Archive for the ‘Darryl Hart’ Category

Unbalanced "Two Kingdoms" and Political Campaigns

January 17, 2014

Prof. Clark has a couple of posts up praising Ben Sasse and even including one of his political campaign advertisements (“Ben is a Straight Shooter” | “Ben is Speaking Up About Religious Liberty“). Personally, I can’t vouch for Mr. Sasse (nor do I have any particular criticisms), and that’s not the point of this post.

Among other things, Clark writes:

So, in light of the drift of the culture and the Christian accommodation to that drift, it has been interesting to watch Ben Sasse’s campaign for the U. S. Senate from Nebraska.

I appreciate Clark’s concern against Christian accommodation of the culture. At the same time, that’s one of the problems with an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms. It is an accommodation to the cultural norm that the state is to be “secular” rather than being normed by Scripture.

One of the ironies of the posts is that posts like these, which appear to be stumping for a particular candidate, would appear to violate the principles of the Darryl Hart-type unbalanced two kingdoms view. One of the commenters presented this issue, and in response Clark asked:

What about the twofold kingdom means that Christians cannot engage the civil realm?

and again

Now, once more, what is it about the twofold kingdom that prevents Christians from observing and commenting on the civil/political sphere?

I wasn’t the commenter in question, so Clark wasn’t asking me. I would respond that the more unbalanced forms don’t say that people (who happen to be Christians) cannot engage the civil realm, observe the civil/political sphere, or comment on the civil/political sphere. Nevertheless, it does prevent them from doing so as Christians, bringing Christian doctrine and specifically the Bible to bear. In other words, in the so-called R2K system, a Christian cannot comment as a Christian, only as a person. Prof. Clark is not commenting on Ben as one might talk about a particularly skilled quarterback (or simply one wearing the right jersey) but rather he appears to be bringing Biblical principles to bear on the situation (as well he should! and good for him!) This does not seem consistent with the more unbalanced views of the two kingdoms.

For example, recall that Hart wrote:

Christianity is essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world.

(p. 12 of A Secular Faith) Frame explains, Hart “is opposed not only to the church taking political positions, but even to individual Christians claiming biblical authority for their political views.” (Escondido Theology, p. 248)

Contrary to what Hart seems to think (based on his book), the Scriptures have a lot to say about the passing and temporal affairs of this world, even though this is our pilgrimage with the best life yet to come. An error of an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms is creating a dichotomy between them rather than recognizing that the civil magistrate is a minister of God who ought to be normed by the Word of the God of whom he is the minister. Another error is like to it – treating all aspects of this life the same whether the Bible has said much (for example, good laws) or little (for example, plumbing, air conditioning, or pharmacology). Yes, the Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to roll aluminum foil quite flat without making it so thin it accidentally tears. The Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to build a controlled fusion reactor. But there are oodles of teachings regarding what sort of laws are good. There are oodles of teachings on marriage and family – on the raising of children, and so forth.


Darryl Hart on American Roman Catholicism

February 21, 2013

Darryl Hart at “Old Life” provides some quotations regarding the uniquely American experience of Roman Catholicism and how it hasn’t really taken political root (link). I would add that Roman Catholicism does tend to exhibit a degree of syncretism. Thus, in its American embodiment it tends to be rather Protestant, but it has other flavors in other countries. For example, in Brazil, the Marxist influence is hard to deny (and is the topic of a significant amount of frustration amongst more traditional folks there).


Darryl Hart and a Heretical Pope

January 29, 2013

Darryl Hart points out how Pope John XXII (c. 1244 – 1334) was forced by the Parisian Faculty of Theology to recant his heretical views regarding the Beatific Vision (link). It’s an example of the messiness of the medieval papacy and particularly its relationship to France and the French theologians.

The work from which Hart quotes is “The Mortgage of the Past,” by Francis Oakley. That same work documents a number of issues that the folks at Called to Communion (a Roman communion blog) are unlikely to feature. For example, endnote 50 at page 269 highlights the fact that previous generations (i.e. before Vatican I) have been more open to the idea that the pope may fall into heresy:

Decretum, D. 40. c. 6; ed. Friedberg, 1879-81. 1:146. Tierney, 1964, 119, notes that even the high papalist decretist Alanus Anglicus [fl. A.D. 1190-1215] conceded that deposition would be called for in the case of papal heresy. The more moderate decretist Huguccio [of Pisa] went further, and envisaged any notorious papal crime as cause sufficient for the imposition of that penalty. For a full synoptic treatment of the origin and destiny of such notions, see Oakley, 2003b.

Oakley endorses the idea that “no other pope was as important for edging papal monarch toward absolutism” as Innoncent III (A.D. 1198-1216), quoting Kenneth Pennington, The Pope and the Bishops: the Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), p. 58.

