Kline on Postmillennialism

[EvanF]

Reading a few of Klines other articles, I think I've misinterpreted his angle upon common grace. The below linked articles and excerpts reveal that Kline's concern about common grace is related to his views on the Noahic covenant and the abrogation of that covenant at the last day. He argues contra both pre-millenialism and post-millennialism that there cannot exist a kingdom that enjoys blessings on the basis of messianic promises and covenantal faith until the Noahic covenant of common grace is abrogated.

The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation - Meredith G. Kline Resource Site

Meredith G. Kline, “The First Resurrection: a Reaffirmation”

meredithkline.com

"The world order of common grace is covenantally formalized in the post-diluvian revelation to Noah (Gen. 8:15-9:17). This covenant of God with all the earth granted to the just and the unjust in common a measure of the blessings of earthly life, including the provision of the judicial structure of the state. And God defined this arrangement as one that would continue valid and operative until the termination of the present cosmos. The consummation will introduce through cosmic re-creation a world order in which no blessings of any kind are apportioned as a common gift in which the unjust participate but all blessings are for the beneficiaries of special redemptive grace alone. Until that re-creation, however, the order of common grace is firmly established by divine stipulation and decree. It is open to penetration at points by the world order to come, but it is not subject to eclipse until the consummation.

The millennium envisaged by classical premillennialism is in conflict with the terms of the covenant of common grace. It features a theocracy on earth before the consummation, a universal kingdom of Christ in which those blessings hitherto received in common by all men and often in greater measure by the unjust than the just are no longer apportioned according to the principle of common grace but according to a policy of special favor to the people of God. The redeemed are in fact already in possession of glorified natures and experience their public vindication over against the world of unjust men. The premillenarian’s millennium would thus abrogate the common grace order prior to the consummation, in contradiction of God’s covenantal guarantees."

and

Comments on an Old-New Error - Meredith G. Kline Resource Site

Meredith G. Kline, “Comments on an Old-New Error”

meredithkline.com

"Along with the hermeneutical deficiencies of Chalcedon’s [Chalcedon Foundation?] postmillennialism there is a fundamental theological problem that besets it. And here we come around again to Chalcedon’s confounding the biblical concepts of the holy and the common. As we have seen, Chalcedon’s brand of postmillennialism envisages as the climax of the millennium something more than a high degree of success in the church’s evangelistic mission to the world. An additional millennial prospect (one they particularly relish) is that of a material prosperity and a world-wide eminence and dominance of Christ’s established kingdom on earth, with a divinely enforced submission of the nations of the world to the government of the Christocracy. For example, appealing to Isaiah 60:3, 10, 12, Bahnsen declares that during the millennial period the kings of the Gentiles will either minister unto God’s kingdom or they will utterly perish (p, 428).

The insuperable theological objection to any and every such chiliastic construction is that it entails the assumption of a premature eclipse of the order of common grace. [10] That order was formalized in the post-diluvian world by the divine covenant of Genesis 9 and by the terms of that covenant it is in force as long as the earth endures, that is, until the cosmic re-creation at the consummation (cf. 2 Pet, 3: 7, 11-13). A basic and essential structure of that common grace order is the institution of the common state. This civil institution, unlike the nation Israel, which was separated unto a distinctive institutional identity as a holy, redemptive, theocratic kingdom, is not a holy but rather common institution, with its citizenry a mixture of both the holy and the non-holy. It does not, as did the Israelite kingdom, possess special guarantees of a material prosperity unfailingly equal to the measure of its obedience to the law of God nor does it enjoy the promise of an ultimate perfecting of its beatitude. Its prospect is that of eventual termination rather than consummation. And meanwhile it must run its course within the uncertainties of the mutually conditioning principles of common grace and common curse, prosperity and adversity being experienced in a manner largely unpredictable because of the inscrutable sovereignty of the divine will that dispenses them in mysterious wisdom."

 

[TennesseeShepherd]

Ah, Gary North. It's a long story but God used him to bring me to the Reformed Faith, nevertheless I have a hard time reading his books due to his writing style. I may be wrong, but I don't think many Posties would agree with that view. Thanks for pointing that out.

Anyway, as I have gotten further in Olinger's book, it really seems that most of Kline's arguments against postmill'ism are of that same nature. "They are wrong because they don't agree with my opinion on certain topics." That's really only useful to those who already agree with him on those topics. Am I missing something?

