I have seen several references to Kline's views being radically opposed to the views of theonomy. Could someone find it in their heart to give a brief overview of this problem.

Thanks in advance.

__________________
Erick Bohndorf, Covenant Baptist Church, KS
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
The question for us today is, will we be like the majority of Israel and continue to look in fear at the giants in the land and urge our fellow Christians to be "realistic," or will we be like Joshua and Caleb and faithfully follow our king, trusting to fulfill every one of his promises completely?

Funny, I was just wondering the same thing. I know that Kline, obviously, was opposed to Theonomy, but I've no idea why some react to him, and those who agree with him (even in part) as if they were the antichrist. Apparently I'm Klinean, but don't know exactly why I can't see that the use of ANE studies as part of grammatico-historical interpretation is all there is to the story.

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

Take a look at Moises Silva's article in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (the only good article in the whole of that book)...

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church
Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

"Nothing is sweet to me without the enjoyment of Christ in it." -- Thomas Brooks

Theonomists who follow Bahnsen tend to react to Kline in the way you have described for two reasons. First, Kline's own theory of ethics is notTheonomic indeed it could be called, if I correctly understand it, contra-Theonomic at a number of points; second Kline wrote an article (Kline_on_Theonomy) in the WTJ that was not only highly critical of Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, but descended to a number of ad hominem arguments, not to say insults, to make its points.

As Ligon Duncan has already noted, Kline also misunderstood the relationship of the original WCF to Bahnsen's Theonomy.

In my view Kline's article does more to help Theonomy than discredit it.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

I thought maybe Kline's views of Deuteronomy and Hittite treaties was such that it led him to believe the opposite of the theonomic views of Deuteronomy.

That maybe the view that Deut. was copied by the Jews from the surrounding nations would almost mean that it did not originate from God. If it did not originate from God but was only "a good idea that the Jews should copy," it would have huge ramifications upon the theonomic views of Bahnsen since they had to do with reimplementing God's Laws back on man at some point in the future. To make the whole world one Jewish nation, so to speak.

Maybe I was reading too much into it.

__________________
Erick Bohndorf, Covenant Baptist Church, KS
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
The question for us today is, will we be like the majority of Israel and continue to look in fear at the giants in the land and urge our fellow Christians to be "realistic," or will we be like Joshua and Caleb and faithfully follow our king, trusting to fulfill every one of his promises completely?

Probably the biggest difference between Kline and Theonomists is their understanding of covenant theology. Kline emphasized the "different dispensations" or "administrations" of the one covenant of grace. Theonomists stress the continuity of the one covenant of grace.

Another difference is that Klineans put a great amount of stress upon the necessity and distinctions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This is one reason why so many opposed the Federal Vision. Some Theonomist too often denied the covenant of works (or the merit based character of that covenant) in favor of mono-covenantalism, which usually ends up emphasizing the human end of the covenant obligations rather than the grace.

The biggest difference shows itself in their different approaches to society. Because Klineans hold so firmly to the Adam/Christ or COW/COG distinction (which is necessary), they too often view the present evil age as not worth redeeming. For them, this present age is a sinking ship, and the role of the gospel is to evacuate the elect into the Church and bring them to the new heavens and earth.

The Theonomists on the other hand view the present age more as in need of remodeling, purging out the corruptions of Adam and replacing it with the righteousness of God's kingdom. The role of the gospel then is to recruit people into the kingdom and transform the present evil age into the new heavens and earth over time.

I think you can see from this, why more Klineans favor Amil and Theonomists favor post-mil eschatology. They have different understandings as to the broader role and nature of the gospel and how the kingdom of God affects society before the return of Christ.

In the unhelpful rhetoric, Theonomists paint Klineans as pessimistic gnostics with no concern for the real world or real people. Klineans paint Theonomists as worldly political zealots who would rather take the world by the sword than through the gospel.

Granted, this is my own understanding of the dispute, and I'm painting with very broad brushes, and I' m open to correction. (No doubt may will offer correction!) I think rather than pick sides, these two can learn from each other.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

You did paint with a broad brush, but this is a pretty succinct and generally accurate explanation, IMO.

