What do you think?
Rate this book
The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology
This book is a critical analysis of a theological movement John Frame calls The Escondido Theology. The name is chosen because this movement developed mainly among faculty members of Westminster Seminary California which is located in the city of Escondido, California. Some members of this school of thought, such as Michael Horton, Meredith Kline, and Darryl Hart, are well-known to students of Reformed theology. But these figures have never before been discussed as composing a distinctive school of thought. More often they have been discussed as individual theologians, or simply as representatives of the orthodox Reformed theological tradition. But they are not simply Reformed; they hold views that are quite distinctive, unusual and controversial. In Dr. Frame s view, these positions are not standard Reformed theology. None of their distinctive positions is taught in any of the Reformed confessions. These positions are an idiosyncratic kind of teaching peculiar to the Escondido school. Those who teach them are a faction, even a sect. 1 Taken in the plain sense of the terms, their positions are all unbiblical. Dr. John Frame s The Escondido Theology is a needed corrective to the rapidly growing advocacy and acceptance of a two-kingdom approach to theology and culture. It is not only timely, considering the popularity of Two Kingdom Theology , but also because he is the right individual to address the issues, having previously served as a Professor at both Westminster in Philadelphia and then as a founding faculty member at Escondido. Dr. Frame personally witnessed the inception and development of this doctrinal view in Escondido. Dr. Frame s insight and analysis clearly represents my Christian World and Life View because it is historically rooted in Calvinistic theology.
332 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2011
8 people are currently reading
155 people want to read
About the author
John M. Frame
92 books223 followersFor his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2022) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 13, 2012
This was an outstanding book. In it, Frame tackles the R2K theology, the Escondido theology, and simply dismnatles it. Great job.
December 17, 2012
Here is a very interesting but very important work by Frame. The book consists basically of several very long, very thoughtful book reviews of authors who've come from the Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. Based on the works they've produced Frame makes a very compelling case that they've developed their own "version" of Reformed theology particular just to the Escondido school. Unfortunately, as Frame goes on to show, their "version" is not truly standard Reformed theology. Furthermore, when seen through a Biblical analysis, it is at many points unbiblical theology.
Taking on about a half dozen authors (including such authors as Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, Meredith G. Kline, and Darryl Hart), Frame shows review by review how their particular outlook is simultaneously (1) not in line with standard Reformed theology, (2) particular only to the Escondido school, and (3) not at all a truly Biblical outlook.
The main common denominator between the Escondido proponents is their "Two Kingdom Theology" whereby they teach in essence that it is not the church's responsibility or call to try to influence culture or society much in any way. While the exact opposite of this can be seen throughout Frame's Theology of Lordship series (and many other Reformed works by other Reformed theologians and teachers), in this work he makes a very concise application of that theology by reviewing selected works of these Escondido authors.
In an age where Evangelicalism has already waned in regard to making disciples (their focus tends to be on evangelism rather than actually evangelizing AND discipleship - teaching converts to observe all that Christ has commanded in all spheres of life), the Escondido proponents ("Reformed" theologians of all people) have stepped in to basically congratulate such behavior. Meanwhile Frame is working hard at calling the church back to the great commission to truly make disciples of all nations, and teaching them to observer all that Christ has commanded.
No doubt this book will not be welcomed with open arms among the faculty at Escondido (and perhaps several other "Reformed" institutions). But I'm very glad to see that it's in print and that Frame is not giving up the battle. I truly hope the students at Southern Seminary (past, present, and future), will at least give this book a perusal seeing as how it looks like Southern's main systematic theology text is now Michael Horton's "Theology for Pilgrims on the Way."
In the end, while this book will not be the last word, it is certainly an important word. And I hope it's read by the many students of theology for whom it was written.
Taking on about a half dozen authors (including such authors as Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, Meredith G. Kline, and Darryl Hart), Frame shows review by review how their particular outlook is simultaneously (1) not in line with standard Reformed theology, (2) particular only to the Escondido school, and (3) not at all a truly Biblical outlook.
The main common denominator between the Escondido proponents is their "Two Kingdom Theology" whereby they teach in essence that it is not the church's responsibility or call to try to influence culture or society much in any way. While the exact opposite of this can be seen throughout Frame's Theology of Lordship series (and many other Reformed works by other Reformed theologians and teachers), in this work he makes a very concise application of that theology by reviewing selected works of these Escondido authors.
In an age where Evangelicalism has already waned in regard to making disciples (their focus tends to be on evangelism rather than actually evangelizing AND discipleship - teaching converts to observe all that Christ has commanded in all spheres of life), the Escondido proponents ("Reformed" theologians of all people) have stepped in to basically congratulate such behavior. Meanwhile Frame is working hard at calling the church back to the great commission to truly make disciples of all nations, and teaching them to observer all that Christ has commanded.
No doubt this book will not be welcomed with open arms among the faculty at Escondido (and perhaps several other "Reformed" institutions). But I'm very glad to see that it's in print and that Frame is not giving up the battle. I truly hope the students at Southern Seminary (past, present, and future), will at least give this book a perusal seeing as how it looks like Southern's main systematic theology text is now Michael Horton's "Theology for Pilgrims on the Way."
In the end, while this book will not be the last word, it is certainly an important word. And I hope it's read by the many students of theology for whom it was written.
October 12, 2013
The subtitle of John Frame’s book misleads the potential reader. This book is a little about Two-Kingdom theology and a lot about Frame’s antipathy toward Reformed critiques of evangelicalism and his animosity toward his colleagues. Frame has burdened us with a specious construct-- a bogeyman. This bogeyman runs against his reputation for irenicism. In fact, “John Frame, the irenic polemicist” (the title of a tribute to Frame among the book’s introductory matter) is a reputation in serious need of repair in the aftermath of The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology.
The most interesting of the chapters (most of them book reviews) is Frame’s reading of Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue. Sadly, even here, Frame’s criticisms are usually shallow and perfunctory. Frame displays a lack of understanding of the Biblical foundations of the Covenant of Works and the distinction between Law and Gospel. Throughout the book, Frame shows an overarching penchant for attempting syntheses of Biblical interpretations that are not compatible. Such syntheses are usually unfavorable to the so-called Escondido theologians; Frame’s strong desire is to sound an alarm against what for him is an extreme version of Reformed theology. Since Frame makes it clear that just about every other form of Christian theology should be read charitably and get the benefit of the doubt, one comes away wondering how coherent Frame’s “irenicism” really is.
Frame offers Abraham Kuyper as an antidote to the alleged errors of his colleagues at one point. He even claims that his own thought follows in the line of Kuyper. Yet he never adduces Kuyper’s important distinction between the church as organism and the church as institute. Nor does he consider the potential this distinction has for making sense of the Two Kingdom vs. One Kingdom debate.
