To Lent or not to Lent

It cannot be denied that the Liturgical Calendar is making a big comeback in Reformed circles. Talk of Lent and Advent abound on Presbyterian blogs. Sadly, after many centuries, I think that this is one area of the church that still needs to be studied and discussed. In the RCUS, the German Reformed tradition, we keep five feast days, and that is all of the Liturgical Calander we observe. We celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. Over the next several blogs, I would like to argue for this mode of Liturgical calander and against other forms.

My friend, James Solis made an excellent observation about Lent and the Regulative Principle when he spoke of ‘not requiring the observance’ rather than ‘forbidding’ it. I echo those sentiments when it comes to individuals. If someone wants to fast or give up something during Lent, the church should not forbid them from doing so. However, I also believe that theology lies at the root of all things. The Theology of Lent needs to be examined before any church enters into it as a church. I would argue that Lent has a Romanizing tendency because of the theology upon which it and its practices are based.

Reformed Catholicism copies an article that contains good information on Lent and its history. I want to echo their and Francis Beckwith’s rejection of argumentation that simply dismisses the Lenten season as pagan in origin. While I do think the claims Lent was celebrated as far back as Irenaeus (d.203) are dubious because they rest on the idea that a two day fast is the same as a 40 day season of Lent, it is apparent the church has celebrated Lent since about 6th century.

So why then do I oppose Lent? Am I opposed to fasting? No, although fasting is not an end in and of itself. Fasting is to be done for a purpose, and always coupled with prayer. I think we can all agree on that. I could disagree that one needs to fast to prepare for Easter, especially for 40 days, but since most people now days just give up one thing for 40 days, I won’t bore you. Am I opposed to ‘Holy Days’? No, as I said the RCUS celebrates five a year. I will deal more with that objection, and why I disagree with it in a future post.

As I said, I am against Lent because it is inherently a Romanizing practice. See how the Romanists define Lent and its purpose.

Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in obedience to the general law of the Church.

Expiation is a payment for the penalty of sin. Here we clearly see Lent as a payment for our sins, a payment made voluntarily by ourselves. Reformed believers traditionally say the expiation of our sin occurs when Christ suffers and dies for us, and that we make no expiation because Christ finished it on the cross. The Romanists have always insisted that we participate in our salvation by our work, and Lent is no different. The entire season is about us suffering in order to participate or share in the sufferings of Christ. This is the idea I want to explore more, but for now, I think this post is long enough.

In summary, the theology of Lent is a Roman Catholic, faith plus works, creation. The practice of Lent reinforces and indirectly teaches the Roman doctrine; therefore, I believe it should be avoided by Protestants.

The Visible/Invisible Church Distinction and Dispute

There has been a lot of debate about the Invisible church and the Visible church with regards to the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson has a a post about it, which led to a reaction from Lane, and one probably only has to look a few seconds to find much more.

Personally, I think this debate is a side issue in the Federal Vision controversy, and perhaps even a distraction from real issues. Rev. Wilson’s denial of the Invisible/Visible church distinction is more a result of his more fundamental errors, than an error in and of itself, in my humble opinion. I have my problems on both sides of this debate, and so I thought I might as well toss my two cents into the ring while the going is good.

Rev. Wilson protests loudly that he agrees with the doctrine of the terms Visible and Invisible Church, and that his distinctions have the ‘same substantive meaning’ (which by the way in short is the visible church is the church in history and it is mixed with false professors and hypocrites, and the invisible church is the elect). In my opinion whether he does or does not agree with the substance of the Visible/Invisible distinction is not the point. His preferred distinction of Historical and Eschatological Church is not the same distinction. That is an important fact. One that Wilson readily admits in The Federal Vision.

I want to suggest that the difficulty is not that we have made a distinction, but rather that by misunderstanding our terminology, we have tended to make an ontological distinction instead of an historical distinction (Federal Vision, pg. 266).

I would argue that ontology is exactly what is meant by the distinction, and it is exactly what Wilson jettisons. The Wilsonian Historical/Eschatological distinction is not a distinction of ontology at all, but rather only a distinction of when one is in history. It is all a historical distinction. Again Wilson explains.

The true Church is the Church in history [Historical], gathered throng of all professing households, assembled in covenant around the Word and Christ’s sacraments. At the end of all history [Eschatological], this same Church will be revealed to an astonished universe . . . (Ibid., 269).

Notice his distinction is only a historical one. The Eschatological church is at the point in history when Christ comes again. He explains further.

Those who are in the historical Church should not see that church as defiled because it is earthly, but rather as immature because it is early (Ibid., pg. 268).

Here Wilson shows us that the Historical Church is just early or young. That is the only difference. It is not an ontological difference of being, but a simple difference of time. Do not over look the ‘poisoning of the well’ by trying to make those holding to a Invisible church dualistic or gnostic. It is part of his outlook. Notice what he writes:

Our problem is that we have tended to think in the Platonic categories of the Greeks instead of the historical and eschatological categories of the Jews (Ibid., pg.267).

This sweeping generalization takes for granted that a Platonic outlook is bad. And while no one is arguing for his view of matter, his ontological view of universals existing outside of this world is one the church held and in many places still held. The discussion of whether or not Plato’s metaphysics are biblical or not is not a one sentence endeavor. Of course Wilson offers no defense for his Aristotlean metaphysic which underpins his Historical/Eschatological distinction.

