Kline: Statement on Republication

[Andrew P.C.]

After reading through a report, I have to admit that it seems Kline is contra-confessional. However, I would like to hear other thoughts. Here is a statement of his:

Likewise, the identification of God’s old covenant with Israel as one of works points to the works nature of the
creational covenant. Here we can only state a conclusion that study of the biblical evidence would substantiate,
but the significant point is that the old covenant with Israel, though it was something more, was also a reenactment
(with necessary adjustments) of mankind’s primal probation—and fall. It was as the true Israel, born
under the law, that Christ was the second Adam. This means that the covenant with the first Adam, like the
typological Israelite re-enactment of it, would have been a covenant of law in the sense of works, the antithesis
of the grace-promise-faith principle.

Kingdom Prologue, Pg. 110

Knowing that the Westminster standards do not teach that the Law *is* the Covenant of Work (Ch. 19. 1-3), how could one say Kline is confessional in his position?

 

[Douglas P.]

Kline uses the word law the same way Paul uses the word law, which is in reference to the Covenant made with Israel. This is different than the way the WCF uses the word law.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Kline uses the word law the same way Paul uses the word law, which is in reference to the Covenant made with Israel. This is different than the way the WCF uses the word law.

So, you're telling me that the Westminster Divines *did not* use "the word law the same way Paul uses the word law"?

 

[Romans922]

After much study on this very issue, I am tracking with you Andrew.

Randy Snyder would be a good guy to PM, he's done a lot of work on this. Some writing he has done is here on the subject: https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/

 

[Douglas P.]

Kline uses the word law the same way Paul uses the word law, which is in reference to the Covenant made with Israel. This is different than the way the WCF uses the word law.

So, you're telling me that the Westminster Divines *did not* use "the word law the same way Paul uses the word law"?

Correct, and I don't think I'm saying anything all too controversial with that either. Over the past half century or so there has been a shift within protestant/reformed scholarship in terms of how we understand Paul's usage of the word law. Doug Moo has a good write-up of this in his commentary on Romans.

However, getting back to the point at hand, for the sake of the argument, I'll throw out how we are to understand Paul's use of law, and focus simply on the fact that Kline defined law differently than the Divines did. The Divines used the world law to refer to something closer to what we would say "rule of law" or as 19.3 says "Besides this law, commonly called moral". Kline, on the other hand, generally used the word law to mean a covenant based on works. In fact, in the final sentence of your quote he very succinctly sums up his definition of law.

So, no, at least in your quoted paragraph above, Kline is not claiming that the "Law" (as the Divines defined it) is the Covenant of Works.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew, Thank you. I plan on doing just that.

Douglas, saying "Over the past half century or so there has been a shift within protestant/reformed scholarship in terms of how we understand Paul's usage of the word law", does not mean they are correct. Also, "reformed" scholarship should not be lumped together, as if all (or even a majority) of "reformed" are doing this. Typically, with this type of language (shift; new paradigm), from a historical aspect, some form of error or heresy has crept in the church. For example, saying that "the reformed" have "shifted" in our understanding of Paul and then N.T. Wright is lumped into the equation.

I am inclined to suggest that Kline has strayed from the correct understanding of the Law. Words mean something. If Kline says (which he does) that the *covenant* is *Law*, then he has not understood Paul. The covenant of Works was not republished in substance, and nothing in the confession or scriptures (as if the confession doesn't summarize what scripture teaches) compels me to think such a thing. As a matter of fact, our confession tells us "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace" (WCF 7.3) and that the CoG was "administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation" (WLC 34). Knowing that there was a "second covenant" made, we are also told that "This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19.2).

Also, we are told specifically in our standards the moral Law (perfect rule of righteousness) "is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it" (WLC 93). The Law promises "life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it". This is the moral Law, *not* the CoW.

 

[Romans922]

Over the past half century or so there has been a shift within protestant/reformed scholarship in terms of how we understand Paul's usage of the word law. Doug Moo has a good write-up of this in his commentary on Romans.

Doug Moo, et al (that you would reference) holds not to Covenant Theology but New Covenant Theology. So it is not surprising when people do quote him (non-reformed) and they have a different view of the law than the Divines/Standards. To be clear, Moo uses a different hermeneutic altogether than the Divines/Standards and the Reformers, and so it is not surprising when Kline also departs from the Standards in such areas because he is using a different hermeneutic and reformed-esque language.

 

[zsmcd]

. . . promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it" (WLC 93). The Law promises "life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it". This is the moral Law, *not* the CoW.