Frame asks questions, even if obvious ones, of the specifically “Two-Kingdom” books he impugns (Van Drunen’s, Stellman’s, Hart’s) that would be illuminating for Reformed 2K proponents to answer. Sadly, Frame frequently wastes his readers’ time by repeating certain weak criticisms in book review after book review. For example, Frame habitually appeals to I Corinthians 10:31 in support of Christian social activism and against distinctions between cult and culture. He thereby grossly oversimplifies the issues and seriously miscalculates in turning repeatedly to this text as his “silver bullet.” This is just one example of the crude proof-texting that Frame employs among other unhelpful lines of attack. The authors Frame covers surely deserve a more fruitful engagement than what he offers here. Not recommended.
The most interesting of the chapters (most of them book reviews) is Frame’s reading of Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue. Sadly, even here, Frame’s criticisms are usually shallow and perfunctory. Frame displays a lack of understanding of the Biblical foundations of the Covenant of Works and the distinction between Law and Gospel. Throughout the book, Frame shows an overarching penchant for attempting syntheses of Biblical interpretations that are not compatible. Such syntheses are usually unfavorable to the so-called Escondido theologians; Frame’s strong desire is to sound an alarm against what for him is an extreme version of Reformed theology. Since Frame makes it clear that just about every other form of Christian theology should be read charitably and get the benefit of the doubt, one comes away wondering how coherent Frame’s “irenicism” really is.
Frame offers Abraham Kuyper as an antidote to the alleged errors of his colleagues at one point. He even claims that his own thought follows in the line of Kuyper. Yet he never adduces Kuyper’s important distinction between the church as organism and the church as institute. Nor does he consider the potential this distinction has for making sense of the Two Kingdom vs. One Kingdom debate.
Frame asks questions, even if obvious ones, of the specifically “Two-Kingdom” books he impugns (Van Drunen’s, Stellman’s, Hart’s) that would be illuminating for Reformed 2K proponents to answer. Sadly, Frame frequently wastes his readers’ time by repeating certain weak criticisms in book review after book review. For example, Frame habitually appeals to I Corinthians 10:31 in support of Christian social activism and against distinctions between cult and culture. He thereby grossly oversimplifies the issues and seriously miscalculates in turning repeatedly to this text as his “silver bullet.” This is just one example of the crude proof-texting that Frame employs among other unhelpful lines of attack. The authors Frame covers surely deserve a more fruitful engagement than what he offers here. Not recommended.
March 26, 2012
This is a good book and I recommend it to all theologians, but it is not perfect. I have the great benefit of currently being in a class by Dan Doriani on Christian Ethics right now. Hence, we are reading The Doctrine of the Christian Life, also by John M. Frame. Dr. Doriani had the privilege of studying under both Frame and Meredith Kline (Kline is said to be the fountainhead of "Escondido" or Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology. If a scale were set out, with Frame on one end marked '100', and the Klineans at the other end marked '0', Doriani wold probably label himself a 73.2, and I am simply a wannabe-Doriani.
The book is primarily a series of book reviews, not in order: Michael Horton's Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church and Covenant and Eschatology, R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, David VanDrunen's "A Biblical Defense of Natural Law", Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, Darryl G. Hart's A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State and Jason J. Stellman's Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet. If any of these books are on your to-be-read or has-been-read lists, then you should read this book. Frame is highly critical of there system of doctrine as a whole, but considers them fellow Reformed scholars, something he feels the do not reciprocate.
If you have only 30 minutes with this book, read the chapter on Kline. This is, I feel, the crux of the matter. Few people are willing to tango with the likes of Kline (because he is freakin' brilliant), but Frame largely pulls off an upset against his old teacher. Frame does not go as far as some on arguing about the Covenant of Works, but he demolishes the arguments for the absolute culture/cult divide that is the centerpiece of WSC theology.
In his preface, Frame has a bulleted list of the 32 points that he feels constitute "Escondido Theology". While much of his criticism is spot on, he is sometimes uncharitable and erects a few strawmen. It is one thing to say others teach something de facto, it is another to say they teach it de juro.
The obscure, new publisher (complete with theonomist and FV introduction and foreword) will not win Frame any new hearers. It would be nice if someone not so connected with the fight would've written this volume, but as Frame himself writes, no one is doing so. R2K theology is just that: radical. It needs refuting, but it can be done more dispassionately. It is very upsetting that one of our flagship, Reformed seminaries (WSC) is now the figurehead of this divisive school of thought, but it is highly doubtful that this volume will change the undecided. It remains for those of us already persuaded to take Frame's arguments under our belts and deploy them more strategically.
The book is primarily a series of book reviews, not in order: Michael Horton's Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church and Covenant and Eschatology, R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, David VanDrunen's "A Biblical Defense of Natural Law", Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, Darryl G. Hart's A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State and Jason J. Stellman's Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet. If any of these books are on your to-be-read or has-been-read lists, then you should read this book. Frame is highly critical of there system of doctrine as a whole, but considers them fellow Reformed scholars, something he feels the do not reciprocate.
If you have only 30 minutes with this book, read the chapter on Kline. This is, I feel, the crux of the matter. Few people are willing to tango with the likes of Kline (because he is freakin' brilliant), but Frame largely pulls off an upset against his old teacher. Frame does not go as far as some on arguing about the Covenant of Works, but he demolishes the arguments for the absolute culture/cult divide that is the centerpiece of WSC theology.
In his preface, Frame has a bulleted list of the 32 points that he feels constitute "Escondido Theology". While much of his criticism is spot on, he is sometimes uncharitable and erects a few strawmen. It is one thing to say others teach something de facto, it is another to say they teach it de juro.
The obscure, new publisher (complete with theonomist and FV introduction and foreword) will not win Frame any new hearers. It would be nice if someone not so connected with the fight would've written this volume, but as Frame himself writes, no one is doing so. R2K theology is just that: radical. It needs refuting, but it can be done more dispassionately. It is very upsetting that one of our flagship, Reformed seminaries (WSC) is now the figurehead of this divisive school of thought, but it is highly doubtful that this volume will change the undecided. It remains for those of us already persuaded to take Frame's arguments under our belts and deploy them more strategically.
February 27, 2012
The theology of the faculty of Westminster seminary California (Kline, Horton, Clark etc ), rebutted, countered and disposed of. I really enjoyed this.
July 18, 2017
If you are looking to understand what the definition of a "straw man" argument is, look no further than this book. I say this with the utmost respect, but Dr. Frame completely misunderstands those of whom he is critiquing. As a student who has studied and is studying directly under a few of these men under the scope of Dr. Frame's sniper rifle, I think that I am in a decent spot to say whether or not Frame's criticisms hit or miss the mark. They completely miss the mark, and misunderstanding (as well as some personal vendetta against these professors) has clouded his judgment and in fact has made him the worst person possible to assess the theology coming out of WSC.
I would recommend to all who do want to read this book to first read the books Dr. Frame critiques before reading his "book reviews" of those books. If you go into this book without first reading the sources of his critiques, you will undoubtedly be following a blind man who is out to lead the blind.
