# Meredith Kline and Subscriptionism



## CalvinandHodges

Hay:

A question I posed on a different thread had some tell me to post a new topic. So here is the question:

Can one hold to the teachings of Meredith Kline and be a member in good standing of a Church that holds to the Westminster Standards or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?

Thanks in advance,

-CH


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I would say no. Especially if one's denomination holds to a strict-subscription.


----------



## Pergamum

What is the difference between loose and strict subscriptionism? And how loose is possible before it is no subscriptinism at all? What are the definition of terms here?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well in my mind anything that is not Strict-Subscription is no-Subscription.


----------



## TimV

_De facto_ or _de jure_? He's the big guru of many liberal PCA pastors, and they make no secret of the fact.


----------



## DMcFadden

Please list/itemize the issues where Kline is at odds with the WCF. Thanks!


----------



## Me Died Blue

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> A question I posed on a different thread had some tell me to post a new topic. So here is the question:
> 
> Can one hold to the teachings of Meredith Kline and be a member in good standing of a Church that holds to the Westminster Standards or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?



Yes, since regardless of what one thinks about the confessional nature of certain views taught by Dr. Kline, the biblical (and confessional, I might add) requirement for adults having membership in the visible church is not confessional subscription, but rather a profession of faith.


----------



## Pergamum

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well in my mind anything that is not Strict-Subscription is no-Subscription.



Several Reformed Baptist churches I know of say they hold to the 1689 but then take an exception that the Pope is THE antichrist. For the sake of that one exception then, are they nonconfessional when they use the 1689 and honor it otherwise?


----------



## wsw201

Me Died Blue said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hay:
> 
> A question I posed on a different thread had some tell me to post a new topic. So here is the question:
> 
> Can one hold to the teachings of Meredith Kline and be a member in good standing of a Church that holds to the Westminster Standards or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, since regardless of what one thinks about the confessional nature of certain views taught by Dr. Kline, the biblical (and confessional, I might add) requirement for adults having membership in the visible church is not confessional subscription, but rather a profession of faith.
Click to expand...


Chris is right on this point. Did you mean to say officer vs. member?

Assuming you meant officer, I think Dennis' question is appropriate. Especially since not everyone on this board (including me!) are completely familiar with all of Kline's work.


----------



## DMcFadden

DMcFadden said:


> Please list/itemize the issues where Kline is at odds with the WCF. Thanks!



My knowledge of Kline is pretty sketchy (just the suzereinty treaties stuff). Can anyone delineate the issues?
[BUMP] Anybody? Anybody? Anybody?


----------



## wsw201

I know of one issue of Kline's is the Framework Hypothysis, which is pretty wacky.


----------



## Jon Peters

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> A question I posed on a different thread had some tell me to post a new topic. So here is the question:
> 
> Can one hold to the teachings of Meredith Kline and be a member in good standing of a Church that holds to the Westminster Standards or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> -CH



The OPC does not have strict subscription but system subscription. It's very hard to tell exactly what that means. However, Kline was a minister in good standing in the OPC. So the answer to your question is yes, one can hold to some Klinean distinctives and be an officer in good standing (at least in the OPC).

For the sake of clarification, are you referring to his views of the law and the COW in particular?


----------



## Jon Peters

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I would say no. Especially if one's denomination holds to a strict-subscription.



Would your view of strict subscription allow one to have scruples with some minor points in the standards, or must one agree with every word? Just curious.


----------



## Casey

Jon Peters said:


> The OPC does not have strict subscription but system subscription. It's very hard to tell exactly what that means. However, Kline was a minister in good standing in the OPC. So the answer to your question is yes, one can hold to some Klinean distinctives and be an officer in good standing (at least in the OPC).


Friend, your logic doesn't follow because individual members of the church do not set precedents. Each case is examined on its own merits and since Kline's teaching was not challenged as being unconfessional in a church court, we only charitably assume that it was compatible with the Standards. But a charitable assumption is not the same as the church officially pronouncing his teaching as being compatible with the Standards.

Presume an elder in an OPC believed that the Mosiac Covenant was essentially an administration of the covenant of works and not of the covenant of grace, and pretend charges were never brought against him. Since the church never rendered an official decision, and the man continued in good standing, it doesn't follow that his view is therefore confessional (because it obviously is not).


----------



## Marrow Man

If the problem is Kline's view of creation (i.e., the aforementioned Framework Hypothesis), then one can be "confessional" with regard to the WCF and still be a faithful presbytery, depending on presbyteries and such. For instance, there are FHers in the ARP and the PCA. In some cases, I suppose they take exceptions on the days of creation, but there are others who hold to the FH and assume there is no discord with the WCF. I don't buy that argument, but I'm just saying it's out there.


----------



## wsw201

Marrow Man said:


> If the problem is Kline's view of creation (i.e., the aforementioned Framework Hypothesis), then one can be "confessional" with regard to the WCF and still be a faithful presbytery, depending on presbyteries and such. For instance, there are FHers in the ARP and the PCA. In some cases, I suppose they take exceptions on the days of creation, but there are others who hold to the FH and assume there is no discord with the WCF. I don't buy that argument, but I'm just saying it's out there.



This is true in regards to the OPC and PCA as both have come out with papers concerning the days of creation and pretty given the ok to FH.


----------



## DMcFadden

I'm looking for any areas of his theology (mostly CoW) where his view departs from standard interpretations of the WCF. 

This morning I made the mistake of asking one of my residents, Dr. Dan Fulller, to give me his "take" on Kline. He exploded with: "You want to read his review of my book where he says that I'm the most dangerous person in Christendom!?!" Oops! My bad. Note to self: don't ask former professors to comment on people who trash their works.


----------



## Jon Peters

CaseyBessette said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC does not have strict subscription but system subscription. It's very hard to tell exactly what that means. However, Kline was a minister in good standing in the OPC. So the answer to your question is yes, one can hold to some Klinean distinctives and be an officer in good standing (at least in the OPC).
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, your logic doesn't follow because individual members of the church do not set precedents. Each case is examined on its own merits and since Kline's teaching was not challenged as being unconfessional in a church court, we only charitably assume that it was compatible with the Standards. But a charitable assumption is not the same as the church officially pronouncing his teaching as being compatible with the Standards.
> 
> Presume an elder in an OPC believed that the Mosiac Covenant was essentially an administration of the covenant of works and not of the covenant of grace, and pretend charges were never brought against him. Since the church never rendered an official decision, and the man continued in good standing, it doesn't follow that his view is therefore confessional (because it obviously is not).
Click to expand...


I think you read too much into my comments. Taking my comments as they stand there is no flaw in my reasoning. I never said such views were confessional, nor was that the question asked. What I said was that Kline was in good standing, therefore someone with Klinean beliefs may be in good standing in the OPC. 

I think what tends to happen in discussions like this is that any mention of Kline that is not negative is perceived to be supportive. In my previous comment I took no position on Kline's teaching per se, just that he was a minister in good standing. And, by the way, there are lots and lots of his followers ordained in the OPC, PCA and URC (among others) and these men go through ordination exams all the time. In effect, presbytery after presbytery are sanctioning Klinean distinctives as being within the bounds of whatever type of confessional subscription that church has. You may not like that, it may not be the "official" position of the church, but it is reality.

For what it's worth, I don't like system subscription (it's too mushy) and believe that Kline (or a follower) could likely not be ordained in a church that held to some version of strict subscription. I think, for instance, that you'll find very few Klineans in the RCUS.


----------



## Casey

Forgive me, brother, it seems that I did read too much into your comments now that you've replied to me. And you're right, a distinction needs to be made between the scruples that different presbyteries may allow and the official teaching of the church.

Do you know if Klineans frequently scruple with different areas of the Standards during presbytery theology exams? Or do they simply view their position as confessional? I don't recall anyone scrupling for a Klinean distinctive (maybe they should!) at any presbytery that I've been at.


----------



## Jon Peters

CaseyBessette said:


> Forgive me, brother, it seems that I did read too much into your comments now that you've replied to me. And you're right, a distinction needs to be made between the scruples that different presbyteries may allow and the official teaching of the church.
> 
> Do you know if Klineans frequently scruple with different areas of the Standards during presbytery theology exams? Or do they simply view their position as confessional? I don't recall anyone scrupling for a Klinean distinctive (maybe they should!) at any presbytery that I've been at.



I don't know the answer to that question. However, it was no secret that men were being licensed and ordained in the Southern California Presbytery (amidst all the Theonomists) who held to Klinean distinctives. Perhaps the men became so focused on creation days that everything else sort of went by the wayside.


----------



## Pergamum

Maybe a very good subject for a split off thread:


If ordinations standards of strictness vary; what happens when someone "sneaks" in during a lax time and is ordained or when other views are being fought and so everything else "goes by the wayside.". 

Does the church need to go through and do a "purge" then? Or should periodic reviews be done?

And what about pastors who suddenly find out that they were okay last year and now they are being ousted after 15 years of service because when he was ordained his church decided that the day-age theory was tolerable but today it is close to heresy?


----------



## TimV

> If ordinations standards of strictness vary; what happens when someone "sneaks" in during a lax time and is ordained or when other views are being fought and so everything else "goes by the wayside.".



A huge question! When a church is expanding, like the PCA, they're likely to be in a hurry to hire people to fill pulpits. Ordaining Arminians and Baptists has been illegal in the PCA for twenty years, but it's still done with boldness. Who's to say what the motive is in the people who do it? Ignorance? Sneakiness? 

To me the bigger but related question is: why do denominations start out orthodox and almost inevitably go sour? Who is at fault? Our Protestant system? Our culture? The natural tendency for people to follow the path of least resistance? The Devil? A combination of these things and others?

Step one is to violate one section of a churches rule book; usually a small one. Then you go bigger, and bigger, and before long the orthodox are in a minority and can't do anything, like in the CRC. How does it happen, and what can you do about it?


----------



## Jon Peters

TimV said:


> If ordinations standards of strictness vary; what happens when someone "sneaks" in during a lax time and is ordained or when other views are being fought and so everything else "goes by the wayside.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge question! When a church is expanding, like the PCA, they're likely to be in a hurry to hire people to fill pulpits. Ordaining Arminians and Baptists has been illegal in the PCA for twenty years, but it's still done with boldness. Who's to say what the motive is in the people who do it? Ignorance? Sneakiness?
> 
> To me the bigger but related question is: why do denominations start out orthodox and almost inevitably go sour? Who is at fault? Our Protestant system? Our culture? The natural tendency for people to follow the path of least resistance? The Devil? A combination of these things and others?
> 
> Step one is to violate one section of a churches rule book; usually a small one. Then you go bigger, and bigger, and before long the orthodox are in a minority and can't do anything, like in the CRC. How does it happen, and what can you do about it?
Click to expand...


I certainly don't endorse some of the theology of the book, but Gary North in Crossed Fingers does a good job at exploring this topic.


----------



## ADKing

Kline departs from the confessional standards on a whole host of issues. This is particulalrly clear in his last book: _God Heaven and Har Maggedon_. Without taking the time to spell out his postions and argue with each of them they are:

1. Creation
2. The Trinity as formulated in the Nicene creed
3. The Covenant of Grace
4. The Third Use of the Law as reflected in his labelling Sabbath keepers essentially "Judaizers". 

These are not minor variations from the standards but a wholesale attack on the reformed system, In my humble opinion.

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 06:29:20 EST-----



ADKing said:


> Kline departs from the confessional standards on a whole host of issues. This is particulalrly clear in his last book: _God Heaven and Har Maggedon_. Without taking the time to spell out his postions and argue with each of them they are:
> 
> 1. Creation
> 2. The Trinity as formulated in the Nicene creed
> 3. The Covenant of Grace
> 4. The Third Use of the Law as reflected in his labelling Sabbath keepers essentially "Judaizers".
> 
> These are not minor variations from the standards but a wholesale attack on the reformed system, In my humble opinion.



I know it has been a while since this thread went cold. However, this topic periodically comes up. I have recently re-set up my library since moving to Wichita and thought I would post some quotes from Kline's own words on these things. Often people seem to think that Kline is so deep and hard to understand and thus all of his heterodox statements must not really be heterodox afterall. Judge for yourself...

(From God, Heaven and Har Magedon pp.195-196 in which he is arguing against the sabbath applying to the NT church)

_Another serious theological problem besets the identification of the Christian first day as the Sabbath. The Sabbath ordinance of six days of kingdom labor leading to the reward of sabbath rest was not only a component of the premessianic typological system but, as a sign of the Torah covenant, it was an exponent of the works principle that governed Israel's possession of the typological kingdom under the Law. The alleged continuance of the Sabbath in the church would carry that principle of works with it into the New Covenant administration of Gospel grace. The advocacy of such a continuance of the *Decalogue ordinance* of the Sabbath is therefore, in effect, a Judaizing contention._

Kline on the Trinity... ibid. p.13 

_As an epiphany the Glory that constitutes heaven is identifiable with God. At the same time, this Glory epiphany is a created phenomenon. The account of the creation of heaven in Gen 1:1 is the record of the origin of the Glory epiphany, the creational investiture of Deity with majestic splendor (Ps. 104: 1,2). The heavenly Glory then is a created embodiment of Deity. It is, morover, a permanent embodiment...This Glory-manifestation of the Spirit and the Incarnation of the Son are alike in that each is a permanent embodiment of a person of the Godhead in a created entity, the epiphanic glory and human nature respectively._

And again...p.16

_A reverse ordering of these two persons of the Trinity [i.e. the Son and the Spirit--my own editorial comment] obtains when they are viewed in terms of the eternal generating of the Son-proper account being taken of what we have been observing about the Endoxation of the Spirit and its relation to the Incarnation of the Son. It is not simply that in this economic relationship there is a temporal priority of the Endoxation of the Spirit to the Incarnation of the Son, but that the edoxate Spirit performs a *fathering function* with respect to the incarnate Son. It is by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived, the Glory-Spirit, the Power of the Most High, coming upon Mary and overshadowing her (Luke 1:35). The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third. And as in the spiration of the Spirit so in the begetting of the Sonthe economic relations of the divine persons are to be seen as analogues of their eternal immanent relations. The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a sunject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son. _


----------



## py3ak

> _ The fathering of the incarnate Son by the endoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desideratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son. _



 Can *anyone* give me _one_ reason not to conclude that this is rank heresy?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## TimV

> It is not simply that in this economic relationship there is a temporal priority of the Endoxation of the Spirit to the Incarnation of the Son, but that the edoxate Spirit performs a fathering function with respect to the incarnate Son.


