Jose Rodriguez
Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings to all,
So, like many others around the world, I've been scouring the web reading everything I can get my hands on with regards to the Two Kingdoms doctrine and controversy. Michael Horton, David VanDrunen, Nelson Kloosterman, Cornelis Venema, Michael Tuininga, John Frame, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark and a few others have laid out their arguments in their respective articles, books, blogs, and the like. What I seem to be finding is that all these men seem to be talking past each other, or, more likely, the different points of view are just getting jumbled around in my head.
I have a tenative grasp of the doctrine as laid out by Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, and A Brakel. And I don't believe that any of the men I mentioned in the preceding paragraph really seem to disagree with the historical understanding of the doctrine.
What I would like from anyone that is interested is a brief summary (2 - 3 sentences) of what they believe the current debate is really all about. Debate is not what I want here. I'm really not looking for a defense of one position or the other. Nor do I really want to hear about how Frame did Escondido wrong or vice versa. That issue is really outside the scope of what I'm looking to see, which is a summary statement(s) of you believe to be the central issue of debate. I want to understand the major points of contention. I just can't seem to find that anywhere. Any websites, articles, and the like that you would deem helpful would be appreciated.
Of course, if what I'm asking for is impossible due to the complexity of the various arguments, feel free to let me know.
Thanks to all and God bless you in your various endeavors.
So, like many others around the world, I've been scouring the web reading everything I can get my hands on with regards to the Two Kingdoms doctrine and controversy. Michael Horton, David VanDrunen, Nelson Kloosterman, Cornelis Venema, Michael Tuininga, John Frame, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark and a few others have laid out their arguments in their respective articles, books, blogs, and the like. What I seem to be finding is that all these men seem to be talking past each other, or, more likely, the different points of view are just getting jumbled around in my head.
I have a tenative grasp of the doctrine as laid out by Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, and A Brakel. And I don't believe that any of the men I mentioned in the preceding paragraph really seem to disagree with the historical understanding of the doctrine.
What I would like from anyone that is interested is a brief summary (2 - 3 sentences) of what they believe the current debate is really all about. Debate is not what I want here. I'm really not looking for a defense of one position or the other. Nor do I really want to hear about how Frame did Escondido wrong or vice versa. That issue is really outside the scope of what I'm looking to see, which is a summary statement(s) of you believe to be the central issue of debate. I want to understand the major points of contention. I just can't seem to find that anywhere. Any websites, articles, and the like that you would deem helpful would be appreciated.
Of course, if what I'm asking for is impossible due to the complexity of the various arguments, feel free to let me know.
Thanks to all and God bless you in your various endeavors.