Kline, Moral Law, Covenant of Works, Eternal Life?????

[Romans922]

Context: Studying Kline (&Followers) and Republication.

Kline et al:
1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation
2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)
3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent
4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him.
5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation.
5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.


Correct?

 

[Douglas P.]

Context: Studying Kline (&Followers) and Republication.

Kline et al:
1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation
2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)
3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent
4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him.
5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation.
5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.


Correct?

1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.
2) No. I think Kline explicitly states otherwise in the lecture series below.
3) No. For Kline, all law is covenantal law, but they are not equivalent.
4) No. I dont think Kline has ever spoken of a hard-wired covenant within man.
5) No. The Law given at Sinai was a republication of the covenant of works insofar as it is not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works. The works portion being mainly the ability to remain in the land.
6) No. Only for Adam. Since that covenant has been broken and its curses enacted the covenant no longer holds out the possibility of its reward.

I'm not sure what version of Kline you are interactive with, but I'd highly recommend going directly to the primary source. There are a few lecture series online where Kline covers his material in a very thorough manner. Here is a link: http://www.meredithkline.com/mp3-files/

 

[Romans922]

1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.

VanDrunen says,

Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.

2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.

3. Follows from 2.

4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline.

5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.

6. Lee Irons on Kline:

When WCF VII.1 is read in this broader context, it begins to appear more and more like a vestigial organ whose surgical removal would not jeopardize the continued vitality of the larger organism… No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works… he was not condescending in the freedom of his grace but covenanting in the revelation of his justice.

 

[MW]

Correct?

I would say so, and I think your quotations are helpful. One point I would keep in mind is that Kline went back to the quarry to cut his stones, as it were, and was looking at the subject from an exegetical point of view. He did not construct his stones in systematic fashion, so we cannot say he would recognise points 1-6 as points 1-6, or whether he would have had other exegetical considerations which affected these points overall.

 

[TheOldCourse]

1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.

VanDrunen says,

Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.

2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.

3. Follows from 2.

4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline.

5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.

6. Lee Irons on Kline:

When WCF VII.1 is read in this broader context, it begins to appear more and more like a vestigial organ whose surgical removal would not jeopardize the continued vitality of the larger organism… No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works… he was not condescending in the freedom of his grace but covenanting in the revelation of his justice.

I'm far from a Kline expert, but my understanding is he's not speaking of mixing the CoW with creation per se (which would be problematic w/r/t WCF 7.1), but with creation in the image of God. In other words, God's creation of man in his own image (as opposed to brute creation) is itself a condescension with covenantal implications. I'm not sure Irons is a great guide to Kline on many matters, while he's a "Klinean", he often uses Kline to his own ends rather than merely trying to faithfully propound what Kline himself taught.

 

[Douglas P.]

I will do my best to engage with your responses, unfortunately we just moved and my Kingdom Prologue is buried somewhere in one of many boxes in the basement. It has also been quite a while since I've studied Kline in any depth. However, I will try and listen to the pertinent lectures tomorrow at the gym and try and refresh my memory. In the meantime

Originally Posted by Douglas Padgett
1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.
VanDrunen says,
Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.

I'm not sure what DVD is trying to imply in his broader context of what he is writing (i think this quote is from The Law is Not of Faith), however, I think all Kline would agree with is that anyone made in the Image of God is necessarily in covenant with God. I guess I dont see this as a conflation of the CoW and creation but you might.

2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.

I'll try and look into this more.

3. Follows from 2.

I'm sure Kline puts this far more precisely, but law is only ever part of a covenant and never the covenant itself (therefor they cannot be equivalent. I really dont see how anyone could read Kline and come away with any other conclusion. But maybe I'm wrong.

4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline.

I would just reverse the logic, any man created is necessarily in covenant with God.

5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.

I'm still a little confused with your statement about the CoW & the moral law having to stay together. The Covenant with Adam (covenant of works) is done and over. It's curse enacted, Adam was thrown into exile. The moral law continues into Sinai but the CoW does not.

