So I enjoy a lot of their posts, and I think they have a lot to say about moral/natural law, consistent two kingdoms view, Meredith Kline, Horton, VanTil and Vandrunen (negatively) and Hooker, Lewis, and themselves (positively) and a more "catholic" Reformed view... But no matter how hard I try or how deeply I read and reread their articles, none of it makes sense, they refuse to actually have any kind of posts that briefly and succinctly explain what they believe, and instead decide to write 8,000 word posts analyzing the development of a certain doctrine with little to no interaction on what they feel is good or bad. Their stuff on the issues with Westminster Cali seem overly critical and could likely be harmonized (but... How would we really know since they won't actually explain what they're getting at), and their appreciation of Lewis at the expense of VanTil seems to make sense but... Not really. I've e-mailed them several times just asking for basic help and have never gotten a response back. I want to know their stuff! I want to probably agree with it! I want to know why the folks I love reading (Kline, VanDrunen, Horton, N.T. Wright especially) are so wrong and can't be harmonized with each other, and the folks I'm slowly thinking less of enjoying (R. Scott Clark, VanTil's narrow and contradictory view on Common Grace/antithesis and distaste of Lewis) are as bad as TCI says they are! I want to know what Two Kingdoms and Natural Law is supposed to mean but they seem intent on not telling me and assuming I know more than I feel like I can. Does anyone else have this problem? Is it just me?? Can literally anyone help me figure out what they're actually getting at and how it makes any sense at all??