This book is not worth my time to review any further, for the same reason that it wasn't worth my time to read.
I would recommend to all who do want to read this book to first read the books Dr. Frame critiques before reading his "book reviews" of those books. If you go into this book without first reading the sources of his critiques, you will undoubtedly be following a blind man who is out to lead the blind.
This book is not worth my time to review any further, for the same reason that it wasn't worth my time to read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 15, 2013
Frame does an excellent job showing where he disagrees with the R2K (two kingdom) theology – and showing why much of it is not biblical – while being fair and balanced with his critique. Carefully working through his arguments, Frame reviews pretty much every major book and author from the Escondido group. His polemics are persuasive without resorting to personal attacks. As far as I can tell, he does a good job avoiding straw men arguments by interacting with lengthy blocks of quotes from the sources he is critiquing.
I think Frame successfully defends Christian involvement in politics, culture, business – all of life – maintaining the position of Abraham Kuyper that there is not one inch of the universe that Christ does not say "This is mine!" The book leaves you meditating on the oft-cited passage of Scripture: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor. 10:31)
I think Frame successfully defends Christian involvement in politics, culture, business – all of life – maintaining the position of Abraham Kuyper that there is not one inch of the universe that Christ does not say "This is mine!" The book leaves you meditating on the oft-cited passage of Scripture: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor. 10:31)
April 27, 2013
This book is definitely worth reading. It helps clarify many contemporary thoughts Christians tend to make in thinking about reformed theology. A great read for those who hold a theology of the redemption of all things!
April 11, 2014
John Frame tells us in the beginning of the book that he is a reluctant critic of the "Two Kingdom Theology" prevalent at Westminster West in Escondido, California. But finally published this collection of book reviews to counter the movement as no other front line scholar has attempted to critique the movement.
Frame selected several representative books by the Escondido writers to counter the doctrine they espouse. He critiques works by Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, Meredith Kline, Daryl Hart, and Jason Stellman.
Frame argues that it is Kline's theology that has given the movement its foundational understanding of the "two kingdoms" by distinguishing "cult" from the "cultic." In more common terms, he distinguishes between the holy and the common. The other writers fall in this stream of thought and argue that the Bible is for believers and "natural theology" for the unbeliever.
In their view, the Bible has little to say to the unbeliever other than repent and believe. We must not insist that the unbeliever be held accountable to the same standard as the believer. Nor must we in anyway attempt to make the Bible relevant to the unbeliever, for doing so would compromise the Bible's message and authority.
In addition to this, the movement argues that it is the "truly Reformed" position and that those outside their position are not truly Reformed. As Frame argues, it puts up boundary markers for what is Reformed in ways that have never before been defined or accepted.
The theology is full of contradictions and confusion as it relies heavily upon emphasis and is by nature subjective.
Many of Frame's arguments do seem nit-picky as some other reviewers have argued, but I see these critiques a bit differently than simply nit-picky. I think Frame is simply being thorough and attempting to show that the foundations of the movement are so weak and the implications so questionable and unbiblical that he had to hammer every weak spot in his attempt to topple the edifice. At the same time, these critiques do seem esoteric to me as a layman and directed largely at the scholar.
The book really shines in the arguments against natural theology and the Lordship of Christ. The two kingdom theologians have a very truncated view of the Christ's Lordship--restricting his Lordship over the civil and moral realm--where they argue natural theology rules. Frame shows quite definitively that this is deficient theology and shameful for Christian theologians to articulate.
The essay on worship toward the end seems out of place and far too short to have merited inclusion in the book. Other than that, the book is a fine work and a good beginning in showing the deficiencies in the two kingdom theology.
Frame selected several representative books by the Escondido writers to counter the doctrine they espouse. He critiques works by Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, Meredith Kline, Daryl Hart, and Jason Stellman.
Frame argues that it is Kline's theology that has given the movement its foundational understanding of the "two kingdoms" by distinguishing "cult" from the "cultic." In more common terms, he distinguishes between the holy and the common. The other writers fall in this stream of thought and argue that the Bible is for believers and "natural theology" for the unbeliever.
In their view, the Bible has little to say to the unbeliever other than repent and believe. We must not insist that the unbeliever be held accountable to the same standard as the believer. Nor must we in anyway attempt to make the Bible relevant to the unbeliever, for doing so would compromise the Bible's message and authority.
In addition to this, the movement argues that it is the "truly Reformed" position and that those outside their position are not truly Reformed. As Frame argues, it puts up boundary markers for what is Reformed in ways that have never before been defined or accepted.
The theology is full of contradictions and confusion as it relies heavily upon emphasis and is by nature subjective.
Many of Frame's arguments do seem nit-picky as some other reviewers have argued, but I see these critiques a bit differently than simply nit-picky. I think Frame is simply being thorough and attempting to show that the foundations of the movement are so weak and the implications so questionable and unbiblical that he had to hammer every weak spot in his attempt to topple the edifice. At the same time, these critiques do seem esoteric to me as a layman and directed largely at the scholar.
The book really shines in the arguments against natural theology and the Lordship of Christ. The two kingdom theologians have a very truncated view of the Christ's Lordship--restricting his Lordship over the civil and moral realm--where they argue natural theology rules. Frame shows quite definitively that this is deficient theology and shameful for Christian theologians to articulate.
The essay on worship toward the end seems out of place and far too short to have merited inclusion in the book. Other than that, the book is a fine work and a good beginning in showing the deficiencies in the two kingdom theology.
March 5, 2012
Frame takes some of the faculty at Westminster Seminary West to task in a series of book reviews.
July 17, 2013
Unless you are looking for a critique of specific individuals involved with Westminster west, read Greg Bahnsen's "Theonomy and Christian Ethics"
April 7, 2012
I'm conflicted about this one. At times Frame seemed to be right on in his critiques of "Escondido Theology". At other times, I felt he seemed to be too nit-picky or just combative or at times even just wrong.
I think there are some positive things that have come out of what has been termed "Escondido Theology". But there are also negative, problematic things that I feel need to be addressed. In that vein, Frame had some good things to say. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Frame's approach was ideal. I will await a better volume on this subject, which probably will say many of the same things Frame said, but hopefully be better framed and more palatable for people that are "on the fence" so to speak.
This book is essentially a set of book reviews. You can safely ignore it unless you know what "Escondido Theology" is and feel somewhat strongly about it one way or another.
I think there are some positive things that have come out of what has been termed "Escondido Theology". But there are also negative, problematic things that I feel need to be addressed. In that vein, Frame had some good things to say. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Frame's approach was ideal. I will await a better volume on this subject, which probably will say many of the same things Frame said, but hopefully be better framed and more palatable for people that are "on the fence" so to speak.
This book is essentially a set of book reviews. You can safely ignore it unless you know what "Escondido Theology" is and feel somewhat strongly about it one way or another.
