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.

Attitude of Life

I have been disappointed a lot this year about how many evangelicals have an ingrained wrong attitude about life. South Dakota this year voted down an abortion ban partly because it did not have exceptions for rape and incest. As if the answer to being raped is murdering an innocent, many evangelicals went to the polls and voted against the ban. A local pastor wrote an article encouraging people to vote against the ban. She thought it was a roll back of human rights. Protecting life has now become a rolling back of rights. Embryonic stem cell research is another subject where the attitude seems to be in favor of death rather than life. Some polls suggest as many as two-thirds of Americans support Embryonic stem cell research. I like Michael J. Fox, and I think his acting is great. I also wish he did not suffer from his illness, but what he is advocating is extraordinarily selfish. He is asking the Federal government (that is you and me when it comes to paying bills) to murder hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people so that he might live a little longer and a little better, and maybe make another TV show or two. That is not an attitude of life, yet considering the polls and the election in Missouri some professing believers share his strange vision of the world. But let us not just talk of abortion, the attitude is worse in treatment of senior citizens. How many times do professing believers make the decision to stop medical treatment of their elderly parents? After all why bother getting a doctor’s opinion or assessment when the person is 89! So the elderly parent gets a cold or some other disease that can be treated with penicillin and fluid, and they slowly die because medical treatment is withheld. This is especially true in those who suffered strokes or have Alzheimers because they are ‘suffering so much.’ People in Terri Schiavo’s condition do not have a chance because why bother treating someone who needs food and water to live. It happens disturbingly often. Have we become so influenced by the culture of death that we no longer have a biblical view of life? The oft-quoted verse ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain’ is misused. This is not saying we should end our lives so we can gain. Not at all! This verse is also saying to us, ‘to live is Christ.’ Did Christ live a life free from pain and suffering? No! Our life then we can expect to have suffering and pain and trials and temptations and all sorts of non-pleasant things. Does this make our life worthless because we suffer more at 89 than we do at 29? I would hope all would answer no. It is the same soul, the same person, the same image of God. So why do we sit back and let men and women die from diseases at 89 that we would treat with a shot and rest at 29? The only answer I can come up with is that we do not have an attitude of life. May God send one on me, His church, and this nation.

Hodge Podge

I am finally back home from my long journey. Let me just give a few quick sports thoughts that cannot be ignored.

Since I have in-laws in Ohio, I took special pleasure in watching Ohio State lose badly to Flordia. However, I became annoyed at that talk radio and ESPN jibber-jabber that followed the game. Why are not the sports talking heads arguing for a Boise State national championship? Florida has one loss, Ohio State has one loss, and Louisville has one loss, but Boise State has zero losses. It really seems like a no brainer to me. What is clear is that the BCS will only reward those conferences in the BCS system. Utah went undefeated a few years ago and got nothing. They won their BCS game, but were only one of three teams that went undefeated. Boise State won their BCS game, were the only undefeated team in college football, yet they will not even get a share of the national title. Four years ago USC won their BCS game so that multiple teams had one loss, and they got a share of the title. If the mid-major conferences were smart, they would just pick up and start their own Bowl system, crowning their own national champs. There is no room for them the BCS. Everyone argues that the smaller conferences are not as good as the big conferences, and that may be true, but the fact remains only two mid-major schools have ever been invited to the BCS bowl games and they are 2-0. Hard to argue against that.

