Okay, I have a question that's somewhat provocative (though I hope charitable) but that I'm seriously concerned about having an answer regarding (somewhat related to this thread, but not exactly the same).

The Federal Vision folk have a habit of saying that their views are confessional. I think we'd agree that they aren't. Whatever the validity/soundness of their biblical arguments (again, we'd agree they aren't sound), it's obvious that they aren't confessional.

I hear Klineans say rather frequently that their views are just the (historic) confessional position. But, quite frankly, I think it's obvious that they aren't -- their view of the law/gospel distinction (as they formulate it), of the two-kingdoms, framework hypothesis, the sabbath, and of the mosaic covenant are clearly not articulated in the Westminster Standards. Perhaps Klineanism is biblical, but that is a different issue.

Well, now to the question: If confessionally Reformed denominations will not tolerate the Federal Vision claim of being confessional, why are Klineans allowed to make the same claim of confessional fidelity?

Now with all due respect to my brothers who hold to Klinean doctrines, it is not my desire to offend you. I understand that Klinean theology doesn't depart from the confession on justification. Please, please, please, I am not equating Klineanism with the content of FV, far from it, so please do not interpret this post as intending to make that connection. The connection I am making is the claim to being confessional. Additionally, I don't intend for this to be a thread for arguing whether or not Klinean theology is confessional -- the nature of the question presupposes that it isn't.

A follow up question would have to do with where this kind of confessional laxity could potentially lead. Why don't Klineans just propose changes to the Confession/Catechisms? Why do confessional churches allow contra-confessional views without changing their confessions? My concern is why a confessional denomination would allow an unconfessional system of doctrine -- one that adheres to the confessional view of justification, but contra-confessional views on other wide-ranging doctrines. These and related questions are what concern me.

I would especially like answers from churchmen, though anyone who can contribute feel free to do so. Thank you. God's blessing be with you all this Lord's Day.

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

Here is a theory that encapsulates both FV and Kline: http://www.bringthebooks.org/2008/05...rajectory.html

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

I think the simple answer is that UNTIL a particular strand of theology is officially judged as out of bounds, the proponents of certain theological permutations will always claim they are within confessional bounds when questioned. Klinean theology or its various strands {2k, etc.} have not been officially judged as far as I know. But as the questions are currently increasing, you naturally see the defenders looking for cover in the confessions or various Reformed writers.

__________________
Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC
DeMotte, Indiana

For the same reason that Theonomist are permitted to claim to be "Confessional". There is latitude within our denomations for different positions on the application of Law in the Civil realm especially as it relates to the 1788 American Revision. As far as the Sabbath, I know plenty of 2kers who are Sabbitarians and believe it to be a Creation ordinance. Framework vs 6-24 hour days varying positions are acceptable to a degree. The FV strikes at vital doctrine essential for a proper understanding of Salvation and Justification whereas 2k Theology properly understands Law and Gospel. Remember our denominations (PCA and OPC) are concerned with System Subscription to the Confessions rather than a Full or Strict Subscription and something like the FV that strikes at the vitals of religion isn't placed at the same level of importance as Theonomy and 2k Theology. Although some have claimed that Theonomy eventually leads one to be sympathetic or even embrace FV Theology and 2k views eventually lead to Antinomianism both do not neccessarily lead one to such a conclusion if understood properly.

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

thank you, I really dont think I could have said it better myself. My former pastor (OPC) holds to the framework view, is 2k and is vigorously defends sabbatarianism. In fact, it was at his church that I became convinced of Sabbath keeping.

__________________
Josiah Lovett
Member of
Trinity OPC
Bothell WA
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Westminster Standards

One of the working presuppositions of this thread is that this statement is not accurate, hence my question.

One of the difficulties of answering the question, however, is that not all the positions you have labelled as Klinean are held by all Klineans. Furthermore, the various issues are not necessarily even related, as Wayne as well pointed out. The Sabbath issue, for instance. Plenty of folks who take exception to the Sabbath are NON-Klinean. Same with Framework Hypothesis. If your issue is really the 2 Kingdoms idea, then you need to narrow it down properly to that issue. Almost all the other issues are distinct. Klineanism doesn't work as a concatenated completely interdepentent whole with regard to the issues you have brought up, unlike the FV. And, of course, many Klineans (take the recent book _The Law Is Not Of Faith_) argue cogently that their view of covenant is within confessional boundaries, while not necessarily arguing that it is the only confessional position to take on the matter. More nuance is necessary to the question before it can be answered, in my opinion.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?