October 8, 2012
Just finished Chapter 1. Here's an excellent demonstration of paradigmatic/presuppositional thinking: 2K guys, even those who don't acknowledge it such as Green Baggins, find this offensive.
The book review format of the book is somewhat tedious (especially since I've read these arguments), but good.
The last chapters are different, at least one from another source.
Overall, I think this is great, just super. I think he gives a very clear discussion of why the Escondido Theology fails.
The book review format of the book is somewhat tedious (especially since I've read these arguments), but good.
The last chapters are different, at least one from another source.
Overall, I think this is great, just super. I think he gives a very clear discussion of why the Escondido Theology fails.
June 8, 2012
Helpful analysis of R2K (radical two kingdom) theology that has taken root mostly at Westminster West. Interesting having read this recently and then Jason Stellman, anti-federal vision promoter of the R2K, announces his departure for Roman Catholicism. Frame notes R2K's narrow and uncharitable ecclesiology, the kind similar to Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology that divides from other Christians. Sectarian Protestants are brittle Protestants.
June 19, 2012
Read with George Grant. Thoroughgoing refutation of the two kingdom dichotomy and some of the increasingly popular reformed theology of our day.
December 20, 2016
Fantástico!
January 14, 2022
The Anachronistic, Romanticized and Mythologized View of the Historical Reformation of Americanized Neo-Calvinism
The Escondido Theology (TET) is a critique of one particular subculture of Neo-Calvinism centered in California around Westminster Seminary; a micro-chapter in the 500 years of intra-Reformed hate and division that was present among Calvin's very first disciples. Maybe this strand does not deserve to be called a "school", but it is a notable faction in a larger movement to ‘restore’ a pure form of Protestantism that never actually existed. It boasts a new form of blunt Presuppositionalism, anti-ecumenical Contrarianism, a pernicious Reactionism, a two-kingdom ecclesiology evolving past the Vantillian/ Princeton varieties (implicitly denying Theopaschism), and a number of other heterodox aspects which Frame lays out.
Protestantism is a personality-driven creed to begin with, so doctrines are asymmetrically expressed making them difficult to accurately map schisms since Reformed and Evangelical circles change on a near-monthly basis. Trying to identify lines of thinking has a sort of quantum "observer's effect", if you will, where they change in response to being labeled or criticized. Thus, TET is only a snapshot of a trend that will adapt, harden, double-down, and evolve in order to continue to dominate perceived intellectual rivals. I see no Strawmen here as he clearly delineates exactly the beliefs he is taking aim at and quotes directly from the authors. The replies from Westminster have relied on personal attacks, sometimes proper Ad Hominums. Ironically, the replies to this book are demonstrating the exact steam-rolling arrogance that Frame seeks to illuminate. This tells you everything you need to know about the Reformed crowd's absolute disregard for objective truth. I've read the books Frame is criticizing here; his analysis of them is spot-on.
TET has at times an extreme version of covenant theology combined with Calvin's idea of Limited Atonement that expresses itself through nascent Kuyperian Pillarisation and at other times, an outright disdain for all cultural institutions. I have watched it generate fascinating new understandings of the catholic-turned-protestant aphorism "Ecclesia Semper reformanda est" in an attempt to develop a "Reformed Orthodoxy." Five hundred years later, such a pursuit is even more foolhardy than it was then. In reality, there is none, and there never will be consistency or unity in Calvinist thought, let alone Protestant thought. The words "Reformed" and "Orthodox" are inherently antithetical to another, particularly from a historical viewpoint. Calvin contradicted himself; his disciples bitterly hated each other and taught entirely different theologies. The idea that pushing Reformed theology unifies is an illusion.
While generally detesting polemics, this book is a polemic that criticizes the heterodoxy of Americanized Neo-Calvinism and does so with a call to humility, grace and kindness. I grew up near Escondido and saw this new variety develop so I appreciate the detailed documentation of something I was adjacent to from HS all the way through college. Those I knew in HS are all Atheists now, but those new adherents I met in college went on to find their entire identity in this newfound "Modern Reformation". As I grew older and starting connecting the dots between the foundational Protestant works I grew up on and the Calvinism I saw in my friends, I began to see several brand new forms of Reformed theology emerge, TET being one of them. This new firebrand ideology I noticed forming around Horton & Co. was the most concerning; it's a relief to see that this concern is shared by the broader 'Reformed' community.
When I first picked up Horton's We Believe and Grudem's Systematic Theology, I noticed a new Christology forming, even as a layman muggle myself. I could see the contrast between Barth, Schaeffer, and Spurgeon and these new writers. In Horton's "God of Promise" and other writings such as those from The White Horse Inn, Monergism, and the like, I noticed a new doubling-down on narrow re-definitions of Imputed Righteousness & a fanatical dedication to defending Medieval Catholic frameworks, particularly Augustinian Anthropology and Anselmian Penal Atonement, which they took even further than the French Lawyer did (Calvin also taught Cristus Victor, but this variety condemns it).
Reformed Stereotypes
This specific strand of Americanized Neo-Calvinism is characteristically anti-ecumenical. This is the trait I noticed before all others. In all my irenic, ecumenical wanderings, I've never encountered such willful ignorance, not just the other two branches, but all other protestant churches except an extremely narrow flavor of Calvinist dogma. This Presuppositionalism is of a magnitude I've only seen in the Sunni Religion. And parenthetical to this hate is a serious proclivity towards Contrarianism & Reactionism.
Or, as one newly-minted young adherent to this faith told me plainly, "no, Jesus was the author of the faith but not the perfecter of the faith. The Reformers perfected the faith."
Another example of this Reactionism is the bizarre denial of Christus Victor, which was explicitly defended by every single one of the original reformers (most notably Calvin, who goes on for pages defending the undeniable truth of CV Soteriology) in favor of exclusively using Imputed Righteousness vis-a-vi Substitutionary Penal Atonement (both medieval Catholic in origin). Yet this particular group is so triggered by Ancient Christian thinkers (particularly the Orthodox) they have re-written what "historic Protestantism" actually was. Frame writes against this variety of Neo-Calvinism's reactionary hyper-simplistic Soteriology that is developing in response to perceived intellectual threats from other branches:
Yet their hatred of Evangelicals, other "impure" forms of Calvinism, and even more so the Christians of other branches has never burned brighter. Any comradery towards the other 30,000+ denominations of Protestantism is a ruse; their purpose is to manipulate, control, and make people respect them and Evangelicalism is a soft target. They actively embed themselves in Evangelical non-denom orgs to this end; to find young Evangelicals not well-read enough to know they are being led into a community of sociopaths dedicated to building their own network of acolytes. Their new adherents range from poorly catechized semi-Catholics, conservative Evangelicals seeking a more dogmatic form of faith, and anxiety-ridden low-church Calvinists seeking to distinguish themselves from those who do not practice a "pure enough" theology.