I hope that everyone can see now the prejudice against southern sports that goes on at ESPN and the other major networks. People spent three weeks complaining about Florida getting the shot at OSU instead of Michigan. People were actually arguing that the national title should be a rematch of the Big Ten title. Well, it turns out the Big Ten champs were no match, not even close, for the SEC champs. Not only that, but the LSU Tigers, who finished a distant fourth or fifth in the SEC wiped the floor with overrated Notre Dame as well. All this while Michigan lost embarrassingly to Southern California as well. I would hope that in the future Southern teams would be ranked higher, but they will not be, so do not hold your breath. This bias goes all the way back to the Heisman trophy disaster where Charles Woodson won the Heisman as a corner back. He did not lead the nation in interceptions, touch down returns, or any stat at all. His only qualification for the award was that he was from Michigan and he was not Peyton Manning. Yes, Peyton Manning and Randy Moss both lost to a nobody from the north for no other reason than he was from the north. If you are not convinced here is more proof. ESPN often uses initials to represent schools. For example UT and USC. Now, which schools are UT and USC. ESPN always means University of Texas (UT) and University of Southern California (USC). Yet, UT could mean University of Tennessee and USC mean University of South Carolina. Both Tennessee and South Carolina use those initials for themselves and if you grew up around them your first thought is always about those schools. Both Tennessee and South Carolina are older institutions and thus have prior claims on the initials, but ESPN refuses to use the initials. Can anyone find a rational reason for this? Barring one, one must assume it is part of the anti-southern bias.

I must also here comment on the train wreck that is the NFL. The Cincinnati Bengals missed the playoffs because they cannot make and extra point or kick a field goal. If they could have done either, they would be in the playoffs right now. Yet, at 8-8, they still should have made the playoffs. The NFL does not keep a balanced schedule. Teams that did well the year before get harder schedules. So the Bengals had the toughest or one of the toughest schedules as a division winner last year. The Jets had the weakest schedule, and the Jets made the playoffs because of it. It is a stupid rule that gave us the Jets losing and looking bad doing it in the playoffs.

I cannot stop from rejoicing at Mark McGwire missing the baseball Hall of Fame. EPSN is on a crusade to let steroid users into the Hall, but so far smarter heads have prevailed. I just watched a Sportscenter bit where the question was seriously asked ‘if Dead Ball era players get into the Hall of Fame why not steroid era players?’. The ESPN analyst could not come up with a reason, and seemed perplexed. Someone should tell him steroids are cheating while the dead ball was a condition of the baseball. Breaking the law to pad stats is different than playing in a time of large stadiums and loosely wound balls. It is not rocket science.

Harsh words

I am still not back in town, but I have a minute to make a quick post about some recent rumblings.

A recent controversy has arisen over some remarks made by Rev. R. Scott Clark about the Federal Vision adherents. This provoked a renewed challenge by Rev. Doug Wilson to a debate. I do not want to defend the sad choice of words by Rev. Clark, nor do I want to defend Clark's decision not to debate. He should go and debate. However, Rev. Wilson ought to let anyone debate him in print or in person rather than picking and choosing his opponents. Rather I want to address the line of thinking that has arisen claiming open and honest discussion cannot include harsh words. That these differences should just be worked out at the local pub as if they are really just make-believe differences. Some have taken to calling it evil and flaming accusations. Have we forgotten the days of Calvin calling those who thought infants should take communion 'crack brains' or Augustus Toplady saying that Wesley was 'the worst enemy of the gospel' Britain had ever seen. Were these men wrong to speak with such words? Were they wrong at all? They were convinced of their position, and they spoke honestly. Would it be better if they made nice and pretended they did not disagree? Perhaps the only thing we need is honest tough words. The only bad thing that I can see is that people disagree with strong words, but will not debate the issue in person. The Federal Vision and Traditional Reformed Theology are different gospels, and they should not get along. They should not be allowed in the same denominations, and they ought to tangle whenever they meet. I wish they met in open battle a little more often and on the actual points rather than the round about ways they meet today.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all. I hope and pray that everyone has a joyous day and season. Lord willing, I will be visiting my in-laws in Michigan, so posting will be light.

God bless us everyone!

Random Thoughts

My favorite team in the NBA, the Denver Nuggets, have recently acquired my least favorite player and the embodiment of all that is wrong in basketball, Allan Iverson. Ever since the rumors began to float about a trade to the Nuggets, I was sure the end of my favorite team was around the corner. However, I must admit that I think the Nuggets made a decent deal, if they had to make it. While I still think making the trade at all was bad for the long run, I can see a benefit for the playoffs by adding someone else who can score, especially from the outside. Better yet, they did not have to trade future star, Nene. By only giving away a mediocre starter who could not hit long jumpers and a bench player who is worthless, the team avoided killing the franchise. I wish they could have kept at least one of the first round picks, but I guess they are willing to bet the team they have now is going to win the West. Anyway, the trade was still a bad idea, but at least I still have hope for the team overall.