 

[Christodulus]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I'm new to the OPC (about 2 years, ordination recognized since I came from a NAPARC denomination) and have heard that Kline is popular in the OPC, which is why I'm reading the book. So far, I've put a lot more question marks than stars in the margin. I've heard many objections to postmill'ism, but couldn't, and still can't, see how it is at odds with common grace.

It's getting off topic, but I am a bit troubled by the emphasis on redemptive historical I'm sometimes seeing. We had a visiting pastor preach on Psalm 1 and according to him, "that man" was Jesus Christ. There was no mention of the psalm encouraging us to holiness, but only seeing the blessings promised fulfilled in Christ. I (and others in the congregation) have major problems with that.

That's not exactly an uncommon view. I don't necessarily claim that it's the right view, but it's so common that I don't think anyone should marvel at it.

The real problem with that is both are correct. Psalm 1 describes to us who the righteous man is in the archetypal sense, and also Jesus Christ (and only Him) was actually that righteous and personally described by the psalm. This in my opinion is frequently the case, particularly in the Psalter.

The psalm represents both law and gospel, and acts as a summary of the whole Christian religion. We are called to take the place of the blessed righteous man, and be as he is, and yet all of us have failed and fallen short of the glory of God. Yet Jesus Christ succeeded as we failed, and perished as we deserved by our wicked way, therefore we know peace with God and stand as the righteous man in Him.

 

[MW]

Reading a few of Klines other articles, I think I've misinterpreted his angle upon common grace. The below linked articles and excerpts reveal that Kline's concern about common grace is related to his views on the Noahic covenant and the abrogation of that covenant at the last day. He argues contra both pre-millenialism and post-millennialism that there cannot exist a kingdom that enjoys blessings on the basis of messianic promises and covenantal faith until the Noahic covenant of common grace is abrogated.

If the Noahic covenant establishes a "common‑grace order" that must remain un-eclipsed until the consummation, then Noah's own prophetic actions in Gen 9 violate Kline's thesis. It is clear that Noah did not think the covenant established a non-holy, non-redemptive, non-discriminatory common-grace order until the end of the world. He pronounced covenantal blessings and curses that divide humanity along redemptive lines. This is not "common." It is proto-Abrahamic and proto-theocratic.

Kline's argument requires the premise that the Noahic covenant freezes world history into a permanently common-grace-only mode until the new creation. But the development of redemptive history contradicts this at every point. Abraham emerges within the Noahic order; Israel is formed within the Noahic order; the Mosaic theocracy is instituted within the Noahic order; prophets pronounce covenant curses within the Noahic order; nations like Assyria, Babylon, and Edom are judged within the Noahic order. And, last but not least, Christ's kingdom is inaugurated within the Noahic order. If Kline were right, none of these redemptive intrusions should occur. But they do, because the Noahic covenant does not prohibit redemptive or theocratic developments. It simply guarantees the stability of the physical world so that redemption can unfold.

 

[Christodulus]

Reading a few of Klines other articles, I think I've misinterpreted his angle upon common grace. The below linked articles and excerpts reveal that Kline's concern about common grace is related to his views on the Noahic covenant and the abrogation of that covenant at the last day. He argues contra both pre-millenialism and post-millennialism that there cannot exist a kingdom that enjoys blessings on the basis of messianic promises and covenantal faith until the Noahic covenant of common grace is abrogated.

That’s fascinating. So Kline not only taught that there are three substantially different covenants, but four.

Needless to say, Kline was in error. There is no “covenant of common grace”, nor is there any basis for such a covenant, since 1. God does not love or hate partially; either He remembers all of a man’s sins, and holds them against him righteously both eternally and temporally without mercy, or else He has forgotten all of them, and stands in a totally reconciled relationship with them in His mercy and love. So God in accordance with His perfect holiness is so far from being in a “covenant of common grace” with all men in the world, He actively despises the unregenerate and gives them only destruction. 2. A gracious covenant with all and every man has no basis, since there is no sacrifice and no mediator for all and every man.

The Noahic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. The promise not to destroy the world again is enjoyed by all men, both righteous and wicked, simply because all men, both righteous and wicked, live in the same world, but it is a promise of grace only to those of that covenant which is of promise and grace. And thus Peter declares, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

 

[EvanF]

If the Noahic covenant establishes a "common‑grace order" that must remain un-eclipsed until the consummation, then Noah's own prophetic actions in Gen 9 violate Kline's thesis. It is clear that Noah did not think the covenant established a non-holy, non-redemptive, non-discriminatory common-grace order until the end of the world. He pronounced covenantal blessings and curses that divide humanity along redemptive lines. This is not "common." It is proto-Abrahamic and proto-theocratic.