– TurretinFan

Hart on the Lord’s Day and the NFL

January 25, 2013

Darryl Hart points out the rules that churches who decide to show the Superbowl at church must abide by, but notes that a better incentive might be provided by pointing out the 4th commandment (3rd for the Papalists).  It’s also provides an opportunity for pointing out the changing attitude of Rome toward’s the Lord’s Day (and other “holy” days) building on Hart’s other post (mentioned here).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

Third Part of this Commandment
The third part of the Commandment comes next to be explained. It points out, to a certain extent, the manner in which we are to keep holy the Sabbath day, and explains particularly what we are forbidden to do on that day.
Works Forbidden
Thou shalt do no work on it, says the Lord, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
These words teach us, in the first place, to avoid whatever may interfere with the worship of God. Hence it is not difficult to perceive that all servile works are forbidden, not because they are improper or evil in themselves, but because they withdraw the attention from the worship of God, which is the great end of the Commandment.
The faithful should be still more careful to avoid sin, which not only withdraws the mind from the contemplation of divine things, but entirely alienates us from the love of God.
Works Permitted
But whatever regards the celebration of divine worship, such as the decoration of the altar or church on occasion of some festival, and the like, although servile works, are not prohibited; and hence our Lord says: The priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame.
Neither are we to suppose that this Commandment forbids attention to those things on a feast day, which, if neglected, will be lost; for this is expressly permitted by the sacred canons.
There are many other things which our Lord in the Gospel declares lawful on festivals and which may be seen by the pastor in St. Matthew and St. John.

The Baltimore Catechism (Papalist) states:

238. What is forbidden by the third commandment of God?
By the third commandment of God all unnecessary servile work on Sunday is forbidden.

Six days shall you do work; in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. (Exodus 31:15)

239. What is servile work?
Servile work is that which requires labor of body rather than of mind.

240. When is servile work allowed on Sunday?
Servile work is allowed on Sunday when the honor of God, our own need, or that of our neighbor requires it.

While I’m sure there is a mental aspect to NFL, I think it’s safe to say it is more labor of body than of mind.  I’m not sure I accept the RC distinction, which seems to permit white collar work while forbidding blue collar work, but of the two being a linebacker seems plainly to be more about muscle.

Of course, these days the CCC states:

2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.


Hart Documents Vatican II Watershed

January 25, 2013

Darryl Hart has posted an interesting item on the effect of Vatican II (link to post).  It is a point others have observed, but his documentation on the question of justification in Roman Catholic encyclopedias is especially eye-opening.  Hat’s off to DGH for this good post.


Picking the Low-hanging Cherries

March 28, 2012

Darryl Hart has posted an article (2K Cherries 2Hot 2Handle) responding to my friend Lane Keister’s decision to stop discussing two kingdoms theology on his blog.  Unfortunately, the article serves as an illustration of the problem that led my friend to stop discussing the topic.

Hart seems to have a fundamental problem distinguishing argument from personality.  Read his post.  You’ll find that after the first paragraph it’s all about attacking his critics – not for their views – but attacking their integrity.  Here are some examples:

  • “some who object to 2k have so made up their minds about the idea and its proponents that they will hear nothing in defense of the doctrine; they won’t even read the books written on 2k”
  • “two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept”
  • “In which case, they have no more claim to Calvin as a standard for religion and politics than 2kers do. Yet, here’s the key. 2kers are honest. They actually admit that they disagree with Calvin.”
  • “And this means that the critics of 2k are either unaware of how little standing the original WCF chapter 23 or Belgic Art. 36 has in conservative Reformed churches. Or if they know of confessional revision and use the original documents to denounce 2kers, they are dishonest.”
  • “Or perhaps they are simply foolish (and impolitely so).”

(and that’s not to mention the comment box, where one finds jewels of charity such as “You philosophers sure are clever (but undermedicated).”)

I’m sure this post will sail over Hart’s head.  In the post itself, he calls attention to the fact that I have previously pointed out to him that his approach of attacking the person of the critics (for example, accusing them of not being gracious) is ad hominem.  His response is that “I do not see how this point is beside the point.”

But what about those two “undeniable historical developments” that form the only substance to his post?

The first of the alleged “undeniable historical developments” is “that the critics of 2k do not advocate the execution of adulterers or heretics.”  There are three layers of rebuttal to this point.  First, not all critics of E2k refuse to advocate the execution of adulterers and blasphemers (one assumes that’s what Hart means, since that’s what Calvin advocated).  Second, Calvin himself seems to have thought that in some cases the penalties should be dependent on the circumstances, including the penalty for adultery (See ICR IV:20:16). Third, whether or not critics of E2k are themselves little clones of Calvin is quite the beside the point.   No critics of E2k claim to be clones of Calvin, and yet whether or not they are clones of Calvin they can still observe that E2k advocates have so radically departed from Calvin that Calvin’s views are treated as intolerable and absurd.  There’s a difference between the sons of Calvin and the sons of the Quakers, even if neither is identical to Calvin.

The second of the alleged “undeniable historical developments” is “that all of the Reformed churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council have rejected the teaching of both the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate.”  In order to check this claim, I carefully studied the standards of the hundreds, dozens, twelve denominations in NAPARC.  Hart’s assessment is wrong.  The OPC and PCA both have not rejected the teachings of the WCF on the civil magistrate, they have broader standards, so that one is not required to hold those views (as already demonstrated here), although their standards do rule out E2k (as explained here).  The ERQ subscribes to the original WCF, but permits liberty of conscience on several sections, including the sections that E2k finds most objectionable.  The FRCNA states that they fully subscribe to the original three forms of unity (including the Belgic Confession).  Should I go on?  At best, the RPCNA could be said to have “rejected” them, based on the ambiguous wording of their “testimony” that serves as an interpretive guide to the standards.  (Of course, not all conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America are in NAPARC, but even with Hart’s cherry-picking …).