On a more serious note, The video a Girl Like Me repeats the doll test of Brown v Board of Education with results that have cause a bit of a stir. It has made many think that racism and stereotypes are still rampant in this country. I want to state up front that segregation was an evil most foul, lest anyone try to twist my next words. I think ABC and those reacting to this test are overreacting and failing to ask a basic question. What everyone would be saying if those kids in Harlem had picked the white doll as the bad doll and black doll as the good doll? Would that indicate that people were being taught to hate those who have different skin color than themselves? Perhaps it is time we realized that this test has no right answer because it demands a value judgment based on skin color. Both answers are racist answers. I do pray for the day when racism ends, but this test means little to nothing.

Is the Bible historical?

Since I have taken a bit of a beating over my last post, I thought I should delve into the Young Earth view just a little bit more. The thoughtful Internet Monk has an article about why he rejects the Young Earth view. While it is well thought out and well written, I believe it to be unconvincing in the end. The Monk believes that Genesis 1 is a ‘prescientific’ account, and that Young Earth men like myself fail to take into account the literary genre of Genesis 1. I have a few points of rebuttal, if I am so allowed.

1. I am not sure I agree with the phrase ‘prescientific’ as if science is something man invented. Science is observation, not an invention. Did the Greeks always get science right? No, but they still practiced science. America today does not always get ‘science’ right. I am still not clear as whether butter or margarine is healthier. I understand what the Internet Monk is trying to say, but his terminology needs to be clearer. He does not think Genesis 1 is a Modern Science text. But, I think anyone can agree to that, and I agree to that. We are not told every scientific detail.
2. The Monk uses the example of explaining the birth of a baby to a three year old child. He rightfully would describe it differently to a college senior than to a three year old. He goes on to state that it does not mean he is lying or using allegory, just appropriate language. Again, here we have no disagreement. But, I believe his example actually harms his own position. One could tell a three year old that babies come from the stork. That would be a lie. However, one could tell the three year old a truth without revealing the in-depth details. How does this apply to Genesis 1? Well, if the days of creation are not literal 24 hour days, then God has given us a ‘stork’ explanation that is not true at all. What era of man did not understand ‘evening and morning’ or the concept of a ‘day’? Thus, holding to a ‘prescientific’ narrative does not get one around the difficulty of whether or not the days are literal.
3. The Internet Monk does seem to confound the Creationism or Creation Science with the Biblical position of a Young Earth. I agree with him completely when he says that we do not need scientific testimony to hold to the truthfulness of the Bible. Some Creation Science is out there on the fringe like the idea that the speed of light is not constant. Yet, that should not be confounded with the Biblical arguments. While I do believe there is legitimate science to support a Young Earth position, I don’t need it. If there is no scientific support for my position at all, I will still believe it because the Bible tells me to believe it. Is there science to support life after death? No, but I know there is because it has been revealed in God’s word. All I ask of those who hold to an Old Earth or some other position is to listen to the Biblical argument, not any scientific ones.
4. The idea that the creation story and genealogies of Genesis are theological, not historical, in their purpose also does not solve any problems. The genealogies are specific and people from the 2nd century on have used them to count backwards to Adam and Eve. If this account is ‘prehistorical’ or only ‘theological’ in its purpose then that idea was completely lost by the early church and most rabbis. This genealogies occur in many places, and while I do think there is a theological point, that does not exclude a historical accurate list.

This gets back to the discussion about inerrancy. The term generally means that the Bible does not contain errors of any kind. Thus, it is a reliable historical document. Yet, the Internet Monk has defined the Bible’s passages in such a way that it is not in ‘error’ when rightly understood in its purpose, but it is indeed unreliable for historical accuracy. The Bible becomes a theological book without historical reliability. To steal Charles Spurgeon’s analogy, The Internet Monk has removed the skeleton and left a pile of quivering flesh.

