# Shepherd and Kline recline for Shepherd's Pie?



## Christusregnat (Jun 25, 2008)

Hello All,

My brother-in-law, Rev. Dr. Peter J. Wallace (ordained OPC, ministers in PCA) recommended I read this article he wrote:

http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/inheritance.htm

I've read it, and am interested in your thoughts.

In particular, any comments on particular modes of thought, exegesis, etc. within the article.

He would like to get my feedback on it, and I wanted to see if I was missing anything pertinent to discuss before contacting him.

Godspeed,

Adam


----------



## Casey (Jun 25, 2008)

_Off topic:_ I just finished a very enjoyable ancient/medieval church history course with Dr. Wallace.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 25, 2008)

Yes, Peter was telling me about he grueling coursework 

Thanks for sharing! Care to read his other paper and comment? If not, no biggie.

Adam




CaseyBessette said:


> _Off topic:_ I just finished a very enjoyable ancient/medieval church history course with Dr. Wallace.


----------



## Casey (Jun 25, 2008)

I'll try to get to it in the next day or two.  He seems to come at things from a refreshing perspective, so I'll give it a read.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 25, 2008)

Yes, please do, and let me know your thoughts.

Adam





CaseyBessette said:


> I'll try to get to it in the next day or two.  He seems to come at things from a refreshing perspective, so I'll give it a read.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2008)

I generally liked the paper. Although in the present conditions, I am not willing to grant much charity to the Shepherd formulations. Then again, I also do not favor swimming deeply in Kline-waters! So, I find Wallace to be doing a bit of analytic theology here, and drawing on, to use his own terminology, "positive" aspects of both men.

Here's an especially good portion:


> And this is why Paul insists that there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Before Christ, only the free Jewish male can inherit the promises. Gentiles, slaves, and women only inherit the promises through their free, Jewish males. But Jesus Christ IS the free Jewish male, he is the last Adam, the true Israel, and he has included ALL of his people in his inheritance, regardless of gender, race or class.


Amen.

For what it's worth, I met Peter many years ago, when I was still in seminary. In addition, Peter served as an intern under my father, but not when I was anywhere around. Today, we are in the same Presbytery. I really respect him, even if we don't agree 100% on every jot and tittle.


----------



## Berit (Jun 26, 2008)

This is coming from a ‘Klinean’,

I thought it was generally good.

*Covenant Foundations*
“Was it simply a convenient rhetorical tool that God chose from the surrounding cultures? Or is there something about covenant that is rooted in creation itself-or even beyond the creation?”

I do not know if Kline did or did not hold that it was rooted in creation or beyond, I am not sure Kline held that it was just a rhetorical ‘tool’, but I think Wallace is right to look past the Hittite treaties, but I do not know about going into eternity.

*Wages vs. Inheritance*
I do not know why Wallace opposes these two, Kline didn’t. Paul can speak of it both ways see Galatians 3:10-18; Romans 4:1-8, and Luke 10:25-28. Perhaps Wallace just wants to make sure inheritance gets into the concept which I am agreeable with.

*Sonship vs. Legal*
I think it is a false dichotomy. I do not how much this differs from Wallace but I think the question of which is ‘prior’ is a false choice, both are inherent within Covenant.

*Works vs. Grace*
I think Wallace makes a good point about the semantic range of ‘grace’, but I think Kline is right exclude ‘grace’ in the non-just ‘favor’ sense from works based covenants, see Romans 11:6, they are mutually exclusive by what Paul means by them.

*Concluding Thoughts*
As for Irons making covenant just about justification I am unsure that is correct, but even if it is true for Irons it is not true for Klineans in general, you can see Horton’s Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, Part One where he goes into a lot of issues posed by Wallace. To tell the truth I am not sure Kline is characterized correctly by Wallace. Perhaps if one has not gone into a lot of what Kline as written and said one might get the ideas Wallace has, but honestly I do not hear a lot that could stick on Kline that Wallace claims he is fault worthy for.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 26, 2008)

Rev. Buchanan,

Yes, I think there is much in Peter that is very admirable, but there are sides I'm not confortable with - which is good.

Shepherd is not as innocuous as I think he may be portrayed in this paper, although, Peter is expressly looking for the good things. I find it reflects somewhat of a hegelian synthesis.

Thanks for your input!

Adam





Contra_Mundum said:


> I generally liked the paper. Although in the present conditions, I am not willing to grant much charity to the Shepherd formulations. Then again, I also do not favor swimming deeply in Kline-waters! So, I find Wallace to be doing a bit of analytic theology here, and drawing on, to use his own terminology, "positive" aspects of both men.
> 
> Here's an especially good portion:
> 
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 26, 2008)

Tristan,

Thanks for your input!

It is possible that Kline is not characterized properly; perhaps Rev. Wallace is choosing the parts that serve his present purpose; not sure.

I can assure you, however, that he has read all of his material, and has undoubtedly understood it well. Very bright guy; but like us all, we each sift through the facts and find what we like.

Cheers,

Adam




Berit said:


> This is coming from a ‘Klinean’,
> 
> I thought it was generally good.
> 
> ...


----------