Now let me say a few words about the critics of Wilson in this interaction. I enjoyed Rev. White’s paper very much. It deals with some good exegetical points which should be brought forward more often. But, Rev. White dismisses the philosophical character of this debate with a wave of his hand as well by stating, "The Reformed did not call it a Church of the elect because it was a separate Church up in heaven or some ideal, Platonic form." ‘Platonic’ is a word used to derogatory and it helps dismiss one’s opponent because of all the baggage it brings. Plato was no Christian. However, his metaphysical theory of Realism is not to be thrown away so easily, and I would have liked to see a more consistent interaction with this philosophical idea. Rev. White freely notes that traditionally critics of the Visible/Invisible distinction have viewed it as related to Plato’s philosophy. The nature of the church is being debated but not a word about philosophy is being spoken. I find that a shame, and part of our problem.
Also, too much ink is being spilled defending the idea when the main point is being shoved to a final paragraph, even a final sentence. Lane does finally say, "This is one of the most powerful arguments against the FV. Members of the visible church who are not elect do not enjoy union and communion with God."

That is the main subject of debate. Rev. Wilson would probably love to keep the debate about the Visible/Invisible distinction forever because it is so theoretical. Rev. Wilson thinks all members, even one’s who fall away, have a real union with Christ. This is because he thinks the Church a repository of grace that is dispensed via the Sacraments (see above quote from Wilson). His rejection of the visible/invisible church is simply an outgrowth of his Sacramentalism, which is a subject that touches on justification by faith. Now we are to the subject where ink should be spilled. Note Rev. White’s first application of the visible/invisible church distinction.

From the context of the passages above and others, we can see how this doctrine [Invisible Church]may be used. The first use is that we might avoid presumption. As we can see from the history of Israel and most of the rest of Church history, there is a great tendency of man to rely on participation in a few external rites for his salvation

While Rev. White does not specifically note it, this is the reason Wilson rejects the Visible/Invisible distinction. The debate need go no further than this solitary point. Do the sacraments and rites of the church save us or not? If one comes down on Wilson’s side, then rejection of the distinction at hand is logical, if not, then there is no need to worry because they will accept it. Let us not worry so much about the branches of the Federal Vision, but drive home the ax to its root.

Why D.C. does not deserve a vote

The District of Columbia currently does not have a vote in Congress, and it should stay that way. The Democrats have committed themselves to giving the residents of the Federal City a vote, but the Republicans used an amendment to block it. Make no mistake it will be back to plague America again, and soon.

It should be noted that I have a brother who lives in the District, and as long as he does, he does not deserve a vote in Congress. No one forced him to live there. When I visit him I see nothing but the arrogant license plates that proclaim "Taxation without Representation", as if some how the struggle for D.C. Congressional vote is the same as our nations struggle for liberty. The people of the District conveniently forget that the same Founding Fathers who made that claim against England are the ones who made sure the District would not have a vote.

My reasons for opposing D.C. getting a vote are twofold. First, the Constitution plainly forbids it. Article 1 Section 2 states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States". Note the word State. The District of Columbia is not a state. It is not governed by a state constitution, there is no governor, no state house of representatives, nothing. But that cannot happen because the land is under federal dominion. Thus, the Constitution prohibits it from having a vote. The House of Representatives is for Representatives of states, not cities much less Federal Districts. Section 8 of the same article gives Congress the power over any district where the capital might be located and the same powers over land purchased from the states for things like Forts, dock-yard, and other "needful buildings". Clearly the Constitution puts Federal land under Congress, not as a part of it. The Federal District is on the level of Forts and dock-yards. The D.C. Voting Rights bill is clearly unconstitutional. This was recognized in 1978 when a Democratic Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution to give D.C. a vote, but it was killed by the states.

Second, the bill is not just a harmless attempt to franchise tax-payers, it is an outright attack on the foundation of the government. The Nation was bold enough to mention the true goal of this bill, eventual statehood or more likely full representation. It is unprecedented to think of people being represented in the House, but not the Senate. The next push would be for D.C. to get the required two Senators. After all, they are already in the House. Let us not forget about the Electoral College. A vote in Congress is not the same as getting a vote for President, and that would soon be pushed for as well. A city would soon be granted the same privileges as the states. In effect, it would destroy the idea of states. Passing this bill would already be saying that ‘states’ as found in the Constitution means nothing (see Article 1 section 2). The system of checks and balances so often talked about is not to be primarily between branches of the Federal Government, but to be between the States and the Federal Government. Republicans and Democrats alike have long been attacking the rights and even idea of states, and this bill is another step in the obliteration of states all together.

Don’t believe me? Think I am paranoid? Perhaps you have forgotten the attempt to end the Electoral College. Candidate for President Hillary Clinton is on record as being against the Electoral College. And it was not just a fad. Maryland’s Democratic Congress just gave its Democratic Governor a bill that abolishes the Electoral College, and he is going to sign it.

This is a war that will not end because the states stand in the way of an expansive and abusive Federal government. Which is after all, the only thing Republicans and Democrats really want.

Baseball 2007

It is time for my 2007 baseball picks. In a few short months you will all be awed by my genius, or I will again look stupid. Here they are:

NL East – New York Mets – this division is weaker than last year, but the Mets are about the same. Even without Pedro, they should have what it takes to win this division.