Wow


----------



## ADKing

And just one more on grace/works in Abraham (pp.102-103)

_That Abraham's obedience functioned not only as the authentication of his faith for his personal justification but as a *meritorious performance that earned a reward* for others (and thus as a type of Christ's obedience) is confirmed in the Lord's later revelation of the covenant promise to Isaac (Gen 26:2ff). The Lord declared that he would bestow these blessings on Isaac and his descendants "because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (v. 5; cf. v. 24). Abraham's obedience was not, of course, the ground for anyone's inheritance of heaven, but *it was the ground for Israel's inheritance of Canaan*, the prototype of heaven, under the terms of the Mosaic covenant of works. Eternal salvation would come because of Christ's obedience, but because of Abraham's obedience Christ would come as to the flesh from Israel (Rom 9:5) and thus salvation would come from the Abrahamites, the Jews (John 4:22). _


----------



## R. Scott Clark

If one has not actually read anything by the late Meredith Kline one ought not to comment on this thread.

Another point, Meredith went to glory as a minister in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He was never disciplined by that denomination. They had 50 years, that's 5 decades. He published "Because it Had Not Rained" in 1958. It's online.

Finally, he wrote on a great number of topics. I surely hope that for whatever criticisms we might come to have of some of Meredith's views we will appreciate him as a faithful, confessional defender of the Scriptures as the inerrant, inspired word of God. 

30 years ago Meredith was one of the few in the Westminster circle, (it was a minority who voted against Shepherd) even though he was on the Gordon-Conwell faculty by then, who understood what Norm Shepherd was saying and what the effect would be on Reformed theology. 

Frankly, and I know there are a lot of theonomists and sympathizers here, he should get credit for being willing to stick his neck out re theonomy when most everyone else in Reformed academia was unwilling even to read Bahnsen, much less engage him seriously.

Meredith was not a wacko or a crank. He was a brilliant OT scholar who read multiple ancient semitic languages and modern European languages. 

You can see much of his work online.

Before you condemn him unheard, in violation of the 9th commandment, please take some time to read widely in MGK yourself.

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 09:09:56 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> I'm looking for any areas of his theology (mostly CoW) where his view departs from standard interpretations of the WCF.
> 
> This morning I made the mistake of asking one of my residents, Dr. Dan Fulller, to give me his "take" on Kline. He exploded with: "You want to read his review of my book where he says that I'm the most dangerous person in Christendom!?!" Oops! My bad. Note to self: don't ask former professors to comment on people who trash their works.



Kline was right about Dan Fuller. So was Godfrey.

I don't know what your relationship to him is but you can tell him that Scott Clark says that he has much for which to repent. Yes, I said repent. He did a lot of damage with his books. 

What Dan Fuller wrote isn't biblical, it isn't Reformed and it's the seedbed for the Shepherd nonsense, the FV and a good bit of modern moralism.

rsc


----------



## TimV

Great work, Pastor King.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Clark, without meaning to be disrespectful, voting against Norm Shepherd and attacking theonomy are not relevant to the point of the quotes that Mr. King has posted. If in spite of what seem like pretty straightforward statements you have some way of *demonstrating* that Professor Kline was not, in fact, teaching dangerous and bizarre doctrine I would be glad to hear it.


----------



## yeutter

Kline may have had shortcomings. 
For me he was valuable because he showed that that we must understand the essence of the covenant as being God's oath or promise to His people. The covenant is thus not in its essence an agreement or a relationship. To whatever extent it is these things flows from its being God's oath to save His people in Jesus Christ.


----------



## fredtgreco

py3ak said:


> Dr. Clark, without meaning to be disrespectful, voting against Norm Shepherd and attacking theonomy are not relevant to the point of the quotes that Mr. King has posted. If in spite of what seem like pretty straightforward statements you have some way of *demonstrating* that Professor Kline was not, in fact, teaching dangerous and bizarre doctrine I would be glad to hear it.



One could also point out that Bahnsen (and Shepherd for that matter) was never actually disciplined by the OPC either. That would not stop me (or others) from criticizing them.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Is there going to be any answer to Ruben's question in #31?

(Other than questioning the disciplinary procedures in the OPC?)

As a sidenote it seems that the one making the critiques (Rev. Adam King) has read Dr. Kline. So should not his critiques have a fair and honest hearing?


----------



## py3ak

I'll settle for an answer to #25. 

Also, Kline was a _confessional_ man? I went to the website devoted to him, clicked on an article that seemed like it would be relevant to the most disturbing of the quotes posted by Mr. King, and this was the first paragraph:



> When defining the imago Dei, dogmatic theology has traditionally tended to engage in an analysis of what constitutes humanness. But to answer the general question "What is man?" is not the same thing as answering the precise question "What is the image of God?". If our objective is to discern what the biblical idea of the image of God is, *it would appear necessary to abandon the traditional dogmatic wineskins*, go back to the beginning of Genesis, and start afresh.


 (Emphasis added)

Aren't our confessions precisely _traditional dogmatic wineskins_?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Anyone willing to defend such statements?


----------



## kceaster

ADKing said:


> And just one more on grace/works in Abraham (pp.102-103)
> 
> _That Abraham's obedience functioned not only as the authentication of his faith for his personal justification but as a *meritorious performance that earned a reward* for others (and thus as a type of Christ's obedience) is confirmed in the Lord's later revelation of the covenant promise to Isaac (Gen 26:2ff). The Lord declared that he would bestow these blessings on Isaac and his descendants "because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (v. 5; cf. v. 24). Abraham's obedience was not, of course, the ground for anyone's inheritance of heaven, but *it was the ground for Israel's inheritance of Canaan*, the prototype of heaven, under the terms of the Mosaic covenant of works. Eternal salvation would come because of Christ's obedience, but because of Abraham's obedience Christ would come as to the flesh from Israel (Rom 9:5) and thus salvation would come from the Abrahamites, the Jews (John 4:22). _



I have recently changed my mind on SOME of Kline's ideas about the covenant (of which I hope to explain more fully in due time), but I would be curious to know why faith is placed behind obedience in order of importance. It would seem here that he goes too far to prove the temporal and typological aspects of the national covenant. In doing so he is pitting scripture against scripture, as Hebrews 11:6 tells us that faith is the primary instrument that pleases God, not obedience. So, no amount of prototypical or shadowy language should be able to demolish that premise. Of course, he would argue that obedience wasn't the ground for getting spiritual reward but only temporal reward like he says above. But again, the Bible says that his faith was accounted to him as righteousness, not obedience. It was this righteousness, which is really the righteousness of Christ, that made him a friend of God.

For those of you who know Klein better, does he ever engage Hebrews 11 when talking about the temporal blessings of the covenant? Maybe better put, what role does faith play in the temporal blessings of the covenant? Is it the ground for both spiritual and physical blessing? Or, is it only the ground for spiritual blessing?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## timmopussycat

py3ak said:


> I'll settle for an answer to #25.
> 
> Also, Kline was a _confessional_ man? I went to the website devoted to him, clicked on an article that seemed like it would be relevant to the most disturbing of the quotes posted by Mr. King, and this was the first paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When defining the imago Dei, dogmatic theology has traditionally tended to engage in an analysis of what constitutes humanness. But to answer the general question "What is man?" is not the same thing as answering the precise question "What is the image of God?". If our objective is to discern what the biblical idea of the image of God is, *it would appear necessary to abandon the traditional dogmatic wineskins*, go back to the beginning of Genesis, and start afresh.
> 
> 
> 
> (Emphasis added)
> 
> Aren't our confessions precisely _traditional dogmatic wineskins_?
Click to expand...


It is not clear from the excerpt you cited whether or not Kline would have so defined the confessions. Since the excerpt does not mention the confessions, nor an investigation collation and analysis of what Scripture tells us about God, instead mentioning "the traditonal thological practice of beginning to define the imago dei by engaging in an analysis of what constitutes humanness", I suspect that he was more likely referring to engaging in the latter practice rather than the confession or searching the Scriptures to see what they tell us about God. Unless of course the rest of the article makes it clear that Kline is defining the confessions as "old wineskins."

If defining the imago dei by analyzing humanness apart from confessional control is what Kline was warning against, then he is not unconfessional to do so. By coincidence, Semper Fidelis has recently made the same point in another thread, that discussing the question of God's "emotions".


----------



## CDM

R. Scott Clark said:


> If one has not actually read anything by the late Meredith Kline one ought not to comment on this thread.



 I am not, however, defending--or attacking--Dr. Kline. Why? I have only read bits of him and taking any one sentence from a man, without reading the entire argument is grossly unfair, to put it mildly.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that some one liners don't send up red flags.


----------



## shackleton

ADKing said:


> Kline departs from the confessional standards on a whole host of issues. This is particulalrly clear in his last book: _God Heaven and Har Maggedon_. Without taking the time to spell out his postions and argue with each of them they are:
> 
> 1. Creation
> 2. The Trinity as formulated in the Nicene creed
> 3. The Covenant of Grace
> 4. The Third Use of the Law as reflected in his labelling Sabbath keepers essentially "Judaizers".
> 
> These are not minor variations from the standards but a wholesale attack on the reformed system, In my humble opinion.
> 
> -----Added 1/12/2009 at 06:29:20 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kline departs from the confessional standards on a whole host of issues. This is particulalrly clear in his last book: _God Heaven and Har Maggedon_. Without taking the time to spell out his postions and argue with each of them they are:
> 
> 1. Creation
> 2. The Trinity as formulated in the Nicene creed
> 3. The Covenant of Grace
> 4. The Third Use of the Law as reflected in his labelling Sabbath keepers essentially "Judaizers".
> 
> These are not minor variations from the standards but a wholesale attack on the reformed system, In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it has been a while since this thread went cold. However, this topic periodically comes up. I have recently re-set up my library since moving to Wichita and thought I would post some quotes from Kline's own words on these things. Often people seem to think that Kline is so deep and hard to understand and thus all of his heterodox statements must not really be heterodox afterall. Judge for yourself...
> 
> (From God, Heaven and Har Magedon pp.195-196 in which he is arguing against the sabbath applying to the NT church)
> 
> _Another serious theological problem besets the identification of the Christian first day as the Sabbath. The Sabbath ordinance of six days of kingdom labor leading to the reward of sabbath rest was not only a component of the premessianic typological system but, as a sign of the Torah covenant, it was an exponent of the works principle that governed Israel's possession of the typological kingdom under the Law. The alleged continuance of the Sabbath in the church would carry that principle of works with it into the New Covenant administration of Gospel grace. The advocacy of such a continuance of the *Decalogue ordinance* of the Sabbath is therefore, in effect, a Judaizing contention._
> 
> Kline on the Trinity... ibid. p.13
> 
> _As an epiphany the Glory that constitutes heaven is identifiable with God. At the same time, this Glory epiphany is a created phenomenon. The account of the creation of heaven in Gen 1:1 is the record of the origin of the Glory epiphany, the creational investiture of Deity with majestic splendor (Ps. 104: 1,2). The heavenly Glory then is a created embodiment of Deity. It is, morover, a permanent embodiment...This Glory-manifestation of the Spirit and the Incarnation of the Son are alike in that each is a permanent embodiment of a person of the Godhead in a created entity, the epiphanic glory and human nature respectively._
> 
> And again...p.16
> 
> _A reverse ordering of these two persons of the Trinity [i.e. the Son and the Spirit--my own editorial comment] obtains when they are viewed in terms of the eternal generating of the Son-proper account being taken of what we have been observing about the Endoxation of the Spirit and its relation to the Incarnation of the Son. It is not simply that in this economic relationship there is a temporal priority of the Endoxation of the Spirit to the Incarnation of the Son, but that the edoxate Spirit performs a *fathering function* with respect to the incarnate Son. It is by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived, the Glory-Spirit, the Power of the Most High, coming upon Mary and overshadowing her (Luke 1:35). The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third. And as in the spiration of the Spirit so in the begetting of the Sonthe economic relations of the divine persons are to be seen as analogues of their eternal immanent relations. The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a sunject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son. _
Click to expand...


All of this comes from the same book? I was wondering because I was looking for a good synopsis of his beliefs and why he was is no liked.


----------



## py3ak

We may need to do some thread-splitting to keep these questions focussed. But whoever _shouldn't_ say anything, if someone knows of a way to keep Kline's statements given by Mr. King above in line with Nicene orthodoxy, I think several of us would like to know what it is.

