Would the view of Dr Kline get within say 1689 LBCF then?
Problems with klineanism?
- Thread starter arapahoepark
- Start date
- Status
The LBCF view is not as tightly defined as the Westminster is. There is a lot of room for various views concerning the Mosaic Covenant. Many Baptist do believe the Mosaic Covenant is a stand alone Covenant. I first learned about that view from Fred Malone in his book 'Baptism for Disciples Alone'. I do not think Meredith Kline would go that far. It is hard for me to say. As a Baptist I did appreciate his later view as I understood it. Let me also state that I knew Credo-Baptists who did not believe that the Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of Works and Grace. So there is a lot of room for various hermeneutical approaches in the Independent Camp. But this is a bit off topic from the Original Post David. So let's rein it in.
At the same time I do know of a Baptist Professor up at Grand Rapids who did hold to a similar view that Collapses Creation and Covenant together as Kline does. He defended that view on the PB many years ago. Other Reformed Baptists Professors totally disagreed with him.
pressing_on
Puritan Board Freshman
As I read Kline and am aware that there differences, what should I look out for?
I have been told it leads to antinomianism but how? I just read a fair bit of a recent Galatians commentary that was supposedly written by a Klinean that came across as a hybrid dispensationalism and new perspectivist (yeah anti law + Paul not arguing against legalism) go figure...
It is encouraging that others read Kline and great theologians, especially if you have that bent and it isn't for school or career purposes.
Enjoy the primary text, he is a strong writer and teacher that will pay off for decent and honest close reading. As his contribution to our board denominations is towering and well worth the study, seek out the views of his peers on their agreements and concerns about his writings.
Note that there is probably some jealousy over his success, so a lot of petty grudge-taking occurs at his expense. You can detect an honest critique by the nature of the language and seriousness inherent in the opening paragraph.
(and no man has written a perfect work...)
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry, are you suggesting those who have issues with Kline’s theology are jealous of him or hold a grudge?
pressing_on
Puritan Board Freshman
Some show it, yes.
Some have provided very edifying concerns with his views as well.
Some have provided very edifying concerns with his views as well.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Perhaps you should quote people you disagree with or want to address so they may know their sin (jealousy/grudge), respond, or clarify their meaning. I don’t believe anyone here wants to guess...
For myself, I’m away from home and don’t have all my research on why I’ve said what I have. I know I’ve done a good deal of research because as an elder I dealt with this topic in a church discipline case. But anytime I recommend reading I point to Randy’s work on his blog (PuritanCovenanter). Though not exhaustive, what is there applies to the many men I named of whom the reformed should be concerned.
pressing_on
Puritan Board Freshman
He is powerful enough to get your gears turned based on a comment of encouragement I have given to someone. That you took that small snippet out speaks volumes about perceptions of Kline's work, and that's fine. 
The close reading of the best theology is a great pursuit for believers.
The close reading of the best theology is a great pursuit for believers.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I definitely have a perception of Kline and his followers work having seen pastorally the effects of his/their ministry. While being what some may say is brilliant/genius, he’s also been detrimental to the health and growth of reformed and biblical Christianity in North America as an overreaction to Federal Vision.
Kent, I have spoken with and communicated back and forth with Lane Tipton (who was sympathetic toward Dr. Kline) and read some of Kline's contemporaries as well some of his works. Is that good enough for you?
Last edited:
Kline is not the best theology is the point here Kent. It has caused some major problems. And if you are going to imply motive of Jealousy please give us some examples so that we may avoid it.
The following quote is the end of a blog post I wrote June 28, 2014, It sums up why I started to delve into this issue. I was seeing the fruit of a generation that had been indoctrinated and influenced by Kline's latter theology.
"In my estimation I found that the particular view of Republication that Popular Modern Reformed Teachers are holding to (Michael Horton, Bryan Estelle, David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, etc.) and their view of the Mosaic Covenant to be out of bounds. It effects the doctrine of Christology (His Kingship and authority, Two Kingdom / Natural Law), Soteriology and how the Gospel is defined (ie. Justification is overemphasized and sanctification denied leading to a form of antinomianism possibly.), and the doctrine of Union with Christ has been debated due to this.
This teaching has a hermeneutic with fingers that reach into many different areas of theology. So I have tried to understand it the best I can. I am sure I still have much to learn. So I will keep on trying."
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
Last edited:
pressing_on
Puritan Board Freshman
And again...
read the primary texts closely and respectfully
and think for yourself
and put it into true perspective
read the primary texts closely and respectfully
and think for yourself
and put it into true perspective
So then, where is the disagreement? Do you disagree with my assessment? Do you believe that we or I haven't done what you are suggesting? What do you think of the OPC Study Committee's report?
As you noted before, shouldn't we seek to read the best theology? I would much prefer to recommend Bavinck or others who have written on these topics way before Kline. It isn't because I am jealous. It is because I have seen the fruit of Kline worked out.