NL Central – Pittsburgh Pirates – It is a wide open division, but with the Cardinals and Astros losing so much pitching, they will not hold on to their top spots. The team with the best pitching will win and that rules out the Cubs and Reds, leaving the Pirates young staff and improved offense to take the day.

NL West – San Diego Padres – This is another weak division, but no one really looks even competitive. The Padres have Jake Peavy and added Greg Maddox. Their offense should be good enough.

Wild Card – This is a little tougher. I do not think the Dodgers will stay healthy enough to make a run, so I am going to go with the Reds. The Brewers are overrated with an outfield that is untested and quarrelling. The Reds will not see the same sort of good pitching from Bonson Arroyo, but probably can hold off the Brewers and the Cubs, whose defense will do them in.

AL East – New York Yankees – Do not be fooled by pitchers from Japan. They start great, but will slow down by the end of the year. The Red Sox are a shell of their former selves, and the Blue Jays let Ted Lilly go, probably costing themselves the title. All that and Roger Clemens will probably end up in the Bronx.

AL Central – Minnesota Twins – The best division in baseball. The Tigers will put up a fight, but the Twins have great depth on the bench and on the mound. They have expendable left handers to trade in mid-season, and they have the most underrated manager in the big leagues. You will see Matt Garza as a starter. Remember last year they started Lirano in the bullpen as well. It is a formula that always works for the Twins.

AL West – LA Angels – I think the A’s are going to fall short and the pitching of LAA will be good. They have a great bullpen and Vlad Guerreo. With a lot of teams to beat up on, this team will look better than they are.

Wild Card – Detroit Tigers – These young arms may not flop like the White Sox staff did, but they will not be the same as last year. Plus, you can count on Kenny Rogers being much worse. The addition of Sheffield is good, but his defense is still suspect. They should take the Wild Card without much problem over teams like Boston and Oakland.

I will go on to predict the National League champions to be the New York Mets. The American League Champions will be the Minnesota Twins, but I think the Tigers and Twins are headed for a showdown. It may come down to who makes the best mid-season moves. I will take the Minnesota Twins as the World Champs.

Enjoy the greatest weekend in sports!!!

Babe Ruth the Home Run King

I just finished reading a wonderful book about Babe Ruth called The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. Now I should tell you up-front that I think Ty Cobb is the greatest baseball player that ever lived, and this book did not change my mind, but it is still great. The author assumes power is good, and that is why he cannot factor in the greatness of Ty Cobb; however, he did change my mind on where Babe Ruth ranks on the all time greatest athletes. I think I would actually have to say that I might put Babe tied with Jim Thorpe for #1 after reading this book.

The book begins with a short year by year history of Babe’s great career including wonderful coverage of what was then called ‘Barnstorming.’ Major leaguers did not earn the same sort of money back then, so they often traveled around after the season was over and played exhibition games until Oct. 31st to get more money. Babe did this extensively. The author, Bill Jenkinson, draws your specific attention to the big blasts Babe hit during his career.

Next, Mr. Jenkinson begins his analysis of such wondrous feats of hitting, and compares them to the great sluggers of all time. The results cannot be disputed. Babe Ruth was the best. Just take a look at this fact comparison. Mr. Jenkinson declares that homeruns of 450 feet or further are monumental blasts that only power hitters can reach. 500 feet is the sign of greatness. Steroid inhanced Barry Bonds has hit 36 such drives (none of 500 feet) in his career (all but three in the last 6 years of his career). Mark McGwire hit a nice total of 74 (all during a four year span near the end of his career). Babe Ruth hit 198! 198 that went for homeruns and no less than 80 more that did not count as homeruns because 450 feet did not reach the seats in 8 out of 9 American league ball parks during Ruth’s day. Do not forget that the first four years of Babe’ career, he was a full time pitcher. A pitcher that (if he had enough innings to qualify) has a top ten winning percentage and ERA of all time. He had more wins in his first four years than Greg Maddox, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, and Roger Clemens. There is little doubt that if Babe had remained a pitcher, he would be in the Hall of Fame with well over 300 wins.

Mr. Jenkinson then dispels all myths that baseball is tougher today than it was during Babe Ruth’s time. I can only cover a few of the examples he gives. He includes that the all day game schedule while wearing wool uniforms, modern medicine, modern hydration, air conditioning, first class travel, hollow bats, lighter bats (Babe Ruth used a 54 oz. Bat), the higher pitching mound, the batter’s eye that is now in every major league ball park (it was non-existent in Babe’s day), watered down pitching, and several others. All favor modern hitters. A few deserve special attention.

It is not uncommon to hear the complain made that Babe Ruth did not play against African American athletes, and thus cannot be measured against modern day talent. This statement is simply untrue for several reasons. One, the addition of black athletes has seen many power statistics go up, but it has not done anything to change ERA stats. For whatever reason, one cannot prove the addition of black athletes has improved pitching. Two, Babe Ruth played against Negro League Ball Clubs a lot. Mr. Jenkinson has documented (verified of course) 55 at bats Babe Ruth had against Negro League clubs. Ruth actually had a higher batting average (.400) with 12 home runs. This is a small sample, but most White papers would not report his games against Black teams, and black papers would usually not report it unless Babe did poorly. He also lets us know about many more tales from Negro League players themselves, but did not include them in the stats because no newspaper verified the account. The Late Buck O’Neill told a story of Ruth hitting a long centerfield homerun off of Satchel Paige in Paige’s prime, but it could not be verified.