__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA

"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt

:How is it that one who holds to the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace tend to "view the present evil age as not worth redeeming"? What is the connection?

Also, on a different note... this is a great forum. Only on the Puritan Board can one be a "Klinean"!

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina

Soli Deo Gloria

Because this present world is viewed as old creation under the curse of Adam (COW). The only hope for man is to be saved by Christ, and become part of the new creation, which will eventually replace the old with the return of Christ.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1
:
Quote:
How is it that one who holds to the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace tend to "view the present evil age as not worth redeeming"? What is the connection?

But doesn't the understanding summarized by the two covenants always see redemption happening through Christ (looking forward to Him in the Old Testament, back to Him in the New Testament)... God being now, presently involved in redeeming, transforming His Creation... at least moving toward that end?

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina

Soli Deo Gloria

While reading about eschatology I am noticing that the Amil position reminds me a lot of the dispensationalist view of the end times. Their views of the OT are covenantal but their views of the NT are only slightly different from the dipsy's.

Right now it seems to me like,
The Kingdom of God started out like a mustard seed and is growing to enormous size. This is in spite of the fact that the world is getting worse or at least not more godly. Things are getting better but it seems to be because of industrialization and not necessarily because of the spread of the gospel. But this is viewed from a narrow scope of history. There are not as many third world countries as there once was. The church seems to have grown exponentially up to about 1000 A.D. then sort of went stagnant. Now the church is growing again in the East which was shut off for a long time.

So one could use this to say that the gates of hell are not prevailing against the church, it is continuing to grow in the midst of a corrupt world.

I guess if one expanded time out long enough the church might have an influence that is world wide but the entire world will not be Christian in the sense the Christ will return to a "one world chruch."

__________________
Erick Bohndorf, Covenant Baptist Church, KS
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
The question for us today is, will we be like the majority of Israel and continue to look in fear at the giants in the land and urge our fellow Christians to be "realistic," or will we be like Joshua and Caleb and faithfully follow our king, trusting to fulfill every one of his promises completely?

This is not an accurate statement that those who hold to Cov. of Works / Cov. of Grace believe that that world is not worth redeeming. I believe very strongly in this hermeneutic and am a post-millenialist. I think this is a false characterization.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia :cheers:

You are wrong. I believe that over on the Star Trek fan site you can find Romulins, Remans, Vulcans, and Klineans.

As for your substantial point, I think that this is referencing the fact that Amillennialism is the "majority report" (to use Riddelbarger's term) and Post-millennialism the "minority reprot" within the Reformed community. While it is quite true that Post-millennialism holds to an optimistic view of society, most folks have characterized Amillennialism as somewhat more pessimistic about changing society, looking forward to the eschaton where God will raise the dead, judge society, and re-make the heavens and the earth.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I did not say that all who hold to the COW/COG believe the world is not worth redeeming. I said that the Klineans emphasize it in such a way as to go in that direction. No doubt there are more sober Theonomists who reject mono-covenantalism too and thus reject the tendency toward the Federal Vision stuff.

Again, I was summarizing the broad tendencies that each go to with their particular leanings and concerns. I think most in the Reformed camp these days would find themselves somewhere in the middle.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Thanks, Patrick. I was responding to Scott's statement that indicated this was the cae, but I appreciate your clarification. I happen to like much of Kline's teaching, but I can see how your point.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia :cheers:

Is that why we sometimes hear people say they are partly postmillenial, partly amillenial
or
that they are either an "optimistic" or "pessimistic" amillenialist?

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina

Soli Deo Gloria

Those who claim the label "optimistic" amil (like myself) do so recognizing that there is a successful advance of the gospel in this present age and positive effects upon culture when the gospel witness is strong (unlike pessimistic amils), but do not beleive that this world will be "christianized" or that we will get to a point before Christ returns when most of the world will be elect/regenerate (unlike post-mils). Victory for the optimistic amil is seen more as perseverance, growth, and a faithful witness in the midst of suffering until the return of Christ in glory. But this is getting beyond the scope of this thread. There are numerous other threads on this topic already.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.