How wrong can one man be?

According to Jonathan Bonomo, by the end of his review of J. W. Nevin’s The Mystical Presence, Charles Hodge had charged Nevin’s system with being nearly identical to or at least tending towards the following heterodox views at one point or another:

(1) Schliermarchian Mysticism

(2) Rationalism

(3) Pantheism

(4) Socinianism

(5) Eutychianism

(6) Mothelitism

(7) Romanism

(8) Sebellianism

Of course Nevin would not have recognised this description of himself. And Bonomo suggests number of these errors are mutually exclusive. As he says, no doubt Hodge would have said that Nevin was hopelessly confused.

In the light of this onslaught of accusations, Bonomo agrees with Gerish that Hodge employed an “essentially hostile hermeneutic” Tradition in the Modern World, p62.

Jonathan G. Bonomo, Incarnation and Sacrament: The Eucharistic Controversy Between Charles Hodge and John Williamson Nevin (Eugene, Wimpf and Stock, 2010) pp93-94

Dangerous

Just as it is weak to call something wacky or criticise its emphasis, to call something dangerous is dangerous. Everything is dangerous. A knife can be an excellent tool or a horrible murder weapon. We can't allow the danger of murder to rule out the dinner of steak. All sin is a privation, a falling away from good, and hence all of creation is dangerous: good but with potential for evil. Criticising the tendency of something is tendentious. Does it necessarily and inevitably tend to the bad or could it be put to a good use?

Wacky

Just as it is weak and difficult to criticise something as having the wrong emphasis, so calling something "wacky" can be more abuse than argument. It assumes that we all know what "normal" is, in contrast to "wacky" and that normal is good, true and beautiful.

Emphasis

Revd Prof John Frame has pointed out the danger and weakness for criticising someone or something for their emphasis.

To do so assumes that the author has claimed to be comprehensive or definitive, or that we know the whole.

There can be many reasons for an emphasis arising from speakers or hearers (needs, interests, aptitudes, temperament, times).

For example, an Old Testament scholar who rights three 800 page books on Obadiah may not be overemphasising it. A preacher who only ever preached from Obadiah to his regular congregation would be.

Far better to take each point on its own and say why it is wrong if we want to criticise something.