This reminds me of Erasmus' commentary towards the Reformers (most of him he knew personally) on the contrast between their words and actions- their fake humility which characterizes today's stereotypical prideful Reformed bros:
The Escondido Theology (TET) is a critique of one particular subculture of Neo-Calvinism centered in California around Westminster Seminary; a micro-chapter in the 500 years of intra-Reformed hate and division that was present among Calvin's very first disciples. Maybe this strand does not deserve to be called a "school", but it is a notable faction in a larger movement to ‘restore’ a pure form of Protestantism that never actually existed. It boasts a new form of blunt Presuppositionalism, anti-ecumenical Contrarianism, a pernicious Reactionism, a two-kingdom ecclesiology evolving past the Vantillian/ Princeton varieties (implicitly denying Theopaschism), and a number of other heterodox aspects which Frame lays out.
Protestantism is a personality-driven creed to begin with, so doctrines are asymmetrically expressed making them difficult to accurately map schisms since Reformed and Evangelical circles change on a near-monthly basis. Trying to identify lines of thinking has a sort of quantum "observer's effect", if you will, where they change in response to being labeled or criticized. Thus, TET is only a snapshot of a trend that will adapt, harden, double-down, and evolve in order to continue to dominate perceived intellectual rivals. I see no Strawmen here as he clearly delineates exactly the beliefs he is taking aim at and quotes directly from the authors. The replies from Westminster have relied on personal attacks, sometimes proper Ad Hominums. Ironically, the replies to this book are demonstrating the exact steam-rolling arrogance that Frame seeks to illuminate. This tells you everything you need to know about the Reformed crowd's absolute disregard for objective truth. I've read the books Frame is criticizing here; his analysis of them is spot-on.
TET has at times an extreme version of covenant theology combined with Calvin's idea of Limited Atonement that expresses itself through nascent Kuyperian Pillarisation and at other times, an outright disdain for all cultural institutions. I have watched it generate fascinating new understandings of the catholic-turned-protestant aphorism "Ecclesia Semper reformanda est" in an attempt to develop a "Reformed Orthodoxy." Five hundred years later, such a pursuit is even more foolhardy than it was then. In reality, there is none, and there never will be consistency or unity in Calvinist thought, let alone Protestant thought. The words "Reformed" and "Orthodox" are inherently antithetical to another, particularly from a historical viewpoint. Calvin contradicted himself; his disciples bitterly hated each other and taught entirely different theologies. The idea that pushing Reformed theology unifies is an illusion.
While generally detesting polemics, this book is a polemic that criticizes the heterodoxy of Americanized Neo-Calvinism and does so with a call to humility, grace and kindness. I grew up near Escondido and saw this new variety develop so I appreciate the detailed documentation of something I was adjacent to from HS all the way through college. Those I knew in HS are all Atheists now, but those new adherents I met in college went on to find their entire identity in this newfound "Modern Reformation". As I grew older and starting connecting the dots between the foundational Protestant works I grew up on and the Calvinism I saw in my friends, I began to see several brand new forms of Reformed theology emerge, TET being one of them. This new firebrand ideology I noticed forming around Horton & Co. was the most concerning; it's a relief to see that this concern is shared by the broader 'Reformed' community.
When I first picked up Horton's We Believe and Grudem's Systematic Theology, I noticed a new Christology forming, even as a layman muggle myself. I could see the contrast between Barth, Schaeffer, and Spurgeon and these new writers. In Horton's "God of Promise" and other writings such as those from The White Horse Inn, Monergism, and the like, I noticed a new doubling-down on narrow re-definitions of Imputed Righteousness & a fanatical dedication to defending Medieval Catholic frameworks, particularly Augustinian Anthropology and Anselmian Penal Atonement, which they took even further than the French Lawyer did (Calvin also taught Cristus Victor, but this variety condemns it).
Reformed Stereotypes
This specific strand of Americanized Neo-Calvinism is characteristically anti-ecumenical. This is the trait I noticed before all others. In all my irenic, ecumenical wanderings, I've never encountered such willful ignorance, not just the other two branches, but all other protestant churches except an extremely narrow flavor of Calvinist dogma. This Presuppositionalism is of a magnitude I've only seen in the Sunni Religion. And parenthetical to this hate is a serious proclivity towards Contrarianism & Reactionism.
Or, as one newly-minted young adherent to this faith told me plainly, "no, Jesus was the author of the faith but not the perfecter of the faith. The Reformers perfected the faith."
Another example of this Reactionism is the bizarre denial of Christus Victor, which was explicitly defended by every single one of the original reformers (most notably Calvin, who goes on for pages defending the undeniable truth of CV Soteriology) in favor of exclusively using Imputed Righteousness vis-a-vi Substitutionary Penal Atonement (both medieval Catholic in origin). Yet this particular group is so triggered by Ancient Christian thinkers (particularly the Orthodox) they have re-written what "historic Protestantism" actually was. Frame writes against this variety of Neo-Calvinism's reactionary hyper-simplistic Soteriology that is developing in response to perceived intellectual threats from other branches:
Salvation in the Bible is not only justification, being declared righteous for Christ's sake, but also sanctification, being transformed from within by the Spirit of God… sanctification is not simply given to us once-for-all. Scripture does not tell us merely to receive the gift of sanctification passively. Rather, there is a race to be run and a battle to be fought. Scripture constantly exhorts us to make efforts to make the right choices�� God energizes our efforts and brings them to fruition. We work out our own salvation, knowing that God is working 'in' us. Scripture refers over and over again to sanctification and inner life. But Horton's references to it are almost entirely negative.
Yet their hatred of Evangelicals, other "impure" forms of Calvinism, and even more so the Christians of other branches has never burned brighter. Any comradery towards the other 30,000+ denominations of Protestantism is a ruse; their purpose is to manipulate, control, and make people respect them and Evangelicalism is a soft target. They actively embed themselves in Evangelical non-denom orgs to this end; to find young Evangelicals not well-read enough to know they are being led into a community of sociopaths dedicated to building their own network of acolytes. Their new adherents range from poorly catechized semi-Catholics, conservative Evangelicals seeking a more dogmatic form of faith, and anxiety-ridden low-church Calvinists seeking to distinguish themselves from those who do not practice a "pure enough" theology.
This reminds me of Erasmus' commentary towards the Reformers (most of him he knew personally) on the contrast between their words and actions- their fake humility which characterizes today's stereotypical prideful Reformed bros:
You declaim bitterly… against our prayers, fasts, and Masses; and you are not content to fix the partial errors that may be in these things, but desire abolish them entirely… Look around on this 'Evangelical' generation, and observe whether amongst them less indulgence is given to luxury, lust, or avarice, than amongst those whom you so detest. Show me any one person who by that Gospel [the Wittenburg Gospel of intellectual ascent alone] has been reclaimed from drunkenness to sobriety, from fury and passion to meekness, from avarice to liberality... and I will show you a great many who have become worse through following it. The solemn prayers of the Church are abolished, but now there are very many who never pray at all. Whoever beheld in any of their meetings, any one of them grieving for his sins? Confession to the priest is abolished, but very few now confess to God... They have fled from Judaism so that they may become Epicureans... The Gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives, and they speak quite another language.