Kline's argument requires the premise that the Noahic covenant freezes world history into a permanently common-grace-only mode until the new creation. But the development of redemptive history contradicts this at every point. Abraham emerges within the Noahic order; Israel is formed within the Noahic order; the Mosaic theocracy is instituted within the Noahic order; prophets pronounce covenant curses within the Noahic order; nations like Assyria, Babylon, and Edom are judged within the Noahic order. And, last but not least, Christ's kingdom is inaugurated within the Noahic order. If Kline were right, none of these redemptive intrusions should occur. But they do, because the Noahic covenant does not prohibit redemptive or theocratic developments. It simply guarantees the stability of the physical world so that redemption can unfold.

I don't think he would say that there could be no developments in redemptive history, but he was convinced that the messianic prophecies of the new kingdom could not be fulfilled without the judgment and destruction of the wicked. That is why he said that common grace, which he viewed as standing between the wicked and their doom, was incompatible with messianic fulfillments during the millennium.

 

[MW]

I don't think he would say that there could be no developments in redemptive history, but he was convinced that the messianic prophecies of the new kingdom could not be fulfilled without the judgment and destruction of the wicked. That is why he said that common grace, which he viewed as standing between the wicked and their doom, was incompatible with messianic fulfillments during the millennium.

The bruising of the serpent's head is a messianic prophecy and unfolds itself in the history of redemption. To say that common grace is incompatible with this is to circumvent the history of redemption itself. This demonstrates the absurdity of the position. Special revelation itself contains numerous judgments on wicked men, including one uttered by Noah himself. Clearly, then, the provision of Noahic covenant does not rule out temporal judgment and the progress of the kingdom in history.

 

[EvanF]

That’s fascinating. So Kline not only taught that there are three substantially different covenants, but four.

Needless to say, Kline was in error. There is no “covenant of common grace”, nor is there any basis for such a covenant, since 1. God does not love or hate partially; either He remembers all of a man’s sins, and holds them against him righteously both eternally and temporally without mercy, or else He has forgotten all of them, and stands in a totally reconciled relationship with them in His mercy and love. So God in accordance with His perfect holiness is so far from being in a “covenant of common grace” with all men in the world, He actively despises the unregenerate and gives them only destruction. 2. A gracious covenant with all and every man has no basis, since there is no sacrifice and no mediator for all and every man.

The Noahic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. The promise not to destroy the world again is enjoyed by all men, both righteous and wicked, simply because all men, both righteous and wicked, live in the same world, but it is a promise of grace only to those of that covenant which is of promise and grace. And thus Peter declares, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

Some of the propositions here are not much more self-evident than Kline's hypothesis. I think that Kline would agree with you that God does not love the reprobates who benefit from his common grace.

 

[Christodulus]

I think that Kline would agree with you that God does not love the reprobates who benefit from his common grace.

That would be an inconsistency on his part, because how then are they in covenant relationship with Him?

 

[EvanF]

That would be an inconsistency on his part, because how then are they in covenant relationship with Him?

What exactly does a covenant relationship entail? If the Noahic covenant is the basis for common grace - and I'm not sure exactly how Kline makes that case - God established that covenant with every living creature. If birds and beasts and bacteria are in a covenant relationship with God, I don't see why human vessels ordained and fitted for destruction must be excluded.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

This would only mean that Kline also undermines those other views since he attacks them as something held in common. But I would be interested to know what the advance of the kingdom in history looks like in those other views and how that works in nations.

I guess I would say this:

1. I as an amillennial do not think there is an earthly "golden age" coming. I also do not think my marriage (if I marry) will be perfect or I will save three billion dollars working at the grocery store. But there are some goals that won't happen that are still worth shooting for, because they move you in the right direction. Some historically-reformed amillennials frankly act kind of removed from the world - as if the spiritual nature of Christ's church kingdom means it's ok to put your hands over your ears while the world goes down the toilet. I don't think we will have a Christianized world, but better to work towards that than seclude oursleves like Anabaptists, or even to work towards a sorry secular substitute where the barely-edited brainwaves of like fourteen 18th-century American deists are considered neutral enough a ground to build a moral-ish culture upon.