CT is relatively new to me: what is the difference between this statement concerning the Law as "promising 'life upon the fulfilling and threatening death upon the breach of it," and what the definition of the CoW is in the reformed tradition?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If you have access to the OPC report today, I hope you read it. The OPC Stated Clerk has written, July 27, "It will be my plan to wait 30 days before posting the report for public review on OPC.ORG on or about September 1, 2016."

I hope it is read and appreciated for all the work that went into it. It does an admirable job in expositing the WCF's teaching; and offers the reader two contrasting readings of MKG, showing the uninitiated why it is possible to find strident defenders and detractors of this (now departed) teacher who had a fairly significant impact on a generation of ministers.

One thing that needs to be acknowledged of MGK, even if there are aspects of his views that one rejects (as I do), is that in some important ways he stood among only a few (too few) in his day for vital doctrines of the Reformed faith. I'm thinking of the Covenant of Works in particular.

Few question John Murray's Reformed bona fides (nor should they); but his minimizing if not dismissal of the CoW is arguably a more direct strike "at the vitals of religion" than entertaining the notions that God used macroevolution to form the world, and that Gen.1 is more of a prosaic saga with more literary content than history. The latter--which I think creates significant problems--tinkers with matters of "staging;" while the former is precursor to both Theonomy (the movement) and views that find divine Grace to be constitutive of covenant in all forms, including the perfect relation in Eden.

If you realize that certain aspects of MGK's work is, in some important ways, a serious attempt to buttress the exegetical underpinnings of the historic Reformed doctrine of the CoW, perhaps he can be excused (?) for giving a bit of free rein to his horses as he urged them in a wild, wagon-circling defense of the faith against various 20th century attacks.

None of our grandfathers-in-the-faith (CVT, Murray, MGK, etc.) were flawless, though they were sincere and bold. We should thank our merciful God that Louis Berkof's Systematic Theology was present and immovable as a bedrock (and essentially reliable) text through the heart of that era, by which those raw mavericks could be checked.

As I age (time is flying), I remember that those men were once the "Young Guns" (in all its mythological glory) of our theological heritage.

 

[Romans922]

he stood among only a few (too few) in his day for vital doctrines of the Reformed faith. I'm thinking of the Covenant of Works in particular.

As he did against Norm Shepherd, and Kline admitted he was reacting to Shepherd, do you believe where Shepherd and FV focused on the CoG to the lack of the CoW, that Kline focused on the CoW to the lack of the CoG (i.e. a pendulum swing)?

I found upon reading Kline, while good in responding to Shepherd, that he went too far (further than Scripture/Standards) w/the CoW.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

do you believe where Shepherd and FV focused on the CoG to the lack of the CoW, that Kline focused on the CoW to the lack of the CoG (i.e. a pendulum swing)?

From where we are now, in the present context, I answer: "Depends on the angle, depends on the argument."

Sometime people apply a statement made in one place, for a particular purpose, to an unsuitable parallel. Then that position is critiqued; and along with it and its defender, plus the antecedent person quoted. VanTil's either/or on autonomy vs. theonomy is a good example.

Personally, I have not read enough MGK to engage in any substantive evaluation. He has largely been mediated to me by defenders and detractors. My experience is proof that one can serve today in a doctrinal Presbyterian church, and not be directly, significantly impacted by MGK.

Based on the report cited, I incline to think he was "over the line," but not because he was flouting it or despised the lines drawn by our Confession generally.

 

[Douglas P.]

Whoa these goalposts are shifting all over the place!

Just to be clear, the original question was:

Knowing that the Westminster standards do not teach that the Law *is* the Covenant of Work (Ch. 19. 1-3), how could one say Kline is confessional in his position?

By this, I think you are inferring that Kline is teaching that the "Law *is* the Covenant of Work". My point is, if you fail to understand the context and working definitions of Kline (despite the fact he defines his terms in the last sentence of the quote) and take his argument out of its historical contemporary setting and try and place it in the same historical context of the WCF than you're bound to find any possible number of differences because their context are not always analogous.

Douglas, saying "Over the past half century or so there has been a shift within protestant/reformed scholarship in terms of how we understand Paul's usage of the word law", does not mean they are correct.

Correct, I was not trying to prove the correctness of the shift, only that the definition of how Paul's use of the word law is understood by those actively engaged in modern Protestant/Reformed scholarship has changed (for some). Properly understanding this change will allow you to understand what Kline is trying to communicate in that quote, context is key. Now whether or not you or I agree with this change is beside the point with regards to your original question.

