Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
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:
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?
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?