# Can VanDrunen and Wright be Reconciled?



## Myson (May 2, 2018)

I've been listening to N.T. Wright's _The Day the Revolution Began_ and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.

VanDrunen in his book _Living in God's Two Kingdoms _takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.

My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (May 2, 2018)

Myson said:


> I've been listening to N.T. Wright's _The Day the Revolution Began_ and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.
> 
> VanDrunen in his book _Living in God's Two Kingdoms _takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.
> 
> My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!


Wright is not at all two kingdoms. So, his view will have a little more of political taste to it especially with some of his past comments.


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2018)

Myson said:


> I've been listening to N.T. Wright's _The Day the Revolution Began_ and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.
> 
> VanDrunen in his book _Living in God's Two Kingdoms _takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.
> 
> My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!


NT Wright has a totally bad viewpoint in regards to what actually is Justification and salvation, so would like to see him getting squared right with the scriptures first and foremost.


----------



## Romans922 (May 3, 2018)

Both are bad, go read the puritans.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Both are bad, go read the puritans.


Better yet, the scriptures themselves.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2018)

No. They can't be harmonized on two kingdoms. Wright rejects it and rejects the idea of neutrality. Van Drunen's project is to champion the very idea of neutrality.


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. They can't be harmonized on two kingdoms. Wright rejects it and rejects the idea of neutrality. Van Drunen's project is to champion the very idea of neutrality.


Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?


----------



## greenbaggins (May 3, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Both are bad, go read the puritans.



I will, of course, not vouch for Wright, as he has so many problems. However, Van Drunen is not bad. His view of 2K is far more reasonable and less extreme than some other versions of it. You can say you disagree. But he is a far greater scholar on these matters than you or I will ever be.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 3, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> I will, of course, not vouch for Wright, as he has so many problems. However, Van Drunen is not bad. His view of 2K is far more reasonable and less extreme than some other versions of it. You can say you disagree. But he is a far greater scholar on these matters than you or I will ever be.



Yes far more reasonable and less extreme. I agree with that. I do disagree, and I think the Puritans got it right.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?


I am not too widely read in 2k to give a sufficient answer but, at times I do resonate with some things.
As for Wright and others, I do believe to be a Christian occupies all and it cannot be separated. But, I still do not really understand notions of redemption that seem to go beyond individuals and their need to be redeemed from sin and the Devil because that would occupy so much and everything else will naturally helped along.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?



Views on what, exactly?

DvD is better on justification. Wright doesn't hold to Klinean intrusion ethics, so he has that going for him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Views on what, exactly?
> 
> DvD is better on justification. Wright doesn't hold to Klinean intrusion ethics, so he has that going for him.


Wright has pretty much discounted any penal substitution in the Atonement though, and he has pretty much stated that we got the theology of Paul regarding the Cross wrong since Calvin forward...


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> I am not too widely read in 2k to give a sufficient answer but, at times I do resonate with some things.
> As for Wright and others, I do believe to be a Christian occupies all and it cannot be separated. But, I still do not really understand notions of redemption that seem to go beyond individuals and their need to be redeemed from sin and the Devil because that would occupy so much and everything else will naturally helped along.


To my way of thinking, Wright has spent way too much of his time getting into salvation of the world economy, and not into individual salvation, as evidenced by Him basically denying that we have understand Paul at all regarding salvation and the Cross of Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Wright has pretty much discounted any penal substitution



That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in _Jesus and the Victory of God_ arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.

Back to Wright vs. DvD.

When a Klinean sees the Psalmist cry out to God for justice, we shouldn't imagine that applying today. That's an intrusion of God's eschatological ethics. For Wright--and for the normal reading of the Bible--justice is God's rightness coming into the world. 

For the Klinean creation almost appears as something we should be saved from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in _Jesus and the Victory of God_ arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.
> 
> Back to Wright vs. DvD.
> 
> ...