Which brings me to my last point. Despite the claims of some that inerrancy is an ‘Enlightenment’ word (which is a way to label something so you can throw it out), or that no confession ever used the word so it is a non-essential, there is ample proof that the Church has always held to inerrancy. Even though the word itself may not be used it is easily demonstratable that the church has always found the Bible to be historically accurate and even usable to date the earth. Spurgeon’s words showing that the Bible was both historical and theological and each worthless without the other should suffice for him. The WCF claims God created in "the space of 6 days", which does a good job of showing the Westminster Divines viewed the Bible as historically accurate, and the Genesis account in particular (pre-enlightenment by the way). Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” claims six literal days for creation and a world that is less than six thousand years old. Obviously Irenaeus does not have a problem with using the genealogies to date the world. To him we can add Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all held to literal days and dated the world to be less than 10,000 (all but Origen thought less than 6,000). Showing they viewed the Bible to be without historical error and the genealogies to be accurate for dating. Basil, Theophilus, Ambrose, and Cyril of Jerusalem all taught six 24 hour days, not seeing the disparity between theological and historical claimed by the Internet Monk. Even Augustine, who thought creation instantaneous, viewed the Bible as historically accurate and used the genealogies to date the earth young, less than 6,000 years (City of God 12:12). The Reformers were on the side of historical accuracy, and the Synod of Dort’s authorized Bible annotated the days of creation to be 24 hour days.

Perhaps the term ‘inerrancy’ was coined around the enlightenment. However, the idea that the Bible was useful for not only theology, but history as well is not new, nor it is it an enlightenment idea. We see men in the second century counting the ages of those in the Bible to discover the age of the earth. Archbishop Ussher may be famous for it, but it was an idea that dated back to the closing of the canon. The fancy claims the church has never thought of the Bible as inerrant nor taught a Young Earth view appear to have very little support in church history.

Interesting articles

Kevin Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has a nice response to Douglas Wilson's latest rant about the PCA/Wilkins/FV controversy. According to Wilson this clear confession of faith either ensures that Wilkins will be cleared, prove the PCA is a bunch of idiots, or prove the PCA is a bunch of hate-mongers. I am glad someone called out the elephant in the room.