Now, Hart makes a fuss about the fact that he’s an historian (“From the perspective of this 2k advocate who also doubles as a historian, two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept — sort of like denying that the North defeated the South in 1865; you may not like it, but how do you deny what happened at Appomattox?”).  But what’s wrong?  Is Hart just too lazy to research things?  Surely he’s not intentionally lying to people while bolstering his claims with his reputation as an historian (some of his historical work is, in fact, well respected).  So, what then?

One answer is that Hart is simply avoiding addressing the actual knotty issues of E2k as compared both with Scripture and with the Reformed tradition with respect to which E2k represents a significant departure.  Until he gets his head straight, his comments and reviews will continue to be the low-hanging fruit in the discussion, but since he’s one of the most vocal advocates, they will need to be picked.


Hart’s Responses to Frame

March 24, 2012

Darryl Hart has offered several responses to Frame’s book. The first response I’ll consider is one Hart titled, “More Than You Bargained For?” in which Hart responds to Frame’s comment: “They are also motivated by a desire to oppose what they regard as theological corruptions of the Reformation doctrine, particularly the views of N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and the movement called Federal Vision.” Hart responds: “So I’m to imagine that using the law-gospel distinction in opposition to Shepherd, Wright, and the Federal Vision is extreme?” But this is a bizarre non sequitur. That is not what Frame wrote, nor is it a reasonable inference from what Frame wrote. Frame didn’t say or imply that merely using the law-gospel distinction in those disputes is “extreme.”  Even if Frame thinks the use is extreme, one certainly cannot conclude from Frame’s line that he’s saying that such extremity is due to the fact of who is being opposed or the tool that is being used to oppose.

While there is a lot more copy in Darryl’s response, there is no other direct interaction with what Frame wrote.

That’s rather the same as what we find in the next response we will consider, one titled: “Authors, Editors, and Readers.”  In this post, Hart quotes Frame thus:

Too often, in ethical debate, Christians sound too much like unbelievers. They reason as if they and their opponents are both operating on the same principle: human rational autonomy. I believe they almost inevitably give this false impression when they are reasoning according to natural law alone. Only when the Christian goes beyond natural law and begins to talk about Jesus as the resurrected king of kings does his witness become distinctively Christian. At that point, of course, he is reasoning from Scripture, not from natural revelation alone.

Then, after providing an example of a few paragraphs from Leithart where Leithart does not mention Christ or the Scriptures, Hart states:

Now, the additional point is not that Leithart is a hypocrite or that Frame is selective in the writers whom he throws under the Lordship of Christ bus. It is instead that authors write for editors and audiences and need to couch their language and arguments in terms acceptable to the editors and plausible to the readers. This isn’t a matter of the right apologetic method or a consistent epistemology. It is a case of either getting published or not, of being understood or not. If Leithart had come to the editors of First Things with arguments in a distinctively neo-Calvinist idiom, they would likely not have published him.

Perhaps that means that Christians should not write for religiously, epistemologically, or the-politically mixed publications. Indeed, it does seem that Frame’s arguments run directly in the fundamentalist direction of not having anything to do with associations where a believer might have to hide his faith under a bushel (NO!). But if Christian authors, even neo-Calvinist inclined ones, are going to write for publications not edited by Andrew Sandel or Ken Gentry or the faculty of Dort College, they may need to use rhetoric and arguments that are not pedal-to-the-metal Christian.

For this reason, I am surprised that John Frame can’t appreciate why 2k writers sound the way they do, or appeal to natural law arguments the way they do.

But Frame is not expressing merely a lack of appreciation, but disapproval.  Hart’s response that unless Christians reason as if they are both operating on the same principle, they will not get published or not be successful in persuading their opponents in the ethical debate.  For Hart, this pragmatic consideration trumps Frame’s proposed principled consideration.  Hart provides no further justification for this trumping.  Indeed his comments are telling: “This isn’t a matter of the right apologetic method or a consistent epistemology. It is a case of either getting published or not, of being understood or not.”  Thus, for Hart, the pragmatic of being published/understood trumps the principle of correct apologetics and epistemology.

It gets worse.  Hart identified his post, “The Grandaddy of Reformed Anti-Lutheranism,” as one of his responses to Frame (here).  But that post begins by trying to address Norman Shepherd: “Before Shepherd, theologians like John Murray or Louis Berkhof would not have objected to the Lutheran doctrine of justification. But Shepherd did.”  The way in which the Lutheran doctrine of justification differs from the Reformed doctrine lies in the scope of the atonement, and Reformed teachers have long criticized Lutheran views on the scope of the atonement.  If Shepherd objected to justification by faith alone, he was objecting to the Reformed doctrine, the Lutheran doctrine, and the doctrine of a variety of the fathers of the church.  He wasn’t objecting to anything distinctively Lutheran.

Hart then essentially accuses Frame of preparing the way for Shepherd with his previous book:”John Frame’s book, Evangelical Reunion (for starters) would be ironically one example of that New School turn among conservative Presbyterians away from Old School practices and convictions.”  No justification is provided for this accusation.

Hart then alleges that Frame endorses Shepherd: “I wonder if John Frame’s endorsement of Shepherd actually includes some recognition of the distance between him and Shepherd on the Reformed identity and militant character of the OPC, with Shepherd embodying one strand of Machen’s warrior children and Frame exhibiting boredom with fighting period.”

