# Kline's Interpreters



## Casey (Apr 16, 2009)

I admit, I have not read much Kline. Most of what I know of his teaching comes from his disciples. Hence this post.

It has been said that there are different schools of interpretation when it comes to Kline. Is this true? If so, could you list the differences and which teachers fit each group?

I know I need to read more of him for myself so I can make my own decisions, but I'd like to know the different groups that are claiming him for themselves.

Thanks.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm currently reading his Structure of Biblical Authority. So far, he's talking about the covenant framework of canon which translates into authoritative canon. I still don't get the whole thing, since I am still reading his stuff; however I am told that the book I'm reading is a good place to start. I remember reading somewhere that he does a better treatment of covenant theology in a different work (the title eludes me at the moment). I don't think that really answer your question, but I do think that his view of covenant and law are important factors that you might find as the common denominator among all his followers.


----------



## ww (Apr 17, 2009)

jmartinez83 said:


> I'm currently reading his Structure of Biblical Authority. So far, he's talking about the covenant framework of canon which translates into authoritative canon. I still don't get the whole thing, since I am still reading his stuff; however I am told that the book I'm reading is a good place to start. I remember reading somewhere that he does a better treatment of covenant theology in a different work (the title eludes me at the moment). I don't think that really answer your question, but I do think that his view of covenant and law are important factors that you might find as the common denominator among all his followers.



Kingdom Prologue may be the book you are referring to.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 07:41:23 EST-----



CaseyBessette said:


> I admit, I have not read much Kline. Most of what I know of his teaching comes from his disciples. Hence this post.
> 
> It has been said that there are different schools of interpretation when it comes to Kline. Is this true? If so, could you list the differences and which teachers fit each group?
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say there are different schools of interpretation as much there are those who are more or less Klinean. In other words,, there are some who have a good grasp of Kline's Covenantal framework as well as his views on Creation, the Sabbath, Eschatology, etc and have little argument with his conclusions and there are other who have the same grasp, generally agree with most of his conclusions but differ on some of the ways he arrives at them. And then finally there are others who reject most of his conclusions out of hand. This is my  from someone who has just recently discovered Kline.


----------



## Casey (Apr 18, 2009)

Thanks for the replies.  Can anyone who is more familiar with Kline and the lay of the land offer further insight? Thanks.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2009)

One prominent person who claims to be advancing Kline's paradigm is Lee Irons (http://www.upper-register.com/). Mr. Irons does have people who follow closely his interpretation of Kline.

I think it is safe to say (though I wouldn't want to speak on their behalf--and am happy to defer to them if they choose to respond) that many at Westminster California who advance "Klinean" teaching would probably distance themselves from Irons particularly in areas regarding homosexuality and his peculiar view of the ten commandments which led to his discipline in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.


----------



## Casey (Apr 18, 2009)

Okay, I'm going to fess up. I ordered some of Kline's books tonight.  Ouch.


----------



## ww (Apr 18, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> Okay, I'm going to fess up. I ordered some of Kline's books tonight.  Ouch.



You better ask your Pastor for a Time of Private Confession and Absolution for that move Mister.


----------



## Casey (Apr 18, 2009)

I'll just hide them in my book cave where no one will ever find them . . .


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 18, 2009)

Who is Kline?


----------



## ww (Apr 18, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Who is Kline?





Meredith G. Kline Resource Site

Feature Article

Here's a couple of links to get you started on who Kline was.


----------



## Casey (Apr 24, 2009)

Okay, I got 3 more of Kline's books in the mail today. Here's what I have now:


Structure of Biblical Authority
Kingdom Prologue
Images of the Spirit
Glory in Our Midst
God, Heaven, and Har Magedon
I assume I should read these in some particular order to follow his train of thought? Suggestions from those familiar with these works?


----------



## ADKing (Apr 24, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> Okay, I got 3 more of Kline's books in the mail today. Here's what I have now:
> 
> 
> Structure of Biblical Authority
> ...



I would start with _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon_. It was his last book and was aimed at a more popular audience. In it he summarizes what he spends a lot of time expounding in the other books. It also contains some very clear statements of his heterodox views.


----------



## ww (Apr 24, 2009)

ADKing said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I got 3 more of Kline's books in the mail today. Here's what I have now:
> ...



Rev King,

Can you please expound for us what "Heterodox" views you are referring to as I was always under the impression that Dr Kline was orthodox and confessional as an ordained minister in the OPC and remained so until his death on April 14, 2007.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 25, 2009)

whitway said:


> Rev King,
> 
> Can you please expound for us what "Heterodox" views you are referring to as I was always under the impression that Dr Kline was orthodox and confessional as an ordained minister in the OPC and remained so until his death on April 14, 2007.



Here is a basic summary with some quotations from another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/meredith-kline-subscriptionism-35538/#post498739

And here... http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/meredith-kline-subscriptionism-35538/#post527339


----------



## Casey (Apr 25, 2009)

In case I be misinterpreted, I should say at this point that I haven't made up my mind re: Kline. That's why I've ordered more of his books so I can be more familiar with his teaching.  I'm glad his last book was a sort of summary -- it'll be a good place to re-enter.


----------



## Casey (May 28, 2009)

I finished _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon_. 

Some of his points were surprisingly anti-confessional -- he even called the confessional view of the Sabbath _pharisaical._

Can someone point me to critical reviews of Kline's books and thought? I intend to keep reading through his books.


----------



## Berit (May 28, 2009)

Ordained Servant

and

http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV21N3A3.htm


----------



## ADKing (May 29, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> I finished _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon_.
> 
> Some of his points were surprisingly anti-confessional -- he even called the confessional view of the Sabbath _pharisaical._
> 
> Can someone point me to critical reviews of Kline's books and thought? I intend to keep reading through his books.