Thanks for continuing to point out the horrible dangers of Klinean thought in this world!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (May 4, 2018)

Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology? Do you know how many people Kline has convinced that Reformed theology is superior to Arminianism? Do you know how well Kline has inoculated people against the FV and similar dangers? Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology? When it comes to Kline, you seem to want to shoot with a shotgun, instead of a rifle. You dismiss his entire thought as "horrible dangers". Instead of saying simply that you think Kline has overstated his case in this area, and that area, you would have us believe that he is practically a heretic. I wish you wouldn't do this. I disagree with Kline on plenty of things. But I don't see him as being so out on the fringe that his teaching constitutes anything like the horrible dangers you propose.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 4, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology? Do you know how many people Kline has convinced that Reformed theology is superior to Arminianism? Do you know how well Kline has inoculated people against the FV and similar dangers? Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology? When it comes to Kline, you seem to want to shoot with a shotgun, instead of a rifle. You dismiss his entire thought as "horrible dangers". Instead of saying simply that you think Kline has overstated his case in this area, and that area, you would have us believe that he is practically a heretic. I wish you wouldn't do this. I disagree with Kline on plenty of things. But I don't see him as being so out on the fringe that his teaching constitutes anything like the horrible dangers you propose.



Covenant Theology vs Dispensational? I don't know how many people Kline (and his followers - which is what I call Klinean) has influenced. But while klinean thought has helped get people closer to Scripture, some the aspects of his covenant theology are flawed and basically amount to a reformed sounding new covenant theology (not all klineans but some, and I actually see it as a logical effect in his system -- that to say the logical outworking of Kline's ideas leads to NCT). Lee Irons is a good example of working out the Klinean system logically in my opinion. Might not have been Kline's intention, but it is what it is.


Reformed vs Arminian - No I don't know how many people, though I am thankful if more men are reformed than arminian. But then we need to ask what kind of reformed? Are we talking a R. Scott Clark or a T. David Gordon (lots of difference there). One I would encourage to read, the other not at all (on most subjects).

FV - Yes, I truly believe Kline was helpful in terms of FV but was also an overreaction to FV (so while good / better, he went too far), and this has caused in the reformed world a sort of minor chaos in terms of understanding covenant theology (see above, plus the argument of republication, etc.). 

Biblical Theology - An issue that is sorely lacking today in the Church, and thankful in that way for Kline's influence in making it more popular. I haven't done much reading on this from Kline, I have only known those who have followed him. So klineans can tend to use Biblical Theology without an understanding of Systematic Theology, and applications in doctrines can be skewed from what I've experienced. Also, Klinean preaching (again I am speaking of followers of Kline) I have found to be unnecessarily complicated in their preaching, trying to find too many rabbit trails and making passages harder than they are. But again, thankful for Kline making Biblical Theology more popular.

As for shotguns and rifles - I own both. When I see a Pastor or theologian who has great thoughts and a couple minor issues, I use a rifle. When I see others that have major issues (while in some places having a good impact), I typically use a shotgun. Kline falls into the latter category for me. With him, I see issues of Covenant Theology, Two Kingdom Theology, Intrusion Ethics, and then, experientially, seeing how other men (even well-educated men) have studied his works and then what they believe and practice based on being huge fans of Kline there are a lot of issues (perhaps more than I see especially since not enough time has passed to see the full effect of his ministry - so far to me it is concerning). 

This leads me to use the shotgun. Rifles are for people like Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, Vos, Hodge, Thornwell, Beeke, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (May 4, 2018)

But Andrew, this last response of yours is far more nuanced than simply saying "horrible dangers." Except for the second to last paragraph, you were willing and able to point out many of the good things in Kline. Doesn't every theologian, including you and me, have to be read with discernment? I reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc., not for people like Kline. If you have to reload your rifle for Kline, that's fine. But I think that there is a VAST difference between Kline and the heretics I just mentioned.


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in _Jesus and the Victory of God_ arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.
> 
> Back to Wright vs. DvD.
> 
> ...


Wright himself states that he denies the traditional Reformed viewpoint in regards to Pauline Justification as found in Romans, for example.


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> But Andrew, this last response of yours is far more nuanced than simply saying "horrible dangers." Except for the second to last paragraph, you were willing and able to point out many of the good things in Kline. Doesn't every theologian, including you and me, have to be read with discernment? I reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc., not for people like Kline. If you have to reload your rifle for Kline, that's fine. But I think that there is a VAST difference between Kline and the heretics I just mentioned.


Good point, as one can be very wrong in one area, but still be very good in other areas
One that comes to mind is John Macarthur, as he has solid teachings in many areas, except for the ones that he labels himself as being a "leaking Dispensational". Kline is much better in theology than Wright is, as Wright have really deviated from reformed theology regarding the Cross and Atonement.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Wright himself states that he denies the traditional Reformed viewpoint in regards to Pauline Justification as found in Romans, for example.



Which is a completely different claim than he denies *any* form of substitutionary atonement, which you originally claimed.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 4, 2018)

Would viewing the ten commandments as Intrusion Ethics (since it is the covenant document of the typological kingdom) be a valid outworking of Kline's system?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which is a completely different claim than he denies *any* form of substitutionary atonement, which you originally claimed.


He denies that there is a penal substitution in the Atonement of the Cross as reformers such as Calvin affirmed!


----------



## Romans922 (May 4, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc.



I use nuclear bombs for those.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 4, 2018)

I agree with Lane.

Kline remained an OPC minister in good standing during his entire life and Van Drunen is such presently. Differ as you like with them (and a variety of Reformed men have differences of varying degrees with these brothers), the church has not determined these men to be heterodox.

Take two kingdoms and republication: versions of this have been around for some time in Reformed theology. There's plenty to argue about in terms of the details, but these are matters in current debate in our confessional churches. Even intrusion ethics is, I believe, something worth discussing and not simply dismissing out of hand (e.g., Jared Oliphint on Reformed Forum on its value for theodicy).

I only knew Kline at a distance but I know David (and other WSC men) personally. We've differed with each other in print (as well as agreed), but I regard him as a friend (as well as others there). David, if I may say, is a godly, capable servant of the Lord, whom I like and respect. I regard whatever differences I may have with him and other WSC men as intramural. I do not regard the differences that I have with N.T. Wright in the same vein (even as my differences with Wright aren't the same as those with Bart Ehrman). We do these Reformed brothers a disservice if we don't make these proper distinctions.

Bottom line: it's easy to over-simplify and demonize these brothers. Better to have a respectful dialog and contest them charitably and thoughtfully on the points of differences.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 5, 2018)

An additional (quicker!) comment: 

I also knew Greg Bahnsen well: a man of considerable gifts. We differed (as well as agreed) and remained good friends. Many wrongly concluded that you could not differ with Greg and be his friend. Not so. 

There are brothers in the Reformed churches with whom I even sharply differ but can be charitable because we have a mutual Savior to whom we ultimately answer.

I don't think that confessional fidelity and charity toward brethren in our own communions with whom we may differ need be in such opposition, as is often, sadly, the case among us. I need to do better here, to be sure. Let's all give it a shot!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife (May 5, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Let's all give it a shot!



... but with what kind of firearm? 

Myson, when I read your post I wondered how death and resurrection figure into these different approaches? I really loved Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble, Lecture IV. 

... Our faith as Christians is that just as God raised up Jesus from the dead, so will He raise us from the dead. And that just as all that Jesus had done in the days of His flesh seemed on Easter Saturday to be buried in final failure and oblivion, yet was by God's power raised to new life and power again, so all the faithful labor of God's servants which time seems to bury in the dust of failure, will be raised up, will be found to be there, transfigured, in the new Kingdom. Every faithful act of service, every honest labor to make the world a better place, which seemed to have been forever lost and forgotten in the rubble of history, will be seen on that day to have contributed to the perfect fellowship of God's kingdom. ...​
Newbigin convinced me that I do have an obligation to participate in the struggle of the world around me as I'm given opportunity (small as that opportunity may be, in my own calling). But he did so by fully recognising the corruptible in the whole effort, the way it has to all start over again in every generation in some sense because of the profound reality of every generation's sin, and the way it all comes to death. But the Christian does so in hope of the resurrection. I don't know how that reconciles with these books in particular, but in my own back and forth, giving full weight to both death and resurrection has made sense to me as it relates to our place in whole earth redemption.

(edit: Maybe also it is important not to lose the individual or the corporate/cosmic weight of either death or resurrection? Maybe it's easier to be overly optimistic about our 'kingdom building' here and now if we aren't really reckoning with the full reality of every individual's sin and death ... or we are too pessimistic about what God will do with our faltering endeavors to bring about justice because we think of resurrection too individualistically?)


----------



## DTK (May 5, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology?


Lane, I do respect your thoughts regarding Kline, and I must say that I cannot be critical of him for this reason . . . When I was in seminary in Jackson, MS, he taught a course on biblical theology as a visiting professor, which I took. At the time, being the young man I once was, I listened closely to his lectures. He was all over the place in class, and was difficult for me to follow. I never understood from day one to the last what he was trying to say. Thus, I refuse to critique him since I'm not certain of what he was saying. But I am certain that I'm not numbered among the "us" whom you mention above. I am, however, most willing to put the blame for that squarely on myself.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2018)

Kline's Images of the Spirit is actually pretty good and well-respected by outside scholars. God, Heaven, and Har-Magedon is okay in parts. 

Still can't affirm intrusion ethics and the sneaky suspicion that the Decalogue is logically part of the Intrusion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I also knew Greg Bahnsen well: a man of considerable gifts. We differed (as well as agreed) and remained good friends. Many wrongly concluded that you could not differ with Greg and be his friend. Not so.



An ancient Presbyterian legend tells of when Bahnsen was on his deathbed, Frame came to visit him. Bahnsen started arguing with Frame about the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God! 

I love both Bahnsen and Frame, though I am not a theonomist and I am iffy on presup.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2018)

And since I always had a soft spot for biblical theology, I always found Kline interesting. Ironically, however, both Klineans and theonomists operate the same: challenge any specific point in their system, and they give you a 35 page rebuttal using other points from the same system.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 5, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I agree with Lane.
> 
> Kline remained an OPC minister in good standing during his entire life and Van Drunen is such presently. Differ as you like with them (and a variety of Reformed men have differences of varying degrees with these brothers), the church has not determined these men to be heterodox.
> 
> ...


The problem with NT Wright though goes into the central area of just what really happened on the Cross, what did Jesus accomplish there? As Wright has redefined it so far away from the classic Reformed view on the Atonement, can he still be considered even reformed?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> can he still be considered even reformed?



No one has considered him Reformed in several decades.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2018)

> Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology?



Kline helped me understand why I should be a Presbyterian and Reformed because he became more Lutheran than Reformed. He was more of a Baptist concerning the Mosaic Covenant than I was. Early Kline writings were good. His later writings have much to be desired.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...cott-clarks-7-point-summary-of-republication/

Concerning Van Drunen....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/introducing-david-van-drunen-to-david-van-drunen/

From his sideman and student. This started on the Puritanboard years ago.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...sitions-with-some-responses-or-counterpoints/


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Van+Drunen

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2018)

I have quotes from N. T. Wright concerning Righteousness in Christ and imputation that are so far from good it is bad. He was also rebuking the Reformed Church for dividing and causing division with the Roman Church. 