But where is the argument?  There is none.  The whole point of the post is to try to tie Frame to the Norman Shepherd controversy, and to somehow suggest that Frame’s criticism of Lutheran influence on Escondido thought is somehow contrary to justification by faith alone (which confirms point 28 of Frame’s 32 points).

Things looked a little more hopeful in Hart’s, “Is the Gospel Sufficient to GOVERN Culture?” but let’s see what transpired.

Hart begins with the title of the chapter (which corresponds to this article) and even supplies some of Frame’s 32 points. Hart then goes on to complain that it is odd to speak about “governing culture” essentially because culture seems to be organic. Hart considers “language” as an example of culture, and suggests that it cannot really be “governed.” This is an odd choice on Hart’s part, because it does not appear that Frame actually argues that language should be “governed.”

In the next section, Hart characterizes Frame’s view as being that “the Bible is a surer foundation for ethical reflection than general revelation” (and provides a quotation from Frame). But Hart provides no meaningful rebuttal to this point. Instead, Hart complains that “the Bible has prevented Presbyterians like himself from rejecting the regulative principle of worship” and asserts that “The Bible of the Puritans is not cogent for Frame.” These points are both ad hominem and red herrings, and consequently doubly illegitimate. Frame’s view on the RPW is a mistake, but it is not a mistake that is relevant to this argument. Only in the final sentence does Hart actually make a legitimate point: he observes that just because “natural law argumentation fails a test of logic does not prove that the Bible is sufficient to GOVERN culture.” That’s a true observation, but of course Frame argues for the Bible’s sufficiency after pointing out general revelation’s insufficiency. So, this would be a compelling criticism only if Frame said nothing more.

But Frame does say more, as Hart quotes (Hart removed the term “world view” but I’ll present the whole quotation):

Cogent and persuasive ethical reasoning presupposes a world view and standards of judgment. It is not easy to argue these from nature alone. For Christians, these standards come from Scripture. So apart from Scripture ethical argument loses its cogency and often its persuasiveness. Nonbelievers, of course, won’t usually accept Scripture as authoritative. But they may at least respect an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions.

Hart’s response?

I doubt it. Actually, I know such respect won’t be forthcoming since heaps of ridicule have been directed at evangelicals for the last thirty years for trying such w-wish arguments. Maybe Frame thinks a graduate seminar in philosophy is the context for these disputes. If so, he forgets the verb GOVERN. And when unbelievers confront people who want the GOVERNORS to implement religious teaching in politics and cultural standards, they get a little testy.

So that’s it? Hart doubts that unbelievers “may at least respect an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions”? I think Hart has too low a view of conscience and the light of nature. It is the conscience and the light of nature that persuade people to grudgingly acknowledge, “at least he’s consistent,” even if they disagree with someone. The heaps of ridicule Hart identified are not directed at the arguments, but at the world view. Typical Americans do seem to have bought into an E2k view of radical separation of church and state (really, it is the other way around, E2k picked it up from the world), but even typical Americans may respect an an argument that is self-conscious about its epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions, even if they don’t know what “epistemological,” “metaphysical,” or even “presuppositions” mean. Ordinary people get that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Hart then departs on a tangent regarding something Leithart wrote and continues with another two paragraphs that lack any argument worth noting. Then we come to Hart’s core argument:

So how sufficient is the Bible to govern a society composed of diverse religious adherents and non-believers? We already know that the Bible has not been sufficient to yield a unified church. Now it’s supposed to give us a platform for cultural and political cogency and coherence in a diverse and religiously free society?

First, I’m not sure whether a society ruled by the Bible would be as “religiously free” as Hart would like. In fact, I suspect that’s a logical impossibility given Hart’s view of religious freedom. Second, though, for Hart to deny that the Bible is sufficient to govern the church is simply for Hart to demonstrate how far outside the Westminster Standards his position is. Now, Hart’s comment could be re-interpreted to mean that although Scripture does sufficiently govern the church, the result is not a unified church. But if that’s the case, then what of it? One world government is neither God’s will for the church or for the state.

Hart then asks: “How are those hostile to God going to submit to GOVERNMENT based on the Bible?” The answer should be obvious from Romans 13. The power of the sword is the way that those who are hostile to God submit to laws that come from God. Note that Hart casts his question in terms of the Bible, but the light of nature comes from God too. So, the question is one that Hart should have an answer for, yet he claims he’s “still lacking a decent answer.”

Hart next asks: “doesn’t a proposal for the Bible’s sufficiency as a rule for culture and society mean ultimately that only believers will GOVERN?” The answer to this question should be obvious too. Just look at Old Testament Israel. Very often the nation was ruled by unbelievers.

Hart makes an interesting argument. He claims: “And then they walk over the cliff of liberalism and deny that the Bible is first and foremost not a book of ethics but of redemption.” Hart, however, has forgotten his catechism. What do the Scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man (Shorter Catechism, Q/A 3 (and Larger Catechism Q/A 5 identically). Hart quotes Machen, but Machen was opposing liberals who wanted to excerpt from Scripture, to suggest that “the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from” redemption through faith in the Son. So, Hart is misapplying Machen’s comments.

