Category: Apologetics

Over at the “No Life” blog of Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart we find my name being invoked. Darryl just can’t seem to get enough of me. Dr. Hart insists that two quotes he gives from Dr. David Van Drunnen could, in no way, elicit objection from myself or others who are opposed to Radical Two Kingdom Theology (R2K).

Unfortunately, I do object. I strenuously object. Why, even my Objections Object.

Let us consider why,

Here are the quotes Darryl offers from R2K Kingpin Van Drunen

“I like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer, God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society (not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants (remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.

The “transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians, should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those temporary and provisional purposes.”

Your Honor I strenuously object for the following reasons,

1.) VanDrunen has Christ ruling the common realm according to a common grace by a common revelation (Natural law). The upshot of this is that VanDrunen (and his chief disciple Hart) does not allow God’s revealed word to norm this common realm.

2.) VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms does not account for a third Kingdom that needs accounting for.

VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms are

a.) The Redemptive realm
b.) The Common realm

But what about “this present wicked age?” Where is the Devil’s Kingdom at in all of this R2K “theology?” Certainly Christ’s Kingdom in the Church is not the Devil’s Kingdom. And certainly neither Dr. VanDrunen or his main disciple Dr. Hart would posit that the Devil’s Kingdom equals the common realm for that would be classic Anabaptist doctrine. So where exactly do our twin spin Doctors put the Devil’s Kingdom? Non R2K minds want to know.

3.) VanDrunen asserts without proving that the Kingdom of Christ is restricted in its identification to the Church. That is a tenuous supposition that has been debated for centuries in the Church.

4.) God’s ultimate purpose in Scripture is save both the common realm and the redemptive realm. God’s purpose is to “save the world” (Psalm 2, Romans 8:22, I Corinthians 5:19, I John 2:2,), thus gaining great glory for Himself. Because this is true, Dr. VanDrunen’s statement that God has different purposes for different realms is just not true.

5.) Is Dr. VanDrunen saying that the Christian’s purpose in the common realm should not be to Glorify God? I mean, if God has a different purpose for each of the Kingdoms then it would seemingly stand to reason that we should only seek to glorify God in the Kingdom that was created for that purpose. If both the common realm and the redemptive realm exist for the purpose of glorifying God then it would stand to reason that we should live in terms of His unique revelation so as to glorify Him in those respective distinct but related realms.

6.) God promises Noah that he would preserve the cosmos so that the elect may be drawn into the Church. God’s preserving of nature is bound up with His collecting and preserving of the Church, and as such we dare not form the Gnostic type dualism that R2K always does.

7.) Revelation 21:24 suggests that there is a relationship between VanDrunen’s (and his chief disciple, Hart’s) two Kingdoms that is so impermeable that the glory of Kings from the putative common realm is brought into the eschatological Kingdom. John the Revelator was not being very R2K with that inspired Scripture.

8.) As a Reformed Pastor and Theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it is helpful to see these two kingdoms in light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promises to preserve the natural order and human society with the purpose that out of that natural order and human society He would redeem a people who were called to be a light to the nations and who were envied for having God’s law — a law that covered every area of life. God then also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Israel through Moses and now with the Church but that God intended that special, redemptive covenant relationship to have ramifications beyond the cult was seen in the ministry of Jonah who demanded repentance from the Assyrians for their sins committed in the common realm. Notice also that God judged the Canaanites for their sins in the common realm by sending His redemptive people to exterminate them. All this suggests that God has the same purpose of submission to His revealed law-word among all Nations in the common realm. Hence, we can see a distinction between two Kingdoms perhaps but not a Gnostic separation of them.

9.) Dr. Van Drunen says that the “state is preserved for good purposes.” By what standard are we judging “good purposes.” I would say that State’s good purpose is to provide justice and I would say that justice can only be defined by God’s revealed word. But, Dr. Van Drunen will have none of this.

10.) If Redeemed people are creating and manning social order institutions how can it not be the case that those institutions will themselves be Redeemed. Keep in mind that by Dr. VanDrunen’s reasoning there can be no such thing as a Christian family, Christian Education, Christian law, Christian culture etc. because those are not redeemable institutions.

The second:

“I don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.”

1.) The Scripture does speak to areas in which the State, aspiring to be God, aspire to overthrow. For example, the Scripture teaches “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” and yet the State pursues policies where Murder is legitimated (i.e. — Abortion, Death Panels, Euthanasia, etc.) and so the Church must speak against the State or Party Politics that support these matters. However, according to R2K Dr. VanDruen the Church must be silent on these subjects. Indeed, Dr. VanDrunen is teaching us that it would be unbiblical to speak to these matters.

2.) Dr. VanDrunen tells us that the individual Christian may advocate for what they believe is a Biblical position but what Dr. VanDrunen doesn’t tell us is that such a anarchistic approach leaves us with the possibility of individual Christians insisting that God supports Abortion, or that God supports Bestiality, or that God supports Cultural Marxism and there is no way that these people could be disciplined since it is not the Church’s business to speak to these matters. The Church must be silent. Each Christian is left to do what is right in His own eyes and the Church must countenance that.

3.) Dr. VanDrunen writes, “Politics constantly demands compromise.”