Nothing has changed in 500 years.
One example of this I witnessed was the battle between Reformed churches in So Cal over which churches are legitimate or not because of how the pastor was ordained. While this mostly fell along the lines of high and low church Calvinists as one would expect, but there was an effort even in low-church reformed churches with a Baptist polity to try and re-create a Frankenstein protestant version of Apostolic Succession, something only the Undivided East can legitimately claim. Calvin was a secular lawyer, a baptized Catholic, and never clergy of any church other than the one he helped create. Likewise, Luther was an excommunicated catholic who was already operating on the illegitimate Latin succession broken in 1054. Still, I witnessed friendships end over this debate and the issue has not been resolved on any level. It's fascinating to watch the Adiaphoristic Controversy re-surface among the adherents to Protestantism. There has not been any more progress in resolving it than there was in Melanchthon's lifetime; rather, it has only schismed into thousands of new varieties.
The Fantasy of a Glorious and Coherent Reformation
TET can be seen as another nexus in the ongoing effort to bury and sanitize the deeply violent and chaotic history of Protestantism. The attempts to over-simplify the profoundly discordant Reformation(s) has looked very different depending on who initiated it throughout history. Attempts at this goal from the broader Protestant world include Johann Baptiste Metz's 1965 'The Church and the World' which created the framework of the 5 Solae, although there is no standard definition of any Sola to this day. Even though this framework is broadly accepted by Protestants today in America, it is a white-washed view of both the core and radical reformations; an anachronistic summary created only 50 years ago.
‘Reformed’ used to refer to dozens of varieties of high-church Protestantism, but today in America "Reformed" a synonym for Americanized Neo-Calvinist. Frame bemoans this shift from the 'golden days' of Reformed theologians such as Barth who took the violent and reactionary beginnings of Calvinism and tried to honestly reform it, acknowledging the vast chasm between original Protestantism and the teachings of the Apostles and how deeply entrenched it is in Catholic frameworks:If a believer is Reformed… the focus of his life should not be on his denomination or tradition. It should be on Christ and the Scriptures. He should feel deeply the errors of Reformed chauvinism, the attitude that celebrates and seeks to preserve the distinctiveness of Reformed Christianity from the influence of other branches of the church…. His church home… is the whole body of God's elect [Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant]… A Reformed community that maintains its biblical heritage while seeking to grow in its love for the church as a whole is well worth supporting and recommending to others. That is not Clark's vision of the church… But it is one I heartily recommend to my readers.
In other words, the Reformed critique of Evangelicalism is not technically flawed; the insanity, historical ignorance, hypocrisy, and inconsistency of Evangelicalism is obvious. Rather, the critique is metaphysically flawed; the Calvinist solution is no solution at all, rather a variation on the same missteps that created Catholicism which eventually de-evolved into the psychotic heresies preached by Olsteen & Co. The “Modern Reformation” movement attempts to purify and codify Protestantism by more dogmatically asserting what devolved into Evangelicalism in the first place. They rightly criticize the Prosperity Gospel, but fail to admit it is an inevitable devolution of Penal Substitutionary Atonement; these heresies are their doing and their solutions to them are ironically what caused them. Instead of trying to fix the metaphysical substrate, they return to the same medieval Catholic 16th century missteps which delivered us here in the first place. The self-appointed Reformed intelligentsia are doubling down on the same illogical anachronisms which erased Christianity from Europe and are fueling progressivist heterodox low-church Protestantism across the globe, while refusing to address the flaws in the metaphysical substrate of Augustinian Anthropology and subsequent Soteriology.
Like Frame, I see an understandable angsty desire to mold Reformed theology into the solution to Protestantism’s kaleidoscopic heterodoxies. There is a nascent belief in young Calvinists that by proselytizing this type of newly codified Reformed theology, it will lead people to a salvific relationship with Christ and 'fix' Christianity. While I respect the original intent, Calvinism does the exact opposite in reality. Frame notes this as follows: "I do commend these writers for their genuine desire to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is found in Reformed theology… But I think that their distinctive teachings detract from their exposition of Scripture and that in the end, their teaching is harmful to Evangelicalism and Reformed Christianity."
As Americanized Calvinism decimates the culture around it just like European Calvinism did in the previous centuries, there seems to be little awareness within these communities that these efforts to double-down on medieval theology is contributing to this decline, not protecting it. Frame does a wonderful job of noting this mechanism historically. Protestantism has an extraordinary ability to eradicate itself after a few generations wherever it spreads, and the bulldog pseudo-apologetics of this strand of Calvinism is a perfect example of how it fuels the secularization of a society.
Considering the fact that the Medieval Reformers were largely unrepentant racist murders, it should not be unexpected that hate is the natural default of Reformed theology. But there has been a rich tradition of thinkers who have tried to move beyond the errors of the original 16th-century thinkers, my particular favorites being Schaeffer and Barth. Frame correctly identifies this latest flavor as "American, not European" despite their called for a return to 16th-century thinking:I find this amusing because the Escondido theologians often write with ill-disguised contempt for "the American church," reminiscent of the way Europeans often look down on American culture. They regularly contrast the enlightened positions of the continental (but almost never the British!) Reformers with the ignorance of American Evangelicals. In my view, however, the Escondido theology is a distinctively American phenomenon.
It's good to see a debate putting roadblocks in the way of this 'flavor' dominating the entire Reformed world (as it is seeking to do). At the very least, Protestants are no longer burning people at the stake, drowning people in rivers (Zwingli) & attempting to re-write the scriptures by adding words into the text (Luther Romans 3:28 and Calvin James 2:24) or wishing to take entire books out (Luther claiming James was written by "some Jew" and is not Scripture). Reverse-engineering Scripture to fit the preconceived reactionary frameworks generated out of political necessity in the 16th century by anachronistically superimposing them onto the text is the foundation of Protestantism, but still, it is heartening to see some critical thinking happening around the new versions developing. Still, the real question that Frame and no one else in these intellectual Protestant circles are asking is that if Reformed theology really is the "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" for all time, why are there thousands of radically different versions, and why is it constantly changing?
[Truncated for Goodreads]
January 23, 2016
I just finished reading The Escondido Theology by John Frame, which is perhaps the strangest title for a book, ever! The subtitle of the book 13 1Ca reformed response to two kingdom theology 1D 13 gives the average consumer a gist of the content, and yet I still find it to be an absolutely awful title for a book. The world 1CEscondido 1D means absolutely nothing to the average person, unless he or she happens to know that it 19s a town in California where Westminster Seminary California is located. The cover design doesn 19t help sell the book either, it 19s pretty bland to say the least. I know you 19re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but honestly we all do. So this book has literally nothing going for it, except perhaps that it was written John Frame, who is one-beast-of-a-theologian (I mean this in a positive sense).