Indeed, Hart states: “If the mere reading of Scripture could lead to such a conclusion, imagine appealing to the Bible for running a society that includes believers and non-believers.” This does not follow, however, for Machen’s objection was not simply to reading the Bible, but “reading of selected passages from the Bible, in which Jews and Catholics and Protestants and others can presumably agree.”

Hart’s conclusion is strange: “The lesson is that 2k (aka SCET) is really more faithful to Reformed teachings (which are biblical) than are 2k critics’ constant charges of infidelity and deficiency.” Yet Hart’s appeal to Machen was mistaken, and that was his only appeal to “Reformed teachings.” Moreover, Hart didn’t provide any demonstration that E2k views are biblical.

Hart attempts to establish his point through a false dichotomy: “Those who think the Bible sufficient to GOVERN culture or society must either form a political body comprised only of church members or they must cut and paste biblical teachings to make it fit a religiously mixed society.” The latter proposal, though, is not on the table – and the former proposal (while it might be nice) is not necessary.

The final sentence is possibly the least helpful: “Either way (Massachusetts Bay or liberal Protestantism), we’ve been there and done that. Time for 2k’s critics to come up with their own proposals for GOVERNING and transforming culture that are not blinded to their own insufficiencies.” But, of course, a specific proposal for governing is different from the general proposition that the Bible is sufficient to govern. This fact seems completely lost on Hart. Moreover, Hart’s treatment of Massachusetts Bay colony is simply dismissive. It’s clear he does not like that kind of regime, but his personal dislike for it (or for the kind of society it resulted in) is not a principled argument against it.

In short, while this post from Hart was better than some of the others in terms of at least providing some very general arguments, it still comes up dramatically short in terms of providing any kind of serious response to what Frame has written – addressing at most a couple of paragraphs of the chapter.

In a post titled, “Love that Bob,” Hart continues the insubstantial critiques, sadly.  He has the chance to address the connection between Kline’s views and those of E2k, but swings and misses.  First he observes that he himself personally has not read the whole “Kingdom Prologue,” by Kline.  Yet one can be influenced by Kline’s teachings without directly reading Kline (and certainly without reading that specific work by Kline).  Second, he claims that Westminster California’s “real source” of “alleged uniqueness” comes from W. Robert Godfrey (whose response we’ve already addressed).  He then goes on to claim that Godfrey influenced the students of the seminary for good, in terms of getting them to go back to their roots.  There is no real interaction with Frame at all in the post, despite it being identified by Hart as one of the responses to Frame’s book.

And that’s not to mention the posts: “Rich but not Robust” (in which Hart dissed Frame for not getting a bigger publisher to publish his book) and “Speaking of Obscure Publishers” (in which he tries to tie Frame to Shepherd’s errors, while again dissing Frame for not getting a famous enough publisher for “The Escondido Theology”).  In fact, the latter strategy seems to be a theme for Hart.  Much more time is spent trying to associate Frame with Leithart or Shepherd than actually dealing with the arguments that Frame presents.  In the latter post, Hart seems mystified that someone like Frame would care about scholarship, given that Shepherd has serious errors.

There are a few other responses from Hart that were directed toward Frame, but they follow the general pattern laid out above.  Of course, if someone finds (anywhere) a response by Hart to Frame that is actually a serious set of arguments that aim to rebut or refute Frame’s arguments, I would be glad to see them.

– TurretinFan

The Escondido Principle of Separation of Christianity and State – Reviewed

March 21, 2012

I was recently directed to this interesting review of Darryl Hart’s book (The book is titled: “A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State”):

Hart thinks the root error of Christians who try to bring their faith into the arena of politics is the failure to understand that it just doesn’t fit. Christianity is “essentially a spiritual and eternal faith.” It is “useless” for resolving “America’s political disputes” and, because of its intolerance of other faiths, “impractical if not damaging to public life.” Christian evangelicals of both left and right come in for criticism in Hart’s book, but the left—he includes Jimmy Carter and Jim Wallis in this category—gets blamed mainly for “lighting the fire of the culture wars,” thus legitimizing the right’s crusade to bring its version of Christian values into the political arena.

We get the drift of Hart’s own political orientation early on when he remarks that Sen. John Kerry, “an observant Roman Catholic,” was rejected by many voters because he “looked to be insufficiently devout.” That is a peculiar way of putting it. If looking to be devout were what Americans most wanted from politicians, Bill Clinton would have gotten 100 percent support in the 1992 election instead of the modest 43 percent he actually received. As for John Kerry, a number of polls have shown that the reason many people, not just Catholics, turned against him was not that he didn’t look sufficiently devout but that he opposed all attempts to outlaw the physical act of [graphic depiction of the murder of an infant omitted by T-Fan].

But that gets us into religion, Hart might say, and religion should be kept out of politics. Religion belongs in church, and the purpose of churches is mercy; politics has to do with the state, and the state’s purpose is justice. “To confuse the two is to misconstrue the bad cop (the state) and the good cop (the church).” Hart’s church is one that would be hard to locate in Western history. It has an abstract quality, reflecting very little of the actual traditions of Christian people. In this country, as ­Tocqueville was not the first or last to observe, Americans have kept Christian denominations separate from the state, but not Christian morality or culture.

There is more at the link above.  I have yet to see Hart’s response to this review. Doesn’t the description in this review resemble items 10 and 23 of Frame’s list

N.B. The credit line for the review was interesting: “George McKenna is professor emeritus of political science at City College of New York. His latest book is The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (Yale).”  This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame’s review.