A second thing that must be noted is Babe Ruth played in a time when the rules and ballparks were against power hitters. The center field fence in Yankee Stadium was 490 feet away. No one in today’s game has to try and reach bleachers that are that far away. Babe Ruth also spent most of his career trying to hit spitballs, which were legal. He also rarely got a clean, white ball. Today the ball is removed after any contact with dirt. More importantly, homeruns were judged differently near the foul line. Today if the ball crosses the fence in fair territory it is ruled a homerun. In Babe Ruth’s time if the ball crossed the fence in fair territory, but landed in foul territory, it was a foul ball. Ruth lost several homeruns a season that way. Ruth also lost multiple homeruns to the lack of standard rules. In Philadelphia Ruth hit a homerun that bounced off a loud speaker on a pole 400 feet away and 20 feet in the air. The ball bounced off the speaker and returned to field of play. It was not ruled a homerun, but rather only a double. This actually happened twice in one year. Today that would have been ruled a homerun.

This all leads to the conclusion and point of his book. Jenkinson projects totals of homeruns if Ruth played in modern ballparks with modern rules. This is done to put to rest any idea that Barry Bonds is a better hitter than Babe Ruth. The results are quite frightening. The 1927 season where Babe Ruth hit 60 homeruns translates into 91 homeruns today. However more impressively was the 1921 season where Babe hit 59 homeruns. Jenkinson walks us through the process. First, Jenkinson deducts a few homeruns from Ruth’s total because Yankee Stadium’s notoriously short right field porch was actually a few feet shorter in Ruth’s years. So those that landed only a few feet over the fence were removed. Then those that would have crossed the fence in fair territory, but were ruled foul are added in. Actually he adds in less than half to be conservative. That returns the total to 58. Then there are at least 10 confirmed base hits by Ruth that bounced high off the then 12 foot high fence in right field. Jenkinson credits Babe with only 2 to raise the total to 60. Then at least 40 balls were confirmed to have landed between 440 and 475 feet between the right and left center. Because of the size of old stadiums, these were not homeruns, but would have all easily cleared the fences of modern stadiums. This gets the Bambino to an even 100 homeruns. Then four more are added because of the 162 game schedule (as opposed to 154). This ends with a total of 104 homeruns. And this is a very conservative estimate. How many times did a sports writer not bother to record a 415 foot pop out? Those blasts would have left any modern yard, but would have been directly at a Ruth-era center fielder. Ruth does not get credit for any of those. For more convincing proof, go read the book.

So the next time you hear someone talk about what a great power hitter Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or anyone is, just remember he needs to hit 104 homeruns to catch the Babe.

Andrew Sandlin: Neo Con

Andrew Sandlin has a thought provoking piece written by David Bashen about the Paleo Conservative and Neo Conservative split. Interestingly both men side with the Neo Conservatives over the Paleo Conservatives. Sandlin writes:

In a post-9-11 world, I simply cannot endorse the paleo-con option, as much as I can respect those who hold it. As the threats change, our manner of dealing with must change, too.

And Mr. Bashen argues:

That the GOP has been repugnantly guilty of growing the government is not for dispute, and I am as sickened by “No Child Left Behind” and the Prescription Drug Bill as I have ever been. However, Mr. Novak is clearly linking the two together in a way I find very disturbing (presuming that pro-war Republicans are also pro-big spending Republicans). There is room for intelligent debate on the paleo vs. neocon differences, but one need not be a pro-entitlement, “Teddy Roosevelt” Republican, just because they supported the Iraq war, and just because they take a post-9/11 view of foreign policy.

But actually there is reason to link them. Both the ‘post-9/11 foreign policy’ and increased domestic spending are founded upon the idea that government is the best agency or instrument to accomplish a better world. Big domestic spending is a fundamental point of Neo-Conservatism. Paleo Conservative belief focuses on the individual, but the Neo Conservative view prefers the group to the individual (although it does not go so far as preferring the collective like Communism). George W. Bush himself has declared the role of government when he called for the ‘repsonsibility era’ to replace the ‘era of dependency’. He goes on to say, ‘Government can be a part of helping usher in the responsibility era’(Bush, A Charge to Keep pg. 229. I took it from 8 Ways to Run the Country) This translates into Federal standards of education and the No Child Left Behind Act. It translates into Prescription Drugs on Medicare. It translates in funding Faith Based Programs. It is no longer the ‘maternal welfare state’ but rather a new ‘paternal welfare state’ (according to Irving Kristol) or a ‘welfare society’ (according to Michael Novak) not just a state. Plus the Neo Cons would never dream of limiting government in the ways Paleo Cons desire such as returning to the Gold Standard, balancing the budget, or removing the Department of Education (traditional goals of conservatives). Big government at home always translates to an aggressive big government foreign policy. This is what we see in the Neo-Conservative movement.

Sandlin and Bashen are failing to see the anti-communism, pro-military stance of the Paleo Cons is not the same as the ardent nationalism, pro-war stance of the Neo Cons. Anti-communism, pro military spent large sums of money on defense and always rushed to the aid of an ally in trouble, especially against communism. The ardent nationalism, pro-war group needs not wait for trouble. Pre-emptive wars are the order of the day, and that idea is founded upon a completely different set or presuppositions. Pre-emptive wars are founded upon the idea that Government intervention is good. And if that is true, then it must be true at home as well as abroad.