Anyway, blah, blah, blah, none of that really matters. I decided to read this book at the recommendation of a friend, who said he thought it offered a compelling critique to some of the writings of Michael Horton. I should mention that both myself and the aforementioned friend like Michael Horton and John Frame, and have read several of their collective works. But no one 19s theology is perfect, so it 19s good to read one point of view and then to hear counter arguments. If theological critique is done in a loving and irenic spirit, then arguably, everyone is the better for it. I should also add, that I 19m a church planter and I named the church that I 19m currently planting 1CBasileia Church. 1D Basileia is the Greek word for 1Ckingdom, 1D and our church 19s mission statement reads, 1CFor the Kingdom of God in East Nashville. 1D If there 19s any one branch of theology that I geek-out about, it 19s kingdom theology. I find it an absolutely transfixing theological subject that is exciting and often overlooked.
A little bit of the backstory to this book is that John Frame used to work at Westminster Seminary California with many of the men that he critiques in this book. He was not fired from the school, but claims that in the 1990 18s his theological views were increasingly scorned at the school because they differed from many of the other professors. Due to this development, Frame took at job at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Now years later, Frame has written a book that is essentially a collection of longer, technical book reviews that critique many of the works that the men at Westminster Seminary California have published. Frame argues that increasingly the professors at Westminster have formed a unique theological school of thought within the reformed movement that he refers to as 1CEscondido Theology. 1D
Frame assures the reader that he has not written this book to 1Cget even 1D with his former colleagues, but because:
1CThe Westminster California professors have written prolifically, and though there is some good in this literature I believe the net effect of their work has been dangerous 26Unfortunately, many have supported the Escondido literature, without, I think, quite understanding it 26But anyone who thinks the Escondido theology is merely a conservative movement within the Reformed community has not seen it rightly 1D (Frame, xli).
So there you have it, a book of reviews, critiquing the particular brand of Two Kingdom Theology that has developed in the last 30 or so years at Westminster Seminary California.
Specifically, Frame reviews the following works:
Christless Christianity 13 Michael Horton
Recovering the Reformed Confession 13 R. Scott Clark
A Biblical Defense of Natural Law 13 David Van Drunen
Kingdom Prologue 13 Meredith Kline
Covenant and Eschatology 13 Michael Horton
A Secular Faith 13 Darryl Hart
Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down & A Royal Waste of Time 13 Marva Dawn
A Better Way 13 Michael Horton
With Reverence and Awe 13 Daryl Hart & John Muether
Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet 13 Jason Stellman
He ends the book with two short chapters titled, 1CIn Defense of Christian Activism 1D and 1CIs Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture? 1D In my opinion, these two small chapters are actually some of the most helpful in the book, and I wish Frame had done a little less reviewing and a little more personal writing on the topic of the kingdom and two kingdom theology.
My opinion of this book is that it 19s interesting at times, ultimately unsatisfying, and not nearly as useful as it could have been. Despite Frame 19s intention to keep personal wounds from affecting his assessments, it still seems as if he unfairly criticizes his former co-workers. In his reviews, he repeatedly mentions portions of their books that he agrees with, but he also seems to aim unnecessary jabs in their direction. Perhaps most telling, is that if one searches the web, he finds Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary, and many others claiming that Frame failed to fairly represent their views. It would have been more helpful to write a book that explained the two kingdom view of the Escondido school and then compare it to the one kingdom view of Frame and others. In this proposed book, if the Escondido Theologians had agreed that Frame adequately represented their views, then the two sides could have discussed which view more adequately represented the content of Scripture, rather than just taking pop shots at one another. I fear that instead, neither side completely understands the other, and they just keep talking over each others 19 heads.
That being said, I do agree that a conversation needs to be had regarding the Scriptural appropriateness of the Escondido school 19s two kingdom theology. Is the two kingdom view the best way to formulate Scripture 19s teachings on the interaction between the church and culture? I personally don 19t think it is. At times when I read the Escondido Theologians, I feel as if they 19re advocating an unhealthy separation between Christianity and culture for fear of falling into some sort of Nuevo-social-gospel-liberalism or as a reaction against the mistakes of the religious right. So I actually find myself in agreement with Frame on many points, I just wish he had written a different sort of book. Perhaps he felt he needed to take an aggressive approach to get everyone 19s attention, or maybe this book was meant to be a launching pad for further discussions on the topic, but ultimately different sorts of books will need to written on this subject if any headway is going to be made.
Overall
2.5 of 5 black cups of coffee.
Not a book for most people, but interesting if you know the players or are already part of the discussion between one kingdom and two kingdom views. Someone please write a more concise book that fairly represents both sides and allows readers to make an informed decision on this theological topic.
Anyway, blah, blah, blah, none of that really matters. I decided to read this book at the recommendation of a friend, who said he thought it offered a compelling critique to some of the writings of Michael Horton. I should mention that both myself and the aforementioned friend like Michael Horton and John Frame, and have read several of their collective works. But no one 19s theology is perfect, so it 19s good to read one point of view and then to hear counter arguments. If theological critique is done in a loving and irenic spirit, then arguably, everyone is the better for it. I should also add, that I 19m a church planter and I named the church that I 19m currently planting 1CBasileia Church. 1D Basileia is the Greek word for 1Ckingdom, 1D and our church 19s mission statement reads, 1CFor the Kingdom of God in East Nashville. 1D If there 19s any one branch of theology that I geek-out about, it 19s kingdom theology. I find it an absolutely transfixing theological subject that is exciting and often overlooked.
A little bit of the backstory to this book is that John Frame used to work at Westminster Seminary California with many of the men that he critiques in this book. He was not fired from the school, but claims that in the 1990 18s his theological views were increasingly scorned at the school because they differed from many of the other professors. Due to this development, Frame took at job at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Now years later, Frame has written a book that is essentially a collection of longer, technical book reviews that critique many of the works that the men at Westminster Seminary California have published. Frame argues that increasingly the professors at Westminster have formed a unique theological school of thought within the reformed movement that he refers to as 1CEscondido Theology. 1D
Frame assures the reader that he has not written this book to 1Cget even 1D with his former colleagues, but because:
1CThe Westminster California professors have written prolifically, and though there is some good in this literature I believe the net effect of their work has been dangerous 26Unfortunately, many have supported the Escondido literature, without, I think, quite understanding it 26But anyone who thinks the Escondido theology is merely a conservative movement within the Reformed community has not seen it rightly 1D (Frame, xli).
So there you have it, a book of reviews, critiquing the particular brand of Two Kingdom Theology that has developed in the last 30 or so years at Westminster Seminary California.