2. Though I don't think the millennium is coming, nations that have had culturally-Christian populations are better places to live than nations that have not. It is a very good auxiliary goal for the nations of the world to be so benefited. That's not postmillennialism, it's realism. Cultural Christianity is neither salvific nor (in most cases) long-lived, but it is better than cultural secularism (or cultural anything else).

3. Christians should base everything in their lives off the word of God. Christians who choose to involve themselves in politics should do so according to the word of God. The Christian voter's question should not be "What does the Constitution say about this," "how will this affect my 'rights,'" "how will this impact the economy," etc. but "What does the word of God say about this candidate or this issue?" Christians who are in government should base their laws off biblical principles - and not just the four or five that Thomas Jefferson maybe kind of agreed on. I think that's common sense, right? Even the atheist ought to admit that, if you believe a certain book is inspired by God and absolutely true, its teachings should be the most impactful thing on everything you choose, including how you vote if you do. And yet people will say it's theonomist or even postmillennial, even though it has nothing to do with the end times at all.

 

[jwright82]

What exactly does a covenant relationship entail? If the Noahic covenant is the basis for common grace - and I'm not sure exactly how Kline makes that case - God established that covenant with every living creature. If birds and beasts and bacteria are in a covenant relationship with God, I don't see why human vessels ordained and fitted for destruction must be excluded.

Not to get involved in this but isn't the COW and the covenant with Abraham unilateral? Why not the Noahic?

 

[EvanF]

Not to get involved in this but isn't the COW and the covenant with Abraham unilateral? Why not the Noahic?

I would agree, but the way God speaks of establishing his covenant with all living creatures does seem to support what might be called a covenant relationship, although he did use similar language with Abraham.

 

[Christodulus]

What exactly does a covenant relationship entail? If the Noahic covenant is the basis for common grace - and I'm not sure exactly how Kline makes that case - God established that covenant with every living creature. If birds and beasts and bacteria are in a covenant relationship with God, I don't see why human vessels ordained and fitted for destruction must be excluded.

I would say that the statement that beasts are in covenant with God is an improper intimation invoking the memory of the prelapsarian covenant of works (Gen. 1:26). As the creatures are the property of man, they are legally counted as man before God; as man was cursed, the beasts were cursed. The new Adam also takes dominion over the creation, and because of His righteousness it will be renovated and restored, Romans 8:19-22. Now, consider also that at the time at which this was spoken, 1. Every living beast upon the earth had been given to Noah’s care and had survived the flood upon his ark 2. The entire human race consisted of 8 persons, all of whom were members of the covenant of grace either properly or externally, and the covenant community and the body of mankind were then identical. Genesis 9:9-10 “As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.”

I would agree, but the way God speaks of establishing his covenant with all living creatures does seem to support what might be called a covenant relationship, although he did use similar language with Abraham.

All living creatures explicitly refers to every kind, not every human.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I don't think we will have a Christianized world, but better to work towards that than seclude oursleves like Anabaptists...

This seems like an odd view - to think God's plan for His people would be to put them in a position of such futility.

Christians should base everything in their lives off the word of God.

Just judging by your post, it seems your antipathy towards postmillennialism is based on not seeing it as possible in this world, but is such thinking based on God's Word?

Though I don't think the millennium is coming, nations that have had culturally-Christian populations are better places to live than nations that have not. It is a very good auxiliary goal for the nations of the world to be so benefited. That's not postmillennialism, it's realism.

Or just maybe postmillennialism is real!

 

[TennesseeShepherd]

The influence of Kline has been to make it nearly impossible for his followers to apply the wisdom of the Old Testament as it concerns ethics and civil government to our era. The church no longer functions as a light on a hill, because we apparently have nothing to say to or about society. All of that was an "intrusion" or a "covenant of works" and does not apply. We have hidden our light under the bushel.

After reading everything here and most of the links, I'm inclined to agree with you. It feels like a return to my dispensational days where we were taught there was no point in polishing the brass of a sinking ship. To me, "Patient endurance" sounds like "Hold the Fort, I am Coming"; "The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church" sounds like "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Edit: Removed some text. I had misquoted Kline.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

This seems like an odd view - to think God's plan for His people would be to put them in a position of such futility.


Just judging by your post, it seems your antipathy towards postmillennialism is based on not seeing it as possible in this world, but is such thinking based on God's Word?


Or just maybe postmillennialism is real!

I don't think you're at all understanding what I'm saying.

I do not hold the "seclude ourselves like Anabaptists" view. Adding "like Anabaptists" is a good way to signal your disagreement with something around here, unless I've logged into the Munster Brethren Forum by mistake.