I am saddened to see that Sandlin and Bashen are neo-conservative converts. Everyone wants to see peace and order in the Middle East. I just disagree that the American government is the best engine to accomplish those goals.

John Tyler Presidential Blunder or Hero?

I have not been keeping up with my book reviews very well. I did finish a nice Presidential biography of John Tyler. John Tyler: The Accidental President by Edward Crapol. Tyler is best known as the first Vice President to take over the Presidency (upon the death of William Henry Harrison), but is also known as ‘America’s Only Traitor President’ because he died serving in the Confederate Congress at Richmond. He was usually referred to as ‘His Accidency’ by the Whigs who hated him because he abandoned the Whig Platform. Thus, the title of the book.

The biography is a very good one, but it only covers his early life and time as President. The book would have been better served to cover his entire political career, especially his time in the Senate. The book would then be able to deal with or resolve some of the internal tensions in the career of President Tyler. Tyler as a Senator waged open war against President Jackson and his extensive use of executive power, but as President he seemed to wage open war on the Congress. Tyler even went so far as to use the ‘executive privilege’ to withhold documents from Congress that we hear so much about today.

Tyler was probably not a unique Southern man, but he is clearly not what I was taught the model Southerner was like. Tyler was an ardent expansionist in his policies, which is inherently nationalistic. It is Tyler who opened the door of trade with the Orient and recognized Hawaii as a republic. He extended the Monroe Doctrine to the Pacific. Tyler took in Texas by a majority vote of both Houses as opposed to the 2/3rds method used for treaty ratification. Hardly the action of a strict constructionist, the position of most Southern men. Tyler was in favor of ending slavery and the slave trade within the District of Columbia, something other Southerners saw as a breach of the Constitution. Tyler thought slavery should be allowed in all the territories (which Southerners did hold), but not for the propagation of slavery rather for its end. He held to the theory that if the Southerners took their slaves to the territories, they would leave the South. Then the territories would outlaw slavery and enter as Free States, and soon the South would have a paucity of slavery and that would allow them to outlaw slavery as well. A theory that I did not realize existed. Tyler also is the only person to vote against the Force Act that allowed Jackson to use force to end the Nullification crisis in South Carolina. The rest of the Southerners just walked out and refused to vote. Tyler also quit the Senate rather than vote to repeal a censure on President. The Virginia State Legislature asked the Virginia Senators to vote to repeal. He did not think he could go against his legislature, but could not in good conscious vote to repeal. So he quit. Tyler also was pro-bank as long as the bank respected the states. He was an interesting man, and sadly this book does not deal with every subject I listed. Instead it focuses on Tyler as the real founder of Manifest Destiny.

I did learn many things I did not know. It was Tyler who single handedly created the way a Vice President ascended to the Presidency. He took the oath, had an inauguration, and re-did the whole works. This was because at that time there was legitimate disagreement about the line of succession. Many thought the Vice President was to serve as President in a ‘place holder’ fashion until another election could be held. Yet, Tyler’s actions created the ‘Tyler precedent’ that was followed by Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson (LBJ) as if it were in the Constitution itself. The Tyler precedent was finally put in the Constitution in 25th Amendment. It was also Mrs. Tyler who began the tradition of having the band play ‘Hail to the Chief” for the President.

In the long run, this book is good because President Tyler deserves another look.

Elizabeth Edwards and Stem Cells

I should start off this post by saying that I am sorry that Mrs. Edwards breast cancer is back and has spread. I do pray for her health. However, being sick does not give one permission to be immoral. The media has given her a free ride because of her illness, but I cannot ignore her inciting murder. I do not really have a problem with her decision to campaign (I have a slight problem at the insinuation that those who do stop normal life to fight cancer are doing something wrong), but I do have a problem with her first speech since the announcement.

Mrs. Edwards does use one interesting argument. The "its inevitable, so let us be the first to do it" argument. She basically tells all of us religious nuts who think children are important that we cannot stop embryos from being murdered so why bother stopping federal dollars from doing the killing. After all how would we feel if Communist China beat us in the whole sale slaughter of our own people for scientific advances or worse yet, what if we lose to France? She misses the point that this is not a race to the moon, but rather a matter of murder. Not to mention the fundamental principle that the government should not raise my taxes or take money from me to murder someone else. That idea is despicable.

Mrs. Edwards main argument appears to be that these are not children because they are unwanted. Thus, to her they are "clumps of cells". This is a ridiculous opinion. The very same argument could be made for any unwanted child of any age and every child who is ever abandoned. All human being are "clumps of cells" and if being wanted is the only thing that makes one a person then why not just pick up homeless guys and do experiments on them? No where has Mrs. Edwards even fairly addressed the concern that life begins at conception regardless of what happens after that point. Instead she appeals to pragmatism. Hundreds of babies are going to be throw out, so let us use them to help the rest of society by killing them for science. That is her argument. No trying to defend the defenseless, no appeal to higher moral law, just a plain old self-centered appeal to get what she needs no matter what the cost.

Would Mrs. Edwards be happy if a cure for her cancer were found in the Nazi concentration camps? If Hitler had dissected the Jews instead of putting them in gas chambers and came up with a cure for cancer, would Mrs. Edwards laud him as a hero, ask for government funding, and use the treatments from such butchery? According to her arguments, I think so.