Darryl Hart’s Affirmations and Denials, Escondido Theology, and the Two Kingdoms

March 20, 2012

Darryl G. Hart has posted (well, Reed has posted for Darryl) some affirmations and denials on issues related to DGH’s view of the Two Kingdoms, a view Darryl misleading refers to as “the two kingdoms view” but which departs significantly from the two kingdoms views of Calvin and the Westminster divines. I had originally drafted a response to these long ago, but I never published that response. However, Reed has requested that those of us who disagree with Darryl Hart identify our disagreement with reference to his post and Zrim has recently suggested that I look to this series of posts as being the “substance” of the Escondido view of the two kingdoms.

As a preliminary matter, I’m not sure that this exercise is necessarily the most profitable way of identifying the differences between the historic Reformed position and so-called “Escondido Two Kingdoms”.

The reason I think it may not be the most profitable, is that I think Hart hasn’t put all the cards on the table. There are still significant issues within the movement of which he is a part, which aren’t directly addressed by his affirmations or denials. Those issues include things like the redefinition of “faith and life” to mean “faith and religious life” as fairly straightforwardly expressed in T. David Gordon’s Insufficiency of Scripture, and the covenant theology connected with Meredith Kline and the excessive use of the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic via Vos, such as Kline’s “intrusion ethic.”

These points aren’t really very directly addressed in Darryl Hart’s affirmations and denials. We can only speculate as to why they aren’t addressed directly. Perhaps he simply is unaware of where his views are distinctive from the historic Reformed tradition. Perhaps he is trying to emphasize his points of agreement, rather than his points of disagreement. There are many such possibilities, nevertheless, since Hart hasn’t provided any explanation, we’ll have to be content with our speculation.

It was these considerations that originally led me to simply shelve my response back when I originally wrote it. However, at Reed’s request and in view of Zrim’s exhortation, I have decided to edit and publish my response. Instead of rigidly following the order of the affirmations and denials provided in the original posts, I have attempted to categorize the affirmations and denials regarding their need for nuance. In point of fact, Hart’s comments are generally vague enough that they could probably be accepted by most folks, even those who disagree most sharply with his view of the kingdoms.

As a sub-order within the categories, since there were three parts to the affirmation and denials: theology, vocation, and ethics, I’ll address the affirmations and denials as grouped under those categories, identified by Hart.

I. Obvious Need for Nuance

Theological Topic

1) Affirmation: Jesus is Lord
Denial: Jesus is not Lord over everyone in the same way; he rules the covenant community differently than those outside the covenant

The Affirmation is obviously orthodox as written.  The denial can probably be understood in an orthodox sense. However, this denial can also be understood in an heterodox sense. For example, if the claim is that the moral law is different depending on whether or not one is in the covenant community, the assertion would be heterodox. In contrast, if the point is that Jesus’ rule outside the covenant community is one of judgment only and not mercy (except predicated on entry into the covenant community) whereas Jesus’ rule inside the covenant community is one of mercy, then the remarks could be understood in orthodox manner. We may, therefore, leave this matter as ambiguously worded, but not necessarily in itself wrong.

2) Affirmation: the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ
Denial: Outside the visible church is not part of the redemptive rule of Christ (even though Christ is still sovereign).

Actually, the invisible church is properly the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, outwardly the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth.

The Lord Jesus Christ is King and Lord over all, although he has a special relationship to the Church.  By way of the Noahic covenant, all mankind are under the redemptive rule of Christ as to their physical and temporal life.  By way of the covenant of grace, only the elect are under the redemptive rule of Christ.  The unregenerate elect are under the rule, but in a state of rebellion.  By way of the covenant God made with Israel when he redeemed them from Egypt, physical Israel is under the redemptive rule of Christ, but in a state of rebellion.

3) Affirmation: the Bible is the only rule for the visible church (in matters of conscience).
Denial: Scripture does not reveal everything but only that which is necessary for salvation.

No. The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life. It is the only infallible rule for anyone. It is not the only rule. If it were, conscience itself would not be a rule.

Moreover, the Bible reveals all that is necessary for salvation but also reveals much that is not necessary for salvation.  Also, the Bible reveals many things about the way man ought to live and how man should act in various roles, including the roles of parents, slaves, masters, and civil rulers.

Furthermore, while the gospel teaches us to repent and believe, it is not by obedience to rules that we are saved, but by trust in the Savior that is identified to us in Scripture.

4) Affirmation: Christ alone is lord of conscience
Denial: Christians have liberty where Scripture is silent.
Denial: the pious advice and opinions of Christians is not binding.

The Word of God is binding on the conscience. Thus, when the brethren bring the Word of God to bear, our consciences are properly bound to follow the Word. Additionally, the Scriptures provide teachings that require us to obey (within bounds) the civil magistrate, our parents, our husbands, and so forth. Thus, there are additional restraints on Christian liberty that are, we might say, incorporated by reference.

There is a difference between obliging obedience and binding the conscience.  Parents can oblige the obedience of their children, but that is not the same as binding their consciences in the usual sense, except that children must honor their parents.

5) Affirmation: the visible church has real power (spiritual and moral, ministerial and declarative, the keys of the kingdom) in ministering the word of God.
Denial: the church may not bind consciences apart from Scripture.
Denial: the church may not bind consciences on the basis of one minister’s or believer’s interpretation but must do so corporately through the deliberations of sessions, presbyterians, and assemblies.