Indeed. 

Patrick Ramsey has a worthwhile article in the WTJ called "In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg". It is online here http://patrickspensees.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-moses.pdf


----------



## Jon Peters (May 29, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> I finished _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon_.
> 
> Some of his points were surprisingly anti-confessional -- he even called the confessional view of the Sabbath _pharisaical._
> 
> Can someone point me to critical reviews of Kline's books and thought? I intend to keep reading through his books.



Did you find anything worthwhile in the book or was his rejection of the Sabbath (hardly novel, even in the Reformed world) your only takeaway?

What was the basic thrust of the book? Was it understandable?

I just began Kingdom Prologue and have already been greatly blessed by what I've read thus far. He clearly has a keen mind and a deep knowledge of the Scriptures. I look forward to reading him more deeply.

I just revisited the previous thread wherein Scott Clark defended Kline. I think Clark is right, we approach Kline with a bias that colors everything we read of him. We begin with the premise that he is heterodox and our readings only confirm that thesis.

I avoided Kline for years even though I was in the church of one of his biggest defenders. I did so because of my prejudice against some of his views. I thought that if he was wrong on the law and creation, he must be wrong on everything else. Or, at least, not worth reading if he missed the mark on those wieghty issues. 

I appreciate you reading him Casey. I hope that what he has written benefits you.


----------



## ADKing (May 29, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> [I just revisited the previous thread wherein Scott Clark defended Kline. I think Clark is right, we approach Kline with a bias that colors everything we read of him. We begin with the premise that he is heterodox and our readings only confirm that thesis.



Just because an author is wrong on some doctrines does not necessarily make him wrong on all doctrines. That having been granted, if someone is wrong on: the trinity, creation, the law, the sabbath, and covenant theology don't you think there may be an understandable reason why his readers would approach him with suspicion? Not to do so would be naieve in my opinion. 

This does not necessarily entail people beginning with the premise that he is heterodox and then merely confirming that thesis. Perhaps some people do this, I really don't know. But some people have read Kline (in my case sympathetically, at first) and come to the conclusion from his own words that he is not a reliable theologian.


----------



## Casey (May 29, 2009)

I believe I benefited from reading the book. Sometimes his style is obscure. He made numerous interesting and suggestive redemptive-historical points. But intertwined in many of them are either (1) speculative exegesis that creates the (shaky) foundation for his view or (2) downright false dogmatic presuppositions that color his entire interpretation.

There were times that it was hard to distinguish his view, in some ways, from being "dispensational." But without adhering to his presuppositions/conclusions, there were many "extractable" redemptive-historical insights. I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone who couldn't critically read it from a truly Reformed perspective. But as I said before, I'm still reading his other works.

Don't take this as a "review" because it's not that.


----------



## Casey (Jun 1, 2009)

Kline, _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon,_ p. 250, fn47:
"In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. ..."​Is he flat-out stating that Darwinian evolution is compatible with Scripture?


----------



## ww (Jun 1, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> Kline, _God, Heaven, and Har Magedon,_ p. 250, fn47:
> "In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. ..."​Is he flat-out stating that Darwinian evolution is compatible with Scripture?



Not having read the book myself Casey and giving Kline the benefit of the doubt here I would surmise he is saying that we cannot use the age of the earth to discount evolution but must resort to other arguments that are more weighty.


----------



## Casey (Jun 1, 2009)

He also says this (p. 223):
"To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation "week" propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins."​He makes similar statements throughout his article that his aim is to show the Scriptures to be compatible with current scientific views.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 3, 2009)

I think it is neither controversial nor over-the-top to say the Kline is an *enemy* of a "literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation 'week'" (his own words and characterization).

It is just _naive_ and _silly_ to suggest there is not first and foremost in Kline's framework hypothesis a determination to understand the Bible in a way that produces an interpretation (hermeneutics) that is not in conflict with anything we "know," humanly speaking, about the world.

"Framework" purports to take the biblical message (in Gen1-2) and separate it from the idea that data points in the Bible correspond to natural history. If these two may be distinguished, then free-inquiry can be made, and neutral observations made about the world, in pursuit of "truth". There are no ultimate standards of accuracy in the natural realm.

Logically, there is no reason to assert that this hermeneutical proposal has to stop at the end of Gen1, or Gen2, or Gen3, or Gen12, or Gen50, or Ex15, or... These are arbitrary stopping points; whatever criteria are chosen to designate a place where the Bible takes up "real-world" history are not themselves subject to the same principles of revision.

Therefore, for example, if an archaeologist finds a "king list" of the Davidic monarchy, and it appears to create a whole new timeline--including for instance reversals of "traditional/biblical" father-son relations, and new names, and even the end of David's physical lineage--then if the weight of "unbiased" scholarly opinion takes the side of the inscription, the biblical data may be given "theological" priority, but its "history" should be subordinated to the experts.

There is no *principled reason* why this process should not take place _if the philosophy of the Framework hypothesis is accepted as legitimate._ To suspend the principle at the end of Gen2 is purely arbitrary, and serves a present-day theological interest of conservative-credential.

The question can be reversed. Given the _reality_ of FH, what principled objection could EVER be raised, that would demand a biblical chronology or king-list or historic claim trump the "findings" of archaeology, geology, biology, etc.? There is none. And for this reason alone, FH should be relegated to the scrap-heap of hermeneutical history.


----------



## Casey (Jun 3, 2009)

Now _that_ was an insightful post. Thank you very much.


----------