For number 6, I just want to reiterate that even if someone today perfectly kept the moral law, they would not be able to earn eternal life. That covenant was broken with Adam's disobedience and its curses enacted. However, you are right, the for Kline, had Adam kept the CoW he would have merited eternal life on a strict justice basis only.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

“Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process. There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”

Reverend Winzer also sees the problem with this thought. When I first started to study Kline he noted....

“Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the “covenant of nature.” Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.”
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...nal-concerning-the-Mosaic?p=887863#post887863

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...escension-and-redefinition-of-covenant-merit/

I have quite a few posts on the topics mentioned above.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...mosaic-covenant-vs-the-new-reformed-paradigm/

There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Kline
It appears he flies in the face of our Standards. Note what Robert Shaw says.

Adam was created under this Law in a natural form but then was brought under it in the form of a Covenant.

Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Exposition

The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it; and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….

Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

Exposition


​

Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...apter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works-2/

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Getting to your question on Simple Justice I would refer you to these...... The fingers from one aspect of this theology just proceeds into many others.

Two Different Definitions of Merit
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/

Creation, Condescension, and Redefinition of Covenant Merit
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...escension-and-redefinition-of-covenant-merit/

Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Also as I have contended with Dr. Tipton.... The Kline of By Oath Consigned is not the Kline of Kingdom Prologue. He had a few theological shifts in between concerning Covenant Theology. Even Karlberg notes there is change in Kline in one of his reviews for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (JETS 52/2 (June 2009): 410)

The Reformed tradition as a whole has been unclear how best to explain the operation of the antithetical principles of law and grace within the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. Ferry’s readiness to find continuity and agree- ment among expositors of federal theology fails to reckon with the untidy side of doctrinal development, prior to theological maturation. Hence, his readings and conclusions are subject to debate. And with respect to the Westminster controversy in particular, failure to acknowledge change and development in Kline’s thinking on the covenants only dis- torts an accurate reading of the history of Reformed interpretation, past and present.

But then again I am not so sure that a man who can say the following can be all that reliable.

For the record, it appears that the following Reformed seminaries oppose the republication view: Covenant, Greenville Presbyterian, Mid-America Reformed, Reformed (largely as a result of John Frame’s tenure), Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter), Puritan-Reformed, Northwest, and Westminster East (read in light of the Shepherd-Gaffin proponents). This leaves Westminster West as the sole seminary promoting the biblical view (as we understand the issues).

And who is the We he is referring to in his last sentence.
http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/

 

[Romans922]

So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?

From being at their church in Esco and hearing people like Horton, Godfrey, and DVD it would be my conclusion they hold to a Framework view. As a matter of fact, I believe Godfrey has written this elsewhere. Also, it should be noted that a professor at Westminster West preached on Gensis in which he contended that Adam and Eve, while in the garden alone, were not the only people in the world at the time. He went as far to say bloodshed and war were nothing new.

 

[Peairtach]

Douglas

any man created is necessarily in covenant with God.

Are they? And even if they are, would it need to take the form it did? See Dabney's Systematic Theology on the various covenantal ways in which God could have confirmed Man in sinless perfection.

The moral law continues into Sinai but the CoW does not.

See Dabney's Systematic Theology on the senses in which the CoW abides after the Fall.

As regards the sanction of reward it is completely hypothetical to sinful Man, but not to Christ.

As regards the moral law it abides.

As regards the sanction of the curse and death it abides.

Romans22

2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.

From what I've gathered, David van Drunnen, even conflates the Probation with the Creation Mandate in his book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Horton

A. VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT OF CREATION

Even in Genesis 1–3 we recognize the features of a covenant that we have delineated: a historical prologue setting the stage (Ge 1–2), stipulations (2:16–17) and the sanctions (2:17b) over which Eve and the serpent argue (3:1–5) and which are finally carried out in the form of judgment (3:8–19). It is only after this fateful decision that an entirely new and unexpected basis is set forth for human destiny (3:21–24). These elements are present, albeit implicitly, in the creation narrative, with the Tree of Life as the prize awaiting the successful outcome of a trial. Just as Yahweh the Great King endured the “trial” of creation and came out at the other end pronouncing victory and entering his Sabbath enthronement, his earthly ectype-vassal was to follow the same course. Genesis 1–3, and their canonical Christian interpretation, have an eschatological rather than simply existential orientation.
As further confirmation, the presence of the Sabbath at the end of the “six-day” work-week-trial holds out the promise of everlasting confirmation in blessedness. This pattern is not the imposition of an arbitrary law, but the image-bearer’s reflection of God’s own journey from creation to consummation. If Adam should default in this covenantal relationship, he would “surely die,” and we learn from the subsequent failure of Adam that this curse brought in its wake not only spiritual but physical, interrelational, and indeed environmental disaster.
Interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, Adam’s covenantal role entailed that he was the representative for his whole posterity. In fact, every person is judged guilty in Adam, and the effects of this curse extend even to the rest of creation (Ge 3:17–18; Ro 8:20). It is with this simultaneously legal and relational background in mind that Paul makes his well-known statements on the imputation of Adam’s guilt and corruption as the corollary of the imputation and impartation of the Second Adam’s righteousness (esp. Ro 5) in justification and sanctification.11
The theme of covenant solidarity, otherwise regarded as congenial to relational and communal views of the self, is nevertheless put to the test when it involves collective human guilt: the tragic aspect of human solidarity and relationality. “The intersubjective matrix which forms individual, related persons,” notes Francis Watson, “also simultaneously deforms them.”12 Together we stand or fall. The legal and relational basis for this solidarity is the covenant of creation. As John Zizioulas observes,

The drive of the human being towards otherness is rooted in the divine call to Adam. The call simultaneously implies three things: relationship, freedom, and otherness, all of them being interdependent.… Through the call, Adam is constituted, therefore, as being other than God and the rest of creation. This otherness is not the result of self-affirmation; it is an otherness granted and is not self-existent, but a particularity which is a gift of the Other.13

Human identity therefore originates in being addressed: “the human being is singled out, not merely as a species, but as a particular partner in a relationship, as a respondent to a call.”14 It is precisely this call that humanity, in Adam, refuses, because we wish to be the speaker, not the addressee, in the covenant.
Contrary to the assumptions of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, and others, Paul’s polemic against the law and works of the law is not an abstract opposition. Humanity was created for love, which means for law, since law simply stipulates loving actions. Because of the fall, there is no longer any possibility of being justified by “works of the law.” All of humanity, including Israel, is now “in Adam,” condemned as a transgressor of the law. Thus, the covenant of creation (also called the covenant of works, law, or nature) is the legal context for God’s judgment. This original covenant of creation may be defended by appealing to non-Christian as well as Christian sources.


Horton, M. (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (pp. 415–416). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

This is definitely a re-working of things.

Taking your formulation Andrew:

1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation

Man is ectypal (creaturely) analogue of God created to act out God's Covenant progression in Creation.
2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)

The "voluntary condescension" is recast (at least for the Creation Covenant) that Man is an analogue of God an as His ectypal vassal is intended to repeat this Covenantal fulfillment that God portrays in Creation.
3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent

As Mike notes, "Humanity is created for love..." which means the moral law. He's supposed to have lived out God's Covenantal "trial" in like manner.

4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him.
Not "wired", per se, but because man is God's ectype-vassal he's supposed to have done what God did.

5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation.
Not merely at Sinai. It appears to me that any "works" are, by definition, of the nature of man's condition being federally united to Adam as vassal.

5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.
It seems that the idea is that built into the Creation act, God goes through a Covenant process and man is expected to go through the same trial God endured and come out the other end in Sabbath rest.

 

[Romans922]

So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?

From being at their church in Esco and hearing people like Horton, Godfrey, and DVD it would be my conclusion they hold to a Framework view. As a matter of fact, I believe Godfrey has written this elsewhere. Also, it should be noted that a professor at Westminster West preached on Gensis in which he contended that Adam and Eve, while in the garden alone, were not the only people in the world at the time. He went as far to say bloodshed and war were nothing new.

Yes I know all of that, I was asking how does republication view of Kline and followers, and how they conflate creation and CoW--> does the framework view or long days (old earth) of creation link to that or is something completely separate?

If it links to it, does it logically follow from their Republication view or effect in any way, and how?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Andrew,

Methodologically, it seems the two have in common what I think is an unhealthy approach to the grammatico-historical method with respect to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature. What I suppose startles me about this approach (that Matthew calls going back to the quarry to cut new stones) is largely based on the finding of ANE treaties and pretty much assuming that to properly understand the historical setting these ANE forms need to be "templates" for us to understand Covenant Theology. Perhaps Kline didn't work out the dogmatic implications but there's an exegetical insistence to see Creation as another example of an ANE form. Thus, the CoW and the moral law is moved from God's Providential dealings with men to, it seems, man's very created constituency. Thus, those that follow Kline pretty much have moved from the "this looks like the ANE treaties" to "this looks so much like the ANE treaties that we need to understand Covenant in a whole new way and everything that we understand about Creation needs to 'shift' to account for the fact that *this* is the normative exegetical way to understand this passage."

Consequently, it seems to me, that because the account of Creation is not so much a historical narrative as it is ANE treaty literature so that we might understand that God's actions are to exhibit the features of a Covenant ordeal and that Adam is the ectype-vassal expected to likewise come out the other side into rest. All the "pieces and parts" of that account aren't important historically or chronologically as they are to be understood to fit into a treaty. To focus on the days of creation as days is to miss what's *really* important.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Incidentally, this might not make those that hold to this view happy but I really don't see much of a methodological difference between these two statements:

1. "Hey! Look at these Hittite treaties - THAT's the way the Covenants operate. We need to re-build our understanding of the Covenants based on this discovery from the 1950's!"

and

2. "Hey! Look at this literature from 2nd Temple Judaism and the way the Jews thought that justification was covenant participation. We need to get a new perspective on Paul concerning Justification."

 

[Peairtach]

Re these - indeed interesting - discoveries about Hittite treaties, etc, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit was perfectly free to ignore or rework the literary form as He so wished for His purposes.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re these - indeed interesting - discoveries about Hittite treaties, etc, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit was perfectly free to ignore or rework the literary form as He so wished for His purposes.

I completely agree. We rightly respond to N.T. Wright and others that we don't have to "read between the lines" to understand what Paul is teaching about Justification but the commitment to an "exegetical discovery" can often be so powerful as to overthrow what is in the text. Did the Holy Spirit leave us without these modern discoveries for centuries essentially waiting until this generation until we *really* understand Paul (or the original Covenants).

 

[Peairtach]

So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?

I presume they have to wait until the creation of Man to have a CoW/ Covenant of Creation with Man. Thus on a Framework/ Old Earth view there would be quite some time elapsed before this covenant was introduced I.e. the moment Adam was created. In the Westminster/orthodox view the CoW was additional to Adam's creation to provide a way by which he would be confirmed in his love to God and original righteousness. Then again the Escondido theologians may have very different ideas about this, but I don't see how they could.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Captain Picard]

Is Horton a "Klinean" on the issue of republication?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Andrew,

Methodologically, it seems the two have in common what I think is an unhealthy approach to the grammatico-historical method with respect to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature. What I suppose startles me about this approach (that Matthew calls going back to the quarry to cut new stones) is largely based on the finding of ANE treaties and pretty much assuming that to properly understand the historical setting these ANE forms need to be "templates" for us to understand Covenant Theology...

That is the way to think about it. My mentor, Dr. Coppes, was a Klinian until he re-evaluated the whole approach in the late 80s. While getting his Th.D. under EJ Young, Young mentioned a need for a thesis on form criticism. It appears Young was seeing the problem (see his Studies in Genesis 1 which eviscerates the framework view). Dr. Coppes is convinced of the view you presented but the older language, as I recall, is form criticism: finding forms everywhere in the bible. That is the connection to the framework. Kline sought out forms and then tried to fit them all together. So, his view of CoW, etc. does not directly impinge upon the days of creation per se.

Of importance today for those wishing to use ANE treatises is that there are many forms of them, Kline's being only one type (see the works of Kitchen). Hanging everything on an archeological discovery can be risky.

 

[mvdm]

Is Horton a "Klinean" on the issue of republication?

Essentially, yes.

 

[Captain Picard]

Thanks. Was not aware.

 

[AndyS]

Incidentally, this might not make those that hold to this view happy but I really don't see much of a methodological difference between these two statements:

1. "Hey! Look at these Hittite treaties - THAT's the way the Covenants operate. We need to re-build our understanding of the Covenants based on this discovery from the 1950's!"

and

2. "Hey! Look at this literature from 2nd Temple Judaism and the way the Jews thought that justification was covenant participation. We need to get a new perspective on Paul concerning Justification."

Both insightful & ironic.

 

[timmopussycat]

Correct?

I would say so, and I think your quotations are helpful. One point I would keep in mind is that Kline went back to the quarry to cut his stones, as it were, and was looking at the subject from an exegetical point of view. He did not construct his stones in systematic fashion, so we cannot say he would recognise points 1-6 as points 1-6, or whether he would have had other exegetical considerations which affected these points overall.

I don't know Kline's work well enough to weigh in on either side, but your last clause is an invaluable reminder of a point too often forgotten. Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.

 

[Romans922]

Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Is a false teacher going to accept as valid someone showing him how his teachings are false? Probably not. Does that make his teachings not false because he (false teacher) doesn't see validity in the "corrector's" argument against him? No.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was going to clarify as well, Andrew. I don't think there is anything wrong with demonstrating that the logical consequences of a particular teaching are erroneous. I think Matthew's point (and what Tim stated imprecisely) is that we cannot necessarily assume that the person recognizes the logical consequences. In other words, he/she may not realize the full import of a particular teaching and so they can't be fully faulted for the full import of their error as if the error is "premeditated".

That said, I think there are far too many who believe that they are essentially free to come to exegetical conclusions without doing an "error check" against a system of doctrine. I don't believe there's any such thing as either exegesis or systematic theology and that they are symbiotic. I suppose what I find surprising is not that Kline may have missed the import but that those who now understand it believe that there is sufficient reason to re-think so many dogmatic categories on the basis of what amounts to an archeological study and form criticism. I could see that happening with liberal Protestants but it's particularly surprising when it arises out of the conservative Reformed wing.

 

[mvdm]

but that those who now understand it believe that there is sufficient reason to re-think so many dogmatic categories on the basis of what amounts to an archeological study and form criticism. I could see that happening with liberal Protestants but it's particularly surprising when it arises out of the conservative Reformed wing.

Exactly.

 

[timmopussycat]

Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Is a false teacher going to accept as valid someone showing him how his teachings are false? Probably not. Does that make his teachings not false because he (false teacher) doesn't see validity in the "corrector's" argument against him? No.

While the false teacher may or may not accept the validity of someone showing him the consequences of his teaching, the point I wanted to stress was something else, namely that before we attribute an apparent consequence of a given teaching to the basic teaching's propound-er, we must know, if possible, whether the teacher accepts the validity of that consequence or rejects it for other reasons. A non-biblical consequence of a teaching might be a logically valid deduction from that teaching, but if the teacher rejects the consequence for other reasons, no one should charge him with holding the consequence since such a charge will not be true.

 

[MW]

Coming to the conclusion of "true" or "false" on some one's teaching is right. But I think Tim is noting there are "inferences" which could be drawn from one's teaching when we impose our own system on what is being taught; it is not fair to hold a teacher guilty of such inferences, especially when it is known that they weren't making systematic or dogmatic conclusions. It may be that they come to the same dogmatic conclusions but take a slightly different exegetical route.

With regard to Kline, let's not forget that he was doing his work at a time when the covenant of works was in sad neglect, and he was looking to show the exegetical importance of the doctrine. I can't agree with a number of his conclusions, but I would agree more with him than with those who reject the covenant of works or the law/gospel distinction. It is good to remember this is an intramural discussion so as not to hinder the good influence of those who have done helpful work in other areas on which we are in major agreement.