I don't have antipathy towards postmillennialism, I just don't think it's correct from the word of God. There is exactly one chapter in the whole Bible about the millennium and it seems to me to clearly indicate the church age (Pentecost onwards). But you are asking the wrong question, which is "Should we, in the secular sphere, work towards a more Christian world/marketplace/government?" (The answer, of course, is yes.) Once someone, especially a young man, comes to that answer, he tends to find answers to a lot of other questions about the future, the end times, the right understanding of Revelation, etc. that just don't follow from this basic, common-sense belief - one that premils and amils also mostly held to before the Enlightenment. If you want to talk about Revelation, fine, we can, but that's where you have to find postmillennialism - not in this basic principle of Christ's kingship over all of life. Because that's something that didn't formerly lead to postmillennialism in most people's minds, and still doesn't necessarily.

 

[TennesseeShepherd]

This covenant of God with all the earth granted to the just and the unjust in common a measure of the blessings of earthly life, including the provision of the judicial structure of the state. And God defined this arrangement as one that would continue valid and operative until the termination of the present cosmos.

(The quote is from Kline, not EvanF.)
In seeing how Kline applies this, as well as others who have posted here, apparently he believes that while believers have all spiritual blessings in Christ, the blessings of earthly life are always the same regardless of obedience or disobedience. As best I can tell, this is merely a gratuitous assertion. Kline gives no Scripture to back it up, and it seems to me, there is plenty of Scripture to refute it. It certainly is not found in the Noahic covenant.

Were not unbelieving strangers blessed by merely living in obedient Israel? Living in a land governed by God's people brings all kinds of blessings regardless of one's faith. The entire history of the world bears this out. Were those who proclaimed that America was in danger of being judged by God for the horrendous sin of abortion false prophets? As we seek to make abortion illegal, is Kline saying that the entire nation including believers and unbelievers cannot expect blessings from God for doing so?

Again, this reminds me of my dispensational days when we were told the Church has no solutions for the world's problems other than the problem of sin. He told the Israelites their law would be the envy of nations: "What nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law?" If we have no solutions regarding civil government, science, education, culture, etc., what's the point of general equity?

 

[biggsenator]

Postmillennialism holds that nations are morally accountable to God and must obey God's law. The gospel transforms cultures, which means there is a legitimate sense in which Christ's kingdom advances in history. The Great Commission concerns the nations. Christianity has a voice in secular, public affairs. Religion is not simply a private matter. Christ's kingship is not restricted to the church.

Kline's system requires a "secularised" common realm. His doctrine of common grace seeks to create a religiously neutral, non-redemptive, non-holy sphere. In that realm God apparently does not impose His law as a covenant Lord and does not require nations to confess Him. There are no promises of covenantal blessing for obedience and God does not judge nations typologically. The whole scheme is designed to justify the status quo secularism of a modern pluralistic society. The state must be religiously neutral. If the state is "common" then it cannot be Christian.

Yes, absolutely. I have found John Frame's book The Escondido Theology to be the best response to and refutation of Two Kingdoms Theology, which is that to which Kline holds. Frame deals with Kline, as well as others with whom he served on the faculty of Westminster California, such as Michael Horton. Two Kingdoms theology has a number of important implications for a Christian worldview, Christian ministry, and Christian living. Frame deals with a most of these implications, as various ones of them were represented and emphasized by different faculty members at Westminster California. As a convinced Kuyperian and devotee of Dutch Neo-Calvinism, I consider this book to be must reading. Don't let the "Dutch" fool you (Amil by birth?). I am also a convinced postmillennialist (or an "optimistic millennialist," if you prefer to spare me the guilt by association phenomenon).
[automerge]1779906930[/automerge]

I don't think you're at all understanding what I'm saying.

I do not hold the "seclude ourselves like Anabaptists" view. Adding "like Anabaptists" is a good way to signal your disagreement with something around here, unless I've logged into the Munster Brethren Forum by mistake.

I don't have antipathy towards postmillennialism, I just don't think it's correct from the word of God. There is exactly one chapter in the whole Bible about the millennium and it seems to me to clearly indicate the church age (Pentecost onwards). But you are asking the wrong question, which is "Should we, in the secular sphere, work towards a more Christian world/marketplace/government?" (The answer, of course, is yes.) Once someone, especially a young man, comes to that answer, he tends to find answers to a lot of other questions about the future, the end times, the right understanding of Revelation, etc. that just don't follow from this basic, common-sense belief - one that premils and amils also mostly held to before the Enlightenment. If you want to talk about Revelation, fine, we can, but that's where you have to find postmillennialism - not in this basic principle of Christ's kingship over all of life. Because that's something that didn't formerly lead to postmillennialism in most people's minds, and still doesn't necessarily.