As far as the _old dogmatic wineskins_ go, he does manifest a certain willingness to mess not just with trajectories but with creedal statements, in saying that it would be desirable to add to our creedal formulations of the Son's filiation a statement that it is from the Father and the Spirit. Combine that with a "let's go back to the Bible and scrap the old way of doing things" line, and what are you coming up with?


----------



## ADKing

shackleton said:


> All of this comes from the same book? I was wondering because I was looking for a good synopsis of his beliefs and why he was is no liked.



Yes, this is all from the same book: God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos published by Wipf & Stock in 2006. This was Kline's last book before he died. In the preface, Kline comments that this book is designed to complement his book Kingdom Prologue but is aimed at a less academic audience. In essence this is the fruit of his most mature thought. This book was designed for just the thing you are after.


----------



## TimV

From the WCF (and just about every other orthodox confession except those of the East who (I think) still leave the last three words out):



> The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.



Kline as quoted above



> The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.



So, it is advisable and perhaps even necessary to incorporate Kline's theory into our most basic creeds that would read how? The _filioque_ is the last three words of


> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son



So, would it look like this?


> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds


----------



## Dearly Bought

TimV said:


> From the WCF (and just about every other orthodox confession except those of the East who (I think) still leave the last three words out):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kline as quoted above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it is advisable and perhaps even necessary to incorporate Kline's theory into our most basic creeds that would read how? The _filioque_ is the last three words of
> 
> 
> 
> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, would it look like this?
> 
> 
> 
> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My reading would suggest something more along the lines of:


> And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father *through the Spirit* before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.


----------



## TimV

> My reading would suggest something more along the lines of:
> 
> And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father through the Spirit before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.



That says the same as


> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds



It's just worded differently. As a PS, how would you treat the Spirit?


----------



## fredtgreco

TimV said:


> My reading would suggest something more along the lines of:
> 
> And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father through the Spirit before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.
> 
> 
> 
> That says the same as
> 
> 
> 
> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just worded differently. As a PS, how would you treat the Spirit?
Click to expand...


No Tim, because the Son does not _*proceed*_ ever. He is _*begotten*_. That is His unique description. The Son only of the Trinity is begotten; the Spirit only of the Trinity proceedes.


----------



## Dearly Bought

TimV said:


> My reading would suggest something more along the lines of:
> 
> And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father through the Spirit before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That says the same as
> 
> 
> 
> And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just worded differently. As a PS, how would you treat the Spirit?
Click to expand...


I think there is some substantive difference. First, Kline does not suggest a modification of the filioque clause but rather proposes a modification of the "confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son." Second, I have a really hard time believing that Kline would have actually been comfortable with the language you have used. Your language presents an eternal procession of the Son from the Father and Spirit. I don't believe that generation and procession have historically been considered interchangeable terms. There is some difference between the two however that difference may be defined. Furthermore, Kline's statement that the Spirit should be considered as a subject in the eternal generation of the Son doesn't necessarily entail an identical role to the Father's.

I don't know to what extent I agree with Kline on this one, but I find it hard to declare such discussion immediately outside the bounds of orthodoxy. I'll have to do some research later, because it seems like I could plausibly see Robert Letham proposing a similar modification to the one I presented above.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

py3ak said:


> Dr. Clark, without meaning to be disrespectful, voting against Norm Shepherd and attacking theonomy are not relevant to the point of the quotes that Mr. King has posted. If in spite of what seem like pretty straightforward statements you have some way of *demonstrating* that Professor Kline was not, in fact, teaching dangerous and bizarre doctrine I would be glad to hear it.



Reuben,

I was Meredith's student. I was his colleague. I was his friend. MGK was no anti-Trinitarian. He wasn't making systemtic-dogmatic points. He was explicating passages from a redemptive-historical point of view. 

Might he have used infelicitous language? Yes, but what was his intent as measured by the immediate context and the broader context of his work and ministry? Does anyone care about that or are well happy just to besmirch the reputation of a faithful minister? 

Where was all this concern about Nicene orthodoxy when he was alive? This is the first I've EVER heard about this since 1984.


----------



## ADKing

R. Scott Clark said:


> Reuben,
> 
> I was Meredith's student. I was his colleague. I was his friend. MGK was no anti-Trinitarian. He wasn't making systemtic-dogmatic points. He was explicating passages from a redemptive-historical point of view.
> 
> Might he have used infelicitous language? Yes, but what was his intent as measured by the immediate context and the broader context of his work and ministry? Does anyone care about that or are well happy just to besmirch the reputation of a faithful minister?
> 
> Where was all this concern about Nicene orthodoxy when he was alive? This is the first I've EVER heard about this since 1984.



Dr Clark,

We can all appreciate and respect your loyalty to a beloved teacher, colleague and friend. However, the intention of those of us concerned with his doctrine is not to make personal attacks thus "besmirching the reputation of a faithful minister". Rather, by quoting Kline in his own words it is to draw attention to places in his works that are not in accord with our confessional teachings and have dangerous implications. 

You claim that Kline's intent was not to make "systematic-dogmatic points". And yet in the passage above quoted Kline is actually suggesting an addition to the Nicene creed. I do not see how this is compatible with your assertion. The creeds are most definitely "dogmatic" documents and Kline was proposing a change in them. 

Secondly, the so called "redemptive-historical point of view" must conform to accepted dogmatic standards or it is justly liable to the charge of heterodoxy. I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between the two that biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos did not make. 

Some of us did not have the opportunity to know Dr. Kline personally. All we have to go on is his "infelicitous language". Even if we want to judge him by his wider work, we are left with Kline's own comments in that book that this is how he was interpeting his own work. It is just and fair to judge a man's writings, especially when his own claims are that they represent his work as a whole and is suggesting alterations to our creedal standards. 

Dr. Kline's work grew over time. In his last book he is far more explicit on some of these heterodox points than in his earlier career. I was not around through his 50 years of ministry, and I cannot answer for his presbytery in the OPC (neither do I feel responsible to do so--they are answerable to God). But if a minister in my presbytery were making statements such as these, irrespective of his name or reputation, I would feel compelled to charge him with heresy. 

Appealing to personal history, reputation and so forth as you keep doing in no way justifies such blatantly heterodox statements, in which Kline in his own words disagrees with the creeds. That was the question in the OP. Are Kline's views confessional? The obvious answer is no.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I did a little reading in Letham's _The Holy Trinity_ on this matter. As he is dealing with the _filioque_ controversy, he makes the following remarks,


> In chapter 3, we alluded to Bobrinskoy's comment that suggests a blending of what he calls (from an Eastern perspective) an appropriate _filioquism_, recognizing the inseparable union of the Spirit and the Son, and *also a Spirituque, in which, considering the eternal generation of the Son, the equally inseparable union of the Spirit and the Father should be brought into focus*. In short, Bobrinsky points to the perichoretic relations of the three as providing a way out of the dilemma. (R. Letham, _The Holy Trinity_, p. 219) [bold emphasis is mine]



Letham doesn't come right out and endorse the idea wholeheartedly, but he does refer to it as "particularly stimulating" in a footnote on page 68. I know that this doesn't necessarily make the idea Biblical or confessional, but perhaps some consideration is needed when similar thoughts are entertained by one of the foremost contemporary confessional Reformed writers on the Trinity?


----------



## py3ak

R. Scott Clark said:


> Reuben,
> 
> I was Meredith's student. I was his colleague. I was his friend. MGK was no anti-Trinitarian. He wasn't making systemtic-dogmatic points. He was explicating passages from a redemptive-historical point of view.
> 
> Might he have used infelicitous language? Yes, but what was his intent as measured by the immediate context and the broader context of his work and ministry? Does anyone care about that or are well happy just to besmirch the reputation of a faithful minister?
> 
> Where was all this concern about Nicene orthodoxy when he was alive? This is the first I've EVER heard about this since 1984.



Dr. Clark, I appreciate the replies. The question you raise is exactly the question I have. How come nobody called him on his infelicitous language while he was alive to explain himself? Now that he is gone we can only gain clarification by reading his complex and specialised works or through the recollections that those who know him personally might have of conversations on these topics. So I ask you, as one who knew him, is the endoxation of the Spirit merely a redemptive-historical linguistic trick with no bearing on systematics? Is suggesting that the Spirit is active in the Son's filiation (and that this is clear enough and important enough to warrant a modification of our creedal documents) somehow *not* what Professor Kline meant by the statements quoted from his last book? If he said it is a desideratum to add something to our creedal statements, but he didn't mean that we should revise our constitutional documents, I think that is language that is not merely infelicitous but downright misleading. Please, help me to understand what contextual palliation could remove the force of that statement.

-----Added 1/13/2009 at 08:35:51 EST-----



Dearly Bought said:


> I did a little reading in Letham's _The Holy Trinity_ on this matter. As he is dealing with the _filioque_ controversy, he makes the following remarks,
> 
> 
> 
> In chapter 3, we alluded to Bobrinskoy's comment that suggests a blending of what he calls (from an Eastern perspective) an appropriate _filioquism_, recognizing the inseparable union of the Spirit and the Son, and *also a Spirituque, in which, considering the eternal generation of the Son, the equally inseparable union of the Spirit and the Father should be brought into focus*. In short, Bobrinsky points to the perichoretic relations of the three as providing a way out of the dilemma. (R. Letham, _The Holy Trinity_, p. 219) [bold emphasis is mine]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letham doesn't come right out and endorse the idea wholeheartedly, but he does refer to it as "particularly stimulating" in a footnote on page 68. I know that this doesn't necessarily make the idea Biblical or confessional, but perhaps some consideration is needed when similar thoughts are entertained by one of the foremost contemporary confessional Reformed writers on the Trinity?
Click to expand...


Bryan, in the first place, I don't think that Letham's "stimulating" comment _necessarily_ involves anything beyond "this makes you think". In the second place, even liking a suggestion and considering it valuable as a direction for further research is very different from proposing emendations to the ancient creedal formulations. In the third place, even a leading light can have a crazy idea or two: the question is what he does with them. No one is suggesting exhuming Professor Kline to do despite to his remains. But I am asking for someone who can explain some reasonable way not to take his statements at face value: personal recollections or covering fire from other theologians don't address the concern: did Professor Kline mean what it sounds like he meant, and if not why not?


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> Bryan, in the first place, I don't think that Letham's "stimulating" comment _necessarily_ involves anything beyond "this makes you think". In the second place, even liking a suggestion and considering it valuable as a direction for further research is very different from proposing emendations to the ancient creedal formulations. In the third place, even a leading light can have a crazy idea or two: the question is what he does with them. No one is suggesting exhuming Professor Kline to do despite to his remains. But I am asking for someone who can explain some reasonable way not to take his statements at face value: personal recollections or covering fire from other theologians don't address the concern: did Professor Kline mean what it sounds like he meant, and if not why not?



Certainly it isn't the same as if Letham had written a section advocating such a modification himself. I simply want to point out that he doesn't immediately identify such thinking as heresy and disregard it. I'd also like to point out that Letham does propose modifications to the filioque clause later in his book. Personally, I don't know if I see any need for additions to the ecumenical creeds. However, this doesn't mean that I consider anyone who proposes a modification to be a heretic. It is possible to propose an addition or modification to the Nicene Creed which is meant to clarify rather than correct.

Perhaps it would aid the conversation if you presented what you think Kline is advocating.

From my point of view, Kline's language in this obscure passage isn't the best, but doesn't necessarily mean that he denies the Athanasian Creed's statement:


> The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten.



I can see how you could make the argument that the Spirit may be active in the Son's filiation while still preserving the generation of the Son's subsistence from the Father alone. Kline never stated exactly how the Spirit should be considered in the generation of the Son. I get the impression that y'all are automatically assuming that Kline wants to rewrite the Nicene Creed to say:


> And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father _*and the Spirit*_ before all ages



I agree that some of Kline's writings are not compatible with the Westminster Standards on the topics of the 4th Commandment and Creation. I think accusations regarding his Trinitarian theology are a bit of a stretch.


----------



## py3ak

Bryan, certainly there are additions which are amplifications: there are also amplifications which are distortions. Look again at some of the words cited by Mr. King:
"_The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third._"

Is there any reason that, so far as I know, it has been universally accepted that the order of the Persons is Father, Son, Holy Spirit? If there is, then Professor Kline's suggestion necessarily involves a radical reformulation. "2nd" and "3rd" will no longer be static terms, but they will at one point be applicable to the Son, at another to the Spirit.
This claim also would seem to amount to a _functional_ denial of a distinction between generation and spiration. I see no way to think of these things as minor points.


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> Bryan, certainly there are additions which are amplifications: there are also amplifications which are distortions. Look again at some of the words cited by Mr. King:
> "_The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third._"
> 
> Is there any reason that, so far as I know, it has been universally accepted that the order of the Persons is Father, Son, Holy Spirit? If there is, then Professor Kline's suggestion necessarily involves a radical reformulation. "2nd" and "3rd" will no longer be static terms, but they will at one point be applicable to the Son, at another to the Spirit.
> This claim also would seem to amount to a _functional_ denial of a distinction between generation and spiration. I see no way to think of these things as minor points.



As I read it, I understood Kline to be referring to the incarnation of the Son, not eternal generation, in this passage. He's referring to functional roles at one point in the history of redemption rather than the eternal relation of the Trinitarian persons. I don't know of any Reformed or ecumenical confessions that really speak to this point one way or another.