> *N. T. Wright the Romanist?*
> 
> 
> The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in one family. (_WSPRS_, 158)
> ...

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2018)

Neither Van Drunen or Wright are Reformed Theologians in my estimation.

But if they think they are Reformed what are they Reformed from. Wright from the School of Rome and Van Drunen from the Reformed School of Abraham Kuyper?



> In a 2002 review of a book on the life and work of Abraham Kuyper, Dr. Van Drunen stated:
> “Readers who do not assume that there is a distinctively "Christian" cultural-political task, or that the kingdom of God is the measure for all earthly kingdoms, or that the present social order is supposed to be transformed, or that Reformed Christianity is a Calvinism consisting of a "life-principle" or worldview, will probably come away having eaten much but not finally satisfied. The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (May 6, 2018)

DTK said:


> Lane, I do respect your thoughts regarding Kline, and I must say that I cannot be critical of him for this reason . . . When I was in seminary in Jackson, MS, he taught a course on biblical theology as a visiting professor, which I took. At the time, being the young man I once was, I listened closely to his lectures. He was all over the place in class, and was difficult for me to follow. I never understood from day one to the last what he was trying to say. Thus, I refuse to critique him since I'm not certain of what he was saying. But I am certain that I'm not numbered among the "us" whom you mention above. I am, however, most willing to put the blame for that squarely on myself.



Well, he is certainly not the easiest writer to understand, and I am not going to claim that I know better than you what he was saying. I well remember thinking once, "If this guy-invents one-more hyphenated word-pairing I'm-going to-go throw-up." Barth once asked, "In the classical hyphenated word pairing "historisch-kritisch," what is the meaning of 'historisch,' what is the meaning of 'kritisch,' and in particular, what is the meaning of the hyphen?" I could ask similar questions of Kline all day long. A friend of mine had a very similar experience to yours when he took Kline's classes, but eventually he did come to understand a bit more of what Kline was getting at. I have some images of his spirit, but not all.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2018)

Images of the Spirit establishes the Divine Council worldview, which Semitic scholars like Mike Heiser would powerfully develop. 

Kline's stuff on "cutting a covenant" has an ontological payoff.

But his stuff on Common Grace Ethic is silly and easy to refute. One can make an argument that Misty Irons was the most consistent interpreter of Common Grace. In refutation we should note:

1. we “do not see biblical evidence of an ‘order’ or ‘sphere’ of common grace” in the Bible.
2. Is this a time or sphere of common grace? But even if it is, God’s blessings fell upon elect and non-elect within theocratic Israel. 
3. Is Kline talking about government? Perhaps, and a holy government is one that bears “the divine name” and “the promise of being crowned with consummation glory” (Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 96). But does Scripture ever describe a government as such? Israel is a “chosen people,” to be sure, but is the nation itself promised with consummation glory?
4. In any case, as Frame notes, nothing in Genesis 4-9 suggests a distinction between holy and nonholy governments (536). And even if it did, that wouldn’t help explain how the modern magistrate, who might happen to be a Christian, is to rule. What does it mean to rule according to common grace? How could we even determine which application of “common grace” is more “gracey” or right than the other one? General Franco of Spain probably had more common grace than either Hitler or Stalin, yet one suspects that the modern advocate of intrusion ethics wouldn’t praise Franco’s regime.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2018)

One more refutation of Common Grace:

~5. As Klaas Schilder notes, it is true that sin is being restrained. But by similar logic the fullness of Christ’s eschaton is not fully experienced. Apparently, it is restrained. (and this is true. So far, so good) If the first restraining is “grace,” then we must–if one is consistent–call the restraining of the blessing “judgment.” Kline’s position falls apart at this point.


----------



## mvdm (May 7, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Bottom line: it's easy to over-simplify and demonize these brothers. Better to have a respectful dialog and contest them charitably and thoughtfully on the points of differences.



Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.