Also, "reformed" scholarship should not be lumped together, as if all (or even a majority) of "reformed" are doing this.

Correct, not every scholar has agreed with this change, I wasn't trying to imply that though.

Typically, with this type of language (shift; new paradigm), from a historical aspect, some form of error or heresy has crept in the church. For example, saying that "the reformed" have "shifted" in our understanding of Paul and then N.T. Wright is lumped into the equation.

I'm not arguing for the validity of the shift (at least at this point), only the acknowledgement that it has happened. Without this realization in the change of context, you might be inclined (as I think you are)to misinterpret what Kline is trying to say.

I am inclined to suggest that Kline has strayed from the correct understanding of the Law.

Fair enough, and he might have (although I would disagree) but that doesn't change the fact that Kline is not saying what I think you think that he is saying.

Words mean something

Correct, and again, based on what you've said, I don't think you understand what Kline means by his words. Kline is not required to write and use words in the exact same way and under the exact same contextual understanding as the Divine's did.

You and I can say the exact same things, but based on the context, have completely different meanings.

If Kline says (which he does) that the *covenant* is *Law*, then he has not understood Paul.

If you define law as a covenant, than Kline said it, if you define law as a purely moral standard than that is not what Kline was trying to communicate.

The covenant of Works was not republished in substance, and nothing in the confession or scriptures (as if the confession doesn't summarize what scripture teaches) compels me to think such a thing. As a matter of fact, our confession tells us "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace" (WCF 7.3) and that the CoG was "administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation" (WLC 34). Knowing that there was a "second covenant" made, we are also told that "This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19.2).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember Kline ever say that the CoW was republished "in substance". It's has been a while since i've gone through Kline. I think it would be more fair to say, as in-fact Kline said in your quote of him above, was a "typical re-enactment" of the CoW.

However, and regardless of this point, it still doesn't disprove that Kline didn't teach/think that the Law (moral law as understood by the Divines) is the Covenant of Works.

Also, we are told specifically in our standards the moral Law (perfect rule of righteousness) "is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it" (WLC 93). The Law promises "life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it". This is the moral Law, *not* the CoW.

Although I have some reservations with how the WCF understands the moral Law as the perfect rule of righteousness(we can talk about this later), it still doesn't change the fact that Kline used the word law differently than that of the Divines in the WCF.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Rev. Bruce,

Thank you for your post. I do think that we should reflect on the labor and work produced by the report. It was a lot of work, and we should applaud them for this. However, I was disappointed by a few things in the report (which is not the point of this thread). I have to admit, although I do believe Kline was a genuine brother in Christ, I think his positions and teachings are quite damaging to the Reformed faith (things that include the Framework Hypothesis and R2K).


Douglas,

The only thing I really want to respond to (not because I'm upset or anything...time doesn't permit me to respond more thoroughly at this moment) is this comment:

If you define law as a covenant, than Kline said it, if you define law as a purely moral standard than that is not what Kline was trying to communicate.

I do not define the Law as moral, the scriptures and our confession do. For example, our confession says the following:

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.(19.1)

This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man. (19.2)

Beside this law, commonly called moral...(19.3)

The Law given to Adam was given to him *as a covenant*. Now, the Divines were no dummies. They could have said in section two that "this *covenant* after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness". However, they said "this Law". Section three continues to further this point by stating "this Law, commonly called *moral*".

In chapter seven we are given two covenants: the CoW and CoG:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works.. (7.2)

Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace... (7.3)

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament. (7.5)

Since the one is broken, God has given a new covenant. What I understand Kline to be saying is that the CoW was republished in the mosaic covenant because the Law is a covenant. This does not hold in a confessional (and I'd argue, biblical) context.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I read the report before GA commenced I believe. A PCA Pastor gave me a link to the Agenda which I have not given to anyone since it seemed there was some in house stuff attached that was the business of no one else yet. The report is pretty good. I would also recommend we submit and comply to the wishes of the OPC concerning waiting until September and reading the report carefully. There are some nuances and definitive things spelled out in the report that are very well stated.

I would recommend a read of the book Merit and Moses which was a precursor to why the study group was formed. I highly recommend it.

I have good portions of some of the arguments listed on my blog as Andrew recommended. Just type in Kline in the search. There are a lot of ramifications to account for theologically. There are many aberrations to be dealt with in my estimation. Many more than I imagined.

If you are interested in why I concerned myself with this matter you can get a gimpse here: https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

We actually discussed this issue in 2011 5 years ago.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...rlberg-not-Confessional-concerning-the-Mosaic

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Two questions need to be asked at this stage if the discussion is to move along:

1. Does the Westminster Confession, according to its original intent, positively exclude one from holding some form of republication?