----------



## fredtgreco

Dearly Bought said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan, certainly there are additions which are amplifications: there are also amplifications which are distortions. Look again at some of the words cited by Mr. King:
> "_The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third._"
> 
> Is there any reason that, so far as I know, it has been universally accepted that the order of the Persons is Father, Son, Holy Spirit? If there is, then Professor Kline's suggestion necessarily involves a radical reformulation. "2nd" and "3rd" will no longer be static terms, but they will at one point be applicable to the Son, at another to the Spirit.
> This claim also would seem to amount to a _functional_ denial of a distinction between generation and spiration. I see no way to think of these things as minor points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I read it, I understood Kline to be referring to the incarnation of the Son, not eternal generation, in this passage. He's referring to functional roles at one point in the history of redemption rather than the eternal relation of the Trinitarian persons. I don't know of any Reformed or ecumenical confessions that really speak to this point one way or another.
Click to expand...


Bryan,

The statement itself by Kline is with respect to the eternal generation/filiation of the Son, not the incarnation. Note my emphasis on the statement:



> The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the *eternal divine begetting*, the *generating process* of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the c*reedal account of the spiration of the Spirit* find a place in our confessional formulation of the *eternal filiation of the Son*.


I am willing to be convinced that Kline is being unbelievably unclear here (which would be normal for him, in my opinion), but it seems that Kline is suggesting exactly what you say he is not suggesting.


----------



## Dearly Bought

fredtgreco said:


> Bryan,
> 
> The statement itself by Kline is with respect to the eternal generation/filiation of the Son, not the incarnation. Note my emphasis on the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the *eternal divine begetting*, the *generating process* of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the c*reedal account of the spiration of the Spirit* find a place in our confessional formulation of the *eternal filiation of the Son*.
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to be convinced that Kline is being unbelievably unclear here (which would be normal for him, in my opinion), but it seems that Kline is suggesting exactly what you say he is not suggesting.
Click to expand...


Let me repost the passage with a note or two from my perspective:



> A reverse ordering of these two persons of the Trinity obtains when they are viewed in terms of the eternal generating of the Son-proper account being taken of what we have been observing about the Endoxation of the Spirit and its relation to the Incarnation of the Son. It is not simply that in this economic relationship there is a temporal priority of the Endoxation of the Spirit to the Incarnation of the Son, but that the edoxate Spirit performs a fathering function with respect to the incarnate Son. It is by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived, the Glory-Spirit, the Power of the Most High, coming upon Mary and overshadowing her (Luke 1:35). The Father begets the [_incarnate_] Son through the [_edoxate_] Spirit. In this [_redemptive historical_] process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third.



So this language is explicitly still in the context of Kline's discussion of redemptive history. Following this conclusion, he then moves to the application to the "eternal immanent relations" of the Trinitarian persons:



> And as in the spiration of the Spirit so in the begetting of the Son the economic relations of the divine persons are to be seen as *analogues* of their eternal immanent relations. The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.



He never exactly states the extent of the analogy. If he saw an exact correlation, I would expect to read that the fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit images the fathering of the eternal Son by the eternal Spirit. Instead, he uses the obtuse language of "inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting." This language suggests to me that Kline didn't necessarily intend to present a one-to-one correlation between the economic and immanent Trinitarian relations in this case.


----------



## fredtgreco

Bryan,

Ok, at best his language is unhelpful, obtuse and confusing. But even so, why then say:



> It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son



How can I possibly take the bolded portion to mean other than:

"the confession ought to be amended at the point of the eternal generation of the Son to include a reference to the Holy Spirit being involved in such generation" ?

I mean, that is exactly what the _filioque_ did; it changed the creed withe respect to the eternal relations, not the economic relations (which even the EO acknowledge) of the Trinity. If I understand Kline to be saying what you say with respect to this "endoxation" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and apply it to the same way that he speaks of the _filioque_, then I am left saying that 1000 years of Western and Eastern theology is out to lunch, since they have been arguing (and a schism has been made) over basically nothing.

The more this is discussed, the more distressing Kline's statements appear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> Kline was right about Dan Fuller. So was Godfrey.
> 
> I don't know what your relationship to him is but you can tell him that Scott Clark says that he has much for which to repent. Yes, I said repent. He did a lot of damage with his books.
> 
> What Dan Fuller wrote isn't biblical, it isn't Reformed and it's the seedbed for the Shepherd nonsense, the FV and a good bit of modern moralism.
> 
> rsc



Dr. Sam Waldron also discussed Fuller in this book.

http://www.solid-ground-books.com/search.asp?searchtext=FAITH%2C+OBEDIENCE+%26+JUSTIFICATION+

It is eye opening.


----------



## Dearly Bought

fredtgreco said:


> Bryan,
> 
> Ok, at best his language is unhelpful, obtuse and confusing. But even so, why then say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I possibly take the bolded portion to mean other than:
> 
> "the confession ought to be amended at the point of the eternal generation of the Son to include a reference to the Holy Spirit being involved in such generation" ?
> 
> I mean, that is exactly what the _filioque_ did; it changed the creed withe respect to the eternal relations, not the economic relations (which even the EO acknowledge) of the Trinity. If I understand Kline to be saying what you say with respect to this "endoxation" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and apply it to the same way that he speaks of the _filioque_, then I am left saying that 1000 years of Western and Eastern theology is out to lunch, since they have been arguing (and a schism has been made) over basically nothing.
> 
> The more this is discussed, the more distressing Kline's statements appear.
Click to expand...


I do understand him to be saying "the confession ought to be amended at the point of the eternal generation of the Son to include a reference to the Holy Spirit being involved in such generation" as you do. My point however is that I doubt Kline is suggesting that we should confess that "the Father and the Spirit beget the Son." The inferred involvement of the Spirit that Kline suggests could be expressed any number of ways that might be interpreted as a clarification rather than a correction of falsehood. I suggest that he might have had in mind something like "the Father begets the Son through the Spirit." This doesn't negate the filioque controversy at all.

*Please do note in all of this that I am not stating my agreement with Kline's reasoning in this passage. I don't think it is the best of his work that I've read. I'm simply suggesting that he wasn't trying to oppose the Trinitarian doctrine of the ecumenical creeds.


----------



## py3ak

Bryan, you don't have to suggest that it was something like "The Father begets the Son through the Spirit." That is what Professor Kline says.



> The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third. And as in the spiration of the Spirit so in the begetting of the Sonthe economic relations of the divine persons are to be seen as analogues of their eternal immanent relations. The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a sunject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.



On the basis of how things function in the Incarnation (which understanding itself seems to me open to question, especially with regard to the endoxation of the Spirit), Professor Kline would amend the creedal account. The eternal relations are analogous to the economic relations. Barring the absence of evidence to the contrary, it follows that he would amend the creedal account in a manner that reflects the analogy from the incarnation. In that economic activity, the Father begets the Son through the Spirit. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that he wants something comparable to the _filioque_. Anything less than "through" is hardly comparable. 

I agree with Fred that the more one chews on Professor Kline's remarks, the less palatable they seem.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ADKing said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuben,
> 
> I was Meredith's student. I was his colleague. I was his friend. MGK was no anti-Trinitarian. He wasn't making systemtic-dogmatic points. He was explicating passages from a redemptive-historical point of view.
> 
> Might he have used infelicitous language? Yes, but what was his intent as measured by the immediate context and the broader context of his work and ministry? Does anyone care about that or are well happy just to besmirch the reputation of a faithful minister?
> 
> Where was all this concern about Nicene orthodoxy when he was alive? This is the first I've EVER heard about this since 1984.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Clark,
> 
> We can all appreciate and respect your loyalty to a beloved teacher, colleague and friend. However, the intention of those of us concerned with his doctrine is not to make personal attacks thus "besmirching the reputation of a faithful minister". Rather, by quoting Kline in his own words it is to draw attention to places in his works that are not in accord with our confessional teachings and have dangerous implications.
> 
> You claim that Kline's intent was not to make "systematic-dogmatic points". And yet in the passage above quoted Kline is actually suggesting an addition to the Nicene creed. I do not see how this is compatible with your assertion. The creeds are most definitely "dogmatic" documents and Kline was proposing a change in them.
> 
> Secondly, the so called "redemptive-historical point of view" must conform to accepted dogmatic standards or it is justly liable to the charge of heterodoxy. I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between the two that biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos did not make.
> 
> Some of us did not have the opportunity to know Dr. Kline personally. All we have to go on is his "infelicitous language". Even if we want to judge him by his wider work, we are left with Kline's own comments in that book that this is how he was interpeting his own work. It is just and fair to judge a man's writings, especially when his own claims are that they represent his work as a whole and is suggesting alterations to our creedal standards.
> 
> Dr. Kline's work grew over time. In his last book he is far more explicit on some of these heterodox points than in his earlier career. I was not around through his 50 years of ministry, and I cannot answer for his presbytery in the OPC (neither do I feel responsible to do so--they are answerable to God). But if a minister in my presbytery were making statements such as these, irrespective of his name or reputation, I would feel compelled to charge him with heresy.
> 
> Appealing to personal history, reputation and so forth as you keep doing in no way justifies such blatantly heterodox statements, in which Kline in his own words disagrees with the creeds. That was the question in the OP. Are Kline's views confessional? The obvious answer is no.
Click to expand...



Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me. 

Further, this whole thread started hostile and has remained so. I've only seen one attempt to try to read him charitably and that attempt was rebuffed immediately.

Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith. It's hard for me to see this as fair, careful, contextual investigation of an orthodox OPC minister (and it seems that one doesn't necessarily have to be in the same presbytery of the OPC to initiate investigations so I don't see why it's just his presbytery that shall have answer to God) but rather a jaundiced attempt to smear a man's reputation and to discredit his work comprehensively. 

The thread did not begin by asking, "I wonder what this might mean? It did not begin by looking into the context or by placing his work in a broader context. 

Here's a context. Meredith did most of his work in a time when people were a little less aware of historical theology. Frankly there just wasn't much of it being done in our circles when he was being trained and when he was teaching. Historians were seen but not heard. He didn't work in a context where bib-studies profs were held accountable for their historical claims. I think this fostered some bad habits. 

As I've noted here before, he also had a bad habit of making up words. If we're going to dig up his corpse and smack him around why don't we try to find out what he meant by his unique vocabulary rather than assuming the worst?

Finally, wasn't there some post that we all had read lately about treating ministers in our churches with respect? What? Meredith doesn't count? I was chastened by that post and it made me think about the ways I've spoken about ministers in good standing and I wasn't thinking about completely orthodox ministers either. I confess that, in the heat of battle, I haven't always been as churchly as I should have been -- I over reacted to Presbyterian politeness at times -- in this respect. 

If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.


----------



## Grafted In

As I have read this thread I have repeatedly thought of that scene in _Monty Python's Holy Grail _[video=youtube;yp_l5ntikaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU[/video] where the town folks are so anxious to burn a woman for being a witch that despite the fact that all of the evidence that they brought forward was planted by themselves, they engaged in all kinds of silly logic to accomplish the end that they desired. 

I am not saying that the criticism that Dr. Kline has opened himself up to and that has been directed toward him in this thread is unwarranted or has been "planted" on him or even that Dr. Kline's critics are using poor logic, but that it appears, in an eagerness to snuff out any unorthodoxy (which is a good thing and a collective strength of a forum like this), that all charity has gone out the window. 

It seems to me that when you charge somebody with heresy or false teaching that it would be most charitable to assume that the person would respond to the criticism, receive the critique, engage in clearing up the misunderstandings or lovingly debating the topic at hand with the goal of remaining within the circle of orthodoxy. 

Unfortunately, as Dr. Clark has pointed out, Dr. Kline is not here to defend his desire to explain his positions in an orthodox way, but it would seem the best course of action to assume that he would like to do just that. 