Specifically, Frame reviews the following works:
Christless Christianity 13 Michael Horton
Recovering the Reformed Confession 13 R. Scott Clark
A Biblical Defense of Natural Law 13 David Van Drunen
Kingdom Prologue 13 Meredith Kline
Covenant and Eschatology 13 Michael Horton
A Secular Faith 13 Darryl Hart
Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down & A Royal Waste of Time 13 Marva Dawn
A Better Way 13 Michael Horton
With Reverence and Awe 13 Daryl Hart & John Muether
Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet 13 Jason Stellman
He ends the book with two short chapters titled, 1CIn Defense of Christian Activism 1D and 1CIs Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture? 1D In my opinion, these two small chapters are actually some of the most helpful in the book, and I wish Frame had done a little less reviewing and a little more personal writing on the topic of the kingdom and two kingdom theology.
My opinion of this book is that it 19s interesting at times, ultimately unsatisfying, and not nearly as useful as it could have been. Despite Frame 19s intention to keep personal wounds from affecting his assessments, it still seems as if he unfairly criticizes his former co-workers. In his reviews, he repeatedly mentions portions of their books that he agrees with, but he also seems to aim unnecessary jabs in their direction. Perhaps most telling, is that if one searches the web, he finds Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary, and many others claiming that Frame failed to fairly represent their views. It would have been more helpful to write a book that explained the two kingdom view of the Escondido school and then compare it to the one kingdom view of Frame and others. In this proposed book, if the Escondido Theologians had agreed that Frame adequately represented their views, then the two sides could have discussed which view more adequately represented the content of Scripture, rather than just taking pop shots at one another. I fear that instead, neither side completely understands the other, and they just keep talking over each others 19 heads.
That being said, I do agree that a conversation needs to be had regarding the Scriptural appropriateness of the Escondido school 19s two kingdom theology. Is the two kingdom view the best way to formulate Scripture 19s teachings on the interaction between the church and culture? I personally don 19t think it is. At times when I read the Escondido Theologians, I feel as if they 19re advocating an unhealthy separation between Christianity and culture for fear of falling into some sort of Nuevo-social-gospel-liberalism or as a reaction against the mistakes of the religious right. So I actually find myself in agreement with Frame on many points, I just wish he had written a different sort of book. Perhaps he felt he needed to take an aggressive approach to get everyone 19s attention, or maybe this book was meant to be a launching pad for further discussions on the topic, but ultimately different sorts of books will need to written on this subject if any headway is going to be made.
Overall
2.5 of 5 black cups of coffee.
Not a book for most people, but interesting if you know the players or are already part of the discussion between one kingdom and two kingdom views. Someone please write a more concise book that fairly represents both sides and allows readers to make an informed decision on this theological topic.
March 22, 2024
A started this book a couple of years ago and then put it down because it was difficult to wade through. I find many two kingdom arguments confusing and I don’t see where they find application in Scripture. Frame even notes that he found it difficult to engage in any form of debate with the authors he reviews.
Two exceptional chapters are the review of David Van Drunen’s, A Biblical Defense of Natural Law, and Darryl Hart’s, A Secular Faith.
A fantastic distinction toward the end of the book was, “Kuyperians argue that Scripture governs all aspects of human life, including culture and government. Klineans believe that politics and general culture are governed by natural revelation and common grace.”
I would be Kuyperian.
Two exceptional chapters are the review of David Van Drunen’s, A Biblical Defense of Natural Law, and Darryl Hart’s, A Secular Faith.
A fantastic distinction toward the end of the book was, “Kuyperians argue that Scripture governs all aspects of human life, including culture and government. Klineans believe that politics and general culture are governed by natural revelation and common grace.”
I would be Kuyperian.
May 30, 2024
“As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17, NKJV). The old butcher’s shops, when I was a kid, had sawdust on their floors. The sawdust, apparently, was to soak up any stray blood drippings. I was reminded of the butcher with his white (and red-streaked) apron sharpening his knife before filling your order. The Escondido Theology is John Frame’s (hopefully successful) attempt to sharpen “the countenance of his friend[s].” In essence, the book is about “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15b).
The issue being addressed is that which has come to the fore in (Reformed) Christian circles in light of the massive and sometimes brutal government overreach experienced in many nations during the era of COVID19. Where does the authority of government come from? Two Kingdom Theology holds that civil governments operate outside clear Bible revelation, instead relying on semi-opaque guidance from something called Natural Theology. This is where the idea of Two Kingdoms comes in. The former functions as an aspect of God’s redemption, while the latter according to God’s creation, i.e., nature. And never the twain shall meet (or something like that).
The book’s subtitle describes its intent and contents: A Biblical Response to Two Kingdom Theology. In foil fencing the sounds of iron hitting against iron can be heard. John Frame, in turn, as the “Irenic Polemicist”, deftly “touches” each of his opponents, his old friends, his former colleagues and mostly “faculty members of Westminster Seminary California which is located in the city of Escondido, California.”
This is a must read for anyone interested in Reformed theology and the issue of Two Kingdom Theology. Let us watch and learn from these theological heavyweights as they duel.
The issue being addressed is that which has come to the fore in (Reformed) Christian circles in light of the massive and sometimes brutal government overreach experienced in many nations during the era of COVID19. Where does the authority of government come from? Two Kingdom Theology holds that civil governments operate outside clear Bible revelation, instead relying on semi-opaque guidance from something called Natural Theology. This is where the idea of Two Kingdoms comes in. The former functions as an aspect of God’s redemption, while the latter according to God’s creation, i.e., nature. And never the twain shall meet (or something like that).
The book’s subtitle describes its intent and contents: A Biblical Response to Two Kingdom Theology. In foil fencing the sounds of iron hitting against iron can be heard. John Frame, in turn, as the “Irenic Polemicist”, deftly “touches” each of his opponents, his old friends, his former colleagues and mostly “faculty members of Westminster Seminary California which is located in the city of Escondido, California.”
This is a must read for anyone interested in Reformed theology and the issue of Two Kingdom Theology. Let us watch and learn from these theological heavyweights as they duel.
June 21, 2024
Thorough, helpful and typically irenic. Although it’s not what he set out to do, Frame still ends up painting a positive picture of a richly Reformed alternative to Escondidoism.
Want to read
July 21, 2016Wedgeworth's review here: "John Frame's The Escondido Theology isn't really a book about religion or theology in general. It's not even a book about Reformed theology in general. It is one side of an ongoing spat within a subculture of a subculture of the Reformed world. Full of personal history, intellectual genealogies, and compartmentalized theological nomenclature, this is a book that will mean little to most of Christendom. But to those few to whom it will mean something, it means war."
April 11, 2012
Good, but not as good as I was expecting. Review to follow.
November 22, 2012
A through critique of "two kingdoms" theology. He accurately describes the distinctives of the movement then proceeds to explain the flaws in it.
October 13, 2013
I am going to reread this book at some point. It is a series of exhaustive book reviews Frame did on WSC faculty. If you have not read their work, then the book is difficult to follow.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews