# Karlberg's take on Republication controversy



## Shawn Mathis (Sep 4, 2014)

Here's the article.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 4, 2014)

I am glad that Karlberg has made explicit what other Republicationists have been suggesting in a more veiled manner: Republication is the THE proper view of the covenant, and the rest of us in the Reformed world need to be dealt with in the church courts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2014)

That has to be one of the most irresponsible articles I've read in a long time. Contrast that piece with the discussions in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal. If the discussion is ever going to proceed then proper distinctions need to be made. To lump Gaffin together with Shepherd is the most absurd thing I've read in some time. To boil this down to one man ranks second. If he wrote a post like that here, he would be infracted for egregious 9th Commandment violations on several counts. The beginning place for this discussion (to determine historic Reformed orthodoxy) has to be the Confessions and not lining up behind men with a blind party spirit.

May the Lord be gracious to each of us to prevent party spirit from spiritually blinding us to appropriate criticism and self-reflection.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 4, 2014)

> What the Murray school of interpretation must conclude, to be theologically consistent (what is the aim of the systematician), is to say that believers under the new covenant are likewise subject to both the blessings and the curses of redemptive covenant in accordance with (non-meritorious) good works. This point is crucial:



What Karlberg seems to forget is that you can go straight to Hell from being under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, but never having entered its life, and church discipline is a little foretaste of being put "outside". 

He also seems to forget that the New Testament Scriptures talk about our obedience to God's commandments done in Christ being graciously rewarded in Heaven, not because we intrinsically deserve reward.

These lessons of the Covenant of Grace were taught in a suitable way under the Old Testament.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 4, 2014)

He makes the following assertion:



> Meredith G. Kline (representing historic, mainstream Reformed federalism, espoused from the time of the Reformation to the present)



I have a question: did Dr Kline ever actually claim that his view (to the exclusion of all others) was the historic, mainstream Reformed position?


----------



## Douglas P. (Sep 4, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> He makes the following assertion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sermons at Amoskeag Presbyterian Church

Around lecture 5 or so (from the above link) MGK does state that his view on the adamic covenant is the historic confessional view and that John Murray is deviating from the historic understanding. With that being said, he is very gracious to Prof. Murray. Dr. Kline had a real gentleness about him throughout the lectures. A quality which hopefully can be exemplified by all sides in this debate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 4, 2014)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Around lecture 5 or so (from the above link) MGK does state that his view on the adamic covenant is the historic confessional view and that John Murray is deviating from the historic understanding. With that being said, he is very gracious to Prof. Murray. Dr. Kline had a real gentleness about him throughout the lectures. A quality which hopefully can be exemplified by all sides in this debate.



Thank you, Douglas.


----------