Don't reformed folk do the same thing with Augustine, of whom it could be said that not all of his views were orthodox?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

R. Scott Clark said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuben,
> 
> I was Meredith's student. I was his colleague. I was his friend. MGK was no anti-Trinitarian. He wasn't making systemtic-dogmatic points. He was explicating passages from a redemptive-historical point of view.
> 
> Might he have used infelicitous language? Yes, but what was his intent as measured by the immediate context and the broader context of his work and ministry? Does anyone care about that or are well happy just to besmirch the reputation of a faithful minister?
> 
> Where was all this concern about Nicene orthodoxy when he was alive? This is the first I've EVER heard about this since 1984.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Clark,
> 
> We can all appreciate and respect your loyalty to a beloved teacher, colleague and friend. However, the intention of those of us concerned with his doctrine is not to make personal attacks thus "besmirching the reputation of a faithful minister". Rather, by quoting Kline in his own words it is to draw attention to places in his works that are not in accord with our confessional teachings and have dangerous implications.
> 
> You claim that Kline's intent was not to make "systematic-dogmatic points". And yet in the passage above quoted Kline is actually suggesting an addition to the Nicene creed. I do not see how this is compatible with your assertion. The creeds are most definitely "dogmatic" documents and Kline was proposing a change in them.
> 
> Secondly, the so called "redemptive-historical point of view" must conform to accepted dogmatic standards or it is justly liable to the charge of heterodoxy. I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between the two that biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos did not make.
> 
> Some of us did not have the opportunity to know Dr. Kline personally. All we have to go on is his "infelicitous language". Even if we want to judge him by his wider work, we are left with Kline's own comments in that book that this is how he was interpeting his own work. It is just and fair to judge a man's writings, especially when his own claims are that they represent his work as a whole and is suggesting alterations to our creedal standards.
> 
> Dr. Kline's work grew over time. In his last book he is far more explicit on some of these heterodox points than in his earlier career. I was not around through his 50 years of ministry, and I cannot answer for his presbytery in the OPC (neither do I feel responsible to do so--they are answerable to God). But if a minister in my presbytery were making statements such as these, irrespective of his name or reputation, I would feel compelled to charge him with heresy.
> 
> Appealing to personal history, reputation and so forth as you keep doing in no way justifies such blatantly heterodox statements, in which Kline in his own words disagrees with the creeds. That was the question in the OP. Are Kline's views confessional? The obvious answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me.
> 
> Further, this whole thread started hostile and has remained so. I've only seen one attempt to try to read him charitably and that attempt was rebuffed immediately.
> 
> Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith. It's hard for me to see this as fair, careful, contextual investigation of an orthodox OPC minister (and it seems that one doesn't necessarily have to be in the same presbytery of the OPC to initiate investigations so I don't see why it's just his presbytery that shall have answer to God) but rather a jaundiced attempt to smear a man's reputation and to discredit his work comprehensively.
> 
> The thread did not begin by asking, "I wonder what this might mean? It did not begin by looking into the context or by placing his work in a broader context.
> 
> Here's a context. Meredith did most of his work in a time when people were a little less aware of historical theology. Frankly there just wasn't much of it being done in our circles when he was being trained and when he was teaching. Historians were seen but not heard. He didn't work in a context where bib-studies profs were held accountable for their historical claims. I think this fostered some bad habits.
> 
> As I've noted here before, he also had a bad habit of making up words. If we're going to dig up his corpse and smack him around why don't we try to find out what he meant by his unique vocabulary rather than assuming the worst?
> 
> Finally, wasn't there some post that we all had read lately about treating ministers in our churches with respect? What? Meredith doesn't count? I was chastened by that post and it made me think about the ways I've spoken about ministers in good standing and I wasn't thinking about completely orthodox ministers either. I confess that, in the heat of battle, I haven't always been as churchly as I should have been -- I over reacted to Presbyterian politeness at times -- in this respect.
> 
> If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.
Click to expand...


Greetings Dr. Clark:

Over the years I have been much blessed by your writings - both in book form and here at the Puritanboard. I thank you very much for that.

I would like you to know that I know very little and next to nothing about Dr. Meredith Kline. If you will note on the original post the question I asked was generated from reading another thread on Meredith Kline, and I was told to start a new thread in order to keep the discussion within the topic.

I was disturbed by what was said about Dr. Kline, and, thus I wanted to see if there was any truth about it. My question was sincere, and purely academic. If I seemed antognistic, then I am sorry for it.

Now I have a new question: Does criticism of a particular position championed by a theologian/minister warrant a censure of it based on the ninth commandment?

Maybe I will have to write a new thread on this subject?

Blessings to you and your family this new year,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me.



Just to be fair Dr. Clark many were probably not in a position to criticize or even understand Dr. Kline until the later end of his life and or until they had read his work. 

We criticize dead people's works all the time. And I don't think that is bad. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> Further, this whole thread started hostile and has remained so. I've only seen one attempt to try to read him charitably and that attempt was rebuffed immediately.
> 
> Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith. It's hard for me to see this as fair, careful, contextual investigation of an orthodox OPC minister (and it seems that one doesn't necessarily have to be in the same presbytery of the OPC to initiate investigations so I don't see why it's just his presbytery that shall have answer to God) but rather a jaundiced attempt to smear a man's reputation and to discredit his work comprehensively.
> 
> The thread did not begin by asking, "I wonder what this might mean? It did not begin by looking into the context or by placing his work in a broader context.
> 
> Here's a context. *Meredith did most of his work in a time when people were a little less aware of historical theology.* Frankly there just wasn't much of it being done in our circles when he was being trained and when he was teaching. Historians were seen but not heard. *He didn't work in a context where bib-studies profs were held accountable for their historical claims. I think this fostered some bad habits.*



It sounds like people might be more equipped today to deal with Kline's understanding and theology than they were when he was more active. At least that is what I am hearing in your assessment here. So it sounds like a better critique might be more necessary.



R. Scott Clark said:


> As I've noted here before, he also had a bad habit of making up words. If we're going to dig up his corpse and smack him around why don't we try to find out what he meant by his unique vocabulary rather than assuming the worst?



Just to be honest here this sounds dangerous. I do understand that language does change and evolve. New terms are necessary as time passes. i.e. Trinity. But to make up words without much context is not necessarily good for the church in my estimation. When the Word for Trinity was coined there was much to do about it. It came into its own definition because of controversy. And it was defined in a way that made people understand it based upon Biblical understanding. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> Finally, wasn't there some post that we all had read lately about treating ministers in our churches with respect? What? Meredith doesn't count? I was chastened by that post and it made me think about the ways I've spoken about ministers in good standing and I wasn't thinking about completely orthodox ministers either. I confess that, in the heat of battle, I haven't always been as churchly as I should have been -- I over reacted to Presbyterian politeness at times -- in this respect.
> 
> If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.



Here is what you are referring to Dr. Clark. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm going to need some help fleshing this out so please feel free to suggest improvements to this post so it will stand as a new forum rule.
> 
> We have a problem that has existed as a slow boil for a while that has boiled over recently and led to some good interaction with the Moderators on how to address it. We instituted an infraction system for some violations of rhetoric but this proves to be ineffective with some as it only inflames and does not instruct in some cases.
> 
> We have a general problem that many of us are going too far in our criticisms and violate the 9th Commandment in the process. Let me remind us all that the 9th Commandment is not merely violated when we'll only be convicted by a jury of our peers for libel or slander but is violated whenever we don't do everything in our power to uphold the good name of our neighbor. Remember that Christ commands that we love our neighbors: we are required to uphold the good name of our enemies and especially honor those who name Christ. Impossible with men but we are supposed to be children of God.
> 
> It's also good to remember that you can't charge a person with holding to all the implications of his statements. Men aren't omniscient, and that's reflected in the fact that what we say or write often implies conclusions we would repudiate if we realized it. So you can criticize a man for his espoused positions and point out that it logically involves some worse error but you can't criticize the man for espousing that more grievous error without additional evidence.
> 
> That said, there are a few general guidelines to check before you criticize a person by name in open or protected forum:
> 
> *Public criticisms of ministers may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
> 
> 1. The minister is dead and the discussion centers on his body of work and contribution to the Christian church.*
> 2. The minister is living and has chosen to go public with his ministry.
> 3. The minister has been defrocked and his case is now in the public domain.
> 4. The minister displays satisfactory evidence of being a false teacher and/or heretic.
> 
> Now, even with these guidelines, let me remind you that the name of Christ is often mocked because of how we tear each other down in "naming names". One of the notable things about reading Calvin is how he lays down heavy artillery on contemporaries of his time without calling them out by name. He criticizes their position and you have to read the footnotes of the editors to figure out he's going after Melancthon or Luther or even a heretic like Servetus. If it can be said without naming names then criticize the position without calling out the individual by name.
> 
> In summary:
> 
> 1. If you can criticize a position without calling out the man by name then endeavor to do so.
> 2. If it is necessary to speak against a man then speak soberly and avoid hyperbolic language that simply plays to the crowd.
> 3. Evidence of a specific abuse and examples need to be provided if a particularly egregious criticism is going to be levied.
> 4. Above all, we must be tireless in upholding the good name of our neighbor at all costs even if we're critical. Christ demands it of us toward our enemies and especially toward those that name Christ.
> 
> How can you help?
> 
> If you witness excessive rhetoric then please use the Report Post feature in the upper right hand corner of each post. It's usually a red circle. Please note the nature of the rhetorical excess in the criticism. Sometimes criticism is warranted and the moderators will simply edit out the rhetorical excess. If you can provide some facts to help the moderators sort out the exaggerations then this will help us in our editing. Please do not respond to rhetorical excess in kind and make the "clean up" that much harder. We want to move some of these conversations forward and not completely derail them or have to close them because we've gotten in a shouting match telling each other how ugly the other's baby is.




I believe this discussion is in bounds.


----------



## TimV

> Don't reformed folk do the same thing with Augustine, of whom it could be said that not all of his views were orthodox?


No, we criticize Augustine regularly. I did it just last night at Bible Study when I said that instead of dumping his live in partner out of some mistaken doctrine that marriage was evil for ministers he should have done the honorable thing and married her.

The context was when a guy and his wife asked why we Reformed folk cared so much about doctrine, and what was really wrong with Catholicism. Me and another guy pointed out that doctrinal beliefs have repercussions. 

Leaving Kline's "unique" vocabulary aside (which opens anyone up to criticism) it's the things that he taught unambiguously that have caused trouble for some of us. His framework hypothesis has given a whole generation of people (at least in NorCal Presbytery PCA) and excuse to look down their noses at Creationists.

Using MP's Holy Grail to illustrate why we should tolerate attacks on our Confessions isn't helpful. Rather it's another way of mocking the sophistication of those of us who think doctrine influences people's lives by someone who think's he's more enlightened.


----------



## discipulo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe this discussion is in bounds.



May the Lord give us Humbleness and Discernment to do precisely this!

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good 1 Thessalonians 5:21 NASB

Following this thread, my great concern is not what is being examined,
is what may be thrown away afterwards…

Hold fast to that which is good.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

discipulo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this discussion is in bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May the Lord give us Humbleness and Discernment to do precisely this!
> 
> But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good 1 Thessalonians 5:21 NASB
> 
> Following this thread, my great concern is not what is being examined,
> is what may be thrown away afterwards…
> 
> Hold fast to that which is good.
Click to expand...


I agree....

I actually thought the following quote was pretty good even though some Presbyterian's won't. Pastor King, could you tell me just exactly where you got this quote from?



ADKing said:


> And just one more on grace/works in Abraham (pp.102-103)
> 
> _That Abraham's obedience functioned not only as the authentication of his faith for his personal justification but as a *meritorious performance that earned a reward* for others (and thus as a type of Christ's obedience) is confirmed in the Lord's later revelation of the covenant promise to Isaac (Gen 26:2ff). The Lord declared that he would bestow these blessings on Isaac and his descendants "because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (v. 5; cf. v. 24). Abraham's obedience was not, of course, the ground for anyone's inheritance of heaven, but *it was the ground for Israel's inheritance of Canaan*, the prototype of heaven, under the terms of the Mosaic covenant of works. Eternal salvation would come because of Christ's obedience, but because of Abraham's obedience Christ would come as to the flesh from Israel (Rom 9:5) and thus salvation would come from the Abrahamites, the Jews (John 4:22). _


----------



## ADKing

R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me.
> 
> Further, this whole thread started hostile and has remained so. I've only seen one attempt to try to read him charitably and that attempt was rebuffed immediately.
> 
> Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith. It's hard for me to see this as fair, careful, contextual investigation of an orthodox OPC minister (and it seems that one doesn't necessarily have to be in the same presbytery of the OPC to initiate investigations so I don't see why it's just his presbytery that shall have answer to God) but rather a jaundiced attempt to smear a man's reputation and to discredit his work comprehensively.
> 
> The thread did not begin by asking, "I wonder what this might mean? It did not begin by looking into the context or by placing his work in a broader context.
> 
> Here's a context. Meredith did most of his work in a time when people were a little less aware of historical theology. Frankly there just wasn't much of it being done in our circles when he was being trained and when he was teaching. Historians were seen but not heard. He didn't work in a context where bib-studies profs were held accountable for their historical claims. I think this fostered some bad habits.
> 
> As I've noted here before, he also had a bad habit of making up words. If we're going to dig up his corpse and smack him around why don't we try to find out what he meant by his unique vocabulary rather than assuming the worst?
> 
> Finally, wasn't there some post that we all had read lately about treating ministers in our churches with respect? What? Meredith doesn't count? I was chastened by that post and it made me think about the ways I've spoken about ministers in good standing and I wasn't thinking about completely orthodox ministers either. I confess that, in the heat of battle, I haven't always been as churchly as I should have been -- I over reacted to Presbyterian politeness at times -- in this respect.
> 
> If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.



Dr. Clark,

I sense your frustration and I apologize for rhetoric of my own that may be too strong. However, I think your criticisms are unfounded. First of all to assume that us "boys" waited until he was dead to start "beating up on him" is really quite an inflamatory and unnecessary remark. It would have been one thing to have been a contemporary, fellow elder or even a student of Kline's, to have said nothing and _then_ crticize him. However, that is not the situation for most of us here. Most of us never knew Kline, and had no way of interacting with him or his church courts during his life. Certainly we are able to criticize men who are no longer living? Dying does not put one's works beyond evaluation. 

Secondly, I in no way attempt to evaluate Dr Kline's motivations or the intentions of his heart. However, it is a legitimate thing to do to evaluate his own (sometimes rather forceful) claims, isn't it? I am unaware of any "jaundiced attempt" to "smear" a man's reputation. If anything I have written comes across this way, I publicly apologize for that. It seems however, that any criticism of Kline's own words comes across as "jaundiced" and "smearing". Speaking for myself, I would just as soon keep the personal side out of the discussion. I have no intent to unjustly wound his reputation or to offend you personally. 

I am fully willing to give Dr. Kline the benefit of the doubt but so far I have yet to see any plausible explanation for very direct words Kline himself made. Do you yourself have an explanation that takes into account the broader context of his work? That is what several of us would like to interact with. Otherwise it is hard not to conclude that we are interpreting him correctly. 

Peace

-----Added 1/14/2009 at 11:16:57 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this discussion is in bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May the Lord give us Humbleness and Discernment to do precisely this!
> 
> But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good 1 Thessalonians 5:21 NASB
> 
> Following this thread, my great concern is not what is being examined,
> is what may be thrown away afterwards…
> 
> Hold fast to that which is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree....
> 
> I actually thought the following quote was pretty good even though some Presbyterian's won't. Pastor King, could you tell me just exactly where you got this quote from?
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just one more on grace/works in Abraham (pp.102-103)
> 
> _That Abraham's obedience functioned not only as the authentication of his faith for his personal justification but as a *meritorious performance that earned a reward* for others (and thus as a type of Christ's obedience) is confirmed in the Lord's later revelation of the covenant promise to Isaac (Gen 26:2ff). The Lord declared that he would bestow these blessings on Isaac and his descendants "because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (v. 5; cf. v. 24). Abraham's obedience was not, of course, the ground for anyone's inheritance of heaven, but *it was the ground for Israel's inheritance of Canaan*, the prototype of heaven, under the terms of the Mosaic covenant of works. Eternal salvation would come because of Christ's obedience, but because of Abraham's obedience Christ would come as to the flesh from Israel (Rom 9:5) and thus salvation would come from the Abrahamites, the Jews (John 4:22). _
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The quote is from Kline's book: God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos pp.102-103


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> Bryan, you don't have to suggest that it was something like "The Father begets the Son through the Spirit." That is what Professor Kline says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Father begets the Son through the Spirit. In this process the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third. And as in the spiration of the Spirit so in the begetting of the Sonthe economic relations of the divine persons are to be seen as analogues of their eternal immanent relations. The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a sunject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis of how things function in the Incarnation (which understanding itself seems to me open to question, especially with regard to the endoxation of the Spirit), Professor Kline would amend the creedal account. The eternal relations are analogous to the economic relations. Barring the absence of evidence to the contrary, it follows that he would amend the creedal account in a manner that reflects the analogy from the incarnation. In that economic activity, the Father begets the Son through the Spirit. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that he wants something comparable to the _filioque_. Anything less than "through" is hardly comparable.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that the logic he went through to get there is sound or that I agree with the formulation. All I'm arguing is that this doesn't appear to be necessarily contrary to present creedal formulations. There is a substantial difference between "the Father and the Spirit beget the Son" and "the Father begets the Son through the Spirit." It seems to me as though the latter formulation does not necessarily warrant a heresy trial.

Listen, I'm a six-day creationist and a Westminster sabbatarian. It isn't my immediate instinct to defend Kline (or any other theologian) from every criticism. I think that everyone has admitted by now that this is a pretty obtuse and difficult passage from Kline's works. I am not aware of any pattern in his writings or life that indicates he consistently opposed the Trinitarian theology of the ecumenical creeds. If Kline on creation rubs you the wrong way, fine. Respectfully engage his writings on that topic and show their falsehoods. Let's just not go overboard and try to find every off sentence possible on whatever topic. Heresy is a word that should not be lightly thrown around.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

CalvinandHodges said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Clark,
> 
> We can all appreciate and respect your loyalty to a beloved teacher, colleague and friend. However, the intention of those of us concerned with his doctrine is not to make personal attacks thus "besmirching the reputation of a faithful minister". Rather, by quoting Kline in his own words it is to draw attention to places in his works that are not in accord with our confessional teachings and have dangerous implications.
> 
> You claim that Kline's intent was not to make "systematic-dogmatic points". And yet in the passage above quoted Kline is actually suggesting an addition to the Nicene creed. I do not see how this is compatible with your assertion. The creeds are most definitely "dogmatic" documents and Kline was proposing a change in them.
> 
> Secondly, the so called "redemptive-historical point of view" must conform to accepted dogmatic standards or it is justly liable to the charge of heterodoxy. I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between the two that biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos did not make.
> 
> Some of us did not have the opportunity to know Dr. Kline personally. All we have to go on is his "infelicitous language". Even if we want to judge him by his wider work, we are left with Kline's own comments in that book that this is how he was interpeting his own work. It is just and fair to judge a man's writings, especially when his own claims are that they represent his work as a whole and is suggesting alterations to our creedal standards.
> 
> Dr. Kline's work grew over time. In his last book he is far more explicit on some of these heterodox points than in his earlier career. I was not around through his 50 years of ministry, and I cannot answer for his presbytery in the OPC (neither do I feel responsible to do so--they are answerable to God). But if a minister in my presbytery were making statements such as these, irrespective of his name or reputation, I would feel compelled to charge him with heresy.
> 
> Appealing to personal history, reputation and so forth as you keep doing in no way justifies such blatantly heterodox statements, in which Kline in his own words disagrees with the creeds. That was the question in the OP. Are Kline's views confessional? The obvious answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me.
> 
> Further, this whole thread started hostile and has remained so. I've only seen one attempt to try to read him charitably and that attempt was rebuffed immediately.
> 
> Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith. It's hard for me to see this as fair, careful, contextual investigation of an orthodox OPC minister (and it seems that one doesn't necessarily have to be in the same presbytery of the OPC to initiate investigations so I don't see why it's just his presbytery that shall have answer to God) but rather a jaundiced attempt to smear a man's reputation and to discredit his work comprehensively.
> 
> The thread did not begin by asking, "I wonder what this might mean? It did not begin by looking into the context or by placing his work in a broader context.
> 
> Here's a context. Meredith did most of his work in a time when people were a little less aware of historical theology. Frankly there just wasn't much of it being done in our circles when he was being trained and when he was teaching. Historians were seen but not heard. He didn't work in a context where bib-studies profs were held accountable for their historical claims. I think this fostered some bad habits.
> 
> As I've noted here before, he also had a bad habit of making up words. If we're going to dig up his corpse and smack him around why don't we try to find out what he meant by his unique vocabulary rather than assuming the worst?
> 
> Finally, wasn't there some post that we all had read lately about treating ministers in our churches with respect? What? Meredith doesn't count? I was chastened by that post and it made me think about the ways I've spoken about ministers in good standing and I wasn't thinking about completely orthodox ministers either. I confess that, in the heat of battle, I haven't always been as churchly as I should have been -- I over reacted to Presbyterian politeness at times -- in this respect.
> 
> If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greetings Dr. Clark:
> 
> Over the years I have been much blessed by your writings - both in book form and here at the Puritanboard. I thank you very much for that.
> 
> I would like you to know that I know very little and next to nothing about Dr. Meredith Kline. If you will note on the original post the question I asked was generated from reading another thread on Meredith Kline, and I was told to start a new thread in order to keep the discussion within the topic.
> 
> I was disturbed by what was said about Dr. Kline, and, thus I wanted to see if there was any truth about it. My question was sincere, and purely academic. If I seemed antognistic, then I am sorry for it.
> 
> Now I have a new question: Does criticism of a particular position championed by a theologian/minister warrant a censure of it based on the ninth commandment?
> 
> Maybe I will have to write a new thread on this subject?
> 
> Blessings to you and your family this new year,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Well, there are ways of raising this question. Meredith subscribed the Westminster Standards without any crossed fingers. He did it <em>ex animo</em> as a member of our faculty at WSC. 

He also did it at a time when people weren't paying as much attention to the standards. When MGK began his career virtually the only thing that mattered was that one was predestinarian and inerrantist. He was that and much more but systematics at old WTS (See the VanDrunen festschrift for Strimple on this) was not done in the classical way exactly. The emphasis seems (judging by Mr Murray's literary output) to have focused on biblical exegesis such that there was, perhaps, less interaction with the Standards and the tradition than might have been desirable. 

It's also the case that Meredith reacted to what he perceived to be the nutty fringe of the Reformed movement. Because of his exegetical conclusions on Gen 1 he became, in class anyway, a lightning rod for frightened fundamentalists. I saw it with my own eyes. American (not foreign) Students who could barely read English were asking why he didn't agree with their views. He dealt with that for fifty years. It made him cranky and it pushed him toward folks with whom he didn't have to fight every day. The tensions at old WTS also helped to push him to Gordon Conwell, but his heart was always at WTS and WSC. I don't think his years at Gordon Conwell helped to keep him grounded in the standards and in the creeds and the tradition. 

He was a student of Van Til -- he was absolutely devoted to CVT by the way who had a less than traditional vocabulary. If you want problems with the Trinity, "one person" well now that's problematic! Van Til employed the vocab of the idealists to make his points. He didn't speak traditionally either. In a sense MGK did what he was trained to do. He took his WTS education to Dropsie and became an OT scholar. 

He tended to operate in the Biblical-theological world where coining terms was considered a useful way of explaining themes and ideas and concepts, especially when dealing with the sorts of texts the way he did it. In the bib-studies world of the 50s and 60s there were a lot of creative fellows doing BT and Meredith was one of those. 

As to tone, there's a big difference between asking, "Hey, I wonder what he meant by that?" and saying, "Well, we all know that Kline was a big lib and that he was subverting the faith and this is just another instance of that."

I'm not saying that MGK is beyond criticism. No man is beyond criticism--sola scriptura--but there's a way to do it. 

I realize that what I'm about to say might not win me a lot of friends here, and it might end my relationship with the PB. If that happens, I can live with it. I've got plenty to do, but the truth is that most folk on the PB aren't qualified to criticize a scholar of Meredith's stature. We should should ask ourselves whether we have any business spouting off about the Trinity, Nicea, orthodoxy, or Meredith Kline. Do we really know enough to engage him? Have we actually done more than look at a few paragraphs on a discussion list? Have we ever taken a book or two of his off a shelf and read it carefully?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, well you boys here waited until he was dead to start beating up on him didn't you? That's what irritates me.
> 
> ...Finally, there has been a fairly constant drumbeat on the PB to discredit Meredith.


 Do you know how many times I've been cast into outer darkness because of the freedom this board allows some here to speak about some dead theonomists who were ministers in good standing at the time of their death?

It is unfair to paint with broad brush all inquiries in this thread as being uncharitable simply in the asking of them. It is also unfounded that the PB has an "agenda" to trash MGK.



> If MGK received the benefit of the doubt the tenor of this thread would be very different.


It seems to me that perhaps some "benefit of the doubt" ought to be applied to inquirers who don't understand how to reconcile his statements with the explanations given. To paint their confusion as a lack of charity or, worse, evil surmising, is a charge that all desire for clarity is sinful. I would prefer you would seek to help others understand by explaining how you reconcile the statements. I cannot continue to allow drive by's where the questioners are maligned en masse.


----------



## timmopussycat

R. Scott Clark said:


> He also did it at a time when people weren't paying as much attention to the standards. When MGK began his career virtually the only thing that mattered was that one was predestinarian and inerrantist. He was that and much more but systematics at old WTS (See the VanDrunen festschrift for Strimple on this) was not done in the classical way exactly. The emphasis seems (judging by Mr Murray's literary output) to have focused on biblical exegesis such that there was, perhaps, less interaction with the Standards and the tradition than might have been desirable.





Do you know any other sources where I might go to find out what the course textbooks for exegesis/hermeneutics/homiletics were at WTS in the years 1968-73? I'd lile to tie up a loose end in my book on Bahnsen.


----------



## greenbaggins

Folks, I have been looking at Kline's quotes on the PB. As you probably know, I am greatly indebted to Kline in many areas (although I am not skittish about being critical). Yes, it is sometimes as difficult to understand Kline as it is to understand the FV. However, I am not sure that he recasting Trinitarian theology nearly as radically as some have been saying that he is. Kline is starting from this principle: the immanent, or economical Trinity reflects the ontological Trinity. The Holy Spirit was certainly a paternal force in the Incarnation of Jesus. The key sticking point (and where I am not sure that Kline has actually taken a stand) is whether we say this about Jesus' human nature only, or also of His divine nature. Kline certainly seems to be saying it about Jesus' divine nature as well. However, even if he were, that still does not finally prove that he is teaching heresy. Kline is feeling the same pressure that many orthodox Trinitarians have felt concerning the relationship of Son to Spirit, a vastly underdeveloped region of study, in my opinion. Is the Spirit only passive to the Son? Is the Spirit only spirated? If we truly hold to perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the persons, then the Spirit is not wholly passive in the Trinitarian relationship. Kline then further asks the question as to whether the Spirit, in combination with the Father, has an active relationship to the Son. Is the Holy Spirit wholly unconnected with the eternal generation of the Son? Was/is the Holy Spirit a spectator in this? I cannot believe that He would be, and neither does Kline. We must be very careful before assigning heterodoxy to Kline on this issue, which is not actually dealt with in the confessions at all, and I am not yet convinced that the confessions rule out Kline's position on this. I think more discussion is necessary.


----------



## Dearly Bought

greenbaggins said:


> Folks, I have been looking at Kline's quotes on the PB. As you probably know, I am greatly indebted to Kline in many areas (although I am not skittish about being critical). Yes, it is sometimes as difficult to understand Kline as it is to understand the FV. However, I am not sure that he recasting Trinitarian theology nearly as radically as some have been saying that he is. Kline is starting from this principle: the immanent, or economical Trinity reflects the ontological Trinity. The Holy Spirit was certainly a paternal force in the Incarnation of Jesus. The key sticking point (and where I am not sure that Kline has actually taken a stand) is whether we say this about Jesus' human nature only, or also of His divine nature. Kline certainly seems to be saying it about Jesus' divine nature as well. However, even if he were, that still does not finally prove that he is teaching heresy. Kline is feeling the same pressure that many orthodox Trinitarians have felt concerning the relationship of Son to Spirit, a vastly underdeveloped region of study, in my opinion. Is the Spirit only passive to the Son? Is the Spirit only spirated? If we truly hold to perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the persons, then the Spirit is not wholly passive in the Trinitarian relationship. Kline then further asks the question as to whether the Spirit, in combination with the Father, has an active relationship to the Son. Is the Holy Spirit wholly unconnected with the eternal generation of the Son? Was/is the Holy Spirit a spectator in this? I cannot believe that He would be, and neither does Kline. We must be very careful before assigning heterodoxy to Kline on this issue, which is not actually dealt with in the confessions at all, and I am not yet convinced that the confessions rule out Kline's position on this. I think more discussion is necessary.



Exactly. I still haven't heard how Kline is contradicting the creeds on this matter.


----------



## VictorBravo

Moderation: We don't do blog wars here. 

Leave what other blogs are saying out of this thread.

For those confused, I deleted references to an external blog post dealing with what is going on here.


----------



## fredtgreco

I (at least) for the record have never accused Kline of being a heretic - and I do not think he is. I am troubled by many aspects of his writings, for example, the small matter of death being a natural part of the creation, not a result of the Fall.

Some of the language here could (and should) be tempered. It should be placed in context. I would urge those who are going "free for all" after Kline to be more deliberate, patient, and careful in their criticisms and not intentionally think the worst.

But I dare say that the response - which boils down to a combination of "how dare you" and "you're not smart enough" may be worse than the initial comments, especially when the Church is at issue. Since after all it is the Church (*and, **in fairness, **it must also be said, not the PB)* that judges the "Confessionableness" (to coin my own term), and profitableness of theological ruminations. And in that Church, a PhD is not required, only ordination. And the man with 5 PhDs has the same office and authority as the man with no college degree.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I just want to note a few things from my research so far on the subject of the Spirit's involvement in the eternal generation of the Son. Oddly enough, it seems that some Protestant Reformed theologians might be amenable to a formulation such as "the Father begets the Son in the Spirit." See this chapter from David Engelsma's _Trinity and Covenant_. He, and apparently Hoeksema, want to pick up on Augustine's divine love analogy. See footnote 29 for language that would suggest the above formulation: "The Father begets with infinite love. The Son is begotten in infinite love."

Again, not necessarily advocating these views, just pointing out the breadth of the discussion in the confessional Reformed community.


----------



## Grafted In

> Using MP's Holy Grail to illustrate why we should tolerate attacks on our Confessions isn't helpful. Rather it's another way of mocking the sophistication of those of us who think doctrine influences people's lives by someone who think's he's more enlightened.



Wow! I think that you missed my point. I must not have been as clear as I should have been.

I would heartily approve of anyone calling into question or critiquing the theological conclusions of any man. I do not think that any one should tolerate attacks on the confessions. You had to read all of that into my post. 

My point is that some people are so ready for the battle that they do not take the time to distinguish between who the enemy is and who is well within their own camp but does not march lockstep on every matter with them. This "isn't helpful" and will actually discredit the ones who engage in such "friendly fire."

I agree that doctrine does influence lives and that is why I believe that we should contend for the faith. I do not remember saying that it doesn't. We should contend with all of our might! 

I am sorry that you felt mocked by the MP's Holy Grail post. I can see how you would think that I was comparing some people to the unsophisticated village folk in the clip (I do hope that you watched it and got a good laugh) and for that I am sorry. The correlation that I saw between the film and the current thread is in that (just like the film makers who perceive religious persons to be unsophisticated) when we as Christians see something that we perceive to be contrary to what we believe we often become judge, jury and executioner at the same instance.

Please accept my apology for the offense that I have created by my post!


----------



## py3ak

This thread has become very fast-paced, and is in some danger of derailing. So I am going to ignore what I think is irrelevant to me and to the concern of the thread: whether Meredith Kline's views are out of accord with the Westminster Standards. For discussions on charity, propriety, etc., there are threads that could be resuscitated or one can always start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

I believe so far the defenses of Professor Kline with regard to the quoted statements pertaining to the doctrine of the Trinity (which is that part of the topic in which I am most interested) can be categorized as follows:
1. Palliations for inadequate language.
2. Mention of other theologians who may have had similar ideas.
3. The argument that his ideas don't have to do with the ontological Trinity.
4. The idea that his words aren't unconfessional because they speak to something not addressed by the confession.

1 & 2 are, I think, strictly irrelevant: 1 because the point at issue is not his skill as a communicator, but the content of his thought; 2 because unless the ideas of those other theologians were embodied in or implied by the Westminster Standards they don't function to clarify the harmony or lack thereof of Professor Kline's views with those adopted by the Assembly.
I think Fred has laid 3 to rest in a rather definitive manner. That he speaks of adding to the creed, that he wants to argue from the economic to eternal relations, shows that he conceived of his ideas as bearing upon the ontological Trinity.
Which leaves #4. Obviously we are in deep waters both procedurally and conceptually. But the question I asked earlier is valid, and in order to prove that Professor Kline's views are merely extraconfessional an answer should be attempted: is the order of the Persons of the Trinity a confessional matter?


> In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


 The WCF reflects other Christian creeds in putting the Father first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. Are we free to tinker with this ordering (or to suggest that the ordinal numbers do not at all times apply to the same Person)?


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> This thread has become very fast-paced, and is in some danger of derailing. So I am going to ignore what I think is irrelevant to me and to the concern of the thread: whether Meredith Kline's views are out of accord with the Westminster Standards. For discussions on charity, propriety, etc., there are threads that could be resuscitated or one can always start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
> 
> I believe so far the defenses of Professor Kline with regard to the quoted statements pertaining to the doctrine of the Trinity (which is that part of the topic in which I am most interested) can be categorized as follows:
> 1. Palliations for inadequate language.
> 2. Mention of other theologians who may have had similar ideas.
> 3. The argument that his ideas don't have to do with the ontological Trinity.
> 4. The idea that his words aren't unconfessional because they speak to something not addressed by the confession.
> 
> 1 & 2 are, I think, strictly irrelevant: 1 because the point at issue is not his skill as a communicator, but the content of his thought; 2 because unless the ideas of those other theologians were embodied in or implied by the Westminster Standards they don't function to clarify the harmony or lack thereof of Professor Kline's views with those adopted by the Assembly.
> I think Fred has laid 3 to rest in a rather definitive manner. That he speaks of adding to the creed, that he wants to argue from the economic to eternal relations, shows that he conceived of his ideas as bearing upon the ontological Trinity.
> Which leaves #4. Obviously we are in deep waters both procedurally and conceptually. But the question I asked earlier is valid, and in order to prove that Professor Kline's views are merely extraconfessional an answer should be attempted: is the order of the Persons of the Trinity a confessional matter?
> 
> 
> 
> In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF reflects other Christian creeds in putting the Father first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. Are we free to tinker with this ordering (or to suggest that the ordinal numbers do not at all times apply to the same Person)?
Click to expand...


I don't see anything in the passage from Kline that suggests he wants to "tinker with the ordering" in which the persons of the Trinity are addressed in the creeds regarding to their eternal immanent relations. He is still talking about an event in redemptive history when he states "*in this process* [my emphasis] the Spirit is the second person and the Son the third." His whole idea surely is that these economic relations have bearing upon the immanent Trinitarian relations. However, as I've tried to already show, he isn't suggesting an exact correlation.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that Kline is suggesting a modification of the eternal generation clause something along the lines of "the Father begets the Son through the Spirit"?


----------



## py3ak

Bryan, I've granted that this seems very likely to be the modification Professor Kline was suggesting. I don't think changing "and" to "through" removes all difficulties, but that hasn't been the question. But here is the point: if that process wherein the Spirit is 2nd and the Son 3rd has a reflection in the immanent relations, then at some point in the immanent relations, either the Son is not 2nd, as all Christian history seems to understand, or He can be 2nd at one point and 3rd at another.

When the EO expressed a willingness to accept "and _through_ the Son" as a compromise on the _filioque_ controversy, it was a form of words which still maintained the order of relationship. What conceivable modification to the clause about the Son's generation leaves that order similarly undisturbed?


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> Bryan, I've granted that this seems very likely to be the modification Professor Kline was suggesting. I don't think changing "and" to "through" removes all difficulties, but that hasn't been the question. But here is the point: if that process wherein the Spirit is 2nd and the Son 3rd has a reflection in the immanent relations, then at some point in the immanent relations, either the Son is not 2nd, as all Christian history seems to understand, or He can be 2nd at one point and 3rd at another.


I don't know that this necessarily follows. Like I said, the analogy doesn't have to correlate exactly. Kline doesn't suggest that we call the Spirit a "2nd person" in some manner in interTrinitarian immanent relations.


----------



## py3ak

But Bryan, if it doesn't necessarily follow, what does? Exactly what is being suggested? You have, condensing for clarity:
1. In this process the Son is the 3rd Person.
2. This process reflects immanent relations.
3. Therefore, ____________________________________?


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> Was/is the Holy Spirit a spectator in this?



The question assumes a temporal generation and is therefore irrelevant. It is a common mistake to draw an analogy between the economical and ontological without removing the temporal aspects to apply to the eternal reality. That seems to be the mistake which MGK has fallen into in this instance.

One needs to ascertain what MGK meant by "generating;" did he take it to mean that the Father "communicates his whole essence?" If not, what he says about the Holy Spirit's role is redundant.

It seems that what MGK was really examining is "enupostatoi" (one in the other), not personal properties per se, and so a categorical error is being made. Further, enupostatoi does not remove the ontological order. As Beza teaches, "Yet is the Son more properly said to be in the father, than the father in the son, by reason of the dignity as it were, of the Fatherhood." The same order must apply to the relations of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit. This is what MGK does not appear to make provision for.

For what it's worth, I agree with Dr. Clark that MGK was engaging in exegetical theology (the process of revelation) but is being examined according to dogmatic categories (the product of revelation) -- a standard which would condemn most exegetes if applied to their work. Ironically, John Murray receives the same criticisms for his exegetical insights into the Adamic administration, but no one seems to think twice about an improper standard being applied to him.

OTOH, I can't help but lament with others that MGK was far too speculative in his exegetical work.


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> But Bryan, if it doesn't necessarily follow, what does? Exactly what is being suggested? You have, condensing for clarity:
> 1. In this process the Son is the 3rd Person.
> 2. This process reflects immanent relations.
> 3. Therefore, ____________________________________?



The problem is that Kline doesn't explicitly state the aspects of the redemptive historical example that shed the most light on the immanent Trinitarian relations. All we really know for certain is that Kline thought the Spirit should be recognized as active in some way in the eternal generation of the Son. As far as I know, this lies outside the scope of present confessional formulations but is not necessarily contrary to them (depending upon the form it takes).


----------



## py3ak

Whichever aspect of that historical process he has in mind, it clearly relates to the Spirit's "fathering function", in such a way that something _similar_ to the filioque ought to be added to the creed. I just don't see how the answer is far to seek.


----------



## Dearly Bought

py3ak said:


> Whichever aspect of that historical process he has in mind, it clearly relates to the Spirit's "fathering function", in such a way that something _similar_ to the filioque ought to be added to the creed. I just don't see how the answer is far to seek.



If we agree that the phrasing is most probably "the Father begets the Son _through the Spirit_", then we ought to agree that similar doesn't mean a one-to-one transfer of every aspect of the redemptive historical process. Identical language to the filioque at this point ("the Father _and the Spirit_ beget the Son") surely would be contrary to the ecumenical creeds (specifically the Athanasian). The former formulation doesn't seem to be.

We'll probably have to ultimately agree to disagree on what we think Kline really meant. I'll say again that it wasn't the best of his work, but I don't think it was heresy. I appreciate the interaction and the willingness to discuss the matter at the level of ideas.

In Christ,
Bryan


----------



## greenbaggins

armourbearer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was/is the Holy Spirit a spectator in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question assumes a temporal generation and is therefore irrelevant. It is a common mistake to draw an analogy between the economical and ontological without removing the temporal aspects to apply to the eternal reality. That seems to be the mistake which MGK has fallen into in this instance.
> 
> One needs to ascertain what MGK meant by "generating;" did he take it to mean that the Father "communicates his whole essence?" If not, what he says about the Holy Spirit's role is redundant.
> 
> It seems that what MGK was really examining is "enupostatoi" (one in the other), not personal properties per se, and so a categorical error is being made. Further, enupostatoi does not remove the ontological order. As Beza teaches, "Yet is the Son more properly said to be in the father, than the father in the son, by reason of the dignity as it were, of the Fatherhood." The same order must apply to the relations of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit. This is what MGK does not appear to make provision for.
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree with Dr. Clark that MGK was engaging in exegetical theology (the process of revelation) but is being examined according to dogmatic categories (the product of revelation) -- a standard which would condemn most exegetes if applied to their work. Ironically, John Murray receives the same criticisms for his exegetical insights into the Adamic administration, but no one seems to think twice about an improper standard being applied to him.
> 
> OTOH, I can't help but lament with others that MGK was far too speculative in his exegetical work.
Click to expand...


First point: the _whole point_ of my including the / in the was/is phraseology was precisely to _avoid_ the implication of temporal generation. Apparently, that I might have purposely avoided this didn't occur to you. Therefore, my question no more assumes temporal generation than the question of whether the Father was/is involved or not in generating the Son assumes a temporal generation. So, the question is by no means irrelevant. So, to rephrase the question, perhaps: in eternity, in the eternal begetting of the Son, is the Holy Spirit a spectator? Is He uninvolved? I cannot answer no to this. Of course, the exact nature of said involvement is open to discussion. 

