Problems with klineanism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't see that being necessarily an R2K result. The violations of the 4th Commandment and moving away from it have been going on long before R2K.
But this was a significant position for him, based on his particular theological framework. I remember the conversation and trying to express that it was rooted in creation but the common grace aspect was discounted.. I didn’t know enough then, and still don’t but just relied on what I thought the Catechism taught. He didn’t agree with the catechism I guess.
 

Kinghezy

Puritan Board Sophomore
How would you characterize the view that the 4th C is not intended for the whole of mankind but is only binding on the Christian?
I'm not sure. I don't know who exactly says that. Being that the 4th C is actually a creation ordinance, I suppose we could start there.
I don't see that being necessarily an R2K result. The violations of the 4th Commandment and moving away from it have been going on long before R2K.

[Lost what I had written: it came from Kline's last book. Per the Glory Cloud podcast, it sounds like he considered it part of the eschaton and therefore only applicable to covenant people]


The Glory-Cloud Podcast: 146 - God, Heaven & Har Magedon Ch. 13 - The Sabbath http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheG.../146-god-heaven-har-magedon-ch-13-the-sabbath
 

Kinghezy

Puritan Board Sophomore
I wanted to hear that episode so I subscribed to the podcast. However it is missing from the lineup of available episodes. There is a skip from #145 to #147. Any suggestions?
http://glorycloudpodcast.libsyn.com/146-god-heaven-har-magedon-ch-13-the-sabbath?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheGlory-CloudPodcast+(The+Glory-Cloud+Podcast)

This link seems to work for the episode, playing from browser.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheGlory-CloudPodcast

This is the feed I am subscribed to. It has 146.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks. I did find it and listened to about half. It’s clear that by maintaining that the Sabbath was meant only for a theocratic people and not for non-covenantal people he is at odds with the Confession. Some of his reasoning seems very compelling however. I’d love for other people to listen and comment.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks. I did find it and listened to about half. It’s clear that by maintaining that the Sabbath was meant only for a theocratic people and not for non-covenantal people he is at odds with the Confession. Some of his reasoning seems very compelling however. I’d love for other people to listen and comment.
Even more important then what the 1644/1689 Confessions say on it is what scriptures state, and think Klein fails that test.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Thanks. I did find it and listened to about half. It’s clear that by maintaining that the Sabbath was meant only for a theocratic people and not for non-covenantal people he is at odds with the Confession. Some of his reasoning seems very compelling however. I’d love for other people to listen and comment.

I disagree with Kline on this but I take it in a different direction. On one hand it's obvious: we should worship God on the Sabbath. This applies to everyone because everyone should worship God. So far, so good. On the other hand, in a Moloch or Chemosh society, while they should be honoring the Sabbath, they won't do that until they first change their object of worship.

On another note, I believe the sabbath principle is written into the fabric of reality.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I hold to us still being under the Moral Law of God in out behavior, but would not see us being all of those specific rules and regulations just meant for Israel under the OC.
Who does?!
The issue here is about the ones with ethical content, e.g. the law against bestiality and its corresponding penalty.
So what do you say about this law against bestiality, and the law about what is to be done with one found guilty of breaking that law?
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
So since the Mosaic covenant is no longer, in the eyes of Klineans, then no one should be under the law legislatively? As a result, there can or should not be any Christian nation?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
So since the Mosaic covenant is no longer, in the eyes of Klineans, then no one should be under the law legislatively? As a result, there can or should not be any Christian nation?

There can't be any formal Christian state analogous to what Israel was. If a magistrate under the guidance of natural law wanted to enact Christian laws, then there is no reason why not.

The tricky question is identifying the line between a set of a Christian laws (2nd table stuff) and when a nation considers itself formally and judicially Christian.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
There can't be any formal Christian state analogous to what Israel was. If a magistrate under the guidance of natural law wanted to enact Christian laws, then there is no reason why not.

The tricky question is identifying the line between a set of a Christian laws (2nd table stuff) and when a nation considers itself formally and judicially Christian.
OT Israel was unique among all other nations in history, as only they were for a time direct ruled over by God government set up over them.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
OT Israel was unique among all other nations in history, as only they were for a time direct ruled over by God government set up over them.

Is that part of a larger argument or are you functioning as a chorus in a Greek tragedy?

I agree that OT Israel was unique. All I have to say in response is that the general equity carries over.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Is that part of a larger argument or are you functioning as a chorus in a Greek tragedy?

I agree that OT Israel was unique. All I have to say in response is that the general equity carries over.
Would you agree then that there can be no so called Christian nation today that would function as Isreal did before God?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Who does?!
The issue here is about the ones with ethical content, e.g. the law against bestiality and its corresponding penalty.
So what do you say about this law against bestiality, and the law about what is to be done with one found guilty of breaking that law?
I think you assume natural law cannot answer that question, if I'm wrong please correct me? Most nations laws have laws against bestiality. Not many, if any are Christian nations. So it would appear that being a distinctly Christian nation has nothing to do with a society recognizing the evil in that act.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
So since the Mosaic covenant is no longer, in the eyes of Klineans, then no one should be under the law legislatively? As a result, there can or should not be any Christian nation?
Two questions here:
1. Are you asking theoretically? How in theory would this, taking all of the relevant doctrines into consideration, work?
2. When has this ever worked out historically, even under Israel's unique status?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I think you assume natural law cannot answer that question, if I'm wrong please correct me? Most nations laws have laws against bestiality. Not many, if any are Christian nations. So it would appear that being a distinctly Christian nation has nothing to do with a society recognizing the evil in that act.

