% of his passes, 63 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 81.8. He led the league in yards per attempt twice, and OB rating once.
Player #6 – Completed 64% of his passes, 114 more touchdowns than interceptions, and a lifetime QB rating of 93.5. He led the league in attempts once, yards twice, completions twice, yards per attempt once, touchdowns once, and QB rating once.

Now, can you name who these players are? Can you find Tom Brady, who every pundit today says is a sure fire Hall of Famer? I will give you a hint; one person listed is already in the Hall of Fame. Give up. Here you go.

Player #1 – Brad Johnson of the Minnesota Vikings.
Player #2 – Ken Anderson who played for the Bengals in the 80’s.
Player #3 – Tom Brady
Player #4 – Terry Bradshaw who played for the Steelers in the 70’s and 80’s.
Player #5 – Boomer Esiason who played for the Bengals in the 90’s.
Player #6 – Peyton Manning

That is right. Sure fire Hall of Famer Tom Brady has roughly the same statistics as Brad Johnson, a nobody. Brad Johnson even has a Superbowl ring, but he will not make the Hall of Fame. Yet, Brady will be in on the first ballot. Why? Worst yet is the inclusion of Terry Bradshaw as a great quarterback in the Hall of Fame. He has the worst stats in the group. Ken Anderson and Boomer each have comparable stats to Brady, and actually led the league in a quarterback category at least once, and neither is in the Hall of Fame. Why? And then we come to Peyton Manning. His stats blow everyone else away. He is light years ahead of Brady, and everyone else on the list. Other than media attention, why is the worst player on the list make the Hall of Fame and the better players get left out? If anyone can explain this to me, I am willing to listen, but I doubt anyone can make sense of the NFL and their sad lack of history.

Antichrist and Nevin one more time

Mr. Bonomo has offered a response to my last post. In it he says that I have built a straw man in my caricature of Nevin. He offers two places where I am wrong in my thinking on Nevin. Let us look at them.

First, he argues that Nevin accepts religious denominations and confessional distinctions, and argues that confessional distinctions are only ‘evil’ when used by sects. He provides quotes from Nevin to back up his claim. I agree with Nevin that the distinction he draws between sect and denomination is "difficult to explain it clearly in theory, and still more so to apply it practically to existing religious bodies. (pg. 55 found in one of the ellipse of the quote provided by Mr. Bonomo.)" Nevin’s distinctions are fine and perhaps not really existent. Mr. Bonomo provides another quote showing that denominations are justified "in the present state of the world" and that they are "relatively necessary". This is because in the end Nevin holds they will all merge back into one church. Yet, how is this different than what I quoted Nevin as saying about confessional distinctions? Nevin there says they are "relatively good only" because they aid a higher catholicity. This is the same thing he just said about denominations. Is it not logical to assume then that denominations are also "an evil of the most serious magnitude" when considered in their own nature because they "violate the true idea of the Church"? It seems to me that Nevin’s theory is cloudy, which he himself admits, and that in practice he has not drawn a difference between sects and denominations. Further evidence can be found in his identifying markers of sects. For a denomination not to be a sect it must accept the church has the "same divine life . . . originally introduced in the incarnation of Jesus Christ" (pg. 43), which Nevin makes sure includes the idea of divine authority. This basically rules out every Protestant church that holds the Church itself is not the divine authority, but the Bible. He also goes on to endorse a sacramentalism and mediating role rejected by most Protestant churches, including his own during that time period. So while Nevin does give lip service to Mr. Bonomo’s point, even he admits it is fuzzy and even worse in practice. He uses the same terminology for confessional distinctions that he uses for sects, and he uses for denominations. Using then Nevin’s words, his presuppositions it seems impossible to conclude he thought denominations were anything but evil in their very nature and only serving a "relative good" as they open the way to history’s final stage of a reunified church.

Second, he argues that I have misunderstood Nevin when claiming that the spirit of antichrist is a separation from the church rather than a denial of doctrine. Mr. Bonomo tells us that it is ‘not either/or’ but rather ‘both/and’ for Nevin. In some sense I am willing to concede this point in as much as doctrine is involved in all things including a rejection of the church. Perhaps, I should make myself clearer. For Nevin the spirit of the antichrist is not a denial of the incarnation of Jesus, but a rejection and denial of the doctrine about the church being the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is where Nevin’s mystical union theory comes into play. As quoted eariler, Nevin holds that the "if we do not recognize in it [the Church] the continued presence of the same divine life, or new creation, that was originally introduced into the world by the incarnation of Jesus Christ" then we do not believe in "a real Church at all"(pg. 43). Thus, if one does not hold that the church is a continued divine incarnation with an objective efficacy to its sacraments, its worship, its pronouncements, then we are of the spirit of the antichrist. It is a denial of this doctrine about the church and a separation of that church that constitutes antichrist. This is not what John is speaking about when he speaks of denying that Jesus came in the flesh. The doctrine of Christ is not in view in Nevin’s spirit of the antichrist. Instead, it is the doctrine of the Church that makes one of the antichrist. So I do not think it a stretch to say for Nevin and for Mercersburg the spirit of the antichr should really be called antichurch.

Nevin and the Antichrist

Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.

Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:

Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.

I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).

We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.

As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).

Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.

Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.

Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:

Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.

I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).

We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.

As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).

Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.