2. If one answers the previous question in the negative, were the forms of republication advocated around the time of the Westminster Assembly compatible with what Meredith Kline advocated? It is important to answer this question carefully, and not to fall into a word-concept fallacy. One may not simply assume that republication in a 17th-century context meant the same thing as republication in a 20th-century context.

Given that the prelapsarian covenant of works was neglected or undermined by various 20th-century Reformed theologians (John Murray, R. J. Rushdoony, Herman Hoeksema, culminating in the Federal Vision movement), [1] we should be thankful that Dr Kline was willing to defend this unfashionable doctrine at a time when few others were doing so. He may have overstated the case, but given the context in which he was operating that was understandable.

[1] I am not saying that John Murray, R. J. Rushdoony, or Herman Hoeksema were Federal Visionists, and I retain considerable respect for each of these men.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good discussion. One of the things that I believe is under-appreciated about the Puritans is the depth and complexity of their thinking. There were some disagreements among them and not all views were monolithic. There were even some disagreements about the nature of the Mosaic Law but I also find that people tend to make surface-level comparisons to modern ideas while neglecting substantive differences. It's a problem I see not only with virulent disciples of Kline but also those who move in the opposite direction and do the FV thing. Enough verbiage can be marshalled that seems to connect to the Confessional language but it misses the fundamental system of doctrine.

It's been written in this thread that Kline's use of the word law is like that of the Apostle Paul's in contrast to the Divines. That is simply not an accurate statement for one reason that the Apostle Paul uses the term in may different ways - both polemically and pastorally. In large swaths of Galatians, he uses "circumcision" and "law" in ways that describe an abuse of the understanding. In Romans 7 and 8, he uses it in ways that if you're following the context, the perspective on the law shifts based on whether one is dead in sin (in Adam) or alive to Christ (in the Spirit).

I believe the Puritans were actually much better Biblical and Systematic theologians than many in our day and I find that even our luminaries do not fairly interact with what their body of doctrine actually taught in order to demonstrate where they went wrong and how they are forging a new path. The fundamental reality about the Reformed (which I believe to be the Biblical idea) is that disposition to the Law depends on whether one is dead in sin and trespasses or has been set free by the power of the Cross and Resurrection. I believe it is the key to unlocking Paul and the nature of the Gospel itself. The Law is powerless to change precisely because a person is dead. It can only expose sin and the person cannot obey. He is federally in Adam and in an estate of sin and misery. The Gospel saves not because it is a certain "form" (indicative) but because the Spirit reaches out with the sinner's faith to cling to Christ and bring him to life. The power of sin and death to enslave has been broken and the person is united to the living Christ. In the same Chapter that speaks about the law being unable to do anything but condemn it talks about Christ condemning sin in the flesh in the sense that he puts its power to death (in the context of Romans 8). Paul then uses the "law of the Spirit" - same law but now a new disposition.

Thus, I reject a simplistic notion of a Pauline use of the word law that the Puritans didn't understand. They understood Paul very well and exegeted him and their body of doctrine reflects this death/life motif in their entire Covenant theology.

The problem that I have with the Klinean system is that it focuses too much on forms. I have never been given a satisfactory explanation as to why an ANE pagan treaty ought to be the key which unlocks our view of Covenant theology and that everything is Royal Grant or Suzerain treaty. It absolutely controls everything where the distinction between Law/Gospel is pressed to Imperative/Indicative. Any time God tells us to do something it's Law and any time God promises to do something it is Gospel. It is so controlling that people take this template to discussions of Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians and miss Paul's primary point about flesh versus spirit. Paul presses the word law into service in order to make a point and even polemically hammers Judaizers with the charge that their "dead in the flesh attempt to keep the Law" is one of bondage by calling Sinai a place of bondage. Those who can only see paradigms of "do/done" almost seem tone deaf and say: "See, that's what the Law of Moses is like!"

I'm disturbed by this primarily out of pastoral concern. I really think that Tullian is a good example of these ideas gone awry into antinomian directions. I see so much Christian sanctification boiled down to almost a perfectionistic "you have to think about this in precisely this way or the Word of God is powerless to do anything for you" paradigm. I read Paul pressing us repeatedly to calling us to this reality: "Christian, you are not dead anymore. Live! You are in Christ, remember you are alive and have the power to obey in Christ!" That's how the Puritans exhorted and I believe it is Biblical root and branch.