I would love to interact with you through direct messaging on the issue of whether postmillennialism is biblically correct, if you care to. I think it is a slam dunk given I Corinthians 15/Psalm 110 and Matthew 13 (particularly the Parable of the Yeast). We should probably spare the people on here our debate.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, absolutely. I have found John Frame's book The Escondido Theology to be the best response to and refutation of Two Kingdoms Theology, which is that to which Kline holds. Frame deals with Kline, as well as others with whom he served on the faculty of Westminster California, such as Michael Horton. Two Kingdoms theology has a number of important implications for a Christian worldview, Christian ministry, and Christian living. Frame deals with a most of these implications, as various ones of them were represented and emphasized by different faculty members at Westminster California. As a convinced Kuyperian and devotee of Dutch Neo-Calvinism, I consider this book to be must reading. Don't let the "Dutch" fool you (Amil by birth?). I am also a convinced postmillennialist (or an "optimistic millennialist," if you prefer to spare me the guilt by association phenomenon).

I'm not a Klinean, but Two Kingdoms has a Reformed pedigree. Transformationalists like Frame aren't always keen on that distinction. Kline's 2K is not the same as the Reformers, but the Reformers are different from the transformationalists.

 

[biggsenator]

I'm not a Klinean, but Two Kingdoms has a Reformed pedigree. Transformationalists like Frame aren't always keen on that distinction. Kline's 2K is not the same as the Reformers, but the Reformers are different from the transformationalists.

That is correct. That's why the worldview propounded by Kuyper, Bavinck, and others is called "Neo-Calvinism." The Stone Lectures, for instance, represented a new step forward in applying the full implications of Calvinism, specifically the "all of life sacred" which spawned the Protestant work ethic and was largely responsible for the eventual unheard-of property of the West. Kuyper and Bavinck in particular developed these concepts in a comprehensive way, and one which in my opinion was absolutely Scriptural and necessary. I respect your opinion, but having read most of what Frame has written, I think he understands that distinction very well.
[automerge]1779907706[/automerge]

That is correct. That's why the worldview propounded by Kuyper, Bavinck, and others is called "Neo-Calvinism." The Stone Lectures, for instance, represented a new step forward in applying the full implications of Calvinism, specifically the "all of life sacred" which spawned the Protestant work ethic and was largely responsible for the eventual unheard-of property of the West. Kuyper and Bavinck in particular developed these concepts in a comprehensive way, and one which in my opinion was absolutely Scriptural and necessary. I respect your opinion, but having read most of what Frame has written, I think he understands that distinction very well.

I have encountered your comments frequently through the years, though never commenting on the site until now. Your thoughts are always well-informed, thoughtful, and incisive, even when I disagree (which is not often). Just curious: I know what a Thomist is, but what is a "Ramist?" I want to understand your screen name....
[automerge]1779907758[/automerge]

I'm not a Klinean, but Two Kingdoms has a Reformed pedigree. Transformationalists like Frame aren't always keen on that distinction. Kline's 2K is not the same as the Reformers, but the Reformers are different from the transformationalists.

By the way, I have encountered your comments frequently through the years, though never commenting on the site until now. Your thoughts are always well-informed, thoughtful, and incisive, even when I disagree (which is not often). Just curious: I know what a Thomist is, but what is a "Ramist?" I want to understand your screen name....

 

[biggsenator]

Yes, absolutely. I have found John Frame's book The Escondido Theology to be the best response to and refutation of Two Kingdoms Theology, which is that to which Kline holds. Frame deals with Kline, as well as others with whom he served on the faculty of Westminster California, such as Michael Horton. Two Kingdoms theology has a number of important implications for a Christian worldview, Christian ministry, and Christian living. Frame deals with a most of these implications, as various ones of them were represented and emphasized by different faculty members at Westminster California. As a convinced Kuyperian and devotee of Dutch Neo-Calvinism, I consider this book to be must reading. Don't let the "Dutch" fool you (Amil by birth?). I am also a convinced postmillennialist (or an "optimistic millennialist," if you prefer to spare me the guilt by association phenomenon).
[automerge]1779906930[/automerge]

I would love to interact with you through direct messaging on the issue of whether postmillennialism is biblically correct, if you care to. I think it is a slam dunk given I Corinthians 15/Psalm 110 and Matthew 13 (particularly the Parable of the Yeast). I must say, however, that my particular brand of postmillennialism sees us as in the Millennium now, because I view it as the period between the First and Final Comings of Christ (which is identical to the view of millennialists). What makes me postmillennial is my optimism regarding the progress and triumph (mostly gradually) of the Kingdom of God in history, which is the primary distinction in my mind between postmillennialism and amillennialism.