The Boar's Head Poll

The Boar’s Head Tavern, which is really more like a country club than a Tavern (no non-members, no brawls, etc.), has recently put up a poll covering several issues. The Boar’s Head is place that includes many members that blog elsewhere highlighted by the Internet Monk, who started the poll. A few others around the blogosphere have joined in like Joel Garver and Kevin Johnson. It is an interesting, but very disturbing poll. It shows a wide variety of people attend the Boar’s Head with the majority of them favoring Credo-baptism, but it is neither the sacraments nor their disagreements I wish to highlight. Nor are their disagreements particularly disturbing. The few places where they agree shocked me. Besides the obvious massive agreement to keep comments closed, they only overwhelmingly agreed on two other subjects.
First, only two members of the blog thought Young Earth Creationism was valid. Two out of at least 23. That is less than 10% of the people held to a Young Earth view. Not only that, but also many of them held a Young Earth view in a great deal of contempt. One mentioning that he had "outgrown the T-shirt", and another making sure we all knew that Young Earth and the science behind it "dishonors the creator". I have to admit this took me by surprise. With evolution faltering in the secular world and science favoring William Paley as much as it favors Charles Darwin, I fail to see a reason for such venom. Even if one wants to snub ‘Creation Science’ as a mistake for some reason (some of it is bad, but not all), it still seems unwarranted to doubt the Biblical data. Archbishop Ussher would be disappointed his chronology is rejected, but beyond Rev. Ussher’s timeframe, biblical reasoning for Day-Age or Framework is hard to find. The plain and simple reading is literal days, a fact many Day-Age and framework people admit. I would be very interesting in discovering exactly what provokes such an Old Earth view in the gang at the Boar’s Head.
Second, not a single member of the Boar’s Head agreed with Cessationism, the idea that the miraculous gifts are not longer around. It is true that some admitted to practically being a cessationist, but they still thought the Bible did not end the gifts. One did admit he thought the theory of cessationism was fine, but failed in practice, whatever that means. Again some venom was spewed forth here as well. One wonders if they believe that the Bible is complete? If prophecy is still around, then how can one close the Bible? A question I would like to see them answer.
The final and most disturbing point is one that seems to tie the first points together. Ten out of twenty three people denied the inerrancy of the Bible. Only eleven affirmed with two admitting they did not know. Thus, the majority of the people answering the poll did not affirm the fact that the Bible did not contain errors. Many would put forth the Bible was infallible, but would not say that it was inerrant. This fact not only blows the mind, but also makes one wonder if this is a new sensation sweeping through Christianity. Of course a Bible with errors makes it easier to reject creationism and necessitates continuing revelation (since previous revelation is full of errors). Yet once the door of the Bible is opened to error, what can be left for the Christian to hold? Every truth of the Bible must be challenged, and what will be the final arbiter of truth? Some of the polled claimed that inerrancy missed the point because the point of the Bible was Jesus Christ. Yet, how can one know anything for sure about Jesus if the Bible that reveals him is wrong often or even from time to time. Is the Virgin Birth wrong? Is Jesus both God and man, or is that wrong? What about the Trinity? All such doctrines are attacked by secularists and non-believers as much as the Young Earth doctrine, why not jettison those as well? And if not, why not? How can you know what is right and what is wrong in the Bible? It is true that no one at the Tavern is openly arguing for errors, but they seem to be advocating the idea that they could exist since God is not the ‘author’ of Scripture, but rather the ‘director’. The Boar’s Head is a place where many of differing stripes gather to talk and discuss things. However, this development of the theology of the Boar’s Head should put the Church on notice. We cannot take for granted the fact that those in the pew believe the Bible is without error, and the only source for truth. There is an obvious growing movement within the church itself against inerrancy.

Battleground Minneapolis

It seems to me that Islam has come to America now to challenge us as a nation. Europe has already given in for the most part. By this I do not mean to terrorism for most people will fight against terrorism, but I mean to creation of Islamic states or states-with-in-states. Canada has already seen Sharia law allowed with its boarders. I believe the first rounds of that battle in America will be fought in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Many things are occurring there now that are connected.
Minneapolis has recently elected the first Muslim the Congress and he plans on using the Koran for his swearing in ceremony. This battle is mainly symbolic, but symbolism must go before real change can take place. Symbolism is not unimportant. Something too many of us forget.
Bigger battles loom in Minneapolis than their elected leader. For example most of you have probably heard of the six imams who were removed from a plane for suspicious behavior. Their lawyer, who was on TV in less than 3 hours, claims discrimination. I would be remiss not to note that at least one imam has connections to a charity that had its assets frozen for giving money to terrorists. The Minneapolis airport is full of Arab-Muslims. They staff almost every eatery in the airport. So the mere presence of Arabs would not be enough to shake travelers in Minneapolis. Yet, the sight of prayers prior to boarding planes is rather rare, and it seems to me that these men were wanting something to challenge in court. After all, to implement Sharia law, one must get the courts to allow it, as they did in Canada.
Another example is a lesser-reported story about taxi cab drivers. Again the majority of taxi cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport are Arab and Muslim. Yet recently many of them have stopped taking passengers who carry alcohol. Apparently alcohol is so evil in Islam that one cannot even be a transporter of it. This is causing huge problems because the airport is being harmed by the long waits for taxicabs, yet can the government force people to violate their religion? This is another case bound for court sooner or later. What lies behind these things seems to me an organized effort in Minneapolis to get Muslims to live a life in conformity with the strict fundamentalist- Sharia law version of Islam.
These cases may seem innocent enough, but they will be building blocks for Muslims to try and create a Sharia law haven in America as they have in other countries. Then we will see the uglier aspects of Islam rear their head such as marrying multiple women, beating wives being allowed, easy access divorce for men only, and other such things demanded by the Koran. Whether or not these imams and mosques that encourage such living will become breeding ground for homegrown terrorists is unclear, but I do think it is the lesser evil. Terrorists can be stopped by police work. What will be worse is a religion of hate that would exist inside and independent of American justice systems. The Taliban and Sharia law is not just for the Middle East anymore. Now it may be for the Mid-West.