Federal Vision Philosophy

In the last year I have seen several licensure and ordination exams, and the one area where I am always disappointed is philosophy. Philosophy gets a bad rap in most places, but I am convinced that it important, especially for a minister. Don’t get me wrong, I am not the world’s greatest philosopher nor even an average thinker. But, I do believe that knowledge of philosophy (and how it fits with Scripture) aids not only in the engaging culture, but also in the many controversies that consistently arise within the church itself.

Recently I have been thinking about how the Federal Vision controversy and theology could very well be impacted by the fundamental philosophical debate about Universals and Particulars. I am not sure I agree with every thing on this site, but it is a good place to go to get a brush up on the terms as well as some opinions on how the Realism, Moderate Realism, and Nominalism philosophies affect the theories of the Lord’s Supper.

Take for example this statement of Doug Wilson about the Church:

For example, the Protestant terminology can make us think there are really two churches, one invisible in heaven and the other visible here on earth. (Federal Vision, pg. 266)

When you have two churches existing at the same time, with the membership lists not identical, this creates a problem. We know there is only one Church, so which one is the real one? . . . For example, if we are told there are two Peter Smiths, one heavenly and one earthly, we might confused about which one is the real Peter. But confronted with Peter Smith on Monday and again on Tuesday, we do not have any such problem. (Reformed is Not Enough, pg. 70-71)

Rev. Wilson here is saying something about universals and particulars. He is making a highly philosophical statement. In fact he is saying that the ‘universal’ can only be found in the ‘particular’. The two cannot exist at the same time with differences; thus, we must only turn to the one here on earth. He has taken sides in a debate that goes back to Plato vs. Aristotle. And if I am not mistaken in my amateur philosophy, he has taken Aristotle’s side. He has shown himself to be a moderate-realist.

I also think that the Moderate Realist position on the Lord’s Supper is a decent representation of the Federal Vision position. The particular of bread does not become the ‘universal’ of the body of Christ, but it is connected in such a way that the particular (bread) conveys the grace of the universal (body of Christ).

It would be interesting to hear what others think on this. Is there a link between Aristotle’s metaphysics and the Federal Vision theology?

Song in Lord of the Rings

A little while ago I bought and read The Battle for Middle Earth by Fleming Rutledge. The book examines themes as they come up taking you through the story as it unfolds. This makes for an interesting read, and I think this book would be a nice companion that could be used as you read through the LoTR series itself. However, I personally think the LoTR is such a deep series that one book can hardly do it justice. Rutledge focuses in on the theme of divine providence and human responsibility and does it well. But Rutledge misses one of the points that I think is important in the books and absent from the movies (which is why I think the movies are not faithful to the books). Singing.

I believe that singing is the way in which Illvutar (the almighty creator god in the LoTR) breaks into the story and guides his servants. Singing is not just something that is done but plays the role of Scripture because it is the chief means of grace. At the very least singing is sacramental for Tolkien in his series. Just take a look at the characters. The older characters and races that are unaffected by evil are always singing like Treebeard and Tom Bombadil. The Elves are full of song as are the hobbits. The men less so, but the good characters sing, and the orcs never sing. Also the act of singing often brings about a change in attitude or outlook as if grace had been bestowed. Singing was used by Illvutar to create the world in the Simirillion, and is thus to be thought of as connected to the divine. If you still do not think that singing had grace-like effects listen to a few easily over read quotes from the books.

Sam on his first encounter with elves when they were given an elven feast (and hobbits love food):

Sam could never describe in words, nor picture clearly to himself, what he felt or thought that night, though it remained in his memory as one of the chief events of his life. The nearest he ever got was to say: ‘Well, sir, if I could grow apples like that, I would call myself a gardener. But it was the singing that went to my heart, if you know what I mean.’ (Fellowship of the Ring, pg. 92)

The music goes to Sam’s heart, and it is the music, not the food, he remembers of the elves.

Here Pippin talk of the Ents as they marched to Isengard.
There was very much more. A great deal of the song had no words, and was like a music of horns and drums. It was very exciting. But I thought it was only marching music and no more, just a song – until I got there. I know better now. (Two Towers, pg. 186)

Pippin thought the song was just a marching song, but after seeing what the Ents did, he knows better. He no knows that song was not just singing, but something altogether more powerful.

Sam provides one more example as he sits defeated while Frodo is hostage of the Orcs.

At last, weary and feeling finally defeated, he sat on a step below the level of the passage-floor and bowed his head into his hands. It was quiet. The torch, that was already burning low when he arrived, sputtered and went out; and he felt the darkness cover him like a tide. And the softly, to his own surprise, there at the vain end of his long journey and his grief, moved by what thought in his heart he could not tell, Sam began to sing. . . . And then suddenly new strength rose in him, and his voice rang out, while words of his own came unbidden to fit the simple tune. (Return of the King, pg. 194-195)

The song is moved in his heart by something other than himself. The song removes his grief and sorrow. The song stirs him to action as well as gives him strength. Grace through song.

One could recount this all day long. Other lesser examples abound as well such as hearing the song of waterfalls (creation itself), or characters wanting to do the ‘deeds of song’, or even the times when singing was hindered and the people became depressed. In my opinion Tolkien created a world where singing is the primary means of knowing the divine and the primary means of grace. Thus, a movie that omits all songs, omits the very substance of the hope that is within the characters. But, perhaps I am wrong. Go read the books and you tell me.