From my vantage point, a key problem over the years is that these brothers have not shown that same charity toward those that disagree with their project. Has Van Drunen retracted his lumping Kuyperians with N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church (making them suspect on justification) or his stated intent to challenge the "Kuyperian captivity of the church"? 

If the Klineans had not insisted that they hold THE recovered Reformed position, but rather more humbly admitted they were advancing an idiosyncratic/modified minority view, I wonder whether any of this divisive debate would have happened. 

It seems that as long as they hold themselves out as advancing THE reformed view of covenant/law/gospel, they will continue to receive some pretty strong pushback.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2018)

mvdm said:


> Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.
> 
> From my vantage point, a key problem over the years is that these brothers have not shown that same charity toward those that disagree with their project. Has Van Drunen retracted his lumping Kuyperians with N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church (making them suspect on justification) or his stated intent to challenge the "Kuyperian captivity of the church"?
> 
> ...



That's the best summary of the issue I have ever seen. I like a lot of what DvD says, but when you lament "the Kuyperian captivity of the church," you can't really be accused of irenics.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 7, 2018)

mvdm said:


> Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.



Mark:

I agree that this could be handled in a more irenic fashion all around the board. I include myself in that call to irenicism. 

You're also not being as dismissory of these brothers (as if they are not at all Reformed) as some are, but making fair observations. 

It is decidedly unhelpful when folk wish to define what constitutes "Reformed" as something narrower or more specific than the doctrinal standards (whether the TFU or the WS). 

You're right to blow the whistle on both sides (I have done so as well, both in public remarks and in print). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## mvdm (May 7, 2018)

Thanks, Alan.

The challenge (in my mind, anyway) is to determine the limits of the judgment of charity. It seems the longer a discussion goes on, and if we witness identical errors have been pointed out by multiple sources, and there is no discernible course change, one wonders when charity becomes unreasonable.

I'm still struck by an article penned by the late Dr. P.Y. De Jong, in which he observed (on a different theological controversy) that the church's judgment of charity given to certain seminary professors may have been "too high a price to pay". I think he was making a valid point that it is possible to become TOO charitable.

Blessings,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 7, 2018)

Mark:

If I may, I think that P.Y.'s remarks were in the context of moderates, or even confessionalists, extending charity to liberals, who should be called out rather than coddled. 

This is not the same sort of situation. Kline and Van Drunen are not liberals departing from the confession but men who construct some things differently than others within confessional bounds (some may disagree with this--that they are within confessional bounds--but the points even here should be made theologically and not personally). 

Even if I believe that a brother has not treated other Reformed brethren with proper irenicism and charity, I need to call him out on that, rather than fail to treat him with proper charity. I am to do unto others not as they've done to others (or to me) but as I would have them do unto me. 

I agree with P.Y. in his context, but I don't believe that our problem on the PB is that we are in danger of becoming "too charitable." Certainly not in this discussion. Even if Kline or Van Drunen have over-argued their cases at points and disparaged Reformed brothers, we are not justified in repaying such in kind. This is not what P.Y. had in mind. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm (May 8, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> If I may, I think that P.Y.'s remarks were in the context of moderates, or even confessionalists, extending charity to liberals, who should be called out rather than coddled.



Indeed! I cited it only for the principle that the judgment of charity has a diminishing half-life depending on the circumstances.



Alan D. Strange said:


> This is not the same sort of situation. Kline and Van Drunen are not liberals departing from the confession but men who construct some things differently than others within confessional bounds (some may disagree with this--that they are within confessional bounds--but the points even here should be made theologically and not personally).



Totally agree with your point that these things must be argued *theologically*, not personally. Yet, herein lies the disagreement (as you note) as to whether some brothers are veering toward the edges of confessional bounds. If some are convinced (theologically) this is the case, then we should recognize that a simple plea for the judgment of charity will not answer the theological concern. I know you are not saying that, but I've seen it.

In any event, hope to catch up with you at Wheaton.


----------