Bishops or Presbyterianism?

There seems to be some discussion going on about whether or not Presbyterianism functions any differently than Episcopal government. The discussion originated on Barlow Farms where Jon Barlow shows (or attempts to show) the PCA is really full of bishops. He has an interesting point about the branches of the PCA and their current state of control. Boar’s Head Tavern weighs in on the debate not once, but twice. The latest to join the discussion is the men at Reformed Catholicism. Interestingly, Reformed Catholicism expands the discussion to include Doug Wilson and the CREC. They reference what happened at Church of the King Santa Cruz, which has left the CREC. I know nothing about what happened in that situation, but here are a few links to let the readers make their own decisions. Reformed Catholicism makes a call for Presbyterians to come out of the closet and consecrate bishops. It is more honest, they believe.

In these small denominations (as the quote above demonstrates), influential men rule the day. Their disciples are often the very men that make up the rest of the presbytery. There is no rule of law in terms of Scripture other than the way the men in power see the matter. This is why parties are foolish to press matters in the ecclesiastical courts. The bench is loaded and the courts won’t come to the truth of the matter. . . . So, why not be upfront about it? Why not let the people know what is really going on? Consecrate your "bishops" and come out of the closet.

However, I would like to contend in favor of true Presbyterianism against bishoprics. The defense will be painful for some of my readers, but I think it accurate.

First, neither the PCA nor the CREC is truly a Presbyterian form of government. One is an amalgamation and the other a perversion or a sham depending on how cynical you are. The PCA has the local congregations, but ministers are not members (if this is not true, I am willing to be corrected). They are members of the Presbytery making all judicial cases against ministers have to originate in the Presbytery. For a denomination that wants ruling elders and teaching elders to be the same, this hurts their cause. Then if a case goes through the Presbytery, it goes straight to the General Assembly, but not the GA proper, it goes to an Standing Judicial Commission that has a great deal of autonomy. GA and Presbyteries are both full of ministers and lacking in elders. I do not believe the PCA sets out to have bishops, it has in practice descended toward it a bit. The elders are not participatory as they should be and the lack of Synods has removed an important layer of Presbyterianism. One can also get into top heavy committees and things that seem to an inverted Presbyterianism at best. The CREC on the other hand is down a path that is also not one of Presbyterianism. The allowance of almost any creed and the inability to adjudicate on many matters because of the multicreedalism is not a good start. It is also a bastion of Mercersburg/Federal Vision theology and that theology is Episcopal in nature. One Mercersburg controlled Classis in the Old RCUS actually ordained a man to be bishop. The groundwork is there for Episcopal tyranny in their theology. So, I believe the examples cited have flaws that do not detract from true Presbyterianism.

Second, even if the CREC and PCA are true presbyterian forms of government are not both Barlow Farms and Reformed Catholicism arguing from the failures of men, not of the system? The above quote goes as far to suggest that ministers become disciples of other ministers and do not have the ability to render a biblical judgment apart from fiat from their masters. A low view of ministers today indeed! I was trained by a godly man, Dr. Powell at New Geneva Theological Seminary, but I voted against him several times at the last Synod. For example, he voted to continue funding for an unnamed christian college, and I think the Synod has no business funding such projects. I do not think that the relationship is harmed at all. I would give more examples, but I barely notice how he votes. Hardly is it required that men become disciples of those who are more famous in their denominations or doing the educating in their denomination.