Blog Update and More Madness

We have been trying to label all the posts and completely take advantage of the blogger upgrades here at the Two-Edged Sword. And by 'we', I mean my wife. She is the computer guru. I basically just answer a question from time to time. But, she is still trying to shake all the bugs out, so please be patient and let us know if you run into any problems.

Speaking of my wife, it is time for our annual competition by filling out our March Madness brackets. So far my wife has beaten me every year excpet one in our seven years of marriage. She never watches a game all year, but spends hours researching after the brackets are announced and usually gets her way. This year she found a site she enjoyed. MSNBC has an interactive bracket that gives stats and opinions on each team when your mouse rolls over them. You click on a team and the computer fills in the bracket for you. Then you get head to head comparisons for every game. It is a nice way to avoid the pencil work and have a nice, neat bracket.

Just for the record, this year I have Wisconsin, Kansas, Georgetown, and Ohio State with Georgetown beating Kansas for the national title.

The Money Behind the Madness

It amazes me every year how awful the Selection Committee for the NCAA Basketball tournament turns out to be. The only thing that bothers me more is the pandering done by ESPN “analysts” like Jay Bilas. ESPN always spends hours arguing the Selection Committee, but never for the right reasons.

Every year the Selection Committee loads the field of 65 teams with teams from the 6 power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC, PAC 10). For example, last year the Big East sent 8 teams. That is half of the teams in the Big East, and the teams made 1/8th of field of 64 (and you really only should count 64). This year the power conferences counted for 34 teams(7 ACC, 4 Big 12, 6 Big East, 6 Big 10, 6 Pac 10, 5 SEC), which comes out to over half of the field no matter how you count them. 25 other conferences fielded a total of 31 teams. Yes, 6 teams made the tournament from non-power conferences without winning their conference. The answer should be obvious to all. The tournament is not about crowning a national champion; it is about money. The big conferences are where the well-known teams are, so they all get in no matter what. They draw more viewers. How else do you explain Texas Tech getting in over Kansas State, who finished higher in the conference and beat Texas Tech in the Conference Tournament, except that Bobby Knight is a house hold name? It is a perversion of justice.

Appalachian State beat Virginia, co-champs of the ACC, Vanderbilt, a tournament team from the SEC, and VCU, champs of their conference, as well as Witchita State for an overall record of 25-7. Don’t forget they lost in the Southern Conference tournament in the semi-finals to the team hosting the tournament, so it should count as a road loss.

Drexel finished their season with a 23-8 record and in the top four of their conference. They beat Syracuse, the Big East favorite of Jay Bilas, and Villanova, a tournament bound team from the Big East, as well as Creighton, a team that made the tournament from their conference. Five of Drexel’s eight losses came against teams headed to the tournament.

Air Force also finished 23-8, and maybe the biggest snub of all. Air Force beat Standford, tournament bound from the Pac 10, Colorado of the Big 12, Texas Tech, a tournament bound Big 12 team, Wake Forest from the ACC, as well as Long Beach St, which is going to the tournament. They also won games against BYU and UNLV, which are both going to the tournament out Air Force’s conference.

Marist won the regular season title of the MAAC. They finished the season with a record of 24-8 with wins over their conferences eventual representative, Niagra, as well as tournament bound Old Dominion, and a victory over Big 10 team Minnesota, at Minnesota. Yet, they were left out of the tournament.

We are supposed to believe that these teams are so bad that they could not pull at 6th place 10-8 record in the PAC 10 (18-12 overall), which got Standford into the tournament. Or an 7th place 8-8 record in the Big 10 (22-11 overall), which got Michigan State into the tournament. Or even a 5th place 9-7 finish in the Big 12 (21-12 overall), which was enough to get Texas Tech into the tournament. Or worse yet an 8th place finish 9-7 in the Big East (22-10 overall), which bought Villanova a place in the Madness. Of course we cannot forget the committee saying that these schools could not break even in the ACC 8-8 for a 6th place finish. That along with a 22-10 record overall got Duke into the tournament.

What is worse is that ESPN and Jay Bilas spent time arguing that 6 at large bids split between 25 conferences is too many. Jay Bilas actually tried to make an argument that Syracuse deserved to be in rather than Xavier. Mr. Bilas examined the stats and revealed that Xavier was 3-2 against teams ranked in the top 50 RPI while Syracuse was 3-7. In Jay Bilas twisted version of reality Syracuse had the same number of wins, and thus should have gotten the bid. So we are to believe that a 30% winning percentage with most of those games played at home is as good as a 60% winning percentage with most of the games on the road. No one in their right mind actually thinks that way. Jay Bilas is out to make sure that no team outside of the 6 power conferences plays in March. In fact, I bet Jay Bilas would be happy if the rest of the conferences just went away.

The solution to this problem is really simple. It just takes a dash of common sense. First, no conference deserves more than four teams. Period. If you are not at or near the top of your conference then you are not an elite team that deserves a shot to play for the national championship. I do not care how good Syracuse is supposed to be when you finish 12th out of 16 in your own league, you do not deserve to make the tournament. This still gives the power conferences 24 teams total. The other 25 leagues will get the remaining 40 bids.

Second, if you must have 65 teams rather than 64 make the play-in game among the power conference teams, not the small conferences. It is always a shame to watch two league champions face off in a play-in game, effectively canceling out one of the automatic bids for the small conferences. Rather make this game a play-in game for the power conferences. For example make Arkansas face off against Illinois. The winner gets an 8 seed, and the loser goes home.