On a side note, how was your transfer from the URCNA to the RPCNA? I find that an odd move for you since you opposed me so much back in the day.
Reformed Quest
Puritan Board Freshman
Pastor Barnes,
What has Kline said or wrote that is an overreaction to Federal Vision?
How can I learn more about this?
Thanks in advance.
I want Pastor Barnes to answer this but in my estimation a lot of what was pointed out by Kline's students was correct. The Federal Vision deeply advocated for views that were unconfessional concerning soteriology. They undermined imputation of Christ's righteousness and justification by faith alone. Most were monocovenantalists who did not believe in the Adamic Covenant as our Confession and scriptures teach concerning the Covenant of Works.
By reacting to the Federal Vision they extremely dichotomized Law and Grace and developed teachings that led to Radical Two Kingdom teaching (how the Church and the Civil Realm should respond to one another and the Word of God). Some began to emphasize a grace and a Gospel with no imperatives or sanctification as a part of the good news. Their reactions led some to some strange distinctions concerning the Kingdom of God and toward antinomianism. Lee Iron's was a product of Kline. The corrective teachings were a pendulum swing too far away from the truth of scripture and our confessional understanding.
I will let Pastor Barnes answer your question from his perspective. He can probably do a much better job.
Last edited:
Do you believe any of the authors or supporters of this work have done this Kent? Do you think his students were Jealous of him?
Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication
Can one hold to the Mosaic Covenant being at least partially based upon behavior and works without being a Klinean?
We do that in the New Covenant David. Ever hear of Excommunication?
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Hopefully Church discipline works godly sorrow as it appears to have done for this person. As Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 6&7.
Let me say that I don't believe this is a judgment on whether a person is justified by faith alone by St. Paul. It is a matter of behavior on this side of the veil of death and our relationship to the Church.
David, I am not sure this will help but I posted this a long time ago on my blog. It is a partial of the blog post.
...
A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.
In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.
(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.
(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because they do what Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it.
Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite’s to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. There are conditions set for us to remain in the Church even. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church’s candlestick if they didn’t repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.
I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that was redeemed from bondage. God called them His people. They grew from dwelling in the wilderness to possessing the land. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God’s grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God’s Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
...
A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.
In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.
(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.
(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because they do what Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it.
Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite’s to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. There are conditions set for us to remain in the Church even. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church’s candlestick if they didn’t repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.
I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that was redeemed from bondage. God called them His people. They grew from dwelling in the wilderness to possessing the land. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God’s grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God’s Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me....
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
I would also like to refine something here David. I would rather say it is an obedience and duty issue rather than a works issue that merits anything. I hope that helps.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Intrusion ethics?
I found this to be helpful:https://reformedforum.org/does-god-command-evil-introducing-klines-intrusion-ethic/
Especially, “It will only be with the frank acknowledgment that the ordinary standards were suspended and the ethical principles of the last Judgment intruded that the divine promises and commands to Israel concerning Canaan and the Canaanites come into their own and the Conquest can be justified and seen as it was in truth — not murder, but the hosts of the Almighty visiting upon the rebels against His righteous throne their just deserts — not robbery, but the meek inheriting the earth.”
I found this to be helpful:https://reformedforum.org/does-god-command-evil-introducing-klines-intrusion-ethic/
Especially, “It will only be with the frank acknowledgment that the ordinary standards were suspended and the ethical principles of the last Judgment intruded that the divine promises and commands to Israel concerning Canaan and the Canaanites come into their own and the Conquest can be justified and seen as it was in truth — not murder, but the hosts of the Almighty visiting upon the rebels against His righteous throne their just deserts — not robbery, but the meek inheriting the earth.”
Henry Hall
Puritan Board Freshman
That might be a candidate for "overreaction" against something. Whatever it was a reaction against, it was an overreaction.
God showed them mercy and withheld judgment for a long time, as it was killing He authorized, but not murder.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's not really what Kline is saying. He isn't making a distinction between murder and killing. He is saying that the idea of the Final Judgment at the end of time typologically rushed forward in the Caananite scene
Kline liked his Typological paradigms.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/klines-reactionary-theology/
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/klines-reactionary-theology/
Which is not the accepted commonly held view, correct?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
While there is no commonly accepted view of the Caananite slaughter, Kline's is unique and new to him.
God did order their destruction, but He had granted them extreme withholding if His judgment that came to them in the Land.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I don't know what this clause means.
The crux here is not the killing of the Canaanites per se, but whether there is something called the Typological Intrusion which means we can't use OT ethics of any sort today. That's Kline's point.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
And there it is.
Denial of the 10 commandments. Which holding only to NT ethics, Kline and his followers essentially get rid of the 4th commandment. What’s that sound like? Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology.I came out of the Dispensational camp, and we were taught that the Law was still in effect for Morality, and that Sunday was Our Day of the Lord under NC.And there it is.
- Status
Similar threads