 

[EvanF]

This seems like an odd view - to think God's plan for His people would be to put them in a position of such futility.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." - Romans 8:19-23​

It might seem odd, but until the day comes when the last of the elect are gathered in and redeemed from death, the whole of creation struggles under the futility of the curse. But in truth, nothing we do for God's glory is futile. He is glorified when his saints are martyrs for the gospel of grace just as he is glorified when he multiplies us and magnifies his gospel through us.

After reading everything here and most of the links, I'm inclined to agree with you. It feels like a return to my dispensational days where we were taught there was no point in polishing the brass of a sinking ship. To me, "Patient endurance" sounds like "Hold the Fort, I am Coming"; "The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church" sounds like "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Edit: Removed some text. I had misquoted Kline.

The ship is surely sinking and our destination is on the far side of the water,

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." -II Pet 3:9-13​

but polishing the brass is our calling nevertheless for the glory of God, not because it will stay polished and not because this is the ship we'll sail into eternity, but because God left us to his work until his return. All of Psalm 37 speaks to this.

A more appropriate analogy than polishing brass for what we must do is tending the growing wheat - this is not at all a futile task. There are tares sown by the enemy, but our task is not to fret over them, or struggle to uproot them. The Lord of the Harvest ordained that they shall grow together with the wheat until the last day - this is the long-suffering of God for the sake of the elect and it also seems to be proximate to what Kline had in mind when he wrote about common grace.

The gates of hell/hades are the curse of sin and death. They shut up the whole world in bondage but shall not prevail over the church because we are ransomed and led free from their captivity. But as with Israel of old, it is not through force of arms that God's people overcome the gates of their captivity, and it isn't by storming and siezing dominion in Egypt either. Christian soldiers wage war spiritually by faith so that we shall stand and not fall in the evil day (Eph 6:11-13), but standing spiritually may also mean falling in the eyes of the world - Paul wrote those words to the Ephesian church as "an ambassador in chains" for the mystery of the gospel.

 

[RamistThomist]

That is correct. That's why the worldview propounded by Kuyper, Bavinck, and others is called "Neo-Calvinism." The Stone Lectures, for instance, represented a new step forward in applying the full implications of Calvinism, specifically the "all of life sacred" which spawned the Protestant work ethic and was largely responsible for the eventual unheard-of property of the West. Kuyper and Bavinck in particular developed these concepts in a comprehensive way, and one which in my opinion was absolutely Scriptural and necessary. I respect your opinion, but having read most of what Frame has written, I think he understands that distinction very well.

I'm not so sure he does The original 2K view was quite theocratic. Neo-Calvinism moved away from that in their rejection of natural law, among other things.

By the way, I have encountered your comments frequently through the years, though never commenting on the site until now. Your thoughts are always well-informed, thoughtful, and incisive, even when I disagree (which is not often). Just curious: I know what a Thomist is, but what is a "Ramist?" I want to understand your screen name....

Thank you.

"Ramist" comes from the logical method of the Reformer Peter Ramus. Google "William ames chart." I'm not really a Thomist, but I chose the two names because they rhyme.

 

[MW]

Yes, absolutely. I have found John Frame's book The Escondido Theology to be the best response to and refutation of Two Kingdoms Theology, which is that to which Kline holds. Frame deals with Kline, as well as others with whom he served on the faculty of Westminster California, such as Michael Horton. Two Kingdoms theology has a number of important implications for a Christian worldview, Christian ministry, and Christian living. Frame deals with a most of these implications, as various ones of them were represented and emphasized by different faculty members at Westminster California. As a convinced Kuyperian and devotee of Dutch Neo-Calvinism, I consider this book to be must reading. Don't let the "Dutch" fool you (Amil by birth?). I am also a convinced postmillennialist (or an "optimistic millennialist," if you prefer to spare me the guilt by association phenomenon).
[automerge]1779906930[/automerge]

I would love to interact with you through direct messaging on the issue of whether postmillennialism is biblically correct, if you care to. I think it is a slam dunk given I Corinthians 15/Psalm 110 and Matthew 13 (particularly the Parable of the Yeast). We should probably spare the people on here our debate.