Third, if you must, give the power conferences the high seeds and the small conferences the low seeds. That way the bigger-badder conferences are still rewarded for their ‘tough conference’ and you still have the principle of the best teams meeting late in the tournament.

The benefits of this are enormous and the drawbacks are non-existent. It restores competitive balance throughout college basketball. It makes the regular season more important and conferences tournaments for the big conferences relevant again. Right now a team like UCLA can lose in the first round and still get a number 2 seed. It gives them extra rest before the big tournament, and it might even get their conference another team in the Madness by removing themselves from the tournament.

I hope one day these changes will be made or at least advocated on a supposed Sports News Channel, but don’t hold your breath. There is a better chance of Fox News endorsing Hillary Clinton than ESPN actually using its brain.

Philemon – more than a slave?

It is a strange oddity that the meaning of Philemon is so contested. The main question appears to be, does Paul ask Philemon to liberate his returned-run-away slave, Onesimus. The main answer, historically, seems to have been no Paul does not ask for emancipation. However, I am convinced that he does indeed ask Philemon to release Onesimus, and what is more, I find the evidence fairly overwhelming. I freely admit that I do not own a large quantity of commentaries on Philemon, but John Calvin, Markus Barth, R.L. Dabney, William Henderson, and William Barclay all favor the idea that Philemon is just to forgive Onesimus for running away or give him some kind of cushy-slave job.

Some commentators do appear to favor the idea that Onesiums was to be freed, and slavery as a whole condemned. J.B. Lightfoot seems to hold this view and more recently the always controversial John Robbins. Despite Robbins’s reputation, I believe he is right.

Commentators like Markus Barth get bogged down in minute details, and miss the flow of the argument over all, including the high occurrence of slave related terms.

It seems to me Paul starts out calling Philemon a ‘fellow-laborer’ to bring to mind the idea of a slave immediately. More than that, he applies to both himself, Timothy and Philemon, while in verse two only calling Archippus a ‘fellow-soldier’. Paul goes on to speak of Philemon’s ‘love and faith’, which is an unusual word order placing emphasis on love. It is Philemon’s love toward Jesus and all the saints that is about to be put to the test in how he treats Onesimus, who is a fellow saint. Paul is building up to his point about correct treatment of Onesiums.

In verse 8 Paul says he could command him as an apostle, but would rather appeal to the love toward the saints, and especially toward Jesus, which had just been commended. Of course Paul tops that off with another slave reference. He mentions that he is in bonds for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. He repeats the bonds in verse 10, the first mention of Onesimus. Paul continues to ramp up the argument by saying Onesiums should be received as Paul would be received because Paul would have liked to keep him to minister to him while he is in the bonds of the gospel, another reference to slavery applied to Paul.

Verse 14, the beginning of the height of the argument, Paul explains why he did not command Philemon because this good deed should be done not out of necessity, but voluntarily. Commentators like Barth spend many pages discussing the difference between coercion and free-will decisions, but seem to neglect the fact that this is another slave-reference. Paul does not want Philemon to be coerced like a slave, but make a decision like a free man does. This leads to the famous verse 16 where Paul exhorts Philemon to make Onesimus ‘more than a slave, a brother beloved’. Remember the love of the saints is what Philemon is known for the most. But he is also to make him more than a slave because Onesimus is a beloved brother ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord’. It seems probable to me that ‘the flesh’ here simply means he is a man, a human. Thus, Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus are all brothers because they are all believers in Christ (in the Lord), and because they are all human (in the flesh). Paul is saying Onesimus must be more than a slave because he is a man just like Philemon and Paul.

In the end, I do think Paul is asking for Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery. Too many commentators make a big deal that he never says ‘Emancipate Onesimus’ that they torture the words to make Onesimus being ‘more than a slave’ mean still a slave. I think it is time that we let go of odd bias and see Paul’s argument for what it is, an argument for emancipation.

A few interesting extrabiblical notes, archaeologists have found an inscription on a tomb in Laodicea. The tomb was inscribed by a former slave to the master who freed him. The dead master’s name is Marcus Sestius Philemon. Also we see an Onesimus in the letter of Ignatius to Ephesus. That Onesimus is a man of inexpressable love who is also the bishop of Ephesus. Could that be our Onesimus? It would have made sense that a free Onesimus would have served the church, as he had already served Paul.

A Notice

I am off to The Northern Plains Classis meeting. So, I will not be posting until at least Wednesday. I still have a reply to Xon on to finish writing, so do not lose heart if you are waiting on that reply.

Also before I continue discussing the Federal Vision, I will post some thoughts about Philemon commentaries, which I hope will make Green Baggins respond.

Until I get back, feel free to examine the greatness of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the bright future for the Pirates. I will probably also have to rant about March Madness, as I have the fever already.

Some books do not live up to their titles

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

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

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

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

I was right about the Nuggets

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

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

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

Peter Leithart and Changing the Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church:

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

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


Doug Wilson:

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

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

Heidelberg Catechism:

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

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

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

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

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

Eight Ways to Govern the Country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today is the Day . . .

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

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

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

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

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

Belated Posting Reasons

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

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

Federal Vision and the Three Forms of Unity: Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

New Pub in Town

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

Thomas Cahill Book Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejecting Mariology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Degradation of Mary

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

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

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

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

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

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