Correcting the Aquila Report’s Story: 27 Propositions on David VanDrunen’s Two Kingdoms Theology
This morning on the Aquila Report R. Martin Snyder posted 27 propositions formulated by Mark VanDerMolen regarding David VanDrunen’s two kingdoms theology, accompanied by VanDerMolen’s critique of those points. Snyder correctly noted that VanDerMolen developed these points in conversation with me on my blog, here.
Snyder incorrectly, and misleadingly, declared my agreement with the 27 propositions. He wrote, “Matthew Tuininga agreed these faithfully represent Van Drunen’s version of ‘two kingdoms’ theology.”
This is false. I never agreed, nor would I have ever agreed, that these 27 propositions “faithfully represent” VanDrunen’s theology. I expressly stated my reservations with some of them, as well as that they by no means give a full and complete picture of VanDrunen’s thinking. In fact, Snyder knew that, because I notified both him and Mark VanDerMolen of the point when the propositions first appeared on the Puritan Board. VanDerMolen clarified this on the Puritan Board. For some reason, unknown to me, Snyder insisted on claiming my agreement with the 27 propositions on the Aquila Report.
Anyone interested in seeing the extent to which I accepted the propositions as a basis for discussion with Mark VanDerMolen (not for discussion on the two kingdoms in general), as well as how I interpreted them, and the extent to which I found them problematic, should read the actual comment thread. For the rest of you, I would encourage you not to accept these 27 propositions as a fair representation of VanDrunen’s thinking, but simply as one person’s sincere interpretation of that thought. I myself would never claim to speak for David VanDrunen, and if you want to know what I think about it, please look to what I have actually written. If you want to know what VanDrunen actually thinks, obviously, you should read his own substantive writings.
Now, back to vacation. I’ll address this discussion more fully when I get back.
Posted on February 14, 2013, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
RMS is well known to the community.
I hope he truly means well…
Matthew,
I Messaged you back. If you look at my blog and the Aquila Report they are different. It will be corrected. I also sent you the Word Document that I sent Dominic. It was the final draft and it doesn’t look the same. Not sure what happened. Please accept my full apology and i am working hard at getting it fixed. When I first read your message it made no sense to me. Then I reread the blog and realized that it was edited and possibly had some eclectic work done to it. I once again truly apologize. You can read what I sent Dominic as it is on my blog and as I have sent to you as a word attachment on facebook. I also asked Dominic to include this where that poor written statement was….
“These propositions are certainly open to further clarification and of course, do not represent every facet or the complete picture of two kingdom theology. Furthermore, Mr. Tuininga indicates his own position is distinct from these “Van Drunen” propositions, and you can find his version on his blog.”
I took that from the PB and asked Dominic to place it where the implicative statement was. I once again apologize and ask your forgiveness brother.
Be Very Encouraged.
Randy
Dominic fixed it Matthew. There was no ill intent and things got mixed up. We are most sorry. Please forgive us.
Randy, just stop running around like a little busybody, a class snitch, trying to hurt people because they happen to disagree with your very personal interpretations of matters.
Please just stop it…
Everyone would be most grateful.
Kent, you placed a hopeful wish above. I do mean well. I think Matthew actually knows I am not against him. We have had some good conversation on the phone actually and I think he is great young man. This just caught him off guard as it did me too. What was published was not what was intended. It was rectified and I asked for forgiveness. I informed him I was going to do this before it was done. I wasn’t trying to smear nor make anyone look bad.
Now i know you actually think I should be taken out and Old Yellered! A lot of people know about your tweet and tweets. I hope you really have no ill will toward me but if you do may God give you grace to love your enemy. I don’t think I am your enemy though. I have never met you nor have I sought you out as you have me.
Everyone I discuss things with or about I have specifically communicated with and under authority of examination. My Elders and the people I am responsible to work under examine what I write and give me feed back. So it isn’t like I am on some lone Ranger crusade for Randy’s theological understanding.
For example, I have communicated with Dr. Clark, Horton, and Horton’s Elder Mark Vander Pol. I have offered to remove any comment I make if it is false or even if they have any problem with it. Without question! Even from my Leaders on the Puritanboard. I am a man under authority and I respect the Elders of the Church. So I am not a lone Ranger Theologian brother. I am a man under authority and I take that very seriously. Yes, I have been told I was wrong before and I have had to repent. I am not above being incorrect. Please know that.
Be Encouraged Kent,
Randy
“Snyder incorrectly, and misleadingly… In fact, Snyder knew that, because I notified both him a…. For some reason, unknown to me, Snyder insisted on claiming my agreement.. ”
You have the nerve to invoke the reputation and work of your elders, not to mention Clark/Horton/Horton’s elder to justify this?
I think the world of autodidacts who love the Lord, but please THINK before you send out this kind of thing. I beg of you.
As Matt rightly wants things represented accurately, the point of clarification I made on the Puritanboard at Matt’s request consisted in part of this statement:
“We agreed that they are basically accurate– though not the whole picture of course– and are sufficient from which to move forward in discussion of the topic of Van Drunen’s “two kingdoms” theology”.
This addressed the concern that the words “faithfully represent” could be misinterpreted as Matt speaking “for” Van Drunen and that the propositions “represented” the whole of Van Drunen’s teaching. Of course neither was the intent, but simply to come to an agreement on elements of V.D’s teaching.
Thus, we can be assured:
1. the propositions were formulated as a joint labor. They are not mine alone, nor are they Matt’s alone. Any suggestion otherwise would be a misrepresentation..
2. the propositions are “basically accurate” formulations of elements of the two kingdoms theology of Van Drunen. They were formulated upon our understanding as we sincerely read and discern V.D.’s works. Nonetheless, they are about VD’s teaching– not necessarily Matt’s nor mine.
3. the propositions are not the whole picture of two kingdoms’ theology. Certainly more propositions can drafted to come to summary statements of other points of his teaching.
Not even remotely your fault Mark, must be the opposite of fun to see yourself used like this, (I’m assuming you didn’t give your permission.)
And to the name-dropper please don’t misunderstand, I find all of this HILARIOUS, every week you do something like this. And very heart-warming to see you go to Escondido for counsel, please take it.
Mark,
Bumper Sticker Theology…… They can’t read what is written and take it in unless it has less than 10 words. D. G. Hart loves you.
No hard feelings, Randy, I accept your explanation that the error was editorial and unintended. Forgiveness granted. I still think your Aquila Report article gives the impression that our discussion of the 27 propositions was much more official and final (i.e., I never “agreed upon” the 27 propositions; I simply granted them as basically accurate for the basis of Mark’s and my discussion) then a reading of the comment thread demonstrates. Note, the discussion was never finished at all. But as I’m on vacation, and owe it to my family to be on vacation, please allow me to leave it at that for now, and write a fuller, clarifying response when I get back.
Thanks brother. I didn’t have in mind your vacation. Please know that I wouldn’t want to impede upon your family time and I am saddened that has happened. I look forward to this discussion moving on but I think I am backing off the issues for now. I look forward to your contributions along with Marks as I believe it has been very good and important for the Church. Be very Encouraged Matt. Have a great vacation with your lovely family. That is your main ministry. .
Pingback: Five Burroughs, Eight Kingdoms | Old Life Theological Society