Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Darryl Hart on the Republication Overture - Smearing the Authors

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.



Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Rather than apologizing for his defamation, Hart accuses Mark of "slipperiness" and suggests that Mark is dishonest."

Does that bother you, TurretinFan?

turretinfan said...

Better question, why doesn't it bother Hart?

Craig French said...

I've exchanged emails with one of Darryl's pastors (Pastor Mark Sallade) in the past about his schtick.

He provided me Darryl Hart's email address after he got Darryl's okay. I hadn't asked for his email address.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I guess Pastor Mark Sallade got tired of exchanging e-mails with you about Darryl Hart's schtick, and so he re-directed you to the source, Darryl Hart.

Craig, did you have an e-mail exchange with Darryl Hart afterward about Darryl's schtick?

turretinfan said...

I understand Sallade is not his pastor these days, but I may have been misinformed.

Craig French said...

I did. Just a couple of emails. Didn't go anywhere.

Craig French said...

I believe Pastor Sallade was at the time I initiated contact. I am not sure, however. Unfortunately Dr. Hart's blog provides no email address to contact him by nor a link to the church body he's a member of.

Perhaps he's mentioned it and I missed it...I just don't know. When I couldn't find a direct reference, I made some inferences based on random bits of information to glean there was any sort of a relationship between Dr. Hart and Pastor Sallade.

Natamllc said...

Saying what I will, loosely and humbly, I suppose this exchange that you have highlighted here between Darrel and Mark can be classified as a classic case of Hebrews 5 and the need for the man (Darrel in my view) to have some keener, sharper swords sharpen his senses to the basic and fundamental oracles of God? The fundamentals are simple, Adam transgressed and Jesus saves the day and eventually will destroy the darkness! [1 Cor. 15:21-2]

The writer of the book of Hebrews, here, says it well, too:

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
Heb 5:13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

From this article I read recently, written by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr., To the Jew First: A Reformed Perspective, I found this very succinct sequence of words helpful to me in clearing up the confusion:

"...In this framework, God reveals himself in two covenants. The Westminster
Assembly called the first covenant the “covenant of works”(WCF 7.2; 19.1; WLC 30 ) or “covenant of life.”(WLC 20; WSC 12) This covenant describes the relationship between God and our first parents during their probation in Eden. The Assembly identified the second covenant between God and humanity as the “covenant of grace.” This covenant was made with Christ and governed divine-human relations from Genesis 3:15 to Christ’s second coming. At times, this
traditional vocabulary leads to confusion because many evangelical groups associate the
“covenant of works” with Moses, and the “covenant of grace” with the New Testament. By
contrast, the Reformed tradition limits the “covenant of works” to the time before the fall,
and assigns the entire history of redemption, including both the Old and New Testaments,
to the “covenant of grace. ...”.