True, and classical natural law theory, at least in its Christian form, said natural law participates in the mind of God. It isn't a blank slate. Henry is probably thinking of the post-Grotian form.
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Two questions here:
1. Are you asking theoretically? How in theory would this, taking all of the relevant doctrines into consideration, work?
Yes, I think...
2. When has this ever worked out historically, even under Israel's unique status?
I ask because many associated with klineanism seem to also espouse a form of 2k or R2K that seems to have the moral law left on the doorstep as you exit the home. Perhaps I am wrong.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I ask because many associated with klineanism seem to also espouse a form of 2k or R2K that seems to have the moral law left on the doorstep as you exit the home. Perhaps I am wrong.

It's true with some, not with others. Two Kingdoms in its classical form is Reformed. James Guthrie even says "Two kingdoms there are."

But even a noted Klinean like David Van Drunen has written books defending the moral law.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
What's a "post-Grotian form"?

He said natural law would be true if God didn't exist. Thomas Aquinas probably would have burned him for such a comment. For the ancients, natural law participated in the mind of God. That was not necessarily true for Grotius.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
But even a noted Klinean like David Van Drunen has written books defending the moral law.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/introducing-david-van-drunen-to-david-van-drunen/


“Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”,p. 38 (2006)

“Biblical moral instructions are given to those who are redeemed and are given as a consequence of their redemption. The Ten Commandments, for example, provide not an abstract set of principles but define the life of God’s redeemed covenant people. David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, (p. 39)

“Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not “directly applicable to non-Christians” (40).” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” p.40.

“Natural law is the only moral standard for which there is a common (though implied) indicative that grounds common imperatives: All people are created in God’s image and have this law written upon their hearts; therefore, they should conduct themselves according to the pattern of that image and the demands of the law.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, p. 40.

“Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, (p. 53)
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, I think...

I ask because many associated with klineanism seem to also espouse a form of 2k or R2K that seems to have the moral law left on the doorstep as you exit the home. Perhaps I am wrong.
Ok. As far as my first question goes, how in theory would anyone make a nation a Christian nation? But another more important question is "practically how would one do this"? For instance in America there is no practical way to start with our republic (constitution, Bill of rights , and case laws and rulings) and end up with a Christian nation. I assure you it cannot be down ( I can flesh this out if you want, but it gets tricky) except by some sort of mass violent revolution.We can all consider how ethical that is. But my point is starting with our laws and structure you cannot practically get.
I'm not sure about Klinians doing that, I believe they have a doctrine of natural law. Without natural law intrusion ethics makes no sense. However one leg Klinians might have is if they recognize how complex this matter is. I'm not a strict Klinian but hopefully my rhetorical questions could help someone think through how practically complex this, hope that helps. Great posts and questions.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
He said natural law would be true if God didn't exist. Thomas Aquinas probably would have burned him for such a comment. For the ancients, natural law participated in the mind of God. That was not necessarily true for Grotius.
Great thanks. Looked him up but didn't see that.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/introducing-david-van-drunen-to-david-van-drunen/


“Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”,p. 38 (2006)

“Biblical moral instructions are given to those who are redeemed and are given as a consequence of their redemption. The Ten Commandments, for example, provide not an abstract set of principles but define the life of God’s redeemed covenant people. David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, (p. 39)

“Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not “directly applicable to non-Christians” (40).” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” p.40.

“Natural law is the only moral standard for which there is a common (though implied) indicative that grounds common imperatives: All people are created in God’s image and have this law written upon their hearts; therefore, they should conduct themselves according to the pattern of that image and the demands of the law.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, p. 40.

“Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.” David Van Drunen, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, (p. 53)

Two things I would say to DvD:

1) Are you meaning "Scripture" in the way that theonomists/Kuyperians mean it? Like, Scripture (e.g., Mosaic codes) shouldn't be binding on pagan nations today? If so, then that's not too shocking.

2) Do his statements about "Scripture not being x" include the moral law? This is tricky, since no one today pays attention to Platonic and Aristotelian notions of equity. The Decalogue is a summary of the moral law. As an OPC man, he has to agree with that.

So his take on Scripture has to allow that the moral law (which he elsewhere called natural law) is binding today.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
The first table is obviously not in his list of Natural Law. That is why I asked Dr. Guy Richard's how Samuel Rutherford defined moral law. That is where the Radical Two Kingdom starts to divert from our heritage.

"The fact is the civil kingdom has been ordained by God as a common realm, a realm for all people of whatever religious conviction in which to live and pursue their cultural tasks, while natural law is God's common moral revelation given to all people of whatever religious conviction." A Biblical case for Natural Law p.38
David Van Drunen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top