In another thread I mentioned that I think that, at best, Nevin had a very superficial grasp of church history. Here's an example...
John Williamson Nevin: But if anything in the world can be said to be historically clear, it is the fact that with the close of the fourth century and the coming in of the fifth, the Primacy of the Roman See was admitted and acknowledged in all parts of the Christian world. John Williamson Nevin, Catholic and Reformed Selected Theological Writings (Pittsburg: The Pickwick Press, 1978), p. 200.
Apart from a discussion of the western church, I would assert in contradistinction to Nevin - If anything in the world can be said to be historically clear, it is the fact that the eastern church never ever admitted, let alone acknowledged, the primacy of the Roman See. Nevin had the tendency to rant with ahistorical conclusions.
DTK
John Williamson Nevin: But if anything in the world can be said to be historically clear, it is the fact that with the close of the fourth century and the coming in of the fifth, the Primacy of the Roman See was admitted and acknowledged in all parts of the Christian world. John Williamson Nevin, Catholic and Reformed Selected Theological Writings (Pittsburg: The Pickwick Press, 1978), p. 200.
Apart from a discussion of the western church, I would assert in contradistinction to Nevin - If anything in the world can be said to be historically clear, it is the fact that the eastern church never ever admitted, let alone acknowledged, the primacy of the Roman See. Nevin had the tendency to rant with ahistorical conclusions.
DTK