Frame has his own problems. There is a traditional Reformed two kingdoms view which teaches the connection between Church and State. In Two Kingdom Theology this older view has been radicalised and turned into something dualistic and pluralistic. Add Kline's two-age structure and intrusion ethics in there, and it is "spiritualised" beyond recognition.

I am happy to discuss postmillennialism with you. The texts you have chosen provide a very sound basis for it.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

This seems like an odd view - to think God's plan for His people would be to put them in a position of such futility.

Ok, I apologize, I was the one misunderstanding you.

1. Do you think the call to holiness is a position of futility because we will never achieve perfect holiness in this life?

2. Do you think the call to better our own and our neighbor's estate is the chief end of God's people, or the building of His church? I am what I guess some people would call a "Christian nationalist" (although I don't know that I subscribe to the guys calling themselves that these days - I'm more just a rejecter of the establishment clause) as an 8th-commandment issue. I think the chief end of the kingdom of God is the ingathering of His elect and this end will certainly be accomplished. Regarding the secular affairs of the nations, let's better them where we can, but as it's not the chief end of life failures in this regard don't consign us to a position of futility.

 

[jwright82]

I would agree, but the way God speaks of establishing his covenant with all living creatures does seem to support what might be called a covenant relationship, although he did use similar language with Abraham.

I'm sorry I never responded my friend. I was referring to the unilateral nature of the covenant. And the COW, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Noahic covenant all seem unilateral to me.
The Noahic covenant has all the steps of a covenant in my opinion. I'm probably misunderstanding you though.

 

[EvanF]

I'm sorry I never responded my friend. I was referring to the unilateral nature of the covenant. And the COW, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Noahic covenant all seem unilateral to me.
The Noahic covenant has all the steps of a covenant in my opinion. I'm probably misunderstanding you though.

I agree the COW and Abrahamic covenant are clearly unilateral/intra-trinitarian. I was just thinking that God did use language of covenant relationship with Abraham even though the covenant was unilateral - so the language of establishing his covenant with Noah, and his descendants, and every living creature could likewise be unilateral even if couched in terms of a covenant relationship.

 

[jwright82]

I agree the COW and Abrahamic covenant are clearly unilateral/intra-trinitarian. I was just thinking that God did use language of covenant relationship with Abraham even though the covenant was unilateral - so the language of establishing his covenant with Noah, and his descendants, and every living creature could likewise be unilateral even if couched in terms of a covenant relationship.

I agree. It's not as though Noah could have opted out of the covenant. I think that's closer to what I mean by "unilateral covenant".

 

[Northern Crofter]

Ok, I apologize, I was the one misunderstanding you.

I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier - I saw that you weren't understanding my response and wasn't sure how to untangle things.

1. Do you think the call to holiness is a position of futility because we will never achieve perfect holiness in this life?

No, the call to holiness is not a position of futility because, while we will never achieve perfect holiness in this life, we will make progress in our sanctification. In the same way, the kingdom on earth, while never achieving perfection (for the same reason - the presence of sin in this world), will make progress in history as the Gospel spreads.

2. Do you think the call to better our own and our neighbor's estate is the chief end of God's people, or the building of His church?

Both. The chief end of God's people is two-fold: to love God with all their being and to love their neighbor as ourself.

I am what I guess some people would call a "Christian nationalist" (although I don't know that I subscribe to the guys calling themselves that these days - I'm more just a rejecter of the establishment clause) as an 8th-commandment issue.

I'm not sure what you mean here - there is a lot to unpack. Christian nationalism strongly calls for an establishment of the Christian religion - but in a way that departs radically in many fundamental ways from the Westminsterian view of establishementarianism.

I think the chief end of the kingdom of God is the ingathering of His elect and this end will certainly be accomplished. Regarding the secular affairs of the nations, let's better them where we can, but as it's not the chief end of life failures in this regard don't consign us to a position of futility.

This thinking is based on the presupposition that the ingathering of the elect cannot at some point in time be the majority of humanity at that time. If at some point the majority of the world is composed of elect individuals, and they come to faith, would not all of the nations (and their affairs) then submit to Christ? Again, you are assuming the chief end of man is not two-fold. But Scripture clearly teaches it is (both earthly and heavenly - "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as it is in heaven.").