So does this mean that a Christian who is a politician may compromise on issues that God has clearly spoken to? Must he compromise when God says, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” and advocate for laws that will countenance adultery?

In the end Dr. Van Drunen repeating his assertions does not just settle the matter:

1. Civil kingdom ruled by common grace

2. Civil kingdom not to be transformed according the pattern of the redemptive kingdom

3. Redemptive kingdom is essentially equivalent to the church.

3. The civil kingdom’s standard is one of “excellence”.

The objections still stand:

1. Civil kingdom is normed by principles of the Word of God.

2. Civil kingdom transformed more and more according the pattern of redemption, i.e, submission to God

3. Kingdom of God is more than just the church.

4. “Excellence” is defined by what? Natural law? Common grace? What about the standard of righteousness defined by the Law?

I’m sorry that Darryl finds my objections so objectionable.

We continue to consider Dr. Darryl Hart’s article in “The American Conservative,” where he insists that a naked public square, bereft of the religious impulse, is true conservatism. And of course his insistence on this is made quite apart from any religious impulse arising within him in the way of influence.

Hart’s essays seems to suggest that since different competing religions in the public square results in “a political urge is to blend religions together.” On this score I quite agree with Dr. Hart. The impulse is always towards religious syncretism in public square when you open it up to all religions (public square polytheism). However, Dr. Hart’s solution to strip the public square of religion (public square atheism) leaves us in a place that is just as bad. Dr. Hart has not reckoned with the reality of what happens when one attempts to have a religion-less public square. What happens is not the disappearance of religion in the public square but rather what happens is that a vacuum is created in which, at least in our setting, the Idol-State fills and becomes the defacto established religion. This is what we have today in spades. The Government schools, putatively stripped of religion, are now factories producing humanist citizens to work in our humanist social order. Dr. Hart’s ideas for a naked public square would yield the same results that have been produced in our “naked public square” government schools. This is not a conservative view.

It is interesting to note that it appears that one aspect in which Hart’s essay can find application, is in finding a way to eliminate the balkanization of America’s public square. Is there belief by “Augustinian Christians” that if we extracted religion (an impossible task as we have already noted) from the public square then the citizenry (or at least Christians) would be far less inclined to be divided over sectarian lines as those sectarian positions express themselves in the public square? At the very least they would certainly be less divided in Church as such public square issue would never come up in Augustinian Churches since, according to Radical Two Kingdom advocates, the Church is not the place to speak on what is happening in the public square. Dr. Hart’s “Conservative views” have the felicitous effect of silencing the Church’s voice in a public square that is wrestling over issues like “abortion,” “Homosexual marriage,” and state sanctioned theft.

It is of note that Dr. Hart, as a Augustinian Christian, is advocating for the public square the putative Augustinian Christian position that he lays out in his article. Apparently Hart finds no contradiction or irony in trying to bring his Augustinian Christian influence to bear on the issue of the public square, all the while insisting that Christians should not influence the public square.

Hart continues his article by comparing and contrasting “Republican Christianity” (Hart’s villain in his write up) with Augustinian Christianity (Hart’s champion in his piece). Dr. Hart suggests that “Augustinian Christianity” is more virtuous because it spoke up least in the public square for King Christ and did not try to have a relevant or influential impact on Dr. Hart’s “common realm.” Hart even tells us, “don’t let appearances deceive: the Americans who are the most devout may be the ones least likely to talk about their faith openly.” We learn here that those who are most mute in the public square for the cause of Christ are the ones who are the most pious.

There is another matter here that we must turn to, and that is Dr. Hart’s appeal to the “secular.” Dr. Hart seems to believe that there is some realm or sphere that is not normed by faith convictions. For Hart, as for most R2K advocates, the common realm is a realm that is, by definition, not shaped nor having the capacity of being shaped, by Christianity. It is a secular (neutral) realm that exists and moves by impulses that are not faith defined or faith conditioned. According to Hart, because this is so, we must not try to introduce faith into this common realm. Hart speaks of the problem of Protestantism being “secularized,” or of “secularization,” and yet Protestantism wasn’t secularized, but rather it became syncretistic — which is to say that it imbibed the presuppositions of other non-Christian faith systems and so incrementally surrendered the faith. Similarly the problem has never been secularization — as if the Christian faith moved from Christianity to neutrality — but rather the problem has been “paganization,” where the Christian faith moved from Christianity to humanism. Dr. Hart’s analysis is weak because Dr. Hart’s categories are fallacious.

Dr. Hart then turns to a historical treatise that describes, in his opinion, where America went wrong by embracing Republican Christianity vs. Augustinian Christianity. In Part III we will take up Dr. Hart’s historical analysis.

Darryl G. Hart to Mark Van Der Molen:

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 responds 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?

(Attorney Van Der Molen 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 (http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf) 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:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5975:overture-proposed-to-opc-presbytery-seeks-study-on-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-in-the-mosaic-covenant&catid=50:churches&Itemid=133

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 and defames Mark of “slipperiness” and suggests that Mark is dishonest. Then, without batting an eye, Hart accuses and defames 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.

________________

All this from a exchange at Green Baggins.

This post cut and pasted from Turretin Fan’s Blog.