Dr. Hart has given some of his thoughts about my recent critique of VanDrunen over at Old Life Theological Society. I almost never agree with Dr. Hart, though he almost always makes me laugh. Laughter is a gift from God, and so too, I suppose, must Darryl Hart be. I appreciate his willingness to engage with the common folks (like me), though I do find this particular instance fairly unimpressive. It doesn’t seem that he’s clearly read my argument, but has instead lumped me into broader groups that he can more quickly dismiss.
1) It seems like Dr. Hart is characterizing me both as a Federal Visionist and a Theonomist. He never calls me this directly, but he does engage in some guilt by association. And of course, no critique from the Westminster California theologians would be complete without the obligatory reduction to Roman Catholicism. However, he has failed to note a few aspects of my paper which would clearly distinguish me from each of these groups.
a) The guiding theological principle in my paper is a distinction between the visible and invisible church. This is hardly a Federal Vision approach. I argue that the two kingdoms correspond with the invisible church and the rest of the world, with the visible church being one institution of the temporal kingdom. This is my strongest criticism of VanDrunen, and Dr. Hart lets it go by without comment. Continue reading
Wedgewords 