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.