An evangelist binds the consciences of all his hearers – especially those outside the church, but also those within the church. He’s one elder – but lay evangelism is also permitted and similarly binds the conscience of the hearers. In fact, any one of the brethren can bind another’s conscience by bringing the Word of God to bear on a situation. He does not do so by his own authority, but the Word binds – the man declares.

The keys of the kingdom are best understood as the ministry of the gospel: the declaration of the person of Jesus Christ whose blood releases men from their sins. These keys are the keys of knowledge that the lawyers of Jesus day took away from the people (Luke 11:52). They allow people to see the way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, the righteous. As William Webster explains:

The keys … are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the Church and to proclaim the gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or, if they reject the message, closes it to them. The keys are not the possession of a single individual, for exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter he also grants to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-23. They are all given authority to bind or loose by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ. They are all equals under the authority of one head, the Lord Jesus. The authority they are given is a delegated, declarative authority, which is in Christ’s name and comes from him who alone possesses the supreme authority to rule the Church.


This declarative power is something that DGH does not seem to understand. So instead he treats the “keys of the kingdom” in an almost Romanist way, as though they were a title to discretionary authority to gin up laws to bind the conscience, even while affirming that the visible church cannot bind the conscience apart from Scripture, a curious inconsistency – but a blessed one.

Of course, the elders do have authority of oversight, and this entails their doing things such as calling the brethren to worship. The brethren ought to obey them in these things, and consequently their consciences can be bound in this additional limited way that has nothing to do with the “keys of the kingdom” per se.

6) Affirmation: Christ’s righteousness alone satisfies God’s holy demands for righteousness, and believers receive this righteousness through faith alone (i.e., justification).
Denial: believer’s good works, much less unbelievers’ external obedience to the law, do not satisfy God’s holiness but are filthy rags.

I would only add that believers receive this righteousness by grace through faith.

Vocational Topic

1) Affirmation: the church is called to gather and perfect saints through word, sacrament and discipline.
Denial: the church is not called to meddle in civil affairs.

“Meddle” is a pejorative term. Just as sermons should not be “tedious,” the preaching of the gospel should not “meddle.” Nevertheless, the Bible speaks to many things and preachers should preach the full counsel, not holding back because certain topics have obtained political interest. Indeed, the advent of a political debate may make preaching on certain topics more timely and necessary. The fact that something has become of interest to the civil government does not mean it is taken away from the pulpit.

Moreover, the church is called to preach the gospel of repentance and the forgiveness of sins through faith in the name of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. 

2) Affirmation: the Christian family is called to nurture and oversee children in both religious and secular matters.
Denial: Christian families will not all look the same but have liberty to rear children according to Scripture and the light of nature.
Denial: non-Christian families do not rear children in godliness or holiness but still have legitimate responsibility for rearing their children.

Parents have the duty to provide for the physical and spiritual welfare of their children and to raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I say “parents” because the term “family” includes both parents and children. I don’t add the term “Christian,” because all parents have the same duty in God’s sight, although non-Christian parents will necessarily fall even further short of their duty than Christian parents. Of course, some non-Christian parents may do a better job of providing for the physical or even the spiritual welfare of their children than some Christian parents.

3) Affirmation: the state is called to punish wickedness, reward goodness, and promote peace and order.
Denial: the state does not hold the keys of the kingdom.

Yes, but as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) 23:3 indicates:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

That isn’t meddling, when properly done, though it can be meddling when improperly done.

And likewise, as the American Revisions of the Westminster Confession of Faith explain:

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Although perhaps the American revisions lay too much emphasis on ecclesiastical autonomy and religious liberty, the duty of the civil magistrate to nurture the Church of God is clear even in this revision. That doesn’t require the King to become an evangelist or an elder, but it does require him to recognize the Church of God.

4) Affirmation: A Christian is called to use his talents and gifts to serve God and assist his neighbor.
Denial: some Christians are not called to engage in civil affairs
Denial: the responsibilities attending one Christian’s vocation may not be the standard for other Christians.

Christians are not called to be entirely divorced from the affairs of this world. So, it would not be proper for Christians to avoid civic responsibility on the grounds that not all Christians are called to be politicians. Nevertheless, it is true that not all Christians are called to be in political office. Under certain regimes, the Christian’s entire civil responsibility may be to submit to the government (such as under a totalitarian regime).

Ethical Topic

1) Affirmation: Christians have an obligation to submit to God’s laws as they are found in general and special revelation.
Denial: persons cannot obey God’s law truly apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
Denial: non-Christians may not please God in their external observance of God’s law.
Denial: even if non-Christians may not please God, their civic virtue is crucial to a peaceful and orderly society.

Everyone, not only Christians, have an obligation to obey (not just “submit to”) God’s laws as they are found in both general and special revelation. All men imperfectly obey God’s law. Both those inside and those outside the outward covenant can displease God with their works. External obedience to God’s law is possible and can contribute to a peaceful and orderly society.

3) Affirmation: the state and families have the responsibility for establishing and maintaining social order.
Denial: the church does not have the responsibility for establishing and maintaining social order.