Third, the bible teaches presbyterianism. Acts 15 is a wonderful example, but not the only one. Here we see elders and apostles side by side voting. Note it also says it pleased the Holy Spirit. The elders are not swayed by apostolic dictates, but by the Word of God and His Spirit. Also see I Corinthians where party spirits existed. The problem there was not presbyterianism, but episcopalianism. Some were following Peter, others Apollos, some Paul, and some Christ. The very mistake of the Corinthians is that they lined up behind men, exalting them to positions where they did not belong. Paul corrects them not by teaching them to follow more bishops, but rather by exhorting them to meek submission to Christ. This is the answer for those denominations plagued by psuedo-bishops (if that truly be the case). Sure, we fail from time to time. But it is not the fault of the system, but of man. The answer is not to come out of the closet, but to repent and be humble.

James Madison

James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights is not a biography of James Madison. So if you are interested in Madison and his studies under John Witherspoon, do not bother. However, if you are interested in a good look at early American struggles to fit together the Constitution, it is a good book.

One thing that impressed me was the Virginia Ratifying convention. The Federalists at the convention included no less than one future President (Madison), the current governor who would become the Attorney General (Randolph), two future Supreme Court Justices (Marshall and Bushrod Washington), chief jurist of Virginia (Pendleton), the first law professor in America (Wythe), future congressman (White), and revolutionary war heroes (Henry Lee). The Anti-Federalist side contained a five time governor and man who turned down the senate, Supreme Court and Secretary of State (Henry), state politician and revolutionary war hero (Mason), three future senators (Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson and John Brown from Kentucky), a future President (Monroe), future Congressman (Dawson). 30 of the 168 delegates were current members of the Virginia Legislature. This is all with the two most famous citizens and future Presidents, Washington and Jefferson, not attending. An amazing collection of men, in fact, an impressive collection voting against ratification.

One thing that disappointed me is that the author, Richard Labunski, did not do enough to vindicate James Madison from the charge of changing his beliefs. He takes a great deal of heat from historians who point out Madison writes the Federalist papers and then leads the Anti-Federalists in Congress. Alexander Hamilton Biographers are usually pretty ruthless on Madison as well. Many claim that Madison being passed over for the Senate caused him to become an Anti-Federalist to get back in the good graces of the Virginia people. This is far from true. Madison did not want to serve in the Senate, and knew that Patrick Henry would pick to men who opposed the Constitution, as he did. Madison ran for the House in a gerrymandered district as a Federalist and won. So there is no truth behind that ludicrous claim. Mr. Labunski sometimes says Madison always remained true, but then later talks of the evolution of Madison’s support for the Bill of Rights. I have long thought that the idea of Federalists and Anti-Federalists is not correct. Rather it should be Nationalists, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists. This book provides some nice proof. We too often think of our First Ten Amendments when we talk of support for a Bill of Rights, and that was by no means settled when men like Patrick Henry and George Mason, true Anti-Federalists, spoke about a Bill of Rights. They desired not only protections like freedom of press, speech and religion, but also other changes to protect the rights of the citizens, mainly the elimination of direct taxation power of the government. They wanted other things like an increased size for the House of Representatives, the participation of the House in ratifying treaties and appointments of the President all under the name ‘Bill of Rights’. Madison favored a careful crafting of amendments that enumerated rights such as freedom of religion, habeas corpus and other freedoms found in our 10 Amendments. He favored them as long as the writing of the amendments did not imply the Federal government had powers to take rights not specifically listed away. He did think the government only had powers that were enumerated, and thus had no power over religion and press, but was never opposed to carefully protecting them (which says something about how Madison viewed the ‘necessary and proper’ clause in the Constitution). Madison, however, opposed the removal of direct taxation and other changes to the body of the Constitution. This led to him being labeled a Federalist by Virginia Anti-Federalists. However, once in Congress he proposed the Bill of Rights, as feared by Henry without the changes in Direct Taxation and other powers odious to Anti-Federalists, and nothing that changed the relationship between the Federal Government and the states. It was not Madison who changed his views, rather it was Hamilton. Hamilton argued for the Constitution even though he was truly a Nationalist who desired the eradication of states. Madison’s opposition to Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury was not a change in Madison rather it was the sneaky attempt of Hamilton to steal powers for the Federal Government that did not belong to it that cause Madison’s opposition.

In the end, the book was quite enjoyable, and worth a read.