Second point: It is a legitimate question to ask if the intra-Trinitarian personal properties are actions. We do tend to use verbs when describing begetting, processing, being begotten (although it is understood that God does not become). If they are actions, and not just a description of ontology, then the actions are works ad intra. And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.


----------



## timmopussycat

greenbaggins said:


> Second point: It is a legitimate question to ask if the intra-Trinitarian personal properties are actions. We do tend to use verbs when describing begetting, processing, being begotten (although it is understood that God does not become). If they are actions, and not just a description of ontology, then the actions are works ad intra. And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.



I'm not so sure: I wonder whether we have the necessary data in Scripture from which may find any more details of what the Holy Spirit's "place" in the Father/Son relationship is. This may be one of the secret things (Deut. 29:29) we are not meant to know. Not everything that piques our curiosity is essential to our salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> I'm not so sure: I wonder whether we have the necessary data in Scripture from which may find any more details of what the Holy Spirit's "place" in the Father/Son relationship is. This may be one of the secret things (Deut. 29:29) we are not meant to know. Not everything that piques our curiosity is essential to our salvation.



Excellent point. After all, many of our creedal formulations about the Godhead have many more negative boundaries to allow the few positive statements to receive room for expression without the risk of running into a ditch.


----------



## greenbaggins

timmopussycat said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second point: It is a legitimate question to ask if the intra-Trinitarian personal properties are actions. We do tend to use verbs when describing begetting, processing, being begotten (although it is understood that God does not become). If they are actions, and not just a description of ontology, then the actions are works ad intra. And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure: I wonder whether we have the necessary data in Scripture from which may find any more details of what the Holy Spirit's "place" in the Father/Son relationship is. This may be one of the secret things (Deut. 29:29) we are not meant to know. Not everything that piques our curiosity is essential to our salvation.
Click to expand...


It's quite possible that you're right. Research would have to be done on it to test it. On the other hand, it still does not seem to me that Kline's formulations contradict the confession on this point. It may or may not be speculative. But that's what a discussion should find out. Who knows but what there might be biblical evidence to support Kline's ideas. Kline, after all, was an expert on the Holy Spirit, having written a book on Him that greatly expanded my conceptions of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## py3ak

greenbaggins said:


> And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, *all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity*. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.



How would you reconcile that with the fact that it is the _ad intra_ works which are _opera divisa_?


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> First point: the _whole point_ of my including the / in the was/is phraseology was precisely to _avoid_ the implication of temporal generation. Apparently, that I might have purposely avoided this didn't occur to you. Therefore, my question no more assumes temporal generation than the question of whether the Father was/is involved or not in generating the Son assumes a temporal generation. So, the question is by no means irrelevant. So, to rephrase the question, perhaps: in eternity, in the eternal begetting of the Son, is the Holy Spirit a spectator? Is He uninvolved? I cannot answer no to this. Of course, the exact nature of said involvement is open to discussion.



In order to be a "spectator," one must observe an event in the process of being accomplished. But the generation is eternal, having no beginning or ending; so, by default, to utilise this "spectator" language is to temporalise the generation.

As hinted, it seems to me that "generation" is not being used in its technical sense, as a "communication of essence."



greenbaggins said:


> Second point: It is a legitimate question to ask if the intra-Trinitarian personal properties are actions. We do tend to use verbs when describing begetting, processing, being begotten (although it is understood that God does not become). If they are actions, and not just a description of ontology, then the actions are works ad intra. And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.



Scripture uses the word "Father," not "Parents." Scripture suffices to teach us what we need to learn about this relationship. As our knowledge is analogous to begin with, it is dangerous to speculate beyond what Scripture intends to teach.


----------



## greenbaggins

armourbearer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> First point: the _whole point_ of my including the / in the was/is phraseology was precisely to _avoid_ the implication of temporal generation. Apparently, that I might have purposely avoided this didn't occur to you. Therefore, my question no more assumes temporal generation than the question of whether the Father was/is involved or not in generating the Son assumes a temporal generation. So, the question is by no means irrelevant. So, to rephrase the question, perhaps: in eternity, in the eternal begetting of the Son, is the Holy Spirit a spectator? Is He uninvolved? I cannot answer no to this. Of course, the exact nature of said involvement is open to discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to be a "spectator," one must observe an event in the process of being accomplished. But the generation is eternal, having no beginning or ending; so, by default, to utilise this "spectator" language is to temporalise the generation.
> 
> As hinted, it seems to me that "generation" is not being used in its technical sense, as a "communication of essence."
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second point: It is a legitimate question to ask if the intra-Trinitarian personal properties are actions. We do tend to use verbs when describing begetting, processing, being begotten (although it is understood that God does not become). If they are actions, and not just a description of ontology, then the actions are works ad intra. And while begetting the Son is properly the property/work of the Father, all ad intra properties/works at least involve the other members of the Trinity. The Father would not be a Father to the Son without the Son. Describing the Holy Spirit's place in the Father/Son relation is not easy, but I believe that we must make an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scripture uses the word "Father," not "Parents." Scripture suffices to teach us what we need to learn about this relationship. As our knowledge is analogous to begin with, it is dangerous to speculate beyond what Scripture intends to teach.
Click to expand...


On the first point, one could just as well argue that for God the Father to be the _actor_ in the begetting requires a temporalization. Since that does not follow, then neither does it follow with the language of "spectator." My actual argument, of course, is that the Holy Spirit is _not_ a spectator, and is not passively sitting off the side, but is involved somehow. You have yet to answer this point. 

On the second point, I agree that it would not be proper to call the Holy Spirit "Father," unless one is calling God "Father" as the whole Trinity, and then it is not being used of the Holy Spirit by Himself anyway. But that is not the only possible way one could describe the Holy Spirit being involved. I am perfectly happy with simply saying that the Holy Spirit is involved, but not in the same way as the Father is involved, and not going any further than that. But would you really say that the Holy Spirit is simply left outside the Father-Son relationship?


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> But would you really say that the Holy Spirit is simply left outside the Father-Son relationship?



Again, it becomes clear to me that the issue is more about mutual indwelling, and not the technical idea of generation per se. Let's ask the pertinent question, Does the Holy Spirit "create" (as an analogical term) the Father-Son relationship? Obviously not. Issue settled.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Can I get a commentary on this in relation to this topic. 



> I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
> the Maker of heaven and earth,
> and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
> 
> *Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost*,
> born of the virgin Mary,



Thanks.

-----Added 1/16/2009 at 01:17:45 EST-----
Dodd on the Apostles creed.



> It was fitting too that He who was to assume the nature, not of any branch of the human family but of universal man, should be conceived by the Holy Ghost.





> (Mat 1:20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.





> G1080 gennáo to bear, beget,
> génnēma born,
> gennētós begotten, born,
> artigénnētos newborn,
> anagennáō to be born again
> gennáō.



Is this in relation to time and not in relation to eternal generation? Well of course it would be. But I think this would clear up some of the muddied waters. Or am I just niave?


----------



## greenbaggins

armourbearer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> But would you really say that the Holy Spirit is simply left outside the Father-Son relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it becomes clear to me that the issue is more about mutual indwelling, and not the technical idea of generation per se. Let's ask the pertinent question, Does the Holy Spirit "create" (as an analogical term) the Father-Son relationship? Obviously not. Issue settled.
Click to expand...


This question assumes, does it not, that "creating," (assuming analogical language) is the only possible way that the Holy Spirit could be involved? If there were other ways, then the objection falls to the ground. Again, the Holy Spirit is not uninvolved in the Father-Son relationship because of perichoresis. It is a mutual indwelling of the persons. I am not convinced, either, that perichoresis must be put off to the side when one is talking about any of the properties, even if a property properly belongs only to one of the persons (which I assert).

-----Added 1/16/2009 at 06:34:54 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can I get a commentary on this in relation to this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
> the Maker of heaven and earth,
> and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
> 
> *Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost*,
> born of the virgin Mary,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -----Added 1/16/2009 at 01:17:45 EST-----
> Dodd on the Apostles creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was fitting too that He who was to assume the nature, not of any branch of the human family but of universal man, should be conceived by the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Mat 1:20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G1080 gennáo to bear, beget,
> génnēma born,
> gennētós begotten, born,
> artigénnētos newborn,
> anagennáō to be born again
> gennáō.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this in relation to time and not in relation to eternal generation? Well of course it would be. But I think this would clear up some of the muddied waters. Or am I just niave?
Click to expand...


Well, the whole question revolves around this point: do passages like these give us any indication of what happens in eternity? Or are they only concerned about Jesus' human nature? Christology certainly has to come into play here, in my opinion. I think where I would net out is that the Holy Spirit does have a role to play in the Father-Son relationship in eternity. I am not sure how anyone would describe it. And, furthermore, it would have to be distinguished (though not separated) from the Father's role in the Father-Son relationship in eternity. That's probably as far as we can go with that one.


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> This question assumes, does it not, that "creating," (assuming analogical language) is the only possible way that the Holy Spirit could be involved? If there were other ways, then the objection falls to the ground. Again, the Holy Spirit is not uninvolved in the Father-Son relationship because of perichoresis. It is a mutual indwelling of the persons. I am not convinced, either, that perichoresis must be put off to the side when one is talking about any of the properties, even if a property properly belongs only to one of the persons (which I assert).



How does one assert that a property only belongs to one of the persons, that the distinctive property of "Father" can therefore only belong to one of the persons, but then maintain that there are two persons involved in the paternal property which exists in the Father-Son relationship?

Mutual indwelling pertains to the indivisibility of the essence, whereas personal properties arise from the communication of essence which establishes unique relationship. Hence they are distinct. The "Word" would not be the Word if He were anything other than the intelligent self-expression of the Father as the fountain of Godhead. "Spirit," by definition, is a willing complacency in all-sufficient blessedness, and this depends on the self-understanding of the "Word."


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> How does one assert that a property only belongs to one of the persons, that the distinctive property of "Father" can therefore only belong to one of the persons, but then maintain that there are two persons involved in the paternal property which exists in the Father-Son relationship?
> 
> Mutual indwelling pertains to the indivisibility of the essence, whereas personal properties arise from the communication of essence which establishes unique relationship. Hence they are distinct. The "Word" would not be the Word if He were anything other than the intelligent self-expression of the Father as the fountain of Godhead. "Spirit," by definition, is a willing complacency in all-sufficient blessedness, and this depends on the self-understanding of the "Word."



How much of this understanding was embodied either by direct statement or by implication in the Confession?


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> How much of this understanding was embodied either by direct statement or by implication in the Confession?



Chapter 2:3 provides clear teaching on the personal properties, in the very language of antiquity. As the Confession proceeds to speak of the ad extra works of the Trinity, it everywhere recognises the traditional order of the persons. Especially important is its Christological formulation, in which it echoes the language of Scripture, by saying that it pleased God to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man (8:1), wherein the historic understanding of the Father's first place in the Godhead is clearly and undeniably expressed. Again, it is the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, who took upon Him man's nature (8:2). In the chapter on justification we find the old view, that the Father is the representative of the Godhead, is brought to the fore, when Christ's obedience and death are said to make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice, and not merely to God's justice (11:3, see also 16:6). Adoption likewise brings out the representative character of the Father, when it is said to be conferred in and for His only Son Jesus Christ (12:1). Concerning the Holy Spirit, the chapters on effectual calling, sanctification, saving faith, good works, the law of God, the communion of saints, and the resurrection of the dead, make it evident that the work of the Spirit is always operative in the elect as the Spirit of Christ, either expressly using those words or adopting the possessive pronoun. Accepted recognition of the distinction and order of the Persons is further seen in the statements of the Confession on the perseverance of the saints (17:2) and prayer as an act of religious worship (21:3), where the traditional Trinitarian perspective of the Confession comes to bear in a practical manner on the Christian's daily walk.


----------



## TimV

> Mutual indwelling pertains to the indivisibility of the essence, whereas personal properties arise from the communication of essence which establishes unique relationship.



Very nice, thanks much.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of this understanding was embodied either by direct statement or by implication in the Confession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 2:3 provides clear teaching on the personal properties, in the very language of antiquity. As the Confession proceeds to speak of the ad extra works of the Trinity, it everywhere recognises the traditional order of the persons. Especially important is its Christological formulation, in which it echoes the language of Scripture, by saying that it pleased God to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man (8:1), wherein the historic understanding of the Father's first place in the Godhead is clearly and undeniably expressed. Again, it is the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, who took upon Him man's nature (8:2). In the chapter on justification we find the old view, that the Father is the representative of the Godhead, is brought to the fore, when Christ's obedience and death are said to make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice, and not merely to God's justice (11:3, see also 16:6). Adoption likewise brings out the representative character of the Father, when it is said to be conferred in and for His only Son Jesus Christ (12:1). Concerning the Holy Spirit, the chapters on effectual calling, sanctification, saving faith, good works, the law of God, the communion of saints, and the resurrection of the dead, make it evident that the work of the Spirit is always operative in the elect as the Spirit of Christ, either expressly using those words or adopting the possessive pronoun. Accepted recognition of the distinction and order of the Persons is further seen in the statements of the Confession on the perseverance of the saints (17:2) and prayer as an act of religious worship (21:3), where the traditional Trinitarian perspective of the Confession comes to bear in a practical manner on the Christian's daily walk.
Click to expand...


Excellent observations, thank you. Given that thorough penetration of the traditional view into the Confession, it does seem that Professor Kline's speculations would not be confessionally acceptable.


----------