The church’s primary functions of evangelism and edification would not and should not conflict with the establishment and maintenance of a godly society. Sometimes, however, they are in conflict with the laws of a nation (in Muslim nations for example). Other times, they may contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a godly society by exhorting men to live godly lives.

The church does not have the duty to exercise the power of the sword, but the civil magistrate does.  Moreover, the church has the obligation to preach the whole counsel of God, which will include preaching those parts of the Word that tell kings the right way to rule, not as to every detail of troop movement, but as to certain general principles.

4) Affirmation: church members have a duty to obey the laws of civil magistrates.
Denial: church members may not rebel against or disobey the magistrate.
Denial: church members must not obey the magistrate rather than God.

There is an obvious conflict amongst these affirmations/denials. Namely when obedience to God conflicts with obedience to the magistrate, everyone (not just “church members”) must obey God.

There is a general rule that we should obey the King, i.e. the civil magistrate. There are times when it may be permissible or obligatory for us to disobey the King. The same morality applies whether a person is a “church member” or not.

5) Affirmation: God has established a pluriformity of institutions (e.g. civil society) for the sake of social order.
Denial: the church has no calling to establish social order but will have an indirect influence on peace and order by encouraging godliness in her members.

I’m not sure what his affirmation intends to say. It’s rather vague to me.

The church doesn’t just encourage godliness among her members but commands all men everywhere to repent.

II. No Obvious Need for Nuance

Ethical Topic

2) Affirmation: Christians please God in their good works thanks to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
Denial: the good works of Christians are not free from pollution (i.e. they are filthy rags).


III. Conclusion 

The biggest problem is that Hart’s affirmations could almost all, with some nuance, be adopted by someone who holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).  Yet, it is clear that one of the things that defines the Escondido Theology is an opinion that the WCF 1646 was not simply too narrow, but that it was wrong.  While there are some areas where Hart’s affirmations and denials probably represent real differences, they are not presented in a way that actually highlights those differences.  Perhaps, however, this response will help  Hart to work on some updated affirmations/denials that will actually get to the substance of the disagreement.


Darryl Hart on the Republication Overture – Smearing the Authors

March 14, 2012

I was sad to see this exchange:

Darryl G. Hart to Mark:

Mark, you mean the overture written by some who accused Westminster California of Pelagianism?

Of course, Hart thinks that it is absurd to suggest that Westminster California might be guilty of Pelagianism, so this is his attempt to portray the authors of the overture as kooks.

Mark to DGH:

Darryl, would you supply some evidence that some ministers made this accusation?

Rather than rushing to judgment, Mark asks Hart for the evidence.

DGH to Mark:

Mark, are you looking for more evidence or are you taken aback that this charge would be made? I’m reluctant to give you another flawed source to quote against ministers in your denomination.

Anyway, I thought you knew more about the criticisms than I did.

Notice that initially Hart defers.  Of course, he gives a reason for his deferral, but see what happens.

Mark to DGH:

No, Darryl, it’s neither of those things.

To put it in your terms, I’m just calling your bluff.

So where’s your evidence of an OPC minister accusing WSC of Pelagianism?

Mark clarifies his request.

DGH to Mark:

Mark, I thought you thought I didn’t know what was going on in the OPC. Why don’t you stick to the URC and leave Presbyterianism to us Gentiles?

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy Kerux ( review of The Law Is Not of Faith (it culminates a lengthy introduction to a bloated review that puts the entire book in the context of coming down on the wrong side of Augustine vs. Pelagius):

“This is unwitting Pelagianism (calling it “typological” does not alter its
essential and substantial character) and Augustinian Calvinists are correct to see it as a threat to sola gratia as Augustine saw it 1600 years ago.”

I guess this just proves that no one reads Kerux.

Of course, saying that a particular author is committing unwitting Pelagianism is quite a bit different, from having “accused Westminster California of Pelagianism,” but wait – there’s more!

Mark to DGH:

Darryl, I asked for evidence that the authors of the overture I mentioned had accused WSC of Pelagianism.

You answer with the Kerux article who argued that theology that says sinners can “merit” God’s reward is “unwitting” Pelagianism.

None of the authors of the Kerux article were authors of the overture.

So, where’s the evidence?

Mark notices the key problem with Hart’s evidence.  Hart’s evidence isn’t from the pen of one of the authors that Hart was defaming.

Mark continuing:

For the readers’ {and Darryl’s} benefit, here’s the overture:

Notice that Mark provides evidence.

DGH to Mark:

Mark, so let me get this straight. WSC is guilty of infidelity for the slightest infraction of departure from the glories of neo-Calvinism. But if an overture originates from a presbytery where a seminary is located whose founder has a journal that makes complaints about a book similar to those of the overture, it’s only coincidence?

Once again, your slipperiness is astounding. Just be honest and above board in your disagreements. Make a case that this view is outside the standards of our churches. Don’t simply traffic in innuendo.

At least the 2kers are upfront about their disagreements. Your complaint seems to be no more than they disagree with what you’ve always thought. I wonder where you would have come down on Calvin and Luther.

Rather than apologizing for his defamation, Hart accuses Mark of “slipperiness” and suggests that Mark is dishonest.  Then, without batting an eye, Hart accuses Mark, suggesting that he not “simply traffic in innuendo.”

One wonders whether Hart’s presbytery is aware that this is how Hart acts on the Internet.


%d bloggers like this: