# Any thoughts on Lane Tipton's interpretation of Kline in the OPC report?



## Christianbygrace (Jan 1, 2017)

Did Dr.Tipton provide an accurate assessment of Professor Kline's covenant theology in your opinion? 

As a side note, I am not an advocate of Klinean Republication; only hoping for fruitful dialogue to further my knowledge on the progress of the debate. If you know of any reviews that have been posted, they will be much appreciated. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 2, 2017)

Do you have a link to this report?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 2, 2017)

http://opc.org/GA/republication.html
Also before the report was published online Reformed Forum discussed it with Tipton. http://reformedforum.org/ctc451/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 3, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> http://opc.org/GA/republication.html
> Also before the report was published online Reformed Forum discussed it with Tipton. http://reformedforum.org/ctc451/


 
I have never came across that term before, what is the doctrine of Republication?


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have never came across that term before, what is the doctrine of Republication?



It's a very technical subject. There has been a lot of heated debate about it. I've wondered if there are pastoral implications as a consequence of where one comes down on the matter?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have never came across that term before, what is the doctrine of Republication?


Start here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/interesting-upcoming-book-on-the-mosaic-covenant.40442/


----------



## Christianbygrace (Jan 3, 2017)

It depends largely on how far one is willing to take the doctrine. There are some who hold to a mild form of republication whereas others have taken it to its logical conclusions. Denying the continuity of the moral Law, redefining justice and merit, denying the necessity of God voluntary condescending to establish a Covenant with Adam resulting in a progressive dilapidation of ontology. These are just a few of the more extreme conclusions that certainly have pastoral implications. Lee Irons is an example of someone who has taken this doctrine to its logical conclusions in most areas. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> It depends largely on how far one is willing to take the doctrine. There are some who hold to a mild form of republication whereas others have taken it to its logical conclusions. Denying the continuity of the moral Law, redefining justice and merit, denying the necessity of God voluntary condescending to establish a Covenant with Adam resulting in a progressive dilapidation of ontology. These are just a few of the more extreme conclusions that certainly have pastoral implications. Lee Irons is an example of someone who has taken this doctrine to its logical conclusions in most areas.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't know much about Irons. Would antinomianism then be a logical result?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder (Jan 4, 2017)

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/critiquing-the-klinean-doctrine-of-republication.php


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 4, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Start here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/interesting-upcoming-book-on-the-mosaic-covenant.40442/


 Thanks.
Reading through those responses, does it boil down to if we see God redoing another Covenant of Works between Israel and Him in Mosaic Law, or that we are now under grace even in the Mosaic system of Law?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 4, 2017)

ZackF said:


> I don't know much about Irons. Would antinomianism then be a logical result?


 If the logical conclusion would be no Law at all abiding on us, totally now of grace?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 4, 2017)

From what little bit I have read and discussed with others, the report is fair, but not as clear as it could be. It seems to me that the larger issues (consequence of those issues aside for a moment) are 1) is there any sense in which there is a republishing/republication of the CoW in the Mosaic, is the Mosaic strictly CoG, or somewhere "in-the-middle" and 2) How does one define these terms (republication, "sense", Law,...). The various definitions of terms may be enough for another report! It is certainly not a simple topic as there are many complexities.
As to Dr. Tipton's view, there is a debate between he and Dr. Horton about a year and a half ago somewhere online, I believe,.....maybe someone can post it? I would like to hear that discussion........


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> It depends largely on how far one is willing to take the doctrine. There are some who hold to a mild form of republication whereas others have taken it to its logical conclusions. Denying the continuity of the moral Law, redefining justice and merit, denying the necessity of God voluntary condescending to establish a Covenant with Adam resulting in a progressive dilapidation of ontology. These are just a few of the more extreme conclusions that certainly have pastoral implications. Lee Irons is an example of someone who has taken this doctrine to its logical conclusions in most areas.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


However, I thought that Reformed theology, regarding CoW, was that the CoW existed only for Adam before his Fall, and so the Mosaic Law was a different arrangement?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 5, 2017)

ZackF said:


> I don't know much about Irons. Would antinomianism then be a logical result?



Yes in a way. Irons and those similar would appeal to the 'law of Christ', which would be similar to New Covenant Theology on the position of the law, though in reformed-esque language. Basically, the 10 commandments are out, and you have what there is only in the NT to go on for law/commandments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Jan 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> However, I thought that Reformed theology, regarding CoW, was that the CoW existed only for Adam before his Fall, and so the Mosaic Law was a different arrangement?



I agree with you in that for God to give another CoW, or republication, as a condition to obtain eternal life is simply outside of our confessions. Now I write this not knowing the nuance of what those who advocate republication mean and am somewhat cautious, though skeptical.


----------



## Christianbygrace (Jan 8, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I agree with you in that for God to give another CoW, or republication, as a condition to obtain eternal life is simply outside of our confessions. Now I write this not knowing the nuance of what those who advocate republication mean and am somewhat cautious, though skeptical.


 
The doctrine of republication referred to in this thread is that doctrine which is a more recent development in covenant theology 
by Professor Meredith Kline and his followers. To be fair, those in the republication camp do not believe that the Covenant of works has
been republished on the level of eternal salvation. They are in agreement with the confessions that after the fall, there has been only one Covenant of 
Grace substantially while different in its administration. Kline and his followers advocate a temporal, typological republicaiton of the Covenant of Works. 
Israel enters the Promised Land by Grace, but maintains the Land by works. There are many nuances however in how they articulate the doctrine.


----------



## Christianbygrace (Jan 8, 2017)

For those who are familiar with the report, has Dr.Tipton correctly interpreted Kline or is there is a bit of hermeneutical gymnastics being played in his articulation?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 8, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> They are in agreement with the confessions that after the fall, there has been only one Covenant of
> Grace substantially while different in its administration. Kline and his followers advocate a temporal, typological republicaiton of the Covenant of Works.
> Israel enters the Promised Land by Grace, but maintains the Land by works. There are many nuances however in how they articulate the doctrine.



I'd warn that a person reading Kline and considering even his theology on this tread carefully. Every single person who has followed after Kline has in different nuances that need to be investigated (and can't be summarized by saying, "____ believes in Klinean Republication."). I would say that even Kline was walking on a dangerous road, and call others to look at the implications of what he concluded as to the real effect of his theology. Some of those who have followed Kline have taken his doctrines to their logical conclusion (or more closely to their logical end) and it has resulted in what the OPC report actually condemns.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 8, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> For those who are familiar with the report, has Dr.Tipton correctly interpreted Kline or is there is a bit of hermeneutical gymnastics being played in his articulation?



It's been awhile since I read the report carefully, but it offers two possible interpretations of Kline and, as I recall, it doesn't speak to who among the committee might have held each interpretation. Did Tipton elaborate elsewhere, perhaps in the podcast linked above?


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> For those who are familiar with the report, has Dr.Tipton correctly interpreted Kline or is there is a bit of hermeneutical gymnastics being played in his articulation?



This is an ecclesiastical report. Within the communion there is a milieu with which the outsider is not familiar. To understand what is happening with a report the outsider must try to put himself in the shoes of those within the community. If one is regarded as orthodox his statements are heard and interpreted accordingly. Socially it is called the benefit of the doubt, and among Christians it is the judgment of charity. There is bound to be an "insiders" view which does not equate to partiality but simply reflects the amity enjoyed in Christian fellowship.

In the case of Prof. Kline one must also have some regard for the way exegesis and systematic theology interact. He worked in the Old Testament department, and sought to show the exegetical basis for confessional doctrines like the covenant of works. He worked at a time when the covenant of works was being undermined and when the continuity of Law and Gospel was being pressed too far. I personally think he reacted too far in the other direction, and from an outsider's view I think he went beyond the bounds of the confession; but at the same time I value his work and some of his insights are of tremendous importance for the exposition of confessional theology.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2017)

MW said:


> He worked in the Old Testament department, and sought to show the exegetical basis for confessional doctrines like the covenant of works. He worked at a time when the covenant of works was being undermined and when the continuity of Law and Gospel was being pressed too far. I personally think he reacted too far in the other direction, and from an outsider's view I think he went beyond the bounds of the confession; but at the same time I value his work and some of his insights are of tremendous importance for the exposition of confessional theology.



For the reasons mentioned here, all adherents to confessional theology should be forever grateful to Dr Kline. While some of his disciples have taken his errors to their logical conclusion, we must also recognise that many who were influenced by him rose up to oppose the Federal Vision and highlighted the fact that denial of the covenant of works gave rise to the FV.


----------



## Christianbygrace (Jan 8, 2017)

MW said:


> This is an ecclesiastical report. Within the communion there is a milieu with which the outsider is not familiar. To understand what is happening with a report the outsider must try to put himself in the shoes of those within the community. If one is regarded as orthodox his statements are heard and interpreted accordingly. Socially it is called the benefit of the doubt, and among Christians it is the judgment of charity. There is bound to be an "insiders" view which does not equate to partiality but simply reflects the amity enjoyed in Christian fellowship.
> 
> In the case of Prof. Kline one must also have some regard for the way exegesis and systematic theology interact. He worked in the Old Testament department, and sought to show the exegetical basis for confessional doctrines like the covenant of works. He worked at a time when the covenant of works was being undermined and when the continuity of Law and Gospel was being pressed too far. I personally think he reacted too far in the other direction, and from an outsider's view I think he went beyond the bounds of the confession; but at the same time I value his work and some of his insights are of tremendous importance for the exposition of confessional theology.




I certainly agree. Dr. Kline was a brilliant professor with a heart for the truth without a doubt. I am thankful for your response as I have benefited tremendously from your input on other threads about the subject at hand.
The assistant Pastor at the PCA Church I belong to holds to republication and is one of the godliest men I know. He is the one who told me that Dr.Tipton wrote the section on administrative republication in the report. I have had a hard time reconciling Dr. Tipton's interpretation with what Kline says with regard to whether or not Kline actually held to an administrative republication or a substantial republication. Perhaps though this is due to my very limited knowledge of Kline's style of writing both theologically and exegetically.


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> I have had a hard time reconciling Dr. Tipton's interpretation with what Kline says with regard to whether or not Kline actually held to an administrative republication or a substantial republication.



I would have to read over the report again with this information in mind in order to offer anything definite, which I don't have time for at present. I can see the two views are in the report, and I would interpret Prof. Kline as teaching a substantial republication. That is because he taught the "works-principle" as something which operates as a "co-ordinate" covenant, which means it is not properly "subordinate" in the sense that earlier theologians spoke of it. Even taking in Herman Witsius' view, which refers to the covenant made with Israel as neither of grace nor of works but a mixture of the two, there is still a subordination. Whereas for Prof. Kline the "works-principle" is a fully instituted and integrated covenant in the national life of Israel on which the promises of God are made to depend. I think it is safe to say that his typological interpretation mixed with his intrusion eschatology and confused matters somewhat.

But again, I am standing outside the confessional communion in which he worked. I am also given to understand that his communion has altered the Confession and allows for exceptions to it. This means he was not working with the same Confession or within the same terms of subscription with which I am familiar.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Yes in a way. Irons and those similar would appeal to the 'law of Christ', which would be similar to New Covenant Theology on the position of the law, though in reformed-esque language. Basically, the 10 commandments are out, and you have what there is only in the NT to go on for law/commandments.


 Not Lawless, but not under the Mosaic Law as that was given under Old Covenant, but now under law of Christ as under new One, which would still entail obeying the commands of Jesus and Apostles!


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2017)

Christianbygrace said:


> The doctrine of republication referred to in this thread is that doctrine which is a more recent development in covenant theology
> by Professor Meredith Kline and his followers. To be fair, those in the republication camp do not believe that the Covenant of works has
> been republished on the level of eternal salvation. They are in agreement with the confessions that after the fall, there has been only one Covenant of
> Grace substantially while different in its administration. Kline and his followers advocate a temporal, typological republicaiton of the Covenant of Works.
> Israel enters the Promised Land by Grace, but maintains the Land by works. There are many nuances however in how they articulate the doctrine.


 So then He tied the covenant God established to give to national israel a land back then to the Covenantof Works, so if theykept His Law and commands, had the blessing, but if not, got the curses instead? And that was JUST at that time period, as Grace applied to remainder Covenants such as David/Abraham and New One?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 10, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Not Lawless, but not under the Mosaic Law as that was given under Old Covenant, but now under law of Christ as under new One, which would still entail obeying the commands of Jesus and Apostles!



Please don't misunderstand. I mean to say they (Irons and those who are like him) do completely away with the 3 fold division of the law (Moral, Ceremonial, Civil) as we find in WCF 19. They do this because they hold the New Covenant Theology view (which is not reformed) that "law" (nomos) in Paul's writings means Sinai Covenant. In this way, Exodus 19 is done away with as well as the 10 commandments, and the rest in application of Israel (rightly) that we find in the ceremonial and civil law. But the important thing here is that they get rid of the moral law that we find in the OT altogether. Which in application just as NCT does, this basically means that the 4th commandment no longer applies (this of course is crazy since we find the 4th commandment in the NT too). As well when they say they hold now to the law of Christ, it means the law to love. Which is ironically exactly what we find in the moral law of the OT. But the goal is to not be under law, the law they don't like. Which in and of itself is lawless, and antinomian in practice. Not under the Old Covenant (as in the sense of Hebrews). Because Hebrews does not suggest we get rid of the moral law but it is addressing the ceremonial law that we find in application to Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, not the moral law that we see expounded that is perpetual under the Mosaic Covenant. Again, the issue here is especially the ridding of the moral law from the life of the Christian, when Christ said Himself He came not to abolish it but to fulfill it (Mt. 5). Irons, et al are seeking to do that which Christ forbid. That in my estimation is very serious, aggregious, and blasphemous. And it just may be why Irons was defrocked from the OPC.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 11, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Please don't misunderstand. I mean to say they (Irons and those who are like him) do completely away with the 3 fold division of the law (Moral, Ceremonial, Civil) as we find in WCF 19. They do this because they hold the New Covenant Theology view (which is not reformed) that "law" (nomos) in Paul's writings means Sinai Covenant. In this way, Exodus 19 is done away with as well as the 10 commandments, and the rest in application of Israel (rightly) that we find in the ceremonial and civil law. But the important thing here is that they get rid of the moral law that we find in the OT altogether. Which in application just as NCT does, this basically means that the 4th commandment no longer applies (this of course is crazy since we find the 4th commandment in the NT too). As well when they say they hold now to the law of Christ, it means the law to love. Which is ironically exactly what we find in the moral law of the OT. But the goal is to not be under law, the law they don't like. Which in and of itself is lawless, and antinomian in practice. Not under the Old Covenant (as in the sense of Hebrews). Because Hebrews does not suggest we get rid of the moral law but it is addressing the ceremonial law that we find in application to Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, not the moral law that we see expounded that is perpetual under the Mosaic Covenant. Again, the issue here is especially the ridding of the moral law from the life of the Christian, when Christ said Himself He came not to abolish it but to fulfill it (Mt. 5). Irons, et al are seeking to do that which Christ forbid. That in my estimation is very serious, aggregious, and blasphemous. And it just may be why Irons was defrocked from the OPC.


 You have summed up rightly what t the NCT teach refarding the Lw and Christians. Are they not really going back then to when Jesus stated that the whole of the 10 Commandments hang on lovong God and loving others, by doing the Golden Rule unto them?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You have summed up rightly what t the NCT teach refarding the Lw and Christians. Are they not really going back then to when Jesus stated that the whole of the 10 Commandments hang on lovong God and loving others, by doing the Golden Rule unto them?



Irons, et al hold to a reformed sounding version of NCT. That is all that is needed to be said as NCT is not reformed in any sense. Like I said before, they deny basically all of WCF 19. Further, do NCT really hold to the 10 commandments? The answer is no. With that they get rid of all the applications found in the OT which show how the 10 commandments (which they don't believe) are applied. It is a very serious false teaching though slightly better than dispensationalism, and it leads many astray in their Christian lives towards antinomianism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 11, 2017)

Do you hold to NCT? 


Dachaser said:


> You have summed up rightly what t the NCT teach refarding the Lw and Christians. Are they not really going back then to when Jesus stated that the whole of the 10 Commandments hang on lovong God and loving others, by doing the Golden Rule unto them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 13, 2017)

David, Do you hold to NCT?


Dachaser said:


> You have summed up rightly what t the NCT teach refarding the Lw and Christians. Are they not really going back then to when Jesus stated that the whole of the 10 Commandments hang on lovong God and loving others, by doing the Golden Rule unto them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Do you hold to NCT?


 I do agree with its basic premise, that the Christian under Grace is now under the NT application of the Law of Christ, but since that is still obeying the Moral commands as in the Law given Moses, don;t see that big of a difference.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Law of Christ



What is the law of Christ?

Further, what does it mean to be "under the NT application of the Law of Christ"?



Dachaser said:


> Christian under Grace



Is there another type of Christian, one who was not under grace? I don't understand the purpose of this statement.

Finally, you do know the reformed view is that the Covenant of Grace is progressively revealed through different covenant administrations (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) culminating in its fullest picture in the New Covenant (which are all the covenant administration promises together and seen in the light fully of Christ)? Thus the moral law (10 commandments) are perpetually binding on all men.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> What is the law of Christ?
> 
> Further, what does it mean to be "under the NT application of the Law of Christ"?
> 
> ...


 
The Law of Christ would be the summay of the commands that Jesus and His Apostles gave to us under the New Covenant. so they would include the moral law commands save for the Sabbath day, as the other 9 were regiven in the NT Epistles again.

Being a Baptist myself, woultend to see more of adifference between the Law d the Gospl, but alo do seeGrave comntained even withi the Law , and especially und thoe diferent covent administrtions of thetpast.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jan 13, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> this basically means that the 4th commandment no longer applies (this of course is crazy since we find the 4th commandment in the NT too)



Where is the 4th commandment 'found' in the NT?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 13, 2017)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Where is the 4th commandment 'found' in the NT?



Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Revelation 1:10.

And very specifically Matthew 5:17-18 and Hebrews 4:9.



Dachaser said:


> The Law of Christ would be the summay of the commands that Jesus and His Apostles gave to us under the New Covenant. so they would include the moral law commands save for the Sabbath day, as the other 9 were regiven in the NT Epistles again.
> 
> Being a Baptist myself, woultend to see more of adifference between the Law d the Gospl, but alo do seeGrave comntained even withi the Law , and especially und thoe diferent covent administrtions of thetpast.



So you are saying you hold an anti-Confessional view and you have been pressing that (seemingly) on this thread?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Law of Christ would be the summay of the commands that Jesus and His Apostles gave to us under the New Covenant. so they would include the moral law commands save for the Sabbath day, as the other 9 were regiven in the NT Epistles again.
> 
> Being a Baptist myself, woultend to see more of adifference between the Law d the Gospl, but alo do seeGrave comntained even withi the Law , and especially und thoe diferent covent administrtions of thetpast.



David,
You ought to consider what your own confession teaches about the Sabbath day (LBC 22:7-8):


> 7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )
> 
> 8. The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. ( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 13, 2017)

Douglas,

Are you not convinced from Scripture that Our Lord appointed the first weekday as the day that He was to be met in worship? In Col. 2:16, is there anything Paul is saying that leads one to believe the moral obligation of the Sabbath has been suspended?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 13, 2017)

FYI. David has been suspended so cannot respond. If folks want to discuss the issues of NCT's view of the law and its rejection of the fourth commandment, that would be appropriate for a